Loading...
06/15/2010 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES June 15, 2010 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5`" 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 Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley- Monillas, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Graham Marmion, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Leonard Yarberry, Building Official John Westfall, Fire Marshal Debi Humann, Human Resources Director Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Rob English, City Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder Council President Bernheim requested the addition of a community service announcement from the Port of Edmonds as Item 3A. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY - MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Buckshnis requested Item I be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 1, 2010. C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2010. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2010 Page 1 D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #119247 THROUGH #119354 DATED JUNE 3, 2010 FOR $253,494.45, AND #119355 THROUGH #119518 DATED JUNE 10, 2010 FOR $836,348.05. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #49359 THROUGH #49360 FOR THE PERIOD MAY 16 THROUGH MAY 31, 2010 . FOR $644,533.27. E. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM ABBIE WHITE, WILLOW CREST CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION ($80.00). F. ACCEPTANCE OF LIST OF BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, MAY 2010. G. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH "PULL -A- PART" COMPANY AND SURPLUS UNIT # 234, A CITY POLICE VEHICLE, TOTALED IN AN ACCIDENT. H. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PERTEET, INC. FOR THE SHELL VALLEY EMERGENCY ACCESS PROJECT. J. PROPOSED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH LYNNWOOD FOR VIDEO COURT HEARINGS. K. ORDINANCE NO. 3797 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 10.16, CEMETERY BOARD, SECTION 10.16.050 "FUNDS FOR IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CEMETERY" TO CLARIFY THE USE OF FUNDS CONTAINED THEREIN, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. ITEM I: REVISION TO CITY'S WATER LEAKAGE POLICY. Councilmember Buckshnis explained the Finance Committee considered the City's Water Leakage Policy. However, the change she requested of adding a definition regarding what the City pays for and what citizens pay for in order to make the policy more citizen - friendly was not included. She requested the policy be returned to the Finance Committee. Mr. Hines responded the Committee's recommendations were primarily cosmetic; he intended to incorporate the changes when the final policy was placed on the City's website. He agreed to return the policy to the Finance Committee, noting until the revisions were approved by the Council, the existing policy drafted in 1986, remained in effect. 3A. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE PORT OF EDMONDS. Bruce Faires, Port of Edmonds Commissioner, invited the Council and the public to attend the Port's June 21 public meeting regarding the possible redevelopment of parts of Harbor Square. The meeting will be held in the old Yacht Club building (the building that houses Anthony's Restaurant) at 6:00 p.m. The meeting will relay information provided at previous meetings in November 2009 and May 2010 as well as input from individual stakeholders. A preliminary list of priorities and values will be provided as well as issues and concerns that have been identified by the community. This discussion will help guide the Port in the development of the Harbor Square Master Plan and a proposal for redevelopment. 3B. PRESENTATION OF NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION /COMMUNITY WILDLIFE HABITAT CITY AWARD. Courtney Sullivan, National Wildlife Federation, congratulated Edmonds on becoming the 41s' Community Wildlife Habitat in the nation. The National Wildlife Federation recognized Edmonds and community members who have taken exceptional action in preserving, enhancing and restoring wildlife Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2010 Page 2 habitat and communicating the importance of habitat stewardship to the public, efforts that advance the cause of wildlife conservation and assist the Federation and its affiliates in establishing a worldwide network of thriving communities where people, flora and fauna can flourish. She presented the Community Wildlife Habitat certificate to Mayor Haakenson. Laura Spehar, Habitat Team Lead, Edmonds Wildlife Project, advised Edmonds was the ninth city in the State to receive this recognition. She thanked the 186 residents and 5 businesses who certified their backyards as wildlife habitat. She thanked Sally Lider, the City liaison, sponsor Lizzie Villa from the Wild Bird Nest Store; and the Edmonds Bookshop that sold T- shirts. She also thanked the other members of the Habitat Team. 4. DECISION REGARDING THE MAYOR REPLACEMENT PROCEDURE. Council President Bernheim proposed following the procedure used to select new Councilmembers. It was his understanding that when Mayor Haakenson formally left, approximately July 3, 2010, the City Council President becomes the Mayor Pro Tern for a maximum period of 90 days. If the City Council does not act within 90 days to fill the vacancy, the Snohomish County Council will make the appointment. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the Council had the discretion to determine the process for filling the mayoral vacancy; there were no requirements under State law other than the individual appointed must be a registered voter, a resident of the City for at least one year and may not be a convicted felon. The Mayor Pro Tern fills in during the absence /disability of the Mayor to sign documents and provide direction to staff until the Council fills the vacancy. Not filling the vacancy is not an option; if the Council does not act within 90 days, the Snohomish County Council could make the appointment and if the County Council does not, the Governor will fill the position. The statute was amended several years ago to clarify that incumbent Councilmembers are eligible for appointment. Councilmember Wilson explained during the two prior Council vacancies, as Council President he calendared the appointment not according to a 30 day application period but in a manner to allow the appointment to occur as expeditiously as possible. In the vacancy filled by the appointment of Councilmember Peterson, the process was delayed by the holidays and the vacancy filled by Councilmember Buckshnis was delayed until Councilmember Fraley- Monillas took office to allow her to participate in the interview process. Councilmember Wilson recommended proceeding with the appointment of a Mayor as expeditiously as possible. He noted there was some ambiguity in the executive authority of the Mayor Pro Tern versus the Mayor in a public safety situation or the dismissal of a City employee. The proposed process includes appointment by July 27. Because Mayor Haakenson made his announcement two weeks ago and the Council planned to fill the Council position on July 6, he suggested scheduling interviews for the Mayor's position on July 13 and to appoint a Mayor on July 20. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO MOVE THE CALENDAR UP A WEEK. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with the proposed schedule. Council President Bernheim agreed with expediting the process as long as it did not deny the public access. Councilmember Wilson pointed out due to Mayor Haakenson's announcement two weeks ago, the likely candidates are known to the Council. He clarified the appointment would be made on July 20, candidate Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2010 Page 3 interviews held on July 13 and the deadline for application submittal July 7 at 4:30 p.m. to allow staff time to collect the information and schedule interviews. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed. Councilmember Plunkett disagreed with the premise of moving up the timeline because the Council probably already knew the candidates, commenting he was interested in learning the candidates that were unknown. The original schedule would provide additional opportunity for people to learn about the vacancy. He was less interested in expediting the process and more interested in conducting the process as openly and with as reasonable a timeframe as possible. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with moving up the timeline recognizing Mayor Haakenson had made his announcement two weeks ago, the vacancy had been reported in the newspaper and the 4`t' of July holiday. She also noted the workload Council President Bernheim will incur as Council President and Mayor Pro Tem. Councilmember Peterson spoke in favor of the motion, citing the upcoming budget process, day -to -day operation of the City and to ensure the City moved forward in as cohesive a manner as possible. MOTION CARRIED (5 -1), COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT VOTING NO. Boy Scout Troop 367 Mayor Haakenson recognized Boy Scout Troop 367 in the audience who were attending the meeting working on their Citizenship Badge. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATION FOR A RENEWAL OF A CONCESSION AGREEMENT. THE AGREEMENT IS FOR THE USE OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY TO VEND FOOD AND BEVERAGES. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT JAMES STREET IMMEDIATELY EAST OF THE FERRY HOLDING LANES AND IS ADJACENT TO THE SR104 PARK. (APPLICANT: KALANI KAHAIALII, ANGELO NARCISO, CYNDI AIONA COOK / SHORTS `N SLIPPAS, LLQ City Clerk Sandy Chase explained this was a request for a renewal of a Concession Agreement with Shorts `N Slippas for use of the public right -of -way in order to vend food and beverages. Edmonds City Code Chapter 4.04 describes the concession agreement as a lease of public property or city right -of -way. Decisions to lease city property or public right -of -way are legislative to be granted at the sole discretion of the City Council. Shorts `N Slippas operates a business commonly referred to as the Hula Hut from a small trailer on the public right -of -way at the end of James Street near the ferry holding lanes. They have been in business at the site since July 2008. This is a one -of -a -kind agreement as there are few locations under the City's jurisdiction near the ferry holding lanes that can accommodate a vendor. The current monthly lease is $103 plus leasehold excise tax of $13.23 for a total of $116.23. Staff does not recommend an increase in the monthly lease due to the slow economy. The term of the agreement is one year. Section 4.2 of the agreement states the City Council reserves the right to terminate the agreement at any time upon the provision of 48 hours written notice and reserves the right to seek proposals for the leased premises or any other unopened right -of -way for competitive bids from other vendors at its discretion. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of the public present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas asked whether there was an outdoor eating area. Ms. Chase answered there was not. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2010 Page 4 COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH SHORTS `N SLIPPAS. Council President Bernheim commented concession agreements were available to anyone who wished to provide food service on any City property including parks, beaches, dog park, etc. City Attorney Scott Snyder clarified the concession would need to be consistent with the park plan for each park. This location is unique due to the ferry holding lanes. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. PUBLIC HEARING, FOLLOWED BY ACTION, ON A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) TITLES 1.9.25 AND 19.65, ADOPTING UPDATED 2009 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE AND CITY MARINA CODE. Fire Marshal John Westfall explained the Fire and Marina codes were jointly reviewed by the Community Services /Development Services and Public Safety Committees on May 11. The Public Safety Committee is continuing its review of the Residential Fire Systems and that is not included in the proposed ordinance. The 2009 International Fire Code as amended by the State becomes effective statewide on July 1. This ordinance adopts these codes as stipulated under the RCW and provides amendments that blend the codes into the framework of the ECDC. Additionally, there are some proposed language changes to the ECDC to eliminate redundancy, delete superseded codes and simplify the format. Notable changes to the 2009 edition of the International Fire Code, WA amendments include: Emergency responder radio coverage requirement — every building owner is responsible for ensuring public safety radio communications will operate within their buildings Sprinklers are required in new upholstered furniture sales and showrooms Carbon monoxide detection is required in all new residential multi family residential construction as of January 1, 2011 City changes to Fire Chapter 19.25 include: Testing and acceptance methods for emergency responder radio coverage Restriction of aboveground flammable Class I & II (gasoline /fuel) tanks to 1000 gallons in residential zones • Restriction of LPG (propane) tanks to 500 gallon water capacity in residential zones City changes to Marina Chapter 19.65 include: Slip numbering and pier identification postings Designated operation areas for firefighting purposes Fuel spill reporting requirement Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recognized the importance of fire protection to the community. He commented on the absence of identifiable addresses on many homes in Edmonds and suggested the code require residences to have a visible address. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, suggested the code address the housing of homeless in residential areas and in churches. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2010 Page 5 Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3798 ADOPTING THE 2009 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE AND CITY MARINA CODES, AMENDING TITLE 19.25 AND 19.65 OF THE ECDC. Councilmember Wilson commented the issues raised by Mr. Rutledge were addressed elsewhere in the code. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON JUNE 1, 2010 . RENEWING INTERIM ORDINANCE 3780, ADOPTING CERTAIN PROCEDURES WITH RESPECT TO THE ABANDONMENT, CONSTRUCTION AND AUTHORIZATION OF PUBLIC PROJECTS AND STREET VACATIONS AND DEDICATIONS. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Council held a public hearing and discussed the proposal on June 1, 2010 and voted 3 -1 to approve the draft ordinance, one vote short of the four votes necessary for approval. The interim ordinance confirms that the code is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Board is reviewing the issue and expects to forward a recommendation to the Council in the next several months. City Attorney Scott Snyder recalled at the public hearing Councilmember Fraley- Monillas raised questions with regard to the wording. He explained the interim ordinance mirrors the language in the existing Comprehensive Plan and the interim ordinance does not provide an option for changing that language. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas advised she had obtained the information she needed. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3799, RENEWING INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 3780, ADOPTING CERTAIN PROCEDURES WITH RESPECT TO THE ABANDONMENT, CONSTRUCTION AND AUTHORIZATION OF PUBLIC PROJECTS AND STREET VACATIONS AND DEDICATIONS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 2011 BUDGET. Mayor Haakenson commented there was no bigger immediate challenge facing the Council than the budget and levy discussions. He referred to the current five year forecast that shows an ending cash balance in 2011 of $1,353,000 and a negative ending cash balance of $635,479 in 2012. He referred to questions from Councilmembers regarding budget assumptions and forecasts and comments that a levy is not necessary or that there is no budget issue, assuring the budget forecasts clearly illustrate that a levy is needed and that there is a budget issue. He explained the forecasts have proven very accurate in the past and this was not the time for the Council to reinvent the wheel. Mayor Haakenson explained 2011 was the last year the forecast shows a positive cash flow; the forecast shows a budget deficit in 2012 with the deficit spiraling downward from there. Clearly there is a need for more cash flow or budget reductions. Revenue increases for 2011 are projected at 1.8% and a modest increase each year thereafter to a maximum of 2.4% in 2016. Expense increases are projected at 4.8% which includes labor and all other City expenses. He referred to budget revenue and expense assumptions included in the Council packet, explaining changes to the assumptions of th -1% will result in only a few dollars of increase /decrease. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2010 Page 6 Mayor Haakenson explained his goal tonight was to give the Council two choices: staff and he provide a budget that, 1) shows 2011 projections with the assumption that a levy will pass, noting a levy in the amount of $3 million will allow the City to continue today's service levels through 2013, or 2) includes budget cuts of approximately $1 million assuming that a levy will fail. Mayor Haakenson relayed he has asked Council President Bernheim to identify two Councilmembers to serve on the budget review team, a process that is beneficial to both staff and the Councilmembers. He referred to a 2011 budget calendar in the packet that indicates the Councilmembers' participation on the budget review team will begin the second week of August. Mayor Haakenson summarized there was no doubt in his mind that either a levy or drastic budget cuts were necessary. The Council has the opportunity to pull together to create a budget that is theirs. He invited the Council to provide direction regarding preparation of the budget. He anticipated if staff and he created a budget, the Council would mold it to their desires; he preferred to have staff and the Council create a budget together. He urged the Council to provide direction to avoid staff developing a budget only to have the Council request an alternate approach. He urged the Council to work cooperatively with staff to begin creation of a budget in an orderly manner. Council President Bernheim referred to the comment that a levy in the amount of $3 million would allow the City to continue today's service levels through 2013 and asked the term of that levy. Mayor Haakenson answered it was a one -year assessment, a short -term fix. At Council President Bernheim's request, Mayor Haakenson described the two options he proposed: 1.. A budget that assumes the City is financially stable through 2011 with the assumption a levy would be placed on the ballot and passed. If the levy does not pass, the Mayor and Council would need to determine budget cuts following the levy. 2. A budget that includes severe cuts including layoffs, loss of service, etc. and assumes that a levy does not pass. Council President Bernheim explained if any Councilmember wanted a levy on the November 2, 2010 ballot, the deadline for submitting information to the Snohomish County Auditor was August 10. The deadline for a levy on the February 8, 2011 ballot was slightly before Christmas. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas observed a $3 million levy would maintain services through 2013. Mayor Haakenson explained in 2013 without any further action, a situation similar to today would exist. He emphasized a longer fix than a one -year levy was required. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked if there had been any discussions regarding what a long term fix might look like. Mayor Haakenson answered that was what the levy committee would be considering. He emphasized there needed to be an ongoing infusion of cash into the City on a long term basis to continue to provide the current level of service or continual budget cuts would be required. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas asked whether a larger or longer term levy had been considered. Mayor Haakenson answered he had not, that was for the levy committee to determine. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A BUDGET THAT SHOWS 2011 PROJECTIONS WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT A LEVY WILL PASS. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred that more current numbers be used for the forecast. She expressed support for the motion and a levy in the future. Councilmember Peterson commented although he liked to think if a levy was placed on the ballot it would pass; however, he feared that was a significant assumption particularly in view of the Council's past discussions regarding extending the levy timeline into late 2011 or even into 2012. Unless the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2010 Page 7 Council could reach a consensus quickly, he feared the Council could not afford to make those assumptions. Although August 10 was the deadline for placing a levy on the November ballot, staff needed direction in the next 1 -2 weeks regarding what budget to prepare. He supported moving forward with a levy if not in November definitely in February, reiterating the Council did not have the luxury of waiting until August to provide staff direction. He expressed his hesitant support for the motion. Councilmember Wilson recognized he was among the strongest advocates for a levy but preferred to budget as realistically and conservatively as possible. He recalled the Council took nine unanimous votes in support of a levy last year and subsequently changed their mind. Tonight is the sixth meeting where the Council has been discussing the formation of a levy committee. The Council does not have six meetings left until a decision must be made with regard to placing a levy on the November ballot. He found preparing a budget that assumed a levy would be placed on the ballot about as responsible as looking for an orchard of money trees in one of the City's parks. He was hesitant to direct staff to prepare a budget assuming the Council would place a levy on a ballot and anticipated an incoming Mayor may have his /her own opinions regarding the budget he /she would present to the Council in October. He summarized the Council has not demonstrated the capacity in the past to make a decision regarding placing a levy on the ballot. Mayor Haakenson added if staff prepared a budget assuming the City would get through 201.1 from a cash flow perspective, if a levy failed or no levy was placed on the ballot, the end result would be the same — budget cuts would need to be made. With regard to an incoming Mayor who would serve for remaining 14 -15 months of his term, he hoped that person would listen to staff direction and not have preconceived ideas regarding the budget. Councilmember Buckshnis explained she was not proposing a levy on the November ballot; she was interested in a levy in the future. She commented on the need for reform rather than a rescue. She commented staff received a 5.3% increase last year while many people in the community lost their jobs or did not receive raises. Furloughs later reduced that increase to 2 %. She offered to participate on the Budget Review Committee. She commented once a budget is prepared, the Council will have a better idea of the amount, structure and timing of a levy. She preferred a longer term levy than a one -year fix, an amount that would match revenues to expenses. Councilmember Wilson was also hopeful whoever was selected as Mayor would listen to staff with regard to the budget. However, Mayor Haakenson's request was not to listen to staff but to tell staff what the Council wanted. As a result the new Mayor would not hear staff's advice, it would be the Council's direction to staff. He clarified the City's 2011 budget would already be in a deficit next year and would be spending reserves. The 2009 -2010 budget included approximately $1 million in new taxes and fees and approximately $1 million in cuts such as the Crime Prevention Program and furloughs /givebacks. He would not support an unbalanced budget where annual expenses did not meet annual revenues. He pointed out the City had been spending down its reserves or spending one -time moneys such as construction sales tax from Pt. Edwards on ongoing expenses over the past decade. He urged the Council to be as frugal, responsible and conservative as possible in the guidance they provided to staff with regard to budget development. Councilmember Plunkett referred to Mayor Haakenson's inquiry whether the Council wanted to write the budget or follow past practice of administration writing the budget. Mayor Haakenson clarified it was staff's responsibility to prepare the budget and the Mayor's responsibility to present the budget to the Council in late September /early October. Once a budget was presented, he anticipated the Council would modify it to reflect their wishes and he suggested it would be better to do it together from the beginning. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2010 Page 8 Councilmember Plunkett asked for clarification regarding the timing of a levy referenced in the motion. Council President Bernheim answered the motion did not indicate the timing of a levy and the budget that was prepared did not require placing a levy on the November 2010 ballot. Councilmember Plunkett expressed support for the motion. He state he would like the Council to review the L5 policy, which is the policy that establishes rates for non - represented employees, as well as to review the comparables used to negotiate union employees' salaries. He observed labor was projected to increase 3.5% each year, explaining if that increase were reduced to 2% each year, a $1 — 1'/2 million savings could be realized. He recognized those reductions could not be made arbitrarily and would require review of comparables. Councilmember Wilson clarified the 3.5% increase was total salary and wages compensation including new staff. In 2011 total salaries /wages are projected at $1.3,300,000 and $13,750,000 in 2012 with a 3.5% increase, an increase of approximately $450,000. He pointed out if the increase in salary /wages was cut in half to 1.75 %, the savings was $225,000, not the $1 — 11/2 million savings cited by Councilmember Plunkett. Councilmember Peterson explained he no longer supported the motion. If the Council planned to micromanage details and wait to make a decision on the levy until labor negotiations were completed, the timeline for placing a levy on the ballot would be extended. He preferred to have staff develop a realistic budget that included cuts. That budget would demonstrate to the public what cuts would be necessary without a levy. Mayor Haakenson explained if the Council chose to direct staff to prepare a budget with a $1 million in cuts, they would look to the Council for guidance regarding where those cuts should be made. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas asked whether the assumption was an across- the -board 3.5% increase for staff through 2019. Mayor Haakenson clarified the 3.5% per year increase included labor, benefits, L &I, etc. and was not simply a 3.5% wage increase. UPON ROLL CALL MOTION CARRIED (4 -2), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, BUCKSHNIS, AND FRALEY- MONILLAS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND PETERSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Wilson recalled Mayor Haakenson presented the last budget in early September and the Council adopted the budget in the first week of December. The proposed schedule indicates the budget will be presented October 19 or approximately 6 weeks later than the last budget was presented. Mayor Haakenson responded the schedule should indicate the budget will be presented October 1 or sooner. Councilmember Wilson recommended the budget be presented sooner than October 1. and asked whether it was reasonable to expect the budget to be presented the first or third meeting in September. Mayor Haakenson responded it would depend on the Mayor. The guideline is for the Mayor to present the budget by October 1. Because he would not be presenting the budget and because Finance Director Lorenzo Hines would be new to the process, he anticipated it would be difficult to present the budget by September 1. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised state law required the preliminary budget to be filed by the first business day in the third month prior to the beginning of the next fiscal year or October 1. Councilmember Wilson recalled during the last budget cycle, the Council increased revenue $1 million and made $1 million in cuts as well as additional cuts four months later. He anticipated the upcoming budget process would be very difficult. Mayor Haakenson observed the motion the Council approved was for staff to prepare a status quo budget which would not be difficult. The difficulty would be the Council's discussion regarding the budget. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2010 Page 9 Mr. Snyder relayed the assumption under the State statute is the budget is prepared administratively by October 1. and given to the chief executive officer who then has a month to refine it. The practice of Edmonds' Mayors has been to participate in the preparation of the budget and use the month of October to work with Council. Councilmember Wilson observed the schedule included a request to AWC regarding medical insurance on July 17. His understanding was an 11 -13% increase from the current plan to a similar plan was projected. He requested the group that has been reviewing insurance alternatives provide a report to the Council sooner than July 17. Councilmember Plunkett explained his reference to labor savings of $1 — 1.5 million was over a 5 year period. He acknowledged the 3.5% increase included various factors, explaining if the increase were reduced to 2% for 5 years, the savings would be $1.5 million as compared to the 5 year forecast. 9. CONTINUED NARRATIVE AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE FORMATION OF A LEVY COMMITTEE. Councilmember Buckshnis stated this agenda item was to ensure the newly appointed Councilmember would have a representative and that his /her selection would be made at the Council meeting following appointment as well as to allow the new Mayor to appoint one representative as an alternate. The Mayor's appointment was an alternate as it was hoped the new Mayor would participate on the levy committee. The committee has been announced and the deadline for submitting applications is June 18. At next week's meeting, Councilmember Plunkett will present the guidance and direction that will be provided to the levy committee. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM, TO ALLOW THE NEW MAYOR TO APPOINT AN ALTERNATE TO BRING THE NUMBER OF COMMISSIONERS TO EIGHT AND THAT THE APPOINTED CITY COUNCILMEMBER BE ALLOWED TO SELECT A MEMBER. Councilmember Peterson observed applications were due by June 18 but the structure of the Committee had not yet been determined. He questioned whether applicants knew what they were applying for such as the frequency of meetings, etc. Councilmember Buckshnis answered that information was provided on the application. Councilmember Wilson asked how often the levy committee planned to meet. Councilmember Buckshnis answered once a month. Councilmember Wilson remarked these questions would not have been necessary had the structure of the committee and other information gathered over the past five discussions been provided to the Council in writing. MOTION CARRIED (4 -2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON AND WILSON VOTING NO. 10. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Colleen McDonald, Edmonds, a resident within 300 feet of the block bounded by 218'h, 220'h, 76'h & 80`", expressed her opposition to Agenda Item 13, the request for an exception to the submittal date for a Comprehensive Plan application and her opposition to the proposed change in the zoning of this block from single family residential to mixed use commercial. She pointed out the exception requested was nearly six months after the deadline which eliminates months from the planning and public commentary timeframe. She also questioned the timing of the request for the exception prior to the second of two neighborhood meetings scheduled by Mr. Shapiro. Citizens in the impacted area first learned of this request May 24. In granting this exception the Council would send the message that it was easy to circumvent the existing process by threatening to move a business out of Edmonds, that a business was Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2010 Page 10 more important to the Council and Planning Board than residents in the area, and that the Comprehensive Plan can be modified without following proper process and without sufficient community involvement. The current Comprehensive Plan and zoning allows for focused development on the Hwy. 99 corridor which is the appropriate location for a medical clinic, not in an existing single family neighborhood. She cited from the goals and policies of the Medical Hwy. 99 Activity Center of the Comprehensive Plan, advising a change to allow mixed use commercial as proposed would contravene the goals and policies, allow development to spread beyond the targeted corridor and irreparably change the character of their neighborhood. The Kruger Clinic is interested in two vacant lots within this block and intends to build a 35,000- 40,000 square foot medical facility with 150 parking spaces. She recommended the Clinic pursue other lots available for purchase north of 212'h and zoned for this use. She urged the Council to reject the request for an exception to the submittal date and any proposed changes and to retain the existing zoning and Comprehensive Plan designation for these lots. Kit Shorkman, Edmonds, expressed support for Ms. McDonald's comments. She pointed out there was property available on 212`h & 72nd zoned CG2 that would be a more appropriate location for the Kruger Clinic. She disagreed with Mr. Shapiro's indication that that property was no longer available, advising the real estate agent indicated the property was available. Jessie Beyer, Edmonds, opposed the request by Mr. Shapiro and the Kruger Clinic for an exception to the submittal date for a Comprehensive Plan amendment for the block bounded by 218"', 220`h, 76"' & 80`h from single family residential to mixed use commercial. The proposed change would negatively impact their neighborhood. She purchased her home due to the large lots, green space and existing zoning; any change to the zoning, particularly the proposed 35,000- 40,000 square foot medical building, would change the character of the neighborhood by creating more traffic, noise, and pollution as well as increase crime by extending the effects of Hwy. 99 to the west. She favored the current Comprehensive Plan and zoning to preserve her neighborhood and keep the community intact. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, read from his email to the Council regarding the 2011 budget that recommended the following: 1) do not choose the budget option that incorporates significant budget cuts unless the Council decides not to place a levy on the ballot in the near future, anticipating such a budget would cause significant turmoil including demoralizing staff; 2) have staff construct a lean budget that maintains the current level of service, 3) return the $600,000 in Fire District 1 proceeds to the General Fund which will bring the 2012 ending cash balance to zero rather than a deficit amount, 4) schedule a levy of $3 million in February 2011 which would provide a $3 million ending cash balance for 2012 and could be enhanced by cuts made during the 2011 budget process, schedule a $2.5 million levy in 2013 and a $3.1 million in 2014, amounts that would maintain the ending cash balance at $3 million. If less than the approved amounts are needed, the City could collect less. I -747 authorized cities to request voter approval via one vote for levies up to 6 years and allows varied levy amounts within those six years, 5) if the February 2011 fails, immediately implement a revised budget for the remainder of 2011, and 6) if the Council proceeds with a levy committee, use the committee to devise a strategy to convince voters to approve the levy. The annual tax increase on an average home of a $3 million levy would be $174 /year. Joe St. Laurent, representing James K1ug, the majority land owner on 2201h block of 76th, relayed Mr. Klug's opposition to Agenda Item 13. He displayed a plat map of the block, identifying the property owned by Mr. Klug, explaining the proposed rezone would allow a clinic to be located in the center of a single family neighborhood. He pointed out procedures regarding submitting a request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment were in place for a reason. He anticipated allowing this exception would open the door for future applicants to destroy single family neighborhoods. He pointed out the existence of a creek and wetland in the center of this block that runs under the Legends Estates, above ground in the center of this plat and flowing into Lake Ballinger. He reiterated his client's opposition to the rezone, advising he would fight it. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2010 Page 11 Maggie Fimia, Edmonds, referred to the Charter amendment to a Council- Manager form of government. She served eight years on the King County Council which has a strong, separately elected executive and four years on the Shoreline City Council which has a Council- Manager form of government. Before putting a measure on the ballot, she encouraged the Council and the public to identify the goals for any change as well as viable alternatives including hybrids of these structures. She offered the following suggestions regardless of the model chosen: 1) implement performance measures that measure outcome of identified priorities, 2) require an annual report card of performance measures, 3) form an elected mayor position with a city administrator, and 4) hire a Council Analyst that is accountable and assessable to Councilmembers. She summarized institutionalizing performance measures could provide the foundation for any governing option. Bill Vincent, Edmonds, a resident within 250 feet from the property proposed for a medical clinic, explained the infrastructure in the area was insufficient to handle the increased traffic. There are existing safety issues created by children walking to school along 801h Avenue where there are no sidewalks. He wanted to retain his single family neighborhood and not live in the parking lot of a medical clinic. Cathy Lester, Edmonds, voiced her opposition to the proposed change in the Comprehensive Plan zoning of the block bounded by 218`h 2201" 76`h & 801h from single family residential to mixed use commercial. She was also opposed to allowing an exception to the Comprehensive Plan submittal date. She urged the Council not to allow Mr. Shapiro to short change the residents' right to public process by accepting an application to change the Comprehensive Plan well after the December 31, 2009. She echoed the previous comments made in opposition to the proposed change in the Comprehensive Plan and zoning. She pointed out the impact that a 35,000- 40,000 square foot medical building and accompanying parking lot would have on pedestrians. If the goal was a more walkable community, development of a free standing clinic such as this should not be allowed. The stream on the site flows into a culvert on 220`h; she anticipated runoff could become an issue for downstream properties. Residents on the periphery of Edmonds should not be penalized for living where they do. She urged the Council to oppose the proposed development and other similar developments by denying the proposal to rezone the block. Bill Vance, Edmonds, complimented Mayor Haakenson, explaining he had been very encouraging to his children who now volunteer several hundred hours a year in the Edmonds community. He commended Mayor Haakenson for his openness and his willingness to talk with young people about government and responsibility. He recognized the amount of time Mayor Haakenson spends with young people in the community, encouraging them to be involved and to become active. Acknowledging he may not always agree with Mayor Haakenson's politics, he said Edmonds citizens were fortunate to have had a Mayor with an open door policy that is willing to talk with citizens and in particular to encourage young people. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, a 24 -year resident who has attended numerous Council meetings, opined there were several citizens and Councilmembers who could do a good job as Mayor. He commented on the need to maintain City staff as well as identify funding for 2 -3 additional police officers. He urged the Council to continue to make Edmonds a first class city. He recommended the Council return to the past practice where department heads were available during budget deliberations to describe their budget needs and to respond to questions from the Council and citizens. He commented on the fireworks ban proposed by Fire District 1. Chris Fleck, Edmonds, was opposed to considering a change from a strong Mayor to a Council - Manager form of government, commenting the existing strong Mayor form of government has worked well for over 100 years. In a strong Mayor form of government, the Mayor answers to the voters; a City Manager answers to the City Council. Continuity with a City Manager is less reliable as they generally stay 3 -4 years versus the Mayor's 4 year term. He commented that although it was an issue worthy of discussion, he disagreed with the action by a Councilmember to name a staff member to be the City Manager Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2010 Page 12 particularly when that person was out of town and learned of the proposal after people read the newspaper. 11. UPDATE ON PROPOSED SIGN CODE AMENDMENTS TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION AND CRITERIA FOR WALL GRAPHICS/MURALS. Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin explained in the current code murals are a type of non- commercial wall graphic. When a mural was installed downtown in fall 2009, staff became aware that clarification was needed in the sign code. Staff reviewed other cities' regulations with regard to murals and worked with the City Attorney to draft proposed amendments to the existing sign code. The item was presented to the Community Services /Development Services Committee and the Committee forwarded the item to Planning Board. The Planning Board held a public hearing, recommended minor amendments and forwarded the proposed amendment to Council for approval. The document in the Council packet reflects the changes recommended by the Planning Board. During the Planning Board public hearing a request was made to waive permit fees for murals. To expedite approval of the proposed sign code changes, staff recommends discussing the issue of permit fees with the Council Finance Committee. Whether and how fees can be waived for a specific type of sign is being reviewed by City staff and the attorney's office and will be brought forward as a separate item. Ms. Chapin explained murals are graphics, artwork on a private wall and created privately. Cities regulate murals in three ways: 1. Establish a theme which all murals must address. Toppenish is an example of a city with a theme for their murals. 2. Establish a special City mural program to regulate murals. However, operating such a program requires staff time and money. 3. Treat murals as a type of sign for which a permit and fee are required, the approach used by Edmonds. Ms. Chapin explained wall graphics or murals cannot be reviewed via the permit process based on content or aesthetics. A mural on a public building is considered public art which follows the public art review process. Staff proposes changes to the existing sign code to clarify how murals and wall graphics are handled within the City's sign code. The goal is to establish criteria to ensure murals meet standards for materials and maintenance and generally fit the surroundings as well as to clarify what information is needed for review and the review process. Ms. Chapin reviewed the proposed changes as follows: • Definitions - the definition for wall graphic was broadened to state they primarily do not contain the use of words. • Design Review Procedures - the language in this section was changed to clarify wall graphic applications would be reviewed by the Planning Manager, or designee. A subsection was added with review criteria related to materials, etc. and encouraging applicants to coordinate their design or architectural elements of the building and historic and pedestrian oriented character of downtown • Staff Review of Murals and Artwork — although a separate sign permit is required for each wall graphic, staff may make one design review decision on wall graphics that consists of a related group of murals • Submission requirements — specific submission requirements were added • Review Criteria — a section was added identifying review criteria for design review related to quality of materials, durability and permanence, compatibility of the artwork with architectural elements or other street elements, minimizing lettering, etc. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2010 Page 13 Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Anacortes' theme for murals. She questioned the requirement for a separate permit for a related group of murals when the permit was intended to cover staff time for the permit review. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained there were two processes, the building permit process and design review. Currently, each mural is a different sign and under the Building Code, each requires a separate building permit. There is more latitude at design review to combine the review of similar murals into one design review. A future consideration is whether to waive the fee for individual sign permits and the design review fee. He estimated the sign permit and design review fee were approximately $120. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained staff recommended waiving the fee be reviewed by the Finance Committee as fees are adopted by the Council by resolution annually during the budget review process and are not included in the ECDC. He recommended an alternate fee structure rather than a waiver. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 6, 2010. Councilmember Wilson asked whether it would be appropriate to have a different design review process such as the Arts Commission provide final approval. Mr. Chave explained the Council had two choices, 1) treat murals as signs where content was not regulated, or 2) treat murals as public art which is reviewed by the Arts Commission. Consideration was given to combining those processes but it was not feasible because the sign code does not allow regulation based on content. Councilmember Wilson asked whether private art on a private business could be subject to a non -sign ordinance process that was similar to the public art process. Mr. Snyder responded that would be possible via a zone approach and establishing criteria. The challenge is to create objective criterion that are applicable. Councilmember Wilson preferred a design theme and a review process that included the Art Commission. If the mural was clearly art and not signage, he wanted to ensure the art met basic criteria. Mr. Snyder suggested the arts community, Arts Commission and ADB develop the criteria. Mr. Chave explained one of the issues with such a process was time and difficulty. Review by the Arts Commission was potentially a longer, more elaborate process although it would provide more control over content. Councilmember Peterson advised that option was discussed by the Community Services /Development Services Committee; Councilmember Orvis and his direction to staff was the option in the proposed ordinance. 104 Lei Y to] 61Ky_, 77101IlIL / \►111Lei&I11•h 12. COUNCIL - MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Councilmember Plunkett explained the intent of this agenda item was to allow the Council to determine whether they wanted to schedule a public hearing and potentially a vote regarding changing from a strong Mayor to Council- Manager form of government. He requested staff put the information in the Council packet from Municipal Research Services Center (MRSC) on the City's website regarding different forms of government, the differences between a strong Mayor and Council - Manager form of government and the RCWs regarding the Council- Manager form of government. He explained the Council- Manager form of government would become effective upon certification of the election. The interim Mayor selected by the Council would serve until certification of the election or slightly beyond if a City Manager had not yet been selected. Upon certification of the election, the Mayor becomes the eighth member of the Council for the remainder of his/her term. He was unclear whether an interim Mayor would assume that role, noting that was an issue City Attorney Scott Snyder would research. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2010 Page 14 Councilmember Plunkett suggested if the Council agreed to place a Council- Manager form of government on the ballot, the interim Mayor begin the process of advertising and hiring a City Manager subject to a successful vote. If the election to change to a Council- Manager form of government were successful, the Council would select a Councilmember to serve as a ceremonial Mayor and the City Manager would run the City. Council President Bernheim advised if the intent was to place a Council- Manager form of government on the November ballot, the pro /con statements, ballot title, etc. must be submitted to the Auditor by August 10. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the voters pamphlet statements must be submitted by August 10 or did only the notice to place an item on the ballot need to be filed by August 10. Mr. Snyder advised the ballot title, which he drafts and the Council adopts by ordinance, must be submitted by August 10. City Clerk Sandy Chase answered the deadline to submit the voters' pamphlet pros /con statement, etc. was near the August 10 deadline. She offered to provide exact dates. Councilmember Plunkett observed that scheduling a public hearing and vote at the second meeting in July would provide sufficient time to submit information to the Auditor by August 10. Mr. Snyder explained the Council could also place this issue on the ballot at a special election. Councilmember Plunkett asked the cost of a February 2011 levy and vote regarding a Council- Manager form of government. Ms. Chase answered placing a ballot proposition on the November ballot would cost approximately $20,000 due to the number of jurisdictions participating in the election. It would be considerably more to place a ballot proposition on the February 2011 ballot, at least $80,000 to $100,000. Councilmember Plunkett preferred to place the vote regarding a Council- Manager form of government on the November ballot. He suggested holding a public hearing on July 20 and placing it on the November 2010 ballot. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, THAT THE COUNCIL SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE JULY 20 AGENDA WITH POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING A COUNCIL - MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas asked whether the hybrid option suggested by Maggie Fimia, a part -time elected Mayor and a business manager, had been considered. Councilmember Plunkett responded it had not been researched but that structure could be put in place at any time. He commented the Council could cut the Mayor's pay at any time, make it a part -time position and create the position of an overall city administrator. Mayor Haakenson disagreed the Council had the discretion to cut the Mayor's pay. Mr. Snyder explained the Council could establish a new salary for the individual elected at the next election. Under an elected Mayor, the city administrator's powers would be determined by the Mayor. He referred to Gig Harbor as an example of a city that had a city administrator for the past 20 years. He summarized a city administrator would do only what the Mayor allowed /directed him/her to do. Mr. Snyder explained under a Council- Manager form of government, the City Manager had very definite powers, most of those afforded the Mayor and in many instances stronger than an elected Mayor. Unlike the Mayor - Council form of government, Councilmembers can forfeit their office for attempting to interfere with the administrative functions of a City Manager. If the Council did not like how the administration was running, the Council could terminate the City Manager. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the salary of an interim Mayor could be cut. Mr. Snyder answered any increases provided since the Mayor's term began could be repealed but the salary could not be reduced below that amount. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2010 Page 15 Councilmember Buckshnis cited research that Barbara Tipton and she have conducted and offered to meet with or provide that information with any member of the public. She supported pursuing a Council - Manager form of government, noting there were numerous cities that used the Council- Manager form of government as well as articles regarding the Council- Manager form of government. Councilmember Peterson commented although a public discussion regarding this issue was appropriate, he would not support the motion to avoid the perception that he endorsed the concept of a Council - Manager form of government. He cited the important dynamic between elected officials and the public, noting that although a strong Mayor elected by and directly responsible to the public and Council was not a perfect framework, it was a better form of government. As Mr. Fleck indicated, Edmonds has been governed by a Council -Mayor form of government for the past 100 years and direct access to their elected officials has served the City and citizens well. He preferred a legislative body and an executive body that were directly responsive to the public. Councilmember Wilson explained he taught political science for a number of years at the community college and as an adjunct at a university and his current job was a public policy consultant. He recognized the interest in learning about a City Manager, noting there was little cohesive information. When he taught state and local government courses or American politics courses, he started at the beginning with the Declaration of Independence. The center of American political government is the right of evolution and change. He referred to language in the Declaration stating there should be good reason for changing the government. Councilmember Wilson relayed the following questions to be asked before changing the governance structure 1. Why is the current system failing us? He noted there has not been a case made regarding why the current form of government was a failure. 2. What is so wrong with our current system that needs changing? Although some may not like Councilmembers or the Mayor, that is a personality issue, not a systemic issue. 3. What system is better for the City? It depends on the community. 4. What are the key determinants whether the City should have a strong Mayor or Council- Manager form of government? a. An engaged electorate versus low level engagement — in communities with an engaged electorate where there is an active, opinionated City Council, a strong Mayor is appropriate. In communities with low level engagement, there are typically poor candidates for office and a Council- Manger form of government is more appropriate. b. Political stability of the community — in communities with a stable Council, a Council - Manager form of government is appropriate. In communities with an unstable Council, the new Council majority often fires the City Manager and hires another. In Edmonds, there is an engaged electorate. He provided a comparison of the number of registered voters to the population, voting percentage and voting population to overall population in Edmonds, Everett, Mill Creek and Lake Stevens, noting Edmonds has a higher voting population to overall population than any other city in the State. In accordance with the above determinants, this indicates Edmonds would not be a good fit for a Council- Manager form of government. With regard to the second determinant, political stability, he pointed out after the new Councilmember was appointed, six Councilmembers would be in their first term, two were recent appointees, and there had been a recent shift in the Council majority as well as an extremely anxious time nationally. He summarized this indicated a general sense of political instability in Edmonds. His research regarding the number of Councilmembers Edmonds has had since 2002 compared with Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace revealed Edmonds has had 16, Lynnwood 11 and Mountlake Terrace 13. He summarized Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2010 Page 16 Edmonds was very politically unstable which points to the importance of a strong Mayor form of government. Councilmember Wilson referred to statements made in support of changing to a Council- Manager form of government: 1. The Council- Manager form of government better assures that ordinary citizens can shape and influence policy. This statement is not accurate; diminishing the total number of elected officials directly responsible /accountable to the voters diminished the voice of the citizenry. A professional staff person is typically not as accountable /responsive to the electorate as an elected official. 2. If the Manager is not responsive to Council policy, the Manager can be terminated. In that sense a Manager's responsiveness and performance is tested daily. Councilmember Wilson commented that was a cause of political instability. In an active Council where the majority changed often, staff would be tested daily and the Manager may be removed at any time. For example Shoreline removed their City Manager recently and Mountlake Terrace has removed several City Managers, both are cities with some political instability. 3. Now is the perfect time to put this issue before the voters. This depended on the City's highest priorities. If the City's highest priority was the revenue situation, levy and stabilizing the City's finances, now was not the best time. He anticipated if a levy and Council- Manager form of government were placed on the same ballot, a levy was less likely to pass. 4. A City Manager form of government is better as the City strives to reduce expenses. This is not accurate. City Managers are paid more than staff and the Mayor; they often also have very lucrative benefit packages including a severance package. He pointed out when the Development Director position is filled at a cost of $160,000 /year, a City Manager must be paid more than that position. Mayor Haakenson is currently paid $113,000 /year. If expenses are a concern, a Council - Manager form of government would not save money. 5. Edmonds is one of the few cities in the surrounding area with a Mayor - Council form of government. This is not accurate, several cities in the area have strong Mayor form of government including Lynnwood, Mukilteo, Lake Forest Park, Everett, Marysville, Monroe, Seattle and Woodway; cities with a Council - Manager form of government include Mountlake Terrace, Mill Creek, Shoreline, Brier and Bothell. Councilmember Wilson summarized no case had been made from a social science perspective that a Council- Manager form of government was better. In the case of Edmonds, the key determinants in an objective analysis do not support a Council- Manager form of government. The key determinants of an engaged electorate and political instability support a strong Mayor. The arguments in favor of a City Manager are not accurate and there has been no proof that the current form of government was ineffective. MOTION CARRIED (4 -2) COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND PETERSON VOTING NO. 13. REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUBMITTAL DATE EXCEPTION. For Councilmember Plunkett, City Attorney Scott Snyder explained this was a legislative matter. The Council needed to find good cause. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the deadline for submitting a Comprehensive Plan amendment is December 31 of the previous year. The code allows the Council to waive the deadline for good cause; the burden of proof is on the applicant to convince the Council there is good cause. Councilmember Peterson explained staff presented this request to the Community Services /Development Services Committee. The issue before the Council is whether to allow an exception in the submittal date; Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2010 Page 17 a vote for or against does not indicate a Councilmember's support or opposition to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. In this economy, he suggested the Council consider whether opportunity for development that may enhance the City should be limited to a December 31 deadline. In a climate where banks are closing and credit is tight, a somewhat arbitrary deadline of December 31 may not be appropriate. He assured granting an exception to the submittal date would not change the process in any way; the applicant would be required to follow the same process. He relayed Mr. Chave did not describe the proposal in detail to the Committee because the issue was only whether to allow an exception in the submittal date. Allowing an exception was done by other cities on occasion and it did not mean that any preferential treatment was being given. Council President Bernheim pointed out the agenda memo states Edmonds has traditionally required Comprehensive Plan adjustments to be filed by December 31. He displayed the applicable Edmonds code that states the Council undertakes Comprehensive Plan amendment once a year, amendments shall be reviewed concurrently to ensure integrity of the plan, amendments are to be submitted no later than December 31 and the Council may for good cause allow amendments to be submitted after the deadline. Mr. Snyder advised the wording in the ordinance was from the GMA. He recommended the Council avoid discussing the merits of a project application that has not been submitted and confine their discussion to the request for a Comprehensive Plan submittal deadline exception. Councilmember Plunkett asked if there was a definition of good cause. Mr. Snyder answered there was not. Kathleen Taylor, Shapiro Architects, representing Kruger Clinic, explained Kruger Clinic is seeking another location because their current facilities no longer accommodate their needs and their lease expires in 2012. They have been located in Edmonds for over a decade, all the principles live within the City and would like their business to remain within Edmonds. Although there are several buildings available for lease near Stevens Hospital, the age of those buildings do not meet the needs of a modern medical and surgical facility. They have been working with the City's planning staff since fall 2009, first on another site that did not require a Comprehensive Plan amendment, a site that is no longer available. She assured they would not be sidestepping the process; they welcomed the neighbors' comments and including them in the process. Ms. Taylor anticipated the City would be open to reviewing such an application after the deadline given the City's current budget situation. She clarified they are not requesting a Comprehensive Plan amendment or rezone at this time; their request is simply to be able to submit an application after the deadline and to begin the review process. The property is within the Hwy. 99 Medical Activity Center Comprehensive Plan designation. Swedish Hospital is in the process of purchasing Stevens Hospital and it would be good for the City to demonstrate their support of Swedish and the growth that will occur in the area. She assured their goal was not to diminish the neighborhood; they intend to follow the review process which will include design review and public hearings at the Planning Board and City Council. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas asked why the application was not submitted by the deadline. Ms. Taylor responded the physicians at Kruger Clinic were considering another site which is no longer available. An application was not submitted prior to the deadline because they were not pursuing this site at that time. Tony Shapiro, Shapiro Architects, explained in fall 2009 they were discussing the desirability of this area to be developed with medical -type uses due to the vacant land as well as the proximity to the 2201'' arterial as well as the Medical Activity Center Comprehensive Plan designation on this block since 1995. The sense of urgency was necessary due to Kruger Clinic's inability to secure an alternate site on 72 ad & 212`'' as a result of it having been taken back by Frontier Bank and now its successor, Union Bank of California. Although that site is listed for sale, its availability is mired in complex legal and banking Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2010 Page 18 issues. For those reasons, they were now pursuing the property on 220`". He reported to the Economic Development Commission in February and March regarding the desirability of changing the zoning of the property on 220"' to augment the growth of Stevens Hospital. Medical is a sustainable, green industry the City would like to have enhanced. Mr. Shapiro explained Kruger Clinic's lease expires in 2012 and unless the Comprehensive Plan amendment proceeds this year, this site could not be developed in time. Kruger Clinic physicians are considering other property outside the City including parcels on 220`'' in Mountlake Terrace. They have held one voluntary meeting with the neighbors and plan to hold another later this month to discuss the application in more detail. Council President Bernheim asked the timeframe for the review process if the exception were granted. Mr. Shapiro answered they would submit an application for a Comprehensive Plan change by late June /early July. Following staff's review of the application, it would proceed to the Planning Board for review in August /September and be forwarded to the Council for review along with other Comprehensive Plan amendment applications in October /November. Council President Bernheim asked how many people attended the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Shapiro answered seventeen. Council President Bernheim inquired about the opportunity for public comment/public hearing if the exception were granted. Mr. Snyder responded if approved, the Council's action will be to direct staff to prepare a resolution which would include public participation. Council President Bernheim asked whether the Planning Board and City Council could accommodate this application in their review process and make a decision by year end. Mr. Snyder explained the GMA allows the City to consider amendments once a year absent satisfaction of a very limited 5 -part test and requires that amendments be considered at the same time. If review of the amendment cannot be completed this year, it would be reviewed next year. Councilmember Plunkett asked for further details about the situation with the bank on the property on 72 "d & 212th. Easton Kraft, Blue Star Management, explained the owner of the property on 72 "d & 212`'' is in default on the property. Frontier Bank had the property in its troubled asset pool and was scheduled for a trustee sale /foreclosure in May 2010. When Union Bank took over Frontier Bank last month, all the trustee sales were put on hold while Union Bank assessed Frontier Bank's assets. The property on 72 "d & 212`" as well as several others are in a review process and scheduled for auction in August. Although the property owner is in default, he does not plan to allow the auction to proceed. His intent is to tie up the property in litigation for the next 12 -18 months and emerge when the real estate market improves. The property is currently listed for sale at $3.5 million, nearly double the purchase price when they explored its acquisition. Councilmember Plunkett asked the status of the property on 72"d & 212`" when Kruger Clinic submitted an offer. Mr. Kraft responded when Kruger Clinic submitted an offer approximately nine months ago, the property was able to be sold. Councilmember Plunkett asked who owned the property at that time. Mr. Kraft answered it was owned by a private citizen. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the citizen was asked to provide a declaration that they owned the property free and clear and were able to sell it. Mr. Kraft answered the individual did not make the statement they owned it free and clear but they indicated they had legal title and were able to enter into a purchase and sale agreement. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the realtor determined whether the property owner had the legal ability to sell the property. Mr. Kraft answered the parties entered into a purchase and sale agreement which required a due diligence period. During that due diligence period, they learned of the bank's involvement. Councilmember Plunkett asked why that was not determined prior to entering into the purchase and sale agreement. Mr. Kraft answered that was typically done during the due diligence period. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2010 Page 19 Councilmember Plunkett asked how long after the offer was made did they learn the owner's ability to sell was questionable. Mr. Kraft answered they learned that fairly quickly and began working with the owner and Frontier Bank on an equitable solution for all parties. Councilmember Plunkett summarized an offer was made and shortly thereafter when it was determined there was an issue with the owner's ability to sell the property, the purchaser chose to continue in an effort to make it work instead of terminating the process. Ms. Taylor explained the site on 72nd & 212`" did not require a Comprehensive Plan amendment and the zoning allowed medical facilities. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the doctors learned there were issues with the sale and chose to proceed. Mr. Kraft explained the doctors understood the seller was not current on his payments but at the time it was not in foreclosure. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked whether there was a recommendation from staff. Mayor Haakenson answered there was not. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked the implications in the future if the Council granted the submittal date exception. Mr. Snyder answered requests were considered on a case -by -case basis. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas commented she had never seen such a request granted in the past. Mr. Snyder agreed it had not. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the property was in the real estate ownership of Union Bank. Mr. Kraft answered it was not because it has not yet been foreclosed on. He explained foreclosure auction was delayed when Frontier Bank was taken over by Union Bank. Councilmember Buckshnis asked who currently owned the property. Mr. Kraft answered the title was in the hands of the seller. Councilmember Peterson questioned whether the process regarding the property on 72 d and 212''' was germane to this discussion. Mr. Kraft offered to describe the process in more detail at a later time. Mayor Haakenson asked the size of the current Kruger Clinic. Mr. Kraft answered it was currently 1.5,000 square feet. Mayor Haakenson noted the lease expires in 2012 and asked whether the property owner had a new tenant who would occupy the site January 2013. Mr. Kraft answered he was unaware whether there was. Mayor Haakenson commented it may be possible for the Kruger Clinic to extend their lease beyond 2012. Mr. Kraft answered he was unaware whether they were able to extend. The doctors have indicated the current building is insufficient for their needs. Mayor Haakenson commented if the building was sufficient through 2012, it could be sufficient for a few more months while a project was completed. Councilmember Plunkett asked when the purchasers entered into a purchase and sale agreement. Mr. Kraft answered approximately 6 months ago. Councilmember Wilson explained this was a group of local physicians who have been located in Edmonds for a number of years and the City has been on record supporting medical development in this area including this single family neighborhood. When Swedish purchases Stevens Hospital, there will be tremendous opportunity for economic development such as this. In this economic climate, he suggested the City should do everything possible to retain an existing Edmonds business interested in making an investment in the community. He summarized there was clearly good cause for granting the submittal date exception. He recognized the concerns of the residents of the single family neighborhood needed to be balanced with the opportunity for economic development. Councilmember Wilson explained the question before the Council was not the situation between the bank and another property that the Kruger Clinic had considered; the question was whether the City wanted to retain an Edmonds business that was considering moving outside the City, an Edmonds business that fits Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2010 Page 20 within the Medical Activity Center designation in the area and wants to make an investment in the community. A future question will be whether retaining the Kruger Clinic offsets the concerns of the residents. The question before the Council now is simply whether to grant the submittal date exception. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas commented the issue was the implication of accepting a late application which had never been done before although it had been requested several times in the past. Councilmember Buckshnis echoed Councilmember Fraley- Monillas' concern with allowing something that had never been done before. Councilmember Peterson agreed this had never been done before; however, the City and the nation has never been in this economic condition before. If the City was committed to economic development as evidenced by the formation of the Economic Development Commission and other actions, this was an opportunity to take the first step in considering the request. He acknowledged the application may not be approved but favored allowing the applicant an opportunity to submit an application. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO ACCEPT THE REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUBMITTAL DATE EXCEPTION. Councilmember Plunkett commented the standard for him was not economic development; it was whether there was good cause to allow the submittal date exception. He defined good cause as something outside the applicant's ability to address. He acknowledged purchasers often must make a decision early in the process particularly in this market whether to continue with a difficult closing and possibly lose money, time, etc. He concluded the decision made with regard to the property on 72nd & 212"' was self imposed; the applicant could have abandoned that process and pursued submitting an application on the 2201' property. He did not find there was good cause to grant the submittal date exception and did not accept the argument regarding economic development in relation to a land use decision. He questioned how the Council could justify a decision to approve an exception in view of the requests for exception that have been denied in the past. He described an applicant who endured hardship in order to comply with the submission deadline. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas did not support the motion, and was uncomfortable with making an exception for one developer based on a threat that the business may move outside Edmonds. Council President Bernheim found there was good cause due to the current economic circumstances and because the area is within the Medical Activity Center. He did not find that supporting the exception was contrary to the code because the code clearly permits the exception under certain circumstances. He was in favor of accepting the late application. UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE MOTION TIED (3 -3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON AND PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, FRALEY - MONILLAS AND PLUNKETT VOTING NO. MAYOR HAAKENSON VOTED NO AND THE MOTION FAILED (4 -3). Mayor Haakenson explained he voted no because he did not find it a question of economic development. The Kruger Clinic has an opportunity to use the next six months to determine where they want to locate and possibly renew their lease. He found it a bad precedent to allow a submittal date exception, commenting it had not been done while he was in the City. The deadline for submitting Comprehensive Plan amendments was established for a reason and was fair for everyone. He recognized the code allowed an exception if good cause could be proven but he did not find there was good cause in this instance. He recognized the concerns expressed by the neighbors and was confident they would be addressed during the process. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2010 Page 21 COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 14. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF .TUNE 8.2010. Finance Committee Councilmember Plunkett reported Judge Fair presented an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lynnwood for video court hearings. Finance Director Lorenzo Hines presented a General Fund update for May 2010 and reviewed revisions to the City's water leakage policy. The leakage policy will be returned to the Committee for further review. The Committee reviewed water and stormwater financial rate proposals which were forwarded to the full Council for review. Public comments were provided regarding the Edmonds multimodal project, the leakage policy and water and sewer rates. Public Safety Councilmember Wilson reported the Committee discussed the Interlocal Agreement with Lynnwood to allow Lynnwood to use Edmonds court facilities and video equipment for Lynnwood prisoners at Snohomish County Jail. This will generate revenue for the City as well as assist Lynnwood. The Committee continued its discussion regarding options for residential fire sprinkler systems. At the August meeting representatives from the building industry, fire union, fire chiefs, etc. will be invited to comment on the options in an effort to reach a compromise. Community Services/Development Services Committee Councilmember Peterson reported a presentation was made to the Committee regarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan modification on 220"' Street SW. 15. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. 16. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Bernheim expressed his preference for allowing Council applicants to use the time allotted as they wished such as make a statement and to leave time for questions. With regard to recent public records requests for Council emails, Council President Bernheim pointed out that such requests are burdensome on staff. Mayor Haakenson advised a full -time person had been hired to fill the requests. Council President Bernheim assured he did not want to restrict anyone's ability to request public records; however, the recent requests have been for all documents within a broad category such as all emails to /from a particular Councilmember rather than related to a certain topic or date. This required everyone in the City to contribute their copy of an email, resulting in a huge duplication of effort. Without a specific objective, this type of "fishing expedition" did not justify the thousands in legal fees for the City Attorney to review the emails to ensure no confidential or undisclosable information was revealed. He urged self - restraint with regard to public information requests. Council President Bernheim relayed seeing a neighbor about to wash his car over a storm drain and informing him that City ordinance prohibited that practice. He suggested residents wash their car on their lawn where the soap and other pollutants can drain through the soil. Councilmember Wilson echoed Council President Bernheim's comments regarding public records requests. The request by Mr. Hertrich resulted in his providing approximately 3,500 emails, 100% of the emails from his Council account. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2010 Page 22 Councilmember Peterson suggested Councilmembers have an opportunity to ask questions of Council candidates. He referred to Puget Sound Starts Here, a regional community - outreach program that educates the public regarding clean water practices. He relayed that as much pollution enters Puget Sound in one year from roads and storm drains as was created by the Exxon Valdez spill. Councilmember Buckshnis reported the TGIF forum on June 25 will be at the Senior Center's Young at Heart Dinner and Silent Auction. The cost for the dinner and auction is $25 and begins at 5:30 p.m. 17. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:36 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 15, 2010 Page 23