Loading...
06/16/2009 City CouncilJune 16, 2009 At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Haakenson announced that the City Council would be meeting in executive session to receive legal advice regarding pending and threatened litigation. He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Haakenson, Councilmembers Orvis, Wambolt, Peterson, Bernheim and Wilson. Others present were City Attorney Scott Snyder, Finance Director Kathleen Junglov, Human Resources Director Debi Humann, Fire Chief Tom Tomberg, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 6:55 p.m. The regular Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5`h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor D. J. Wilson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Steve Bernheim, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief Mark Correira, Assistant Fire Chief Al Compaan, Police Chief Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services /Economic Development Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Rich Lindsay, Parks Maintenance Manager Noel Miller, Public Works Director Kathleen Junglov, Finance Director Debi Humann, Human Resources Director Ann Bullis, Building Official Doug Fair, Municipal Court Judge Rob Chave, Planning Manager Carl. Nelson, Chief Information Officer Mike Thies, Code Enforcement Officer Rob English, City Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (The vote was 5 -0; Councilmember Plunkett was not present for the vote). Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 1 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Bernheim requested Items J, K, L and M be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (The vote was 5 -0; Councilmember Plunkett was not present for the vote). The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 2, 2009. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #112046 THROUGH #112198 FOR $1,137,894.95 DATED JUNE 4, 2009, AND CLAIM CHECKS #112199 THROUGH #112370 FOR $913,671.92 DATED MAY 11, 2009. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #48121 THROUGH #48178 FOR THE PERIOD MAY 16, 2009 THROUGH MAY 31, 2009 IN THE AMOUNT OF $828,056.68. D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM KEN BEHLING ($51.0.99). E. REAPPOINTMENT OF JOHN MCGIBBON AND TERRY VEHRS TO THE PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT BOARD. F. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - CONSORTIUM FOR NEGOTIATION OF TRANSFER OF CABLE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT FROM VERIZON NORTHWEST, INC. TO FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION. G. RCW 35.103 ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT — 2008. H. UPDATE CITY STRATEGIC PLAN II. COUNCIL PUBLIC SAFETY OBJECTIVES. 35 11-:1111111 111 . M�A N. ORDINANCE NO. 3741 — AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 6.20.040 TO CLARIFY WHERE JUNK VEHICLES MAY BE STORED; ECDC 17.60.040 VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) TO CLARIFY SEVERAL SCRIVENER'S ERRORS. ITEM J: ORDINANCE NO. 3737 - DESIGNATING THE SITE OF THE OLYMPIC VIEW HOTEL, LOCATED AT 200 SECOND AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, AND DIRECTING THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WITH AN "HR" DESIGNATION Councilmember Berr im expressed support for the Historic Preservation Committee's efforts to designate historical sites, noting the designation identifies the City's historical attributes for residents and visitors. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 2 ITEM K: ORDINANCE NO. 3738 — DESIGNATING THE SANDY BEACH AREA OF BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH PARK LOCATED AT 25 WEST MAIN STREET EDMONDS WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES AND DIRECTING THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WITH AN "HR" DESIGNATION. Councilmember Bernheim highlighted the designation of the sandy beach area of Brackett's Landing North as the second of the three sites designated for inclusion on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM K. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM L: ORDINANCE NO. 3739 — DESIGNATING THE EDMONDS MEMORIAL CEMETERY, LOCATED AT 820 15TH STREET SW EDMONDS WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES AND DIRECTING THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WITH AN "HR" DESIGNATION. Councilmember Bernheim expressed support for designating the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery for inclusion on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. He asked whether there were plans to designate the Log Cabin. Councilmember Plunkett responded it was under discussion by the Historic Preservation Committee and he was hopeful issues could be resolved to allow it to be designated. 1 ITEM M. ORDINANCE NO. 3740 — AMENDING ECDC CHAPTER 19.80 BOARD OF APPEALS ADDING NEW SECTION 19.80.023 AND REPEALING ECC CHAPTER 10.15 BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether a public hearing had been held regarding these amendments. Building Official Ann Bullis responded public hearings were held for the adoption of Chapter 19.80. When the code was adopted, these sections were inadvertently omitted, a scrivener's error. City Attorney Scott Snyder commented since entire sections had inadvertently been omitted, staff determined the best course of action was to present it to Council for approval. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON UTILITY RATE AND WATER TAX INCREASE. Public Works Director Noel Miller explained this was a continuation of the public hearing held on June 2, 2009 in regard to a proposed increase in water and stormwater utility rates as well as a water utility tax increase to fund fire hydrants. He described factors affecting the proposed 16.8% water rate increase: • Increases in the wholesale rates for the City's source of water, Alderwood Water, as a result of improvements to the regional water treatment facility as well as replacement of regional water transmission lines. • Ongoing need to replace aging, undersized and leaking City water mains as illustrated in the current Water Comprehensive Plan. • Compliance with State water loss reduction mandates. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 3 • Gradual decrease in water consumption due to conservation mandates that has reduced water revenues. • Lack of low interest loans and grant programs through the Public Works Trust Fund and State Revolving Fund. He displayed a graph of annual water consumption as provided by Alderwood Water, Seattle and combined Mr. Miller reviewed the primary factors for the proposed 6.81 % stormwater rate increase: The need for additional capital projects to replace aging or inadequate infrastructure and to address flooding damage from severe storm events. Ongoing compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act as regulated by the State Stormwater NPDES permit. Lack of funding for Federal and State low interest loan and grant programs. He provided answers to questions posed during the June 2nd public hearing, noting that in response to public comment, the utility rate study along with supporting documentation was made available on June 5 on the home page of the City's website: 1. What has the City done to reduce water leakage? Beginning in 2002, the City contracted with water main leak specialists to identify leaks with listening devices. Five surveys have been performed that covered the entire water system. Approximately 1/3 of the City's 138 miles of mainlines have been surveyed in each of the five contracts. A sixth survey will be performed this summer. City crews typically repair an average of 12 leaks per year. In addition, approximately 4'/4 miles of water main have been replaced since 2002 due to leaks, to improve water quality and to improve peak flows during high demands. These efforts have brought the City's unmetered/unaccounted for water loss to less than 10% for the past 4 years, a standard set by the American Public Works Association and included in the State of Washington Department of Health Water Use Efficiency regulations. He displayed a chart illustrating that the City's water loss for 2001 -2004 peaked at 15% or approximately 5% of the total water utility budget. Via a combination of water main replacements and leak repairs, the water loss has been reduced to less than 10% or 2.5% of the total water utility budget. Staff seeks to reduce the rate further as long as expenditures to do so are not greater than the value of water lost via leakage. 2. When did the City last raise utility rates? Stormwater rates were increased 7% in 2006; sewer rates were decreased by an equivalent amount, thus there was no net increase in 2006. In 2007/2008, water rates increased 3% with a net combined utility rate increase of 1.28% for each year. 3. What capital improvements are proposed to be funded as part of ' the rate increase? The improvements are primarily water main replacements as identified in the current 2002 Water Comprehensive Plan. The goal of the plan is to replace I % of the water main network annually. Due to other sewer projects, emergency repairs, and staffing changes, the water main replacement schedule has fallen behind. The rate increase will provided the necessary funding to get the replacement schedule for 2006 -2009 on track. The value of the main replacement is estimated at $3.6 million. Stormwater projects will address flooding on Talbot Road and flooding issues on 93`d and 96th Avenues east of Westgate and areas in the southwest drainage basin. Funds are also needed to upgrade the City's utility pipelines under the BNSF railroad at Dayton and Main. Streets. 4. Are the water main replacement projects to be financed included in the City's Capital Facilities Plan? The replacement projects are identified in the 2008/2009 Capital Facilities Plan and the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 4 2002 Water Comprehensive Plan. The annual Capital Facilities Plan will be updated later this year to correspond with the annual City budget amendment schedule. 5. When will the City Water Comprehensive Plan be updated? The Plan update is currently underway and scheduled for completion in 2010. Once the proposed capital projects and associated costs are identified, staff will seek input from the Council and the public. Mr. Miller displayed the overall impact on utility rates. The proposed increase in water utility rates including an 8.7% utility tax increase on water sales is 16.8 %. The increase in stormwater utility rates is 6.81 %. The overall cost increase to a typical single family household for water, sewer, stormwater and fire hydrants is 7.65 %. The estimated monthly impact to an average residential customer is $4.65. With the proposed rate increase, the City's utility rates will be approximately 20% below the State average municipal utility rate. He advised the City has a low income /senior discount program to assist customers in paying their utility bills. He relayed staff's recommendation to adopt the ordinance which would increase water and stormwater utility rates for 2009 by 16.8% and 6.81% respectively. Included in the 16.8% increase in water rates is an increase in the water utility tax rate of 8.7% to pay for the cost of fire hydrants from the General Fund. Councilmember Plunkett recalled at the June 2nd public hearing a water leakage report had not been made available to the public. Mr. Miller clarified the report that was not available to the public until it was requested was the rate study. There has not been a request for the leakage reports. Councilmember Plunkett asked when the rate study was available. Mr. Miller responded the rate study was available on the City's website on June 5 and sooner to members of the public who requested it. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether water leaked into the pipes anywhere in the system. Mr. Miller responded no because the system was pressurized. Councilmember Bernheim explained his water bill for the April /May /June period indicated his household used 250 gallons /day. He asked the average per day residential consumption in Edmonds. Mr. Miller explained 750 gallons equated to one unit; the average residential consumption was 8 units /month. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether the increase in utility tax included all fire hydrants located in the Edmonds City boundaries. Mr. Miller answered it included all hydrants within the Edmonds Water Utility; staff is working with Olympic View Water District (OVWD) on a charge for the hydrants within the incorporated area of Edmonds served by OVWD. Councilmember Plunkett recalled the report that was not available to the public at the first public hearing was the pipe replacement study. Mr. Miller answered the 2002 Water Comprehensive Plan identified all pipes to be replaced during the period of the plan. On June 5 a link was provided on the City's website to the 2002 Plan. The Plan was previously available on the City's website via the Engineering Division. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, commented although this was a continued public hearing, there was not adequate information available at the first public hearing to allow the public to comment. She pointed out the pipe replacement plan that expired in 2008 did not provide sufficient information regarding pipes to be replaced. She was unable to locate the entire FCS report that includes the rate analysis, an updated Edmonds Water Comprehensive Plan nor an up -to -date pipe replacement plan. She summarized without adequate information, she was confused about how the proposed increase was determined. David Thorpe, Edmonds, commented he was an advocate for infrastructure but agreed there was some confusion. He recalled in November 2008 when a 4% utility tax and a 5% cable TV utility tax increase were discussed that would generate approximately $865,000, the ordinance included a statement that the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 5 Council found the tax rates proposed would recover a greater portion of certain costs associated with administrating, relating and providing services. He expressed concern that citizens were continually asked to pay more in utility rates and utility taxes and suggested a comprehensive plan be developed that identified all expenditures to avoid repeatedly asking taxpayers for more. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed concern that the funds collected for fire hydrants may not be used for that purpose due to the City's ability to transfer funds. He suggested devising a system whereby funds collected for a specific use were protected. He recommended conducting a leak survey to identify the location of leaks and to delay pipe replacements until leaks were identified. He objected to an increase in utility tax to provide funds for the General Fund. He also expressed concern with increasing utility rates as well as the utility tax on the increased rates, pointing out the impact this had on citizens on a fixed income. He suggested the proposed increase was excessive and should be reviewed further. Because some citizens do not have the ability to obtain information from the Internet, he requested a hardcopy be available at the public hearing. He suggested scheduling another public hearing to ensure the public was well inforined. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Plunkett asked where a citizen could obtain a paper copy of the information that was available on the City's website. Mr. Miller answered at the front desk at City Hall. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) was in the budget and was being revised as a result of the Water Comprehensive Plan update. For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Miller restated the five reasons water rates were proposed to be increased. Councilmember Plunkett asked how the City's rates compared to other municipalities. Mr. Miller answered on average the City's overall utility rates were 20% lower than the statewide average; water rates would be close to the average. Councilmember Plunkett observed the City's infrastructure was considerably older. Mr. Miller agreed it was older but it was maintained better than other cities. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the pipe replacement plan expired in 2008. Mr. Miller answered it was scheduled through 2008. Due to other priorities, approximately three years of replacements have not been accomplished. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the plans were updated periodically; this was the cycle for an update. Councilmember Wambolt asked where the funds collected for fire hydrants would be deposited. Finance Director Kathleen Junglov answered they would be placed in the General Fund and used for hydrant maintenance. She anticipated the Utility Fund would bill the General Fund for the cost of maintenance for fire hydrants. Councilmember Wambolt asked whether the 2009/2010 budget anticipated this revenue. Ms. Junglov answered no, explaining a State Supreme Court case in late 2008 ruled hydrant maintenance was a general government responsibility and not a utility responsibility. Councilmember Bernheim referred to the comment that the pipe replacement schedule was behind and that additional funds were needed to bring it up -to -date, and asked how the funds allocated for those projects was expended. Mr. Miller answered specific funds were not allocated for the projects; the 2009/2010 budget projected the expenditure needs. There was concern at that time whether the Utility Fund budget had sufficient funds for those projects. He summarized capital costs continue to increase more rapidly than the rate of inflation and it was not anticipated at the time the budget was prepared how much more money would be needed. Councilmember Bernheim summarized funding for capital projects was from the Utility Fund. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 6 Councilmember Bernheim asked why these tax increases were not included when the Council considered other increases last year. Ms. Junglov answered the tax increase was for hydrant maintenance and was the result of a court decision in late 2008. Councilmember Bernheim asked if there was a lawful limit to the increase in the utility tax or water rates. Mr. Snyder answered the tax rate was at the Council's discretion and mirrored the reduction in the rate under the Lane v. Seattle case. Rate increases are governed by generally accepted rate - making procedures. Councilmember Bernheim commented by law the rates must cover the costs of water plus administrative costs. Mr. Snyder agreed, explaining every fund must bear its own proportionate share of the cost; one fund cannot subsidize another fund. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether it was possible to impose a graduated rate structure whereby citizens who used less water paid a lower rate. Mr. Snyder agreed that was possible. Councilmember Bernheim advised the graph indicated the average residential use was 16 units /month. Mr. Miller pointed out billings were bimonthly. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether the budget forecasts assumed the water and stormwater rate increases. Ms. Junglov answered discussions in recent months have primarily been about the General Fund. Additional revenue from rate increases was not anticipated in the 2009 budget. She clarified the funds from the rate increases would be collected by the Utility Fund; the utility tax would be collected by the General Fund. Council President Wilson asked whether staff had considered an incremental rate structure whereby citizens with high water usage paid a higher rate. Mr. Miller agreed there had been staff discussion and that could be considered in the updated Water Comprehensive Plan if the Council directed. The Department of Health encourages an incline block rate where a specific number of units were charged a lower price and additional units for higher consumers were priced at a higher rate. Mayor Haakenson advised several City Councils in the past have considered that option and have always decided to adopt a single rate structure. Council President Wilson asked whether this would be an appropriate time for that consideration. Mr. Miller answered the appropriate time would be during the Water Comprehensive Plan that includes the rate structure to finance capital projects. He advised Council consideration of that Plan would occur late this year. Mr. Snyder reported staff was also in the process of renegotiating the 50 year water agreement with Alderwood Water which will have significant long term consequences. Council President Wilson commented he would be interested in discussing an incremental alternative. Councilmember Wambolt commented higher water consumers were typically citizens who watered their lawns during the summer. He pointed out the desire for a green city, remarking charging higher water users an increased rate would be punitive. Councilmember Bernheim commented the public only learned of the proposed increase in utility rates at the June 2 meeting and because inadequate information was available, the first public hearing was an introduction rather than a public hearing. He disagreed with Councilmember Wambolt's comment that watering lawns enhanced the City's reputation as a green city. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED TO DEFER ADOPTION IN FAVOR OF HEARING ABOUT A GRADUATED RATE STRUCTURE SO THAT THE INCREASES THAT ARE NECESSARY TO PAY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE WILL BE ALLOCATED TO THOSE WHO ON A GRADUATED BASIS USE THE MOST WATER. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 7 Council President Wilson inquired about the timing of the discussion regarding rate structure. Mr. Snyder responded first the Comprehensive Plan needed to be amended and then a new rate study would need to be commissioned based on a change in the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Plunkett asked how a delay to allow the Council to consider a different rate structure would impact projects. Mr. Miller responded the Utility Fund operating budget will drop below the operating needs. Ms. Junglov answered the major portion of the rate increase is tied to capital improvements but there are also operating components. She agreed the Water Utility is beginning to reflect an annual deficit in operations. Due to the court decision, the hydrant costs will be made from the General Fund; the utility tax was a funding source for those costs. If the utility tax is not increased to cover those costs, another General Fund funding source of approximately $330,000 will need to be identified. Mr. Snyder pointed out the Council could adopt the utility tax increase to cover the cost to the General Fund so that the City would be in compliance with Lane v. Seattle which identified the utility tax as a funding mechanism. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE WATER UTILITY TAX INCREASE. Mr. Snyder advised the appropriate ordinance would be prepared and scheduled for consideration on the next Consent Agenda. MOTION CARRIED (5 -1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Plunkett asked the financial impact of delaying the rate increase until a rate study was completed. Ms. Junglov reiterated the Water Utility was beginning to run an annual deficit and the annual surplus for the Stormwater Utility in 2009 was projected to be $50,000 so a rate increase is necessary. She summarized the increase could be delayed slightly to allow the Council to deliberate further. Mr. Miller suggested staff and the consultant discuss the timing and provide a report to the Council. Councilmember Plunkett commented before he could support delaying the increase, he needed further information regarding the impact it would have on the Utility Fund. Mr. Miller advised fire hydrants were currently funded from the Water Utility; funding them from the General Fund would provide some savings for the Water Utility. Councilmember Orvis noted most of the concern was with the water rate increase; the proposal also includes a smaller stormwater rate increase. He suggested approving the increase in stormwater rates. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE STORMWATER RATE INCREASE ON THE NEXT CONSENT AGENDA. For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Miller explained Public Works would not do any additional storm drainage capital projects until the rates were increased. He noted a backlog of projects end up costing more in the long term. Ms. Junglov reiterated the annual surplus for the Stormwater Utility was projected to be $50,000; there would be a deficit in 2010. Council President Wilson recalled the Council reviewed and approved the CIP in spring 2008 but had not been provided an update this year. He asked when the Council could be provided a list of projects staff would be unable to accomplish to assist him in understanding what projects the increase would fund. Mr. Miller answered they were in the 2009/2010 budget book. Staff was in the process of updating the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan and would not be able to provide a list until that process was complete at the end of 2009. Council President Wilson asked whether the CIP was approved in 2008 with the projects funded via available funds or the knowledge that a rate increase would be necessary. Mr. Miller Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 8 answered the CIP was approved with the intent that funds were available; a rate consultant was hired when it did not appear those projects could be accomplished with available funding. The rate consultant determined a rate increase was necessary to proceed with the projects identified in the budget. The primary reason insufficient funds were available was operational costs associated with NPDES. Councilmember Peterson asked whether the City would be in violation of the Clean Water Act and NPDES without the stormwater rate increase. Mr. Miller answered not at this time, noting those costs will be identified in the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Peterson asked whether it would cost more to catch up if projects fell behind now. Mr. Miller answered the rate increases would compound, requiring larger rate increases. Councilmember Bernheim was opposed to the motion, pointing out because sewer and stonmwater rates were based on water consumption, he preferred to consider increases in the stormwater and water rates at the same time as well as investigate a graduated rate system. He agreed the rates needed to be increased to cover costs. Councilmember Wambolt commented the impact to the average resident of the increase in the stormwater rates was approximately $0.58 /month. UPON ROLL CALL MOTION CARRIED (4 -2), COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, WAMBOLT, PLUNKETT AND PETERSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM OPPOSED. Mayor Haakenson advised a graduated rate study would be considered during the rate study at the end of the year. Mr. Snyder clarified the first opportunity for Council consideration will be during the Comprehensive Plan amendment. The scope of work for the rate study would task the consultant with developing a graduated rate increase. 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 17.50 TEMPORARY USES AND CHAPTER 19.05.010 WORK EXEMPT FROM PERMIT, REGULATING TEMPORARY USES AND BUILDINGS. Planning Manager Rob Chave provided the history of this item: • A City Council public hearing was held on March 3, 2009. • Referred to Community Services /Development Services Committee on March 17, 2009. • Committee discussion on April 14, 2009. • City Council discussion on April 28, 2009 and a public hearing scheduled due to changes suggested by the Committee to increase the square footage requirement for a building permit for temporary structures from 120 to 200 square feet which required a change to Chapter 19. • A City Council public hearing was held on June 16, 2009. He recalled the Committee's discussion focused on the threshold for a building permit. The change from 120 square feet to 200 square feet was allowable under the building code but would require an amendment to the residential building code, Chapter 19.05. Mr. Chave emphasized the issue was not just the threshold for a building permit; zoning regulations may also apply. He provided photographic examples of several temporary buildings. Mr. Chave summarized setback rules apply to most structures, regardless of size. Lot coverage rules also apply. The definition of structure in the Zoning Code is a combination of materials constructed and erected permanently on the ground or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 9 and does not include fences or minor improvements under 3 feet in height. He commented the difficulty with enforcement was typically the definition of permanent. The proposed amendments do not address appearance or aesthetics. Building Official Ann Bullis explained the proposed ordinance increases the size of accessory structures exempt from a building permit from 120 square feet to 200 square feet. The uses stay the same: tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses. A reference was added to ECDC 17.70.035 for canopies used for covered storage and carports. The Building Code amendment is only for structures accessory to a single family dwelling, not commercial, multi - family, or industrial buildings. Mr. Chave noted there were two ordinances in the packet, Exhibit 1 is the ordinance approved in March which retains the 120 square foot threshold and Exhibit 2 increases the threshold to 200 square feet. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled the Planning Board was concerned with limiting temporary buildings to 120 square feet and felt a 200 square foot threshold was more practical, the size of a typical "Costco canopy." He recalled the Planning Board did not recommend a 200 square foot threshold because they were informed by staff that 200 square feet was not legal and they must retain 120 square feet. The Building Department now agrees the 200 square foot threshold is allowed for a temporary structure. He expressed concern that the definition referred to structures permanently attached to the ground which canopies were not. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, recalled the problems encountered with citizens constructing tree houses in the setback and was concerned temporary structures in the setback could become an issue. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Council President Wilson inquired about the allowed impermeable surface on a lot. Mr. Chave answered the threshold was lot coverage rather than impermeable surface. He did not anticipate a temporary structure would trip the lot coverage threshold but agreed it was possible on a small lot. Council President Wilson observed there were no punitive measures for exceeding the lot coverage requirement other than removing the structure. Mr. Chave agreed, noting there were no fines unless the property owner did not respond. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3742 AND ORDINANCE NO. 3743, EXHIBIT 2, THE 200 SQUARE FOOT VERSION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The two ordinance titles read as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 3742 — AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 17.70 TEMPORARY USES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. ORDINANCE NO. 3743 —AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC 19.05.010, WORK EXEMPT FROM BUILDING PERMITS AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. 5. PRESENTATION ON 2009 LEVY OPTIONS. Mayor Haakenson advised staff prepared only one potential levy scenario although the Council's resolution asked for two. The packet includes the one scenario, the most current financial forecast, a list Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 10 of items to be included in the levy and a list of starting point cuts should the levy fail. If there were items in the levy request that the Council was uncomfortable with, he anticipated they would simply be removed by the Council or other items added. With regard to a title or a name for the levy, staff deferred to the Council's wisdom. Any levy proposal taken to the voters should accurately and completely detail what voters are getting with a yes vote and that voters should have a good understanding of what is at stake if the levy fails. He pointed out it could easily be assumed that if voters were asked to reinstate certain budgeted items, a levy failure would most likely mean the continued loss of those services. The likelihood of suggested budget cuts today being the same budget cuts six months from now, should the levy fail, was very high but not a certainty. The Council will make the final decision following the levy vote. Should the levy fail, he assumed City Departments will remain at 2009 levels, underfunded and understaffed. He explained significant adjustments had been made to the 2009 -2010 budget allowing the City to survive this year's budget deficit. Many of those adjustments will not be available in 2010 should the levy fail. Programmatic cuts made in March to the parks department and police department would not be reinstated to the 2010 budget should the levy fail. Therefore the return of Yost Pool, Parks Maintenance, Crime Prevention, DARE and other similar programs would be highly unlikely. Furloughs and other labor givebacks that saved the city from layoffs will not be possible in 2010. He expected many positions would be eliminated from every department in the City. He explained it may be easier to consider the deficit the City would face if the levy were to fail. The current forecast shows a surplus in 2010 due to the measures put in place this year and three other changes. He pointed out any budget cuts had a residual effect on future years. The City would quickly drop off to a $750,000 balance in 2011 and then over a million dollar deficit in 2012 with the following years spiraling downward. The 2010 forecast does not include any furloughs, wage concessions, or layoffs and does include all the budgeted items that were cut for 2009. It includes the Development Services Director position open until the results of the levy vote are known or building activity increases. Staff believes the City can go another year without funding the vehicle replacement fund from the general fund and the projection includes revenue from red light camera fines, an item on tonight's agenda. A loss of that projected revenue would equate to a similar reduction in the ending cash balance for year end 2010. He noted all the Parks and Police programs that were cut in 2009 were back in the 2010 budget and would remain if the levy passed. Conversely, should the levy fail, they would once again be eliminated from the budget. If the levy fails, an orderly budget process will begin to make many of the same cuts that were made in 2009 plus additional layoffs, the only alternative to survive 2011. Budget year 2012 will see a much bigger reduction in work force; fewer employees will result in a loss of services and programs. The Citizen Levy Review Committee did their work predicated on a levy amount of $4.3 million. The dollar amount the Council selected in their resolution, $3.75 million, will allow the City's financial picture to stabilize until budget cycle 2015 -2016 at which time the same pattern of deficit occurs. The Mayor recalled Council chose to include in the levy dollars a cash infusion to the ending balance fiend. He suggested Council consider placing a high and low lid on that fund and if those amounts were reached, certain predetermined actions will take place. He estimated a cash infusion from the levy of $2.2 million into the ending cash balance fund. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 11 In addition to continuing to fund programs that were cut in 2009, the levy will add back into the budget many items which have been cut over the past 8 years in successful attempts to balance the budget, operational items that have resulted in a loss of service levels to our citizens. Also included are replacement items such as protective clothing for firefighters, fire hoses, tools and other similar items. Other departments have similar operational needs. Operational needs total nearly $340,000. He recalled in his budget message last year, he spoke about the future of how the City does business: rely more heavily on technology and the internet and less on labor costs. The levy includes approximately $365,000 in technology updates and equipment. Several departments have operated without key personnel over the past several years and the levy would restore a few of those positions. Ten and half employees would be funded with the levy proceeds. The total cost of these employees would be approximately $770,000. The levy would also fund $200,000 in building maintenance projects that have been deferred due to a lack of capital. Mayor Haakenson pointed out the needs were spread over the various city departments; they were primarily operational in nature and have a technology component about them. The City's needs compare favorably to a typical school district operations and technology levy. While school districts go to the voters often for these types of levies, the City never has but now has no choice. A common theme from the Levy Review Committee was that the City has a revenue problem, not an expense problem. While problematic, it is a testimonial to the citizens of Edmonds that their tax dollars have been used wisely in the past and he expected that would continue to be the case. He emphasized the need to submit a levy request to the voters of Edmonds although he questioned the timing. Many entities who were going to take levies to their users this year have deferred them to next year or beyond, believing this is the worst possible time to ask voters for money. Without budget cuts and furloughs, he assured the City would not have survived 2009. The cumulative effect of those actions has a residual effect on our 2010 budget as well, and with the tweaks previously mentioned, and if approved by Council, the City would be on pace to make it through 2010 financially. It would be possible to move the levy to 2010 when the economic forecasts are not as bleak as today. Several weeks ago the City Council authorized staff to begin negotiations with Fire District One for the possible provision of fire service to the City. He clarified staff was negotiating a contract to provide fire services to the city in lieu of having the City's own fire department. It is not "selling" the fire department but looking at ways to provide the same service levels citizens currently enjoy in a more cost effective manner. The negotiations have been ongoing and he believed staff would be presenting proposal in the near future. There have been negotiations at the management level and at the union level. The fire union recently was directed by a unanimous vote of the membership to continue to pursue and participate in, the merger talks. This concept will require a great deal of the Council time and discussion. Although a fire merger will not solve the City's revenue problems, it will take the City farther down the road to financial stability. It does not replace the need for a levy, but may buy time to run the levy next year. The levy request for Council consideration is $3.75 million. The cost to a home assessed at $500,000 would be $243 per year. It will fund basic operation and technology needs which the City simply does not have the revenues to support. If the levy were to fail, the first cuts would be the first cuts that are always made and would get deeper from there. No city departments would be spared and the effect would be a drastic loss of service to Edmonds citizens. He urged the Council to seriously consider the timing of the levy and the Fire District One proposal in their deliberations. Councilmember Plunkett clarified the City could financially do a levy mid 2010 to November 2010 without fire consolidation. Mayor Haakenson answered, according to the numbers in the financial Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 12 projection which include revenue from red light cameras, staff believes a levy could be placed on the ballot in February to November 2010. Councilmember Plunkett asked the amount red light cameras were expected to generate. Mayor Haakenson answered $600,000. He explained if the Council did not approve red light cameras, that amount could be deducted from the ending cash balance in 2010, reducing it from $1.9 million to $1.3 million. Councilmember Bernheim pointed out the potential revenue from red light cameras in the packet was $574,000. He referred to the Executive Summary — Levy Scenario that indicated $592,000 in 2009 and $640,000 in 2010 in revenue from fines and forfeitures and asked if all the revenue was from red light cameras. Ms. Junglov answered the levy scenario did not include revenue from red light cameras, only the Executive Summary - Current Forecast included red light camera revenue. Council President Wilson thanked Mayor Haakenson and staff for the information they provided. He reiterated the Citizen Levy Review Committee agreed the City had a revenue problem, not an expense problem. He commented although the City had utilized a number of bandaids for the past 8 -9 years, those options were no longer available, leaving the City with a revenue problem, not an expense problem. He recommended the City not use up any more of its margin for error and the sooner the Council could determine if voters wanted to fund via increased taxes the full range of services the City provided, the better off everyone would be. He supported placing a levy on the ballot sooner rather than later. 6. PUBLIC COMMENT ON 2009 LEVY OPTIONS Mitchell Stern, Edmonds, objected to including Yost Pool in the levy discussion. He was supportive of paying for basic services such as police and fire. He pointed out Yost Pool had sold more season passes in two weeks this year than all of 2008 and the revenue from season passes and punch tickets to date with the pool opening June 1 was nearly the same as generated all last season from those sources. He summarized Yost Pool had its own blood supply and was a vital, symbiotic entity for the City that should not be touched by politics. He described the beauty of Yost Park, commenting the true value of Yost Pool could not be measured in dollars and cents but in the health and well being of the community. He was confident the Council understood the value of Yost Pool and that its future should not be dependent on the levy vote. George Murray, Edmonds, agreed with the above comments regarding Yost Pool. He reminded voters approved the initial Eyman initiative to ensure there was a review of expenses above a certain level. Although he did not agree with the level the initiative established, it had resulted in an effective process. He did not agree the City did not have an expense problem and recommended the City compare the services offered in 2004 with those offered in 2009 to determine the reason for the 30% increase in expenses. He recalled constantly monitoring expenses during his career; the only exception was during his service in the military. For example, he has noticed City vehicles idling and suggested consideration be given to a program whereby employees would turn off vehicles when they were waiting more than three minutes. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, suggested determining the average amount City employees spent in Edmonds, anticipating if the levy failed, employees were laid off and no longer shopped in Edmonds, there would be a reduction in sales tax. He also commented on the possibility of another levy. Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, asked why a parks and public safety levy was not presented to the Council as a levy scenario. She was supportive of a levy, commenting Dr. Senderoff and she had been doorbelling in support of the levy which has been a difficult sell. She requested updated financial information, noting the last available financials were January 29, 2008. She recalled Seattle successfully passed a parks levy. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 13 Harold Huston, Edmonds, commented Edmonds had the most efficient employees and department heads of any city he had lived in. As an example, during today's Kiwanis meeting, a member had a medical emergency and the aid car arrived within 4 -5 minutes. He summarized that was the kind of service Edmonds employees provided and he did not want that changed. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented although the Citizen Levy Review Committee educated many members of the community about City operations, many did not agree with the original levy amount. Many participants were interested in adding Yost Pool, parks, and senior center so that citizens could see what programs were funded. He was concerned with the possibility of levy funds identified for a specific purpose being moved to fund other programs. He reiterated his suggestion to establish dedicated funds. Finis Tupper, Edmonds, agreed the City needed a levy and that the City had a revenue problem. For example, for the past nine years, the City has provided fire service for Fire District One in Esperance and Fire District One collects over $1 million/year in taxes based on $2.14/$1000 but paid the City $295,000. He pointed out Edmonds residents paid $0.50 /$1000 for an EMS levy which Mayor Haakenson indicates does not cover the cost of service. Edmonds also provides fire service to Woodway, one of the richest communities in the United States, and they do not pay $0.50 1$1000. He urged the Council to support a levy that would fund Yost Pool and the senior center. Councilmember Plunkett agreed the Council needed to discuss what to fund via a levy as well as the timing of the levy. He referred to the positive information the Council has received regarding fire consolidation, assuring consolidation did not mean a reduction in service. Fire consolidation was not a new idea and had been considered numerous times over the past 30 years. Mountlake Terrace Fire Department consolidated with Fire District One several years ago. He suggested the Council discuss the Fire District One proposal and hold public hearings before making a decision regarding a levy this year or next. He urged Mayor Haakenson and Council President Wilson to schedule presentations to the Council regarding fire consolidation. He was willing to discuss the levy but was reluctant to make any decisions until the community had a better understanding regarding fire consolidation. Councilmember Bernheim asked why staff did not provide the second option the Council requested. Mayor Haakenson responded there was very little difference between the two options the Council suggested; the Council could call it a parks levy if they wished. Councilmember Bernheim recalled the intent of the second option was to identify specific items that would be funded via the levy such as parks, the senior center, Yost Pool, DARE, etc. Mayor Haakenson responded the two options the Council presented to staff included exactly the same items. The levy option before the Council is $3.75 million. The Council could dedicate funds to Yost Pool, senior center, etc. and call it a parks levy. The Council can add and subtract items to make it their levy. Councilmember Bernheim commented parks items proposed to be funded include $15,000 for a lawn mower and $68,000 for a parks maintenance worker. Mayor Haakenson advised it would also fund $500,000 in parks maintenance that was proposed to be cut from the budget. There were numerous other items that could be included in a parks levy. Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Councilmember Plunkett's comments regarding fire consolidation. He was concerned the levy would not pass regardless of what it was called because citizens' property valuations were down an unprecedented amount, an average of 10% countywide, some as much as 20 %. Citizens may believe their property taxes will go down because of the lower valuation; however, in most cases the taxes will not decrease, the rate will simply be increased. A resident's property taxes will only decrease if their property value decline was greater than the average decrease. He pointed out placing the levy on the ballot cost the City $70,000 - $80,000. He supported the Council discussing whether to delay the levy until next year. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 14 Council President Wilson commented the course of moving toward a levy has been a lengthy one, beginning in October with the creation of a revenue work group, the Council's unanimous decision in November to include a budget note that a levy would be placed on the ballot in fall 2009 knowing that it was a terrible economic climate, the Council's affirmation in February of a timeline that culminated with a levy this fall, the formation of the Citizens Levy Review Committee, and presentations from the CLRC that unanimously supported a fall levy. He agreed the Council needed to discuss consolidation /contracting with Fire District One, anticipating the Council would not complete discussions regarding fire consolidation before the July 28 deadline to place the levy on the November ballot. He summarized there was not a great deal of time to preempt the levy decision and suggested they be considered in parallel tracks. Councilmember Orvis agreed with Councilmembers Plunkett and Wambolt that the Council needed more information regarding fire consolidation before moving forward with the levy. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the adjustments Mayor Haakenson made to the budget recently gave him more confidence that the City could get through 2010. Mayor Haakenson responded as a result of severe actions such as budget cuts and City employees taking furloughs, dollars saved in 2009 had an accumulative effect in 2010 which improved the ending cash balance for 2010. Councilmember Peterson agreed with the suggestion to discuss the levy and fire consolidation on parallel tracks. With the new information regarding fire consolidation, he was open to considering a levy this year or next year. Whether the levy was this year or next, the City still had very serious revenue issues. If the Council chose not to place a levy on the ballot this year, it must be for the right reasons. Council President Wilson commented he had hoped the Council would reach a preferred levy option at the next Council meeting with a final decision on July 21. He suggested a presentation and discussion on the Fire District One contracting at the July 7 meeting. Mayor Haakenson advised staff was meeting with Fire District One on June 25 and could have information to present to the Council by the July 7 meeting. Councilmember Plunkett expressed his preference to wait until after the fire consolidation presentation /discussion to make a decision regarding the levy. Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Councilmember Plunkett, commenting fire consolidation was not necessary to delay the levy until 2010. Council President Wilson pointed out although there was an adequate ending cash balance into 2010, delaying the levy means there was no Development Services Director, a short- staffed City Clerk's Office, and no clear plan to fund Yost Pool. Mayor Haakenson pointed out a levy was needed; whether it was in November 2009 or in 2010 was up to the Council. A levy was needed even if the city contracted for fire services with Fire District One; those were two separate issues. He did not anticipate a substantial increase in building activity that would require hiring a Development Services Director in the near future. With regard to Yost Pool, staff intends to issues a RFP this summer to identify parties interested in operating Yost Pool via a public /private partnership. He expressed concern the Council would shortchange themselves if they waited until July 21 to discuss the levy proposal and make a final decision July 28. He suggested discussing the levy proposal at next week's meeting including what items would be included in the levy, the levy title, etc. Alternatively he suggested the Council discuss at next week's meeting whether to proceed with a levy this year or delay it until next year. Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Mayor Haakenson's suggestion to discuss at next week's meeting whether to proceed with a levy this year. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 15 Councilmember Bernheim relayed 6 -8 months ago he spoke with Redmond's Mayor who explained after a general operations levy failed a few years ago, they wised up and placed a parks levy on the ballot that passed. He agreed with Washington voters when they approved Eyman's initial initiative, they were expressing support for voting more often on tax increases rather than legislators approving them without voter approval. As a fiscally responsible person, he supported a levy that would address future revenue needs rather than delaying the inevitable. If the levy did not pass, the Council had the option to learn from that experience and possibly place a parks levy on the ballot in the future. Council President Wilson commented approximately 50% of the $1.5 million in the levy goes to parks and public safety for firefighters protective clothing, air compressor to fill firefighters tanks, fire hose replacement, ALS equipment, and replacement tools and equipment. The cuts that would be in place if the levy fails total $860,000 and approximately 60% are parks and public safety such as funding park maintenance, Yost Pool, the flower program, and seasonal landscaping. If the levy is delayed, those cuts may not be backfilled or incurred as planned such as the senior center funding. He summarized there was a cost to delaying the levy. Mayor Haakenson clarified none of those cuts were factored into the 2010 budget scenario, they were funded in the 2010 budget scenario. If the levy failed in November 2009, they would be cut in 2010. He summarized the cuts Council President Wilson mentioned would be effective in 2011 . if the levy failed in 2010. Council President Wilson commented without the red light camera revenue, the ending cash balance in 2010 is $1.3 million, far below the desired ending cash balance of $5 million and an amount that hinders the City's bond rating. Councilmember Plunkett commented the ending cash balance was $3.3 million if the emergency reserve was included. Council President Wilson noted the Council voted to retain that amount for emergencies. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS George Murray, Edmonds, thanked the Edmonds Beacon for editing his letter. He recognized Councilmember Wambolt for his informative article regarding Chapter 20. His primary concern with the changes to Chapter 20 was it was an exclusive action by the Council rather than inclusive. He suggested the Council use the Edmonds Beacon and the members of the Citizen Levy Review Committee to educate the public about the Council's discussion regarding the levy. He referred to the recently promoted Sergeant Bob Barker, commenting Edmonds was lucky to have a person with his experience and knowledge but he questioned the timing of the promotion due to the expense. Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, recalled after expressing concern with the professional services agreement with Rick Jenness, specifically the lack of a competitive bid process and the $135 /hour fee, she was assured it would be reviewed by the full Council. The contract is now presented to the Council with discretionary authority and was not subject to a bid. She raised several concerns regarding the contract including that Mr. Jenness has been paid ad hoc for some time, the information he provided was inadequate, and there was no business plan or proforma, revenue or expense projections, or why this was a good deal for the city. She summarized the contract was extremely advantageous to Mr. Jenness and he was being given carte blanche approval until 2010 when the contract expires when it was unknown whether the City would prevail in the lawsuit. Fred Gouge, Port of Edmonds Commissioner, reported Commissioner Mary Lou Block and he met with Stephen Clifton to discuss the input the Port and the City plan to provide on the Puget Sound Regional Council Transportation 2040 Draft EIS to ensure there is a consistent message. The Port's primary concern is traffic flow and safety crossing tracks with increased ferry and train traffic. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 16 Al Rutledge, Edmonds, reported he saw Mike Howard, a former Edmonds Fire Department employee, who was now a volunteer in Gold Bar. He reported on a District 1 meeting held in Bothell. He reminded of the Arts Festival this weekend. Kevin Morrison, Edmonds, referred to the Interlocal Agreement — Consortium for Negotiation of Transfer of Cable Franchise Agreement from Verizon to Frontier Communications (Consent Agenda Item F), expressing concern with financial problems of other Verizon spinoff companies. He urged the City to research and obtain assurances that Frontier was cable of sustaining and growing a competitive cable service. Mayor Haakenson responded he shared Mr. Morrison's concerns. Frontier's CEO and staff visited Edmonds recently and assured they were much better financed than the other companies and had a good business plan in place. Edmonds is working with a consortium of other cities in South Snohomish County. Harold Huston, Edmonds, commented when walking to Chantrelle Restaurant recently, his wife was nearly knocked down by a bicyclist riding on the sidewalk. He expressed concern with bicycles and skateboards using sidewalks and urged the Council to consider posting signs stating no skateboarding or bicycling on sidewalks near 5th & Main and on Sunset. Jack Bevan, Edmonds, introduced the new Port Executive Director Bob McChesney. He urged the Council to get acquainted with Mr. McChesney, noting the importance of the Port to citizens. Robert Rine, Edmonds, commented on the overall health of the community, noting the most important part of a city was its people. He shared his journey to find the wisest of his father's generation, noting he often meets with them for discussion and study. He relayed a railroad retiree he employed at the theater was forced out of the city by tax increases. He expressed concern with the effect tax increases had on seniors. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, opined revenue from red light cameras was money for the City, not for safety. Next, he expressed concern that little had happened since the Citizen Levy Review Committee meetings and the Council spent most of their time discussing plastic bags. He anticipated if the Council . had continued their discussion regarding the levy after the CLRC meetings, they may have reached a decision by now. With regard to Councilmember Wambolt's comment that the building heights on the Skipper's property would not be seven stories, Mr. Hertrich assured building heights were a continuing issue in the City and both Councilmembers Wambolt and Peterson were in favor of raising building heights on the waterfront. He referred to Councilmember Wambolt's recent newspaper article and recommended Councilmembers running for office not submit comments to the newspaper. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:45 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Wambolt clarified his comment was that seven stories could not be constructed on the Skipper's site without Council approval. He pointed out the newspaper decided what to print and they plan to print an article from his opponent this week. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. With regarding to Mr. Hertrich's comment regarding the work done by the Council following the Citizen Levy Review Committee meetings, Council President Wilson explained the CLRC meetings culminated on April 13. On April 21, the eight groups made presentations to the Council. On May 19 the Council passed a resolution that led to the creation of an Economic Development Commission for which the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 17 Council is currently accepting applications. The ordinance forming that Commission was passed on June 2. On May 19 the Council also drafted a resolution and took public comment on May 26 regarding the size and scope of levy options which was how the $3.75 million amount was determined. He assured Mr. Hertrich the Council had not been dawdling and although there had been numerous headlines regarding plastic bags, the Council had been moving through the levy process. 8. RED LIGHT CAMERA INSTALLATION Assistant Police Chief Gerry Gannon explained the Police Department and Traffic Engineer Bertrand Hauss researched red light cameras to reduce the severity of collisions within the City. Mr. Hauss' initial analysis of intersection collisions found there were three intersections of concern: 238th Street SW & SR99, 220th Street SW & SR99, and 100th Avenue W & SR104. The Council authorized staff to contract with American. Traffic Solutions (ATS) to provide a survey of the intersections. The surveys determined two intersections met the criteria for red light cameras: 220th Street SW & SR99 for westbound traffic and 100th Avenue W & SRI 04 for westbound traffic. ATS conducted two surveys of the intersections. The first survey conducted during October 2008 for westbound 220th Street SW at SR99 showed a total of 29 violations for westbound traffic (6 left, 2 straight, and 21 right turn). A second survey was conducted during March 2009 that showed a total of 27 violations (2 left, 1 straight, and 24 right turn). He noted ATS sets the system to capture right turn violations at a speed of 5+ mph. The first survey conducted during October 2008 for westbound SRI 04 at 100th Avenue W showed a total of 11 violations (2 left, 3 straight, and 6 right). The March 2009 survey of the same intersection showed a significant decrease in violations, only 2 violations (1 straight and 1 right). He noted the concern was with right angle collisions at intersections which are the most severe. Surveys indicate those types of accidents and the severity of injuries decrease with the installation of red light cameras. Installation of the red light cameras is cost neutral for the City. ATS covers all permit and installation costs of the cameras. For its services ATS will receive $4,750 per camera each month. This equates to 1.27 notices of infraction each day per location. The State of Washington allows the camera system to photograph the rear of the violator's vehicle only. The system also captures a short video of the vehicle prior to the red light violation showing the movement of the vehicle through the intersection. The penalty will be $124 and is sent to the registered owner. The violation is considered a parking ticket and does not affect the person's driving record. The Police Department will designate a number of officers to review all violations. Once violations have been reviewed by the officer and a determination made whether it is a violation, they will be forwarded to ATS for processing. That information will then be forwarded to the Municipal Court. The cameras can have a significant effect on the court due to the increase in violations captured by the cameras. Councilmember Bemheim asked whether the Public Safety Committee recommended this be presented to the Council. Assistant Chief Gannon advised Mayor Haakenson requested it be moved forward to the full Council for review. Councilmember Bernheim commented the Public Safety Committee had not yet completed its review. Assistant Chief Gannon recalled he was asked to provide any further surveys; his research determined Seattle was the only local jurisdiction that has completed a survey. Their survey was completed in 2005 and they have added approximately 25 -30 cameras. Lynnwood has not conducted a survey after the first year of use. Council President Wilson asked about the threshold for red light cameras, observing the intersection of SRI 04 at 100th Ave. W had 6 violations in one study and 2 in another. Assistant Chief Gannon stated the first study had 11 violations, the second had 2. Council President Wilson asked if 2 violations met the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 18 threshold. Assistant Chief Gannon stated the contract with ATS for the surveys would have authorized them to install cameras at SRI 04 at 100th Avenue West because 11 violations met their criteria. Councilmember Peterson asked what other regional cities had similar programs. Bill Crosky, American Traffic Solutions, stated there were approximately 20 Washington cities with red light camera programs or in the process of installing including Spokane, Seattle, Renton, Tacoma, Auburn, Lake Forest Park, Bellevue, Everett, Lynnwood, Lakewood, and Vancouver. Councilmember Peterson asked if they all contracted with ATS. Dr. Crosky responded 14 were with ATS and the others were with another vendor. Councilmember Peterson asked if different vendors were considered. Assistant Chief Gannon advised the City was able to utilize Seattle's contract with ATS. Council President Wilson asked if the threshold was per camera. Assistant Chief Gannon responded the only direction at 220`h at SR99 and SRI 04 at 100th Avenue West that met the criteria were westbound. Councilmember Wambolt referred to emails from citizens that the purpose of the red light cameras was not for safety but to raise revenue. He inquired about the accident rate at those intersections. Assistant Chief Gannon responded the concern with vehicles running red lights was right angle collisions; the collision rate for the years surveyed was not significant, ten at the most at one of the intersections. Councilmember Wambolt asked whether cities were installing red light cameras primarily to raise revenue. Dr. Crosky answered no, recalling few cities even discussed revenue from the cameras. He pointed out in states such as Tennessee and New York where there are a significant number of red light cameras, the ticket is $50; the city receives $10 -12 per ticket. He recalled the press reported Seattle made $1 million the first year; however, violations at the intersections where red light cameras were installed were down 50 %. He noted cities did not install red light cameras for the money as revenue from the program would decline over time. He assured no city would get rich off photo enforcement. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO REJECT THE IDEA AT THIS TIME. Councilmember Bernheim expressed disappointment that the voluminous academic material arguing that red light cameras did not reduce accidents at intersections was not included in the Council packet. He was also disappointed he had not had the opportunity to discuss with Lynnwood or Seattle their experience in that regard. He summarized the jury was out with regard to the effectiveness of red light cameras and he was hesitant to take action without further review by the Public Safety Committee. Councilmember Bernheim referred to Dr. Crosky's comment that no city would get rich off photo enforcement, noting the context in which this was presented was the $575,000 that Mayor Haakenson claimed would fill a gap in the budget. He noted Olympia recently postponed the concept of red light cameras. Although 20 cities in Washington have installed red light cameras, he questioned how many cities had considered it and not proceeded. He was interested in traffic safety and preferred to have an officer with radar stationed at problem intersections rather than photo enforcement. He did not support raising revenue via gambling or red light cameras. Council President Wilson recalled he voted against this when it was originally proposed, commenting this was not the type of business the City wanted to be in. He agreed there was a great deal of information provided to the Public Safety Committee that was not provided to the Council and there were several outstanding questions at the Public Safety Committee. He recalled a question was raised at the Public Safety Committee whether red light cameras increased safety, noting studies were presented that indicated the cameras actually increased accidents. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 19 Councilmember Wambolt questioned whether the cameras should be rejected or referred to staff for further information. Mayor Haakenson explained the reason the cameras were presented to the full Council was it had been before the Public Safety Committee numerous times and all the information available has been presented. He assured he was not a proponent or opponent of red light cameras; he simply wanted to conclude the discussion. He pointed out 20 of the largest cities in Washington found the program acceptable and anticipated there were few cities over 10,000 population who had not installed red light cameras. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence across the country is red light cameras reduce accidents. He pointed out Seattle was collecting little revenue from red light cameras now because drivers were abiding by the law which was the intended goal of the cameras. Councilmember Wambolt inquired about the disadvantage of installing red light cameras. Councilmember Bernheim responded there were many academic studies that found traffic cameras increased rear end collisions at intersections as well as increased insurance costs. He noted these were the questions Councilmember Peterson and he were attempting to address at the Public Safety Committee when this was scheduled on the Council agenda in what he considered to be a hasty effort to attract a positive vote via the $575,000 in revenue. He summarized the surveys did not find a significant problem and overwhelmingly identified right hand turn violations. Councilmember Bemheim recalled speaking to a Police Chief in Georgia after their City Council ended the red light program who indicated safety concerns at intersections could be increased by lengthening the time of the yellow light. Councilmember Peterson commented on the difference in driving habits around the United States which was the reason he inquired about the preponderance and effectiveness of red light cameras in the region. He asked if there was additional statistical analysis available from ATS or other vendors. Dr. Crosky commented for every negative article there were 30 positive articles. He suggested the City contact Puyallup or Federal Way who have recently published articles regarding the reduction in violations and accidents and additional cameras they have installed. He offered to send the City endorsements by Police and Engineering Departments, assuring photo enforcement programs improved safety. Councilmember Peterson commented without further review by the Public Safety Committee he was uncertain that the Council would make the right decision tonight. He suggested obtaining additional regional evidence from Federal Way and Puyallup such as the percentage of reduction in accidents. Council President Wilson agreed with Councilmember Peterson, expressing a desire for data from cities where the program has not been successful. Councilmember Wambolt asked the minimum term of the program. Assistant Chief Gannon advised it was five years; the first year is a pilot project. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS BERNHEIM, WAMBOLT, AND PLUNKETT IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND PETERSON OPPOSED. 9. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RICK JENNESS. In response to a question posed by Diane Buckshnis regarding a lack of competitive bids, Mayor Haakenson explained the Council- approved City purchasing policy allows the department director and mayor or his designee to approve purchases of professional services costing more than $50,000 but less than $100,000. The Mayor is authorized to sign the contract provided funds have been budgeted. Funds for a professional services agreement with Mr. Jenness have been budgeted in the 2009 and 2010 budget. There is no competitive bid requirement for the procurement of professional services. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 20 With regard to transparency, Mayor Haakenson pointed out the Citizen Technology Advisory Committee (CTAC) has been working on the fiber project for approximately five years and there have been numerous reports to the City Council regarding their efforts. With regard to Ms. Buckshnis' comment that funds have been expended in the past, Mayor Haakenson acknowledged slightly over $5,000 was budgeted and spent in 2006; $33,000 was budgeted and spent in 2007; $30,000 was budgeted and spent in 2008 and thus far in 2009 a total of $10,125 has been spent. He summarized the Council approved all invoices in the budget as well as approved expenditures as they occurred. Mayor Haakenson advised he received an email from a member of the CTAC who was approached by a citizen claiming the company names listed in Mr. Jenness' proposal were questionable and were companies whose license had expired. The person also claimed the Council had been meeting in Executive Session and must be trying to cover it up. Mayor Haakenson advised the Council had met in Executive Session regarding the test case because it was a legal issue. Mr. Jenness' contract has never been discussed by the Council in Executive Session. Another allegation was made that the contract was open - ended. Mayor Haakenson advised the contract before the Council identified the cost and provided an opportunity for the Council to cancel the contract. The final allegation was the City would encounter legal problems if they proceeded with competing with another system. Mayor Haakenson advised the City was a long way from competing with Verizon -type companies. The Council was well aware of the goals of the fiber program and it had been a very transparent process. Councilmember Wambolt advised the agreement could be terminated with ten days notice. Councilmember Plunkett recalled this issue arose several weeks ago and was surprised citizens had not availed themselves of the three excellent outlines regarding the program, information that was readily available. He recalled there were originally nine vendors under consideration. Chief Information Officer Carl Nelson clarified there were nine respondents to the original RFI for a citywide buildout. He advised Mr. Jenness has provided services on an ad hoc basis over the past several years. It was determined a professional services agreement would be appropriate. Mr. Jenness is working with the City Attorney on the test case. Councilmember Plunkett commented some citizens may be confused by buildout versus the incremental steps that are being taken now. He assured this was a phased project and was a long way from buildout. He noted government and educational contracts may begin netting funds by the end of next year. Mr. Nelson agreed opportunities to use the incremental fiber assets to generate revenues were being explored. Councilmember Wambolt referred to concerns that Mr. Jenness could do whatever he wanted, pointing out the CTAC met at least monthly to review his efforts. Councilmember Bernheim stated the cover memo refers to a professional services agreement with Rick Jenness but the contract is with Procom System, Inc., d/b /a Procom System Integration Solutions. He advised his research did not find any record of Procom System, Inc. or d/b /a Procom System Integration Solutions in Washington. Mr. Jenness advised the corporate name is Procom Industries, Inc. The Secretary of State or Department of Licensing lists it as Procom Industries, Inc. A predecessor, Procom Industries Incorporated, is shown as inactive. A new UBI number was created in 2003 during estate planning that created a second record. He assured Procom System Integration Solutions was a legal dba. City Attorney Scott Snyder observed the signature line did not match the entity identified in the contract. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 11:15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 21 Council President Wilson suggested the contract be revised so that the company name in the document matched the signatory page. Councilmember Bernheim assured he supported the fiber optics project. He referred to the $75,000 cap which would provide for 555 hours primarily to identify potential government and education agencies. He suggested reducing the maximum amount to $50,000 with the proviso it could be increased if more work was available. Mr. Jenness pointed out the contract could be cancelled in ten days if the Council or Mayor were dissatisfied with his performance. He commented the annual budget was approximately $50,000 for 2009 and 2010. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RICK JENNESS WITH THE COMPANY NAMES MADE CONSISTENT. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED TO AMEND THE CAP TO $50,000. MOTION TO AMEND DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. VOTE ON MAIN MOTION: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 711[ �1►`[�Z(111`ZKI11�►[�I1- �[Kil►/ 1► I V W 101405 191511 Y 1►[13.Y�7�11I11 19 ' hhi� Community Services/Development Services Committee Councilmember Orvis reported the Committee was provided a report on the status of a request by Carla Elder regarding a home addition initially started in Snohomish County prior to annexation. City Attorney Bio Park advised this could be addressed via an interim ordinance. Next, staff described the Stormwater Code and Illicit Discharge Code updates. The Stormwater Code update will allow more choices for homeowners when remodeling or redeveloping their property. The final item discussed by the Committee was scrivener's errors in ECDC 6.20.040 and ECC 17.60.040 which will be scheduled for adoption on a future Consent Agenda. Finance Committee Councilmember Plunkett reported staff provided the Committee an update regarding the Alderwood Water Supply Agreement negotiations. The City Attorney is reviewing the contract; staff will provide periodic updates to the Committee. The Committee was also provided a General Fund report for the month ending May 31, 2009. Public Safety Committee Councilmember Peterson reported in addition to the RCW 35.103 Annual Compliance Report and update of the City Strategic Plan, the Committee was informed the City's Fire Department volunteer program was being discontinued. The remaining volunteers will continue their service with Fire District 1. He noted the City's Fire Department was formed in 1912. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson relayed City staff and Councilmembers have received numerous phone calls regarding questionable apparel at a local coffee shop. This is a statewide issue and the ACLU is involved; City Attorney Scott Snyder, the Prosecuting Attorney, and the Police Department are also working on the issue. Mr. Snyder will provide the Council a report at a future meeting. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Wilson announced the Council was accepting applications for appointment to the Citizens Economic Development Commission, a group developed as a result of the Citizens Levy Review Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 22 Committee that will be tasked with developing ideas on how best to expand commercial and economic development in Edmonds. He encouraged citizens to submit their applications by June 30 to Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman at 5pe a.us. :�Ilman �ciedrn�onds.w� 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:08 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 16, 2009 Page 23