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