Loading...
05/18/2010 City CouncilMay 18, 2010 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Steve Bernheim, Council President D. J. Wilson, Councilmember (arrived 7:25 p.m.) Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley- Monillas, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Dave Orvis, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Graham Marmion, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief Rob Chave, Planning Manager Rob English, City Engineer Michael Clugston, Planner Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Wilson was not present for the vote.) 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Peterson requested Items B and C be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Wilson was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #118714 THROUGH #118851 DATED MAY 6, 2010 FOR $437,788.32 AND CLAIM CHECKS #118852 THROUGH #118985 DATED MAY 13, 2010 FOR $247,507.99. E. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM GAYLE ANDERSON ($200.00) AND JILLE MARTHALLER (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED). F. RESOLUTION NO. 1230 — ESTABLISHING FEES FOR STORMWATER PERMITS. G. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN CITY OF EDMONDS LODGING TAX COMMITTEE TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT GRANTING THE EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE EDMONDS VISITOR'S CENTER $2,500 FOR TOURISM PROMOTION AND SUPPORT OF VISITOR SERVICES TO PROMOTE EDMONDS. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 1 H. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK, MAY 16 - 22, 2010. ITEMS B & C: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 30 2010 AND APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 4 2010. Councilmember Peterson advised he would abstain from the vote as he was absent from both meetings. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised only a majority of the quorum present was required to approve the minutes, not a majority of the entire Council. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS B AND C. MOTION CARRIED (3 -0 -1), COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON ABSTAINED. (Councilmember Wilson was not present for the vote.) 3. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT — EDMONDS CEMETERY BOARD. Dale Hoggins, President, Cemetery Board, invited the Council, their friends, family and the public to the 28th Annual Memorial Ceremony on Monday, May 31, 2010 at 11:00 a.m. at the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery on the corner of 15th Street SW and 100th Avenue W, north of QFC at the Westgate Shopping Center. Their ceremonies emphasize remembrance and honoring memories and he invited and encouraged the public to participate. This year in recognition of the 100th anniversary of the Boy Scouts of America, Boy Scout Troop 301 will lead the youth groups in the presentation of colors, lead the pledge and offer the invocation and benediction. This year's event will honor WWII veterans and remember Jane Cunningham, former Edmonds resident, WWII WASP (Women's Air Force Service Pilots) and posthumous recipient of the Medal of Honor. The event will include an improved sound system and American Sign Language interpreters will be present. Seating is limited to 150; the public is encouraged to bring lawn chairs. Special arrangements for seating can be arranged by calling him (425- 776 - 1543). Parking inside the cemetery is limited to those with handicapped permits; others should plan to walk several blocks. Dress is casual and according to the weather. He expected 400 -500 attendees, last year there were approximately 600. The Lynnwood Elks Emblem Club joins the Cemetery Board in providing refreshments. Further information is available by calling him at the above number. He provided the Council and the public a program of the event. 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3787 — AMENDING PROVISIONS OF TITLE 20 ECDC RELATING TO PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS TO ALLOW CLOSED RECORD ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF PRELIMINARY PRD DECISIONS AND TO ELIMINATE OVERLAP OF PERIMETER BUFFERS AND SETBACKS FOR EXTERIOR LOT LINES. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this was a required public hearing following the City Council's adoption in early April of an interim zoning ordinance regarding Planned Residential Developments (PRD). The ordinance revises the code to allow appeals of PRDs to City Council and clarifies that the perimeter buffer is not to overlap the property boundaries. The ordinance has been referred to the Planning Board. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the issue of perimeter buffers and setbacks was an oversight, an unintended consequence, or if that was the intended outcome. Mr. Chave answered it was not specifically addressed. A PRD was required to have a perimeter buffer; ownership of the buffer was not raised as an issue. It could have been that the intent was to have the exterior buffer in common ownership or if there were adequate safeguards in the PRD, the buffer area could be maintained by individual homeowners. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 2 Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the overlay of perimeter buffers and setback was a typical development scenario. Mr. Chave answered staff had not researched other cities' ordinances. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Lora Petso, Edmonds, spoke in support of the interim ordinance, finding both changes in the ordinance beneficial to the public. She recalled when the ordinance was implemented in 2003, it was not her intent to create neighborhoods where the residents would be unable to use their backyards. The question Councilmember Plunkett raised was addressed at a Planning Board meeting in 2003 and she offered to provide the minutes of that meeting. She questioned whether other developments in the City had been approved that did not allow the residents to use their backyards and hopeful that this ordinance would prevent that from occurring in the future. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, suggested staff compare the requirements in the ordinance to other cities. Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, spoke in favor of the interim ordinance, noting this was an example of the Council's oversight responsibility and the opportunity to clarify the context of an ordinance to ensure it was interpreted in the manner intended. The ordinance also illustrated the importance of the Council retaining their oversight authority over the appeal process which was also an opportunity where the Council could clarify an interpretation, hopefully before a situation arose. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, agreed with Dr. Senderoff s comments. He emphasized the importance of each residence in Edmonds whether in a clustered development or a standard development to provide outdoor space for individual property owners. The interim ordinance corrects the error that did not allow for that space. Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. He advised no further action was required by the Council at this time. 5. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROCESS FOR THE APPOINTMENT TO FILL THE COUNCIL VACANCY. Council President Bernheim commented this was the third time the requirement to appoint a Councilmember to fill a vacancy had occurred since he had been on the City Council. He suggested utilizing the same process that was used on the two previous occasions. He observed the notice included an opportunity to establish a date by which applications must be submitted, a date interviews would be conducted, and a date the Council would consider nominations. He asked what length of time had been allowed for submittal of applications in the past. City Clerk Sandy Chase responded approximately one month. Council President Bernheim suggested Monday, June 21, 2010 as the deadline for receipt of applications. The Council discussed the date to conduct candidate interviews; options included the fifth Tuesday, June 29; prior to a Council meeting; or on a Saturday. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas indicated she was out of town on business on June 29 but could review the video of the interviews. Prior to a Council meeting was problematic because the Municipal Court utilizes the Council Chambers at that time as well as the length of time necessary to interview numerous candidates. It was agreed to tentatively schedule candidate interviews on Tuesday, June 29 at 6:00 p.m. and to consider nominations on Tuesday, July 6 as the first item on the agenda. Council President Bernheim advised the schedule could be amended if necessary. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Lora Petso, Edmonds, referred to Agenda Item 8 regarding cottage homes, observing that under the guise of sustainability, the proposal had been broadened from simply fixing the townhouse policy to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 3 addressing cottage homes; she urged the Council to focus on codifying the townhouse policy. She noted there were numerous definitions of sustainability and provided photographs illustrating sustainability that could occur in the setbacks of an ordinary subdivision, a vegetable garden, grass and shrubs that help cool the area, and rainfall that flows through dirt and grass and into Deer Creek. She summarized in a standard subdivision where no thought had been given to sustainability, there was potential for sustainability via the open space in the setback. She provided a photograph of an older PRD, pointing out although there may not be space to grow vegetables, there was local recreation and mature trees were preserved, resulting in some measure of sustainability. She displayed a photograph of a recent development on 212th which seemed to employ the concepts staff has proposed such as flexible lot size and setback. She was concerned there was no opportunity for sustainability in that development, no opportunity for a garden, no natural features were preserved and there was no onsite recreation. Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, read an exchange of emails between Council President Bernheim and Jeff Doyle, Washington State Ferries, to illustrate the lack of transparency. An April 7 email from Council President Bernheim pointed out, 1) according to the long range plan, the DOT was planning $27 million in expenditures for preservation of the Edmonds terminal including $7 million for buildings and overhead loading and more than $13 million for wing walls and dolphin preservation, 2) the long range study indicates DOT is planning to spend $26 million to enhance multimodal connections at Edmonds outside the 16 year planning horizon on the assumption that the terminal stays at its present location, 3) joint development opportunity study projects a parking garage and ferry holding lanes south of James Street east of the railroad tracks, routing ferry traffic under the tracks, and 4) the ferry system recently proposed exchanging the Edmonds parking lot north of James Street for an overhead walkway to the terminal. Council President Bernheim questioned whether the plans were consistent with each other, which plans were current, which were hypothetical and which were realistic. He asked Mr. Doyle to clarify the current ferry system plan for short and long term maintenance and improvements at the Edmonds terminal, what was included in the $7 million for buildings and overhead improvements and what would be included in the $26 million expenditure beyond 2025. Mr. Doyle's reply indicated the plans and studies were not interlocking, developed at different times based on different assumptions and in some cases, developed by different divisions within the DOT. He requested a few days to develop a reply to Council President Bernheim's questions. He clarified the State Legislature directed the DOT to consider exchanging the parking lot for a pedestrian crossing based on the joint development study findings and was not a ferry system project. Ms. Shippen asked whether a ferry system staff member ever answered Council President Bernheim's questions and whether the City Attorney provided advice regarding the questions he asked. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented he had omitted some people in his recognition of Edmonds Food Bank volunteers at the previous Council meeting. He provided a brief history of the Food Bank which opened in 1960 and was reorganized in 1981. He recognized several additional long time volunteers at the Food Bank. He recognized radio station Spirit 105.3 AM that broadcast live from the food drive at Top Foods. He also recognized the Meadowdale High School Key Club who assisted with assembling Easter food bags. Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, referred to Agenda Item 7 and relayed a response from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg in 2008 when questioned about New York City's response to financial challenges relative to those in the 1970s, "No, we're not going to make the mistake, the mistake that was made in the 70s is we stopped policing the streets, we stopped cleaning the streets, we stopped cleaning the graffiti off buildings, we stopped supporting our culture institutions and building parks and schools and all those things. We're going to go ahead and continue those things. We may have to stretch some construction projects, we may have to ask people to do more with less, we may not be able to have the frills at the edge but we are not going to walk away from our city, that's a prescription for disaster. When you do that, your tax base leaves and the rest of the country as well as New York are going to have exactly the same decisions to make. The taxpayers are going to have to decide do they want to have a future or not. If they don't want to have a future, then they are not going to have to pay as much now. But Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 4 if they want to leave a better world for their kids, they're going to have to pay the bills upfront." Dr. Senderoff pointed out the message was both city government and the community bear the responsibility to ensure the services they value and depend on are continued and new growth opportunities are not neglected. He summarized when voters restricted the ability of government to increase taxes, he hoped they were not simply saying no new taxes; they were saying they wanted to be involved in the process. He noted the importance of providing transparent, clear information to the public to allow them to make decisions that were best for the community. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the May 11 Finance Committee meeting where the December 31, 2009 budget report was provided. He questioned why Planning Department salaries were over 100% when building permits were down 58% and plan check fees were down 42 %. He suggested the City could have fewer employees in the Planning Department and not hire a Director. He referred to Agenda Item 8, observing that although the PRD ordinance has worked well in the past, citizens like it, it has protected existing neighborhoods by requiring compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods, and it allows for neighborhood meetings. Staff wants to eliminate the PRD ordinance and combine it with the subdivision ordinance. He recommended not amending the subdivision ordinance to address cottage housing. He suggested the Council delay any discussion or decision until they had an opportunity to review the most recent Planning Board meeting minutes. Joan Bloom, Edmonds, referred to Agenda Item 12, explaining two weeks ago she submitted a public records request for fees paid to Ogden Murphy Wallace in 2009 and 2010 and the City Attorney's contract. The information she received was somewhat confusing and she was uncertain it was accurate. According to the information she received, a statement of checks paid to Ogden Murphy Wallace, the total for 2009 was approximately $1,126,648; the total through April 22, 2010 was $318,526. The City Attorney budget in 2009 was $378,488 and the 2010 budget was $378,488. She noted if those figures were accurate, 2010 expenditures had nearly reached the 2010 budgeted amount. She expressed concern that Agenda Item 12 was necessary and questioned why the Council was not aware of the City Attorney expenses. She expressed concern with the amount the City paid in legal fees. Subtracting the $650 paid the City Attorney for 2 staff meetings and 2 Council meetings per month ($2600 /month x 12 or $31,200 /year) from the 2009 expenditure divided into hours per week is 93 hours /week. A $600,000 expenditure is 57 hours per week. Shoreline, which has a population of 53,000 compared to Edmonds' 40,000, their legal services total is $560,889 /year including the prosecuting attorney. Their budget for legal services in 2010 is $393,746 including all benefits, supplies, other services and charges; the salary to the City Attorney is $287,782. She questioned why Edmonds paid over $1 million to the City Attorney in 2009 and apparently was on track to pay over $1 million in 2010 when a comparable city paid their City Attorney significantly less. Finis Tupper, Edmonds, referred to Agenda Item 12, observing when a citizen made a public records request, the information provided should be understandable. He reviewed the warrants and prepared a spreadsheet which he provided to the Council. He did not believe the information provided by the Finance Department was an accurate accounting of expenditures for legal fees to Ogden Murphy Wallace, noting a variance of approximately $544,252.28. Before the City sold the Fire Department, he suggested the Municipal Court as a way to save money. He observed the Council increased the prosecutor's salary by 60% for 2 additional hours /week. He noted there seemed to be a problem with getting figures from the Finance Department, expressing frustration that the 4t' quarter 2009 budget report was not available until a couple weeks ago. He questioned how the Council could manage the City without that information and without accurate information. When the Council sold the Fire Department, he recalled providing a spreadsheet illustrating revenue that was not accounted for and mistakes in the forecast that the Council chose to ignore. Councilmember Plunkett asked to provide a response. Council President Bernheim raised a point of order, expressing his preference to follow the agenda. Mayor Haakenson ruled on the point of order, stating it Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 5 has been the Council's policy to respond to audience comments and the Council has been criticized for not responding. Council President Bernheim requested Council withhold comments until the Council Comment agenda item or amend the agenda to have Council Comment immediately following Audience Comment. City Attorney Scott Snyder responded the Council's stated adopted policy has been that it does not respond to public comment although that policy is frequently not followed. He recalled that policy was established in a resolution adopted by the Council after a group of citizens spoke to the Council requesting a traffic circle and the Council responded by ordering a traffic circle and the next week another group of citizens requested the traffic circle be removed. He offered to provide the resolution to the Council. Councilmember Plunkett agreed to defer to Council policy, suggesting if there was interest in changing the policy, discussion be scheduled on a future agenda. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas suggested the Council be consistent with regard to their adherence to the policy. Councilmember Wilson commented the Council was allowed to have discussion at Council meetings and it was difficult to have discussions outside meetings. He anticipated the public and the Council would learn from clarifying questions asked by Councilmember Plunkett. He recognized Council President Bernheim's efforts to manage the agenda but did not want to limit discussion just because it was not explicitly identified on the agenda. 7. COUNCIL REVIEW OF LEVY OPTIONS. Councilmember Plunkett referred to a question asked by Roger Hertrich at the Finance Committee meeting regarding debt service paid from Fund 125 and 1.26, and relaying Finance Director Lorenzo Hines' indication that would provide additional information following the committee meeting. Councilmember Plunkett explained the Finance Committee, comprised of Councilmember Buckshnis and him, was directed by the Council to, 1) review past work done with regard to a levy or 2) start fresh with 2009 numbers and create a 7- member levy committee. It was the consensus of the Council to proceed with the second option, use 2009 numbers and work toward a potential levy in late 2010 or early 2011. He noted that was subject to completing labor negotiations and the austere budget that Mayor Haakenson was likely to present that would not include a levy increase. He anticipated when the community saw that budget, there would be a better opportunity to discuss a levy. He relayed the Finance Committee's proposal to form a 7- member levy committee, Councilmembers would each appoint one member and the committee would consider capital targets of opportunity such as Yost Pool, civic playfields, and the senior center as well as augmenting the General Fund for parks, street maintenance, information technology, etc. The Council would then hold public hearings and possibly place a measure on the November or February ballot. He requested the Council endorse the formation of a levy committee and direct staff to advertise the committee and Councilmembers to appoint their member. The committee would work in concert with the Finance Committee and the entire Council on capital targets of opportunity and augmentation of the General Fund. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, THAT THE COUNCIL ENDORSE AND GIVE DIRECTION TO THE CITY STAFF TO NOTIFY THE CITIZENS AND SEEK INDIVIDUALS WILLING TO SERVE ON A LEVY COMMITTEE. Councilmember Peterson asked whether members of the levy committee would be appointed by the Council or the Mayor. Councilmember Plunkett answered each Councilmember would appoint one member; the committee would initially be six members, subject to appointment of a seventh member. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 6 Councilmember Fraley- Monillas asked whether Councilmembers could participate on the committee. Councilmember Plunkett envisioned Councilmembers could participate as ex- officio members. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas observed the intent was for Councilmembers to appoint one member and the Councilmember also participate on the committee as they saw fit. Councilmember Plunkett agreed, noting Councilmembers would be ex- officio and could not vote. City Attorney Scott Snyder asked whether the intent was to notice all meetings as public meetings. Councilmember Plunkett agreed the meetings would be noticed. Councilmember Wilson recalled the Council discussed at the last meeting having a written proposal for Council review. Councilmember Plunkett assumed the agenda memo and his narrative were sufficient. Councilmember Wilson asked whether it was envisioned the committee would provide a recommendation . with regard to when to place a levy on the ballot, noting to place a measure on the November ballot would require action by August 10. He asked whether that date was likely with the proposed process. Councilmember Plunkett acknowledged there was a slim chance that date could be achieved. He suggested a Councilmember interested in a November ballot measure would need to identify a different path as this proposal was unlikely to result in a November ballot measure. Councilmember Wilson asked how the proposed process and the work of the committee would not be repetitive of the work being done by the Council and conversations with citizens. Councilmember Plunkett anticipated it would provide additional information, augment existing discussions, draw conclusions and be a stimulus to the Council. Councilmember Wilson asked if the committee would be staffed by the Finance Department or Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman, assuming the committee would have questions about numbers, finances, and budget - related issues. Councilmember Plunkett answered the committee would direct their questions to Mr. Hines or the appropriate staff member. He did not envision staff would attend the committee meetings but envisioned questions would be relayed to staff. He envisioned the committee's questions would be similar to the questions Mr. Hines typically receives from the Council or other citizens. Councilmember Wilson anticipated the committee would have numerous questions and asked how their questions could be answered in a timely manner when the Finance Department had a great deal on their plate. He wanted to avoid the committee being frustrated by an inability to get their questions answered in a timely manner in order to provide the Council a recommendation in a timely manner. Mayor Haakenson answered the burden on Finance staff would soon be reduced as they have completed the 4th quarter 2009 report and the 1St quarter 2010 report and the audit would soon be complete. Finance will soon begin the 2011 -2012 budget process which would allow them to address the committee questions. Councilmember Peterson expressed concern that a six member Council appointing a six member committee would add little to the breadth of the discussion. He compared that to the 17 member Economic Development Commission and last year's 60+ member Levy Review Committee. He noted the EDC was a very dynamic group of individuals who were able to spread the work around and brainstorm and he questioned the ability for a six member committee to do the same. He feared the public would think the Council was handing the responsibility off to a committee because they were not ready to get their own hands dirty. He questioned relying on the recommendation of a six member committee when it was the elected officials' responsibility to make that decision. Councilmember Plunkett responded the committee's influence would only be a factor in the process. He envisioned the committee would work along with the Council as they reviewed the budget and would receive the same information the Council received and would be a sounding board regarding augmentation of general operating funds. He assured they would not be a substitute for the Council and envisioned the committee would be beneficial and provide additional information for the Council to consider. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 7 Mayor Haakenson commented if it was anticipated the committee would work side -by -side with the Council as they worked through the budget process, they would not begin work until October 1 when he presented a budget to the Council. Councilmember Wilson recalled a few weeks ago there appeared to be some division between Councilmember Plunkett and Councilmember Buckshnis, the members of the Finance Committee. Councilmember Plunkett responded this proposal was the consensus of the Finance Committee and he supported it. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas asked why the proposal was for each Councilmember to appoint only one person rather than two or three. Councilmember Plunkett responded his intent was to keep the group small. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas asked how members were appointed to the 2009 Levy Review Committee. Councilmember Wilson responded all applicants were appointed to the committee and the deadline for submission was even extended to the start of the first meeting. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas observed a levy committee would be of some benefit to the Council. Council President Bernheim asked whether the reference to staff was Ms. Spellman and the City Council would coordinate the committee, organizing meetings, etc. and it would not be a burden on the Mayor's office or Finance Department. Councilmember Plunkett advised announcements would be published by the City Clerk. He envisioned the committee would organize themselves, take minutes, conduct meetings, invite the public to participate, etc. Prior to the Mayor's presentation of the budget in October, the committee could hear about issues such as information technology, street maintenance, capital targets of opportunity, etc. Councilmember Peterson inquired about the deadline to place a measure on the February 2011 ballot. City Clerk Sandy Chase advised it was December 22, 2010. Councilmember Wilson commented this was one avenue to get the Council to placing a levy before the voters; however, this proposal had not been thought through well enough for him to support it. For example, Ms. Spellman did not have enough access to financial data to support the committee and there was clearly a need to rely on information from Directors. He recalled the Revenue Committee met with Directors and the Mayor at least 20 times for 1% hours each time beginning in November 2009. The 63 members of the Levy Review Committee met three hours a night for four weeks, approximately a ten month process. Following those meetings, the Council unanimously agreed to place a levy on the ballot and then in August decided not to pursue a levy in 2009. He did not anticipate the same result could be accomplished in a timely manner with a 6 -7 member committee supported only by Ms. Spellman. Councilmember Wilson did not support the proposed committee format and recognizing it was the Council's responsibility to be the levy review committee, offered the following alternative: the Council meet in a work group format every Thursday for as long as it takes to specifically discuss the budget and a levy and to take public comment. He did not envision a committee could reach a recommendation by November; however, it was possible the Council could. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas advised she would support the proposed process, expressing her interest in having as much public input as possible. She envisioned a process conducted by the Council would shut the public out of the process. She envisioned even with a Council -based process, a representative of the Finance Department would need to attend those meetings. Councilmember Plunkett observed the Finance Committee's proposal was a citizen committee working toward a citizen vote. He was willing to consider Councilmember Wilson's suggestion later this summer. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 8 Councilmember Peterson pointed out the Council was a citizens committee; Councilmembers were citizens elected by the citizens. The advantage to Councilmember Wilson's suggestion for the Council to meet in Council Chambers on Thursdays would be an open public meeting which would add to the transparency versus 6 -7 citizens meeting in the Fourtner or Brackett Room of City Hall. He pointed out Councilmembers would pay the same tax increase if a levy were approved by the voters. He did not support the process proposed by the Finance Committee. Councilmember Wilson suggested the Council begin meeting on Thursday, May 27 and rather than a laborious application process when Councilmembers likely knew who they would appoint, each Councilmember appoint one member at the May 27 meeting. The result would be a 12 member group, 14 after a new Councilmember is appointed and he /she appoints their committee member, plus the Mayor. Councilmember Plunkett responded he liked the idea but preferred to wait until the other Finance Committee member, Councilmember Buckshnis, could participate in the discussion. He suggested deferring a decision until Councilmember Buckshnis returned. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO DEFER THE MATTER TO THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT TO BRING BACK ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA NEXT WEEK SUBJECT TO COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS' PARTICIPATION IN THE DISCUSSION. Councilmember Wilson pointed out not all Councilmembers would be present until June 15. He asked Council President Bernheim's preference with regard to a combined Council /six person group. Council President Bernheim supported the concept of an advisory group and was agreeable to deferring a decision until Councilmember Buckshnis returned. He indicated his willingness to schedule Thursday Council meetings but would not promise to attend all the meetings. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. UPDATE ON SUBDIVISION REGULATION CODE RE -WRITE PROJECT. Planner Michael Clugston explained this was part of the overall code rewrite staff had been working on for the past several years. He explained the topic was proposed to Council Committee last September and introduced to the Planning Board at their May 12 meeting. He referred to Exhibit 2, the presentation provided to the Planning Board. The three general outcomes are anticipated from this comprehensive re- write are: 1) Innovate by including additional flexibility to foster low impact development, distributed energy, and tree retention while increasing affordable housing options. 2) Balance predictability and flexibility in a subdivision regulation that includes formal and short plats as well as PRD -type and townhouse design standards for lot creation whether in single or multifamily zones. 3) Streamline the regulation to make it easier to use and administer. The rewrite process began in late 2008 when the townhouse subdivision process was questioned by the Hearing Examiner. Other changes include the Council's passage of Resolution 1170, Environmental Principles and Policy and the addition of the Sustainability Element to the Comprehensive Plan. The intent is to consider the subdivision regulations in a comprehensive manner to integrate as many sustainability elements as possible and to incorporate the best elements of the PRD process into the subdivision regulations rather than a parallel PRD process. The subdivision regulations have been in ECDC 20.75 for over 30 years and although they have been tweaked over time, they lack the flexibility and the concept of sustainability. The Planning Board has asked staff to consider the following: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 9 • Encourage sustainable site design which will protect critical areas and the larger environment • Encouraged low impact development practices • Protect and preserve the urban forest for its environmental and economic benefits • Encourage site design that makes the best use of renewable energy resources • Provide the opportunity for affordable housing to meet the needs of a wide range of income and age groups • Allow for the subdivision of land and accomplish uniform monumenting of land divisions and conveyance by accurate legal description Mr. Clugston explained the subdivision regulations, PRD regulations and townhouse standards are in separate sections. The intent is to codify current practice to make it easier for staff to administer and easier for the public to use. Options to be explored by the Planning Board include the following: • Tree retention • Dwelling unit/acre rather than minimum lot size • Lot size averaging • Flexible setbacks with adjacent landowner approval • Lot width — eliminate or flexible • Lot orientation (solar site orientation/access) • Distributed energy • Street /driveway width — impervious surface reduction • Incentives + bonuses • Cottage housing • Binding site plan. He relayed the Planning Board's request for an opportunity to review and prioritize these options at their next meeting. He explained for example cottage housing is mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan as an option for providing affordable housing. The intent is a comprehensive look at the subdivision, townhouse and PRD regulations and it is appropriate to consider cottage housing as well. He anticipated the Planning Board would discuss whether cottage housing was appropriate for Edmonds and if so, where it was appropriate. He invited the Council to provide any suggestions to the Planning Board. Council President Bernheim asked how this process began. Mr. Clugston explained staff has been working on the code rewrite for several years. One of the elements of the code rewrite was the townhouse subdivision process in response to a question raised by the Hearing Examiner in late 2008. The townhouse regulations currently lack appropriate design standards. He displayed a photograph of a development in a multi family zone that is adheres to the zoning with regard to density, setbacks, etc. and was approved by the Architectural Design Board. In this development, the developer wanted each unit to be an individual, saleable unit which required lot lines around each. The townhouse process works but could be improved via additional design standards for access, open space, etc. Council President Bernheirn asked who was directing the code rewrite, by what directive the code rewrite was ordered and what were the objectives of the code rewrite. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered it was authorized by the City Council in 2000. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained approximately three years ago the former Development Services Director Duane Bowman reviewed with the Council the need for a concerted effort to update the code. The process began with the easily addressed topics such as nuisance provisions. Council President Bernheim wanted to ensure there was a specific objective. He noted in some of the code rewrites, rather than identify and remedy a specific problem, the code has been entirely rewritten which requires a great deal of staff time without necessarily an achievable objective. He asked if the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 10 photograph Ms. Petso and Mr. Clugston displayed was an example of what the code rewrite would achieve or overcome. Mr. Clugston answered the development in the photograph was illustrative of the way a multi family development could look today. The intent was to improve on that type of development via additional design standards that would allow better access, better onsite parking, better open space provisions, etc. Council President Bernheim asked where the direction for improvement was provided, noting he wanted to ensure the effort was proceeding in the direction the Council chose. Mr. Chave answered that was the reason the Council was kept informed via discussion at Council Committee and why it was scheduled on tonight's agenda. He agreed staff did not want to make any revisions to the code that the Council would not ultimately support. He explained the intent of the subdivision rewrite was to address provisions no one liked, to improve organization of the code and to incorporate low impact development, affordable housing and sustainability. The Planning Board will explore how to encourage or to require some of those concepts as part of the subdivision update. With regard to cottage housing, Mr. Chave did not envision the development of a cottage housing ordinance as cottage housing was typically higher density, required more rigorous design standards, etc. Currently cottage housing was a housing type that was allowed but there was no density bonus. The Planning Board will discuss whether to clarify in the subdivision code that cottage housing is an allowed type of housing but he did not envision the Planning Board would recommend density bonuses, etc. for cottage housing. If the Council wanted the Planning Board to consider that, he urged the Council to make that clear. He advised the interim PRD ordinance essentially combined the PRD and subdivision process; therefore, it was appropriate to integrate the best features of PRDs into standard subdivisions. Council President Bernheim observed the PRD section was a standalone code due to its unique features. Mr. Chave answered Edmonds' PRD ordinance was different than most jurisdictions; many jurisdictions allowed density bonuses. Edmonds' PRD process was an alternate form of subdivision and did not allow density bonuses. Instead, it allowed more flexibility in standards and in exchange the developer must provide compatibility, achieve certain purposes, etc. The intent is to review those purposes to ensure they were still appropriate as there was some question as to whether they were effectively promoting sustainability. Mr. Snyder advised flexibility via a PRD is so limited that there is little distinction between a PRD and a standard subdivision. He summarized the typical attributes of a PRD allowed by most jurisdictions were not present in the City's PRD ordinance. Mr. Chave explained a developer currently must apply for a PRD and a subdivision and they are processed on parallel but different tracks. In the rewrite, a PRD would be a combined PRD /subdivision application for which one approval was provided. He assured the public process would not be diminished but it would provide a consistent application process. He explained the PRD was essentially the only tool the City had to address different housing choices. For example, cottage housing is a type of housing, small houses arranged in a mini - neighborhood setting, and that type of housing may be in more demand in the future. If the code does not specifically state cottage housing is a potential option within a subdivision, it would not happen. He noted there has been come concern that as people age they are unable to finding affordable housing in Edmonds. The intent is to ensure there are housing choices that allow people to remain in the community. 9. DISCUSSION OF STYROFOAM BAN. Council President Bernheim explained at the 2010 Council retreat it was agreed the Council would proceed with a ban on Styrofoam food containers in the City. He referred to the draft ordinance he prepared, explaining the purpose of the ordinance would be that by a certain date food service businesses including tenants on City -owned property would be prohibited from selling or providing, in connection with food service, polystyrene, non - recyclable, or non- compostable food service packaging or disposable Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 11 food service ware. Food service businesses would be required to provide takeaway food in recyclable or compostable product and to have recycling or composting bins on site. The ordinance also includes a penalty for use of the products. The effective date of the ordinance would be at least a year from adoption to allow an education period and time for merchants to deplete existing inventory of polystyrene products. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM, FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. City Attorney Scott Snyder observed the proposal was not in ordinance form and suggested staff draft an ordinance for approval on a future agenda. Council President Bernheim suggested the City Attorney draft an ordinance and a public hearing be scheduled within the next 30 -45 days. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas pointed out Seattle and other cities have successfully banned on Styrofoam and she felt it was achievable in Edmonds. Councilmember Wilson referred to Section 3 that required businesses to use a recyclable or compostable product and asked if that was the same language used by Seattle and Issaquah. He was concerned with the term recyclable, noting an array of plastics could be considered recyclable. Council President Bernheim referred to the definition of recyclable, made solely of materials that are capable of being separated from a waste stream by a food service business and made available for collection and delivery to a processor for reuse or remanufacture into the same or other products. He recalled that language was from Issaquah's ordinance. Councilmember Wilson feared a plastic container could be recyclable but not meet the intent of the ordinance. Council President Bernheim advised that issue was addressed in Section 8.07.030 of the Issaquah ordinance. He suggested consulting with Issaquah and Seattle regarding their experience. Mr. Snyder suggested including in the record the scientific information that describes the problems with polystyrene and why they are not recyclable. He noted it was not only the polystyrene waste but also the environmental impacts of polystyrene production. Councilmember Peterson recalled a SEPA review was conducted on the plastic bag ordinance and asked whether a SEPA review would be appropriate for the ban on polystyrene. Mr. Snyder agreed it would be. Councilmember Wilson observed ten years ago when Portland adopted a similar ban, McDonald's sued and lost and as a result changed all their packaging. He asked the legal basis for the City's authority to ban polystyrene. Mr. Snyder answered the legal principles regarding cities' police powers to regulate materials that come into the environment of a community are well established. He offered to provide that information along with the scientific data and the ordinance. Councilmember Wilson asked whether there had been any other legal actions with regard to banning polystyrene. Mr. Snyder reiterated cities' police powers are well established, the primary limitations are commerce clause limitations for goods that travel between states and products packaged for local consumption. He referred to an exemption in the proposal for materials that arrive sealed to a business owner. The basis for that exemption is the commerce clause. Councilmember Wilson inquired about enforcement. Mayor Haakenson answered he would address enforcement at the time of the public hearing, assuring staff would not be in the Styrofoam enforcement business. Mayor Haakenson restated the motion as follows: DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE AND SET A PUBLIC HEARING DATE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 12 10. PRESENTATION ON CLIMATE SOLUTIONS NEW ENERGY CITIES. Councilmember Peterson explained Climate Solutions is an organization working with cities throughout the northwest to create new energy cities via reducing their reliance on fossil fuels, encouraging the use of renewable energies, and smart grid technology, all things that the Council has advocated in recent years. Climate Solutions has provided a proposal to partner with the City on a professional basis to create a roadmaplguideline for Edmonds to become a leadership city in energy independence. Their proposal includes short term (in the next few months), mid -term (18 months — 5 years), and long range planning (up to 20 years). Climate Solutions requests the City provide $15,000. For that investment, the City will receive approximately $35,000 worth of work due to Climate Solutions' ability to leverage their connections. In the short term, Climate Solutions will create an action plan specific to Edmonds in consultation with government, business, environmental and community leaders as well as the public. Climate Solutions has reviewed the City's Sustainability Element as well as work done by Sustainable Edmonds and the Mayor's Climate Protection Committee. Although he has long been a supporter of this type of effort, Councilmember Peterson noted it is clear in light of the recent environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico that the public needs to take responsibility for its addiction to oil. Other advantages to this effort include economic development, job creation, public safety and public health and investing locally. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas expressed support for the City's participation. She asked the source of the $15,000 expenditure. Councilmember Peterson answered options include, 1) the funds from Fire District 1, or 2) the Council Contingency Fund. He noted although the Council dedicated the Fire District 1 funds to capital investment, he viewed the end product as an investment in infrastructure. Council President Bernheim recalled the only appropriations from the Council Contingency Fund were $5,000 for Cascade Land Conservancy and $5,000 for Sustainable Edmonds. Councilmember Wilson advised the total amount in the Council Contingency Fund was $20,000. Council President Bernheim preferred not to use the Fire District 1 funds without further discussion. Councilmember Wilson suggested the $15,000 be taken from the ending cash balance. Although there may be good reasons to use the Fire District 1 funds, he preferred not to set that precedence. He noted the savings from not filling the Development Services Director position could be allocated toward this expenditure. Councilmember Peterson commented Cascade Land Conservancy was another excellent example of a partnership. The City has 25 hours of staff time from Cascade Land Conservancy and they have expressed willingness to work with the Economic Development Committee on the neighborhoods of Westgate and Five Corners. He urged the Council to make a decision regarding Climate Solutions tonight; one of the reasons they are able to provide Edmonds a good deal is economy of scale with other cities joining at the same time. Council President Bernheim expressed support for partnering with Climate Solutions but preferred to wait until a specific funding source was identified. He suggested Councilmember Peterson provide funding options at a future meeting including the balance in the Council Contingency Fund. Mayor Haakenson advised there was a sufficient amount in the Council Contingency Fund for this expenditure. Council President Bernheim expressed his support with funding from the Council Contingency Fund. Councilmember Wilson advised approximately $76,000 was budgeted for Council professional services and anticipated funding was available from that source. He anticipated the funds in the Council. Contingency Fund would be needed for a levy committee. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 13 COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO ACCEPT CLIMATE SOLUTIONS' PROPOSAL AS PRESENTED WITH FUNDS FROM THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PORTION OF THE COUNCIL BUDGET. MOTION CARRIED (4- 1), COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT VOTING NO. 1.1. DISCUSSION OF INTERNET WIRELESS ACCESS FOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS. Council President Bernheim commented it would be useful for Councilmembers to have internet access during Council meetings as it would allow them to access the City's databases and codes, minutes of past meetings, etc. He recalled the issue was raised when Councilmember Wilson was Council President and it was resolved at the Council retreat to have internet access installed at the dais. It was originally planned to be installed in March and was later promised for mid -May. If staff was too busy to do the installation, he suggested the Council Assistant engage someone to do the installation. Student Representative Marmion asked if the Ethernet ports under the dais were active. Council President Bernheim advised they were not currently functional. He asked if City Clerk Sandy Chase had wired internet at her seat in the Council Chambers. Ms. Chase answered certain areas in the Council Chambers have wired internet. Mayor Haakenson advised Finance Director Lorenzo Hines was working on it and had emailed Council President Bernheim an updated timeline. He assured staff would get it done although it was not a top priority. The Council was welcome to hire an independent contractor. Council President Bernheim requested Mr. Hines be removed from the project and he would coordinate it himself. Councilmember Wilson commented the Council had given the Council President authority to move forward expeditiously. He recognized Mr. Hines had other more important priorities. Mayor Haakenson answered it was not Mr. Hines; it was the City's Information Technology staff of 2% people that do not have time. Councilmember Wilson recognized the City was so under capitalized it did not have the resources to undertake the Council's requests whether it was financial data, inventorying carbon emissions, etc. He suggested Council President Bernheim provide information to the Council regarding hiring someone to provide internet access in Council Chambers. 12. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON REQUEST TO MAYOR OF CITY OF EDMONDS BY EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL FOR INFORMATION REGARDING LEGAL FEES PAID BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS FROM JANUARY 1, 2009 THROUGH APRIL 28, 2010. Council. President Bernheim commented this was another example of accommodating the busy City staff. He requested a printout of the 2009 legal fees from the vouchers that indicated who it was paid to, the amount, and the description. That information would allow the Council to see what law firms are paid by the City and for what purpose which could be used in the analysis of the City's legal fees. He advised the 2009 budget for legal fees did not divide it into payee such as the fiber optics lawyer, bond counsel, Ogden Murphy Wallace, etc. He expressed concern that the information he requested had not been provided by staff and asked whether the Council supported his request for that information. He had been offered as an alternative all the legal bills from Ogden. Murphy Wallace; however, his intent was to detennine the total amount the City expended on legal services. Mayor Haakenson assured Council President Bernheim that his request had not been ignored but as his email stated, the Finance Department is very busy and understaffed; Mr. Hines would get to his request at some point but it could be several months. Council President Bernheim responded he was interested in receiving the information sooner. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas observed the answer was provided by Ms. Bloom via her public records request. The underlying issue is an in -house attorney versus a contract attorney. Recognizing little could be done at the present time because the City is contracted with Ogden Murphy Wallace through 2011, she recommended the Council continue to evaluate an in -house versus a contract attorney and whether there Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 14 were was a cost savings with an in -house attorney. She cited another organization with more members than the City's population that was able to save approximately 50% via an in -house attorney. She recognized the importance of Mr. Snyder's historical knowledge. Councilmember Wilson disagreed the issue was an in -house versus a contract attorney, pointing out with the demand on the City's legal staff, it would be necessary to hire a squad of in -house attorneys to manage the workload. He asked Mr. Snyder to address the $1.2 million amount cited by Ms. Bloom. Mr. Snyder answered that must be the total legal budget from all sources including the public defender, prosecutor, etc. Ogden Murphy Wallace's billings, as noted by Mr. Tupper, were approximately half that amount. Mayor Haakenson advised the December 31, 2009 yearend statement shows a cost center for the City Attorney. He recalled the 2009 expense for Ogden Murphy Wallace was approximately $670,000. Mr. Snyder commented that amount included other costs. He offered to have Ogden Murphy Wallace's accounting department provide the amount paid by the City; his understanding was Council President Bemheim's request was for all legal costs. Councilmember Wilson commented the issue was the Council's frustration with not getting information they considered basic, not having tasks completed that they assumed were modest and the sense that staff was overwhelmed by their basic workload as well as additional requests. He acknowledged one of the reasons the legal fees may be high was the number of questions the Council wants answered. The problem is the City does not have enough money to fund enough staff to operate basic good government. Because the Council was unable get fundamental questions answered in a timely manner, the Council gets into arguments about simple things such as the installation of a wireless router. Just like any businesses, when the City is under - capitalized and does not have enough money to pay its bills and was robbing from one fund to pay another, the business is not run well and is on a track to failure which is where the City is now. He envisioned the Council would continue to have frustrations and tensions over minor issues. The crux of the matter was how to get financial reporting information to the Council in a timelier manner. The answer was not to ask staff to work even more hours but to hire more staff in the Finance Department. Councilmember Wilson pointed out the City Clerk's office hired additional staff recently due to the volume of public records requests. In this case, a citizen seems to have received more timely information because the Public Records Act dictates that the City respond in a timelier manner than is required for a request made by the Council. He observed staff was being run to the bone and he feared the day when the City Clerk or the Finance Director simply decided they could no longer handle the workload. He urged the Council to consider hiring more Finance staff, acknowledging the Mayor was compelled by law to hire more staff for the City Clerk's office; he was not compelled to hire more Finance Department staff unless the Council gave him the budgetary authority and direction. He anticipated additional Finance staff would be necessary particularly if the Council planned to meet an additional evening to discuss the budget. Councilmember Peterson commented Council President Bernheim's request was legitimate but observed in the past when staff has responded to a request too quickly with imperfect or incomplete information, they have been attacked by the Council and /or the public. Therefore he understood staff's reluctance to provide incomplete numbers. He noted although it was true to some extent that the City was a business, the City was actually a public entity and any documents provided to Council must be correct because it becomes a public record. He agreed staffing was a major issue and responding to Council or the public's requests was usually more than clicking open QuickBooks. He noted the information provided in response to Ms. Bloom's public records request was a good example; the $1.2 million number was not the final answer and he doubted Edmonds was spending three times the amount Shoreline spent on legal fees. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas suggested this topic be addressed by a levy committee. It was her understanding that a number of staff positions had not been filled and she asked Mayor Haakenson to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 15 provide a list of those positions. Mayor Haakenson advised the unfilled positions and positions he recommended be filled would be addressed during the budget process. Council President Bernheim clarified his request was for a list of the vouchers for legal services. It has been 30 days and that information has not yet been provided. He assumed it was simply a matter of pushing a few buttons to summarize the amounts paid for legal fees from the list of checks that were paid each week. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO ASK THE CITY WITHIN 10 DAYS TO PROVIDE A REPORT OF THE LEGAL FEES PAID IN 2009 AND IN 2010 TO DATE, SORTED BY PAYEE, CONTAINING AT LEAST THE DATE OF PAYMENT, THE AMOUNT OF THE PAYMENT, WHO WAS PAID AND WHAT IT WAS FOR. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas understood the frustration but was concerned with the ten day timeline without knowing the other priorities staff was working on. Councilmember Wilson expressed his support for the motion, agreeing it was a legitimate request and 30 days was an adequate period of time. He was saddened that formal action by the Council was necessary to obtain this information. He anticipated the Council's frustration would continue because the motion addressed only the symptom, not the cause. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (3 -2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM AND COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND PLUNKETT VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON AND FRALEY- MONILLAS VOTING NO. Mayor Haakenson asked if he was required to abide by the motion. Mr. Snyder answered no, advising RCW 35A.12.030 provides that the Mayor is charged with day -to -day administration of the City. Councilmember Wilson reiterated the cause was the lack of basic resources to get questions answered. When this request was not answered in two weeks, there was likely to be a similar agenda item to request the information. He suggested the Council consider how that would affect the budget process this fall, when the budget would include massive cuts. Even if Councilmembers did not believe the numbers or that the assumptions were totally faulty, he anticipated the budget Mayor Haakenson presents will have massive cuts such as closing City parks. He anticipated the Council would not adopt that budget quickly based on its past track record and the inability for the administration to provide timely answers to questions. He emphasized on December 31, 2010, the City's budgetary authority terminates unless a budget is passed. He did not envision the Council would be able to pass a budget when they could not get wireless internet installed or information about invoices that had already been paid. Councilmember Wilson explained whenever a legislative body did not believe the information provided by the administration or that enough due diligence had been done in the construction of a budget, the legislative body had the authority to create its own budget. This is done by Snohomish County, King County, and the State of Washington. Because neither the Council nor the Senior Executive Council Assistant has the expertise to do that, he suggested the Council consider hiring a Council Budget Analyst for 6 -12 months beginning July 1 through the budget cycle. To fund that position, he suggested amending the budget to remove authority to spend money on jobs that are currently vacant and allocate the funds to the Council. The Budget Analyst would be tasked with working closely with the Council Assistant, the Council President and the Finance Director. He anticipated this may be the only way to get through the budget process. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas agreed the Council should consider hiring a Budget Analyst, recognizing Mayor Haakenson would present a budget that no one liked, a budget that spends only the revenue the City receives. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 16 Mayor Haakenson asked Mr. Snyder to provide a breakdown of 2009's retainer fee and costs for litigation. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting that information was provided on a monthly basis. As the Chair of the Finance Committee and the senior member of the Council, Councilmember Wilson asked Councilmember Plunkett's thoughts on tension between the Council and Administration and the idea of hiring a Budget Analyst. Councilmember Plunkett responded he did not feel there was any more tension with regard to the upcoming budget than during previous budgets. He concurred the provision of information by the administration is slower than in the past but that did not lead him to conclude there was so much tension that it was necessary for the Council to hire its own Budget Analyst. It was his opinion Mayor Haakenson would provide a budget, the Council would have robust debate, make difficult decisions and pass a budget. Councilmember Peterson commented Councilmember Wilson's idea had a great deal of merit. The audit was close to completion and if the audit was clean and staff could move ahead with the audited numbers, he did not anticipate a Budget Analyst would be necessary. If there was doubt with the audited numbers, further discussion may be necessary. He was willing to wait until the audited numbers were available. He was confident the State audit would be glowing as it has been in years past and that the Council would be able to move forward using those numbers. Councilmember Wilson recalled when he was a participant in the budget review process two years ago, he asked staff approximately 110 questions via email in addition to questions he asked during budget review committee meetings. It was up to the Council President to ensure there were at least four votes to pass the budget and the way to reach that was to ensure that four Councilmembers were comfortable with the information and to get their questions answered in a timely manner during the budget process. He encouraged the Council President to think through what may be a challenging budget process this fall. 13. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF MAY 11. 2010. Finance Committee Councilmember Plunkett reported staff presented the Year -End 2009 and 1st Quarter 2010 budget reports and those reports were available on the City's website. The Committee discussed the levy, and Mr. Hines presented a proposed revision to the City's current Water Leakage Policy. The Committee also accepted public comment; Ron Wambolt spoke regarding the levy and REET funds, Don Hall spoke regarding perceptions of labor costs and Roger Hertrich spoke on REET debt service and stormwater rates. Community Services /Development Services Committee Councilmember Peterson reported the Committee met with the Public Safety Committee to discuss Title 19.25 revisions, adopting the updated International Fire Code and Title 19 revisions, adopting the updated International Codes and State amendments. The recommended changes will be presented to the full Council. Next, the Committee discussed becoming a Tree City USA and the creation of a tree ordinance. Staff will meet with citizens interested in this concept to develop potential action for next month's meeting. The Committee discussed Conditional Use Permits for home occupations; the issue was referred to the Planning Board for study and recommendation to the City Council. The Committee also discussed the Cascade Land Conservancy partnering with the Economic Development Commission and possibly University of Washington students to discuss a redevelopment framework for Westgate and Five Corners that could be replicated in other neighborhood centers. The final item was a discussion regarding community gardens and planting strips; it was agreed the Planning Board should evaluate the zoning issue and provide a recommendation to Council. Public Safety Committee Councilmember Wilson reported the Committee met with the Community Services/Development Services committee to discuss Title 19.25 revisions, adopting the updated International Fire Code and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 17 Title 19 revisions, adopting the updated International Codes and State amendments. The Committee then discussed the Building Department's recommendation that all siding, window and doors be permitted and that retaining walls where the height exceeds the distance from the property line be permitted. Another issue is requiring residential sprinklers. In the past the International Fire Code did not require single family homes to have sprinkler systems; this year the IFC recommended single family residents have sprinklers, however, they allowed States to apply the regulations themselves. Washington State allowed local jurisdictions to determine whether to require sprinklers. Developers and builders have opposed this in the past but assume sprinklers will be required at a national level at some point in the future. Options include requiring, 1) all new single family units to have sprinklers, 2) all new units over 3,000 square feet to have sprinklers or 3) all new units over 5,000 square feet to have sprinklers. The Committee will consider options and how remodels would be addressed. The Committee plans to invite fire unions, Ere chiefs, developers, architects, trade unions, etc. for further discussion. It will then be presented to the full Council for discussion. He summarized this is a very contentious issues, jobs versus savings lives. 14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson referred to the Council's discussion regarding a levy review committee, noting it appeared the Council was trying to reinvent the wheel. The Council asked for volunteers last year to serve on a Levy Review Committee and 60+ volunteers participated in four meetings. Staff invested a great deal of time making presentations to the Levy Review Committee regarding City departments and the budget. At the conclusion of the four meetings, the Committee was very well educated on City operations, the City's needs, etc. Although it is a year later, the needs remain the same and the only difference is the deficit has grown. He suggested the Council consider inviting those 60+ people to serve on a Levy Review Committee this year. 15. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Bembeim preferred to have a smaller, more manageable group that could be convened more easily and have less formal discussions. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas commented a lot had changed since last year. One of the main differences was requests in last year's levy proposal for Fire Department related expenditures. She agreed with Mayor Haakenson's proposal, determining how many members of last year's Levy Review Committee would be willing to participate and each Council selecting a couple members. She agreed that may be a way to form a committee more quickly. Councilmember Peterson announced the Edmonds Center for the Arts along with the Daybreakers Rotary was hosting the Jazz Connection on Saturday, May 29. Further information is available at www.EC4Arts.org. Jazz performances range from high school jazz bands from around the region to professional jazz performances. 16. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:58 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 18