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