07/21/2009 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
July 21, 2009
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
D. J. Wilson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Steve Bemheim, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
Mark Correira, Assistant Fire Chief
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services /Economic
Development Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Rich Lindsay, Parks Maintenance Manager
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Ann Bullis, Building Official
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Carl Nelson, CIO
Rob English, City Engineer
Kernen Lien, Associate Planner
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Mayor Haakenson requested a Report by the City Attorney on the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine on Building
Applications be added as Item 5B.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 7, 2009.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #1.12735 THROUGH #112922 DATED JULY 9, 2009 FOR
$322,062.87, AND CLAIM CHECKS #112923 THROUGH #113065 DATED JULY 1.6, 2009 FOR
$522,011.21. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #48312 THROUGH
#48378 FOR THE PAY PERIOD JULY 1 THROUGH JULY 15, 2009 FOR $866,528.52.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 1
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JENNY JORGENSON
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED).
E. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH CHS ENGINEERS, LLC FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR THE SEWER LIFT STATIONS
REHABILITATION PROJECT.
F. REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO SALVAGE SURPLUS AND OBSOLETE PARTS FOR
WATER AND WASTEWATER DIVISIONS.
G. PROPOSED EQUIPMENT RENTAL HOURLY RATES FOR EXTERNAL AGENCIES.
PROPOSED EQUIPMENT RENTAL HOURLY RATES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
BENEFIT DISTRICT.
H. ORDINANCE NO. 3747 DESIGNATING THE GANAHL — HANLEY LOG CABIN, LOCATED
AT 120 FIFTH 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.
3. PRESENTATION ON LEVY OPTION #2 BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM.
Mayor Haakenson suggested City Attorney Scott Snyder provide the Council a legal opinion regarding Initiative
1033, the latest Tim Eyman initiative. Mr. Snyder advised the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) and the
City's bond counsel have provided advisories regarding I -1033. The initiative provides that levies adopted after
the date of the initiative are not impacted. Taxes levied previously are valid and taxes that are approved after
the approval of I -1033 would be valid; levies that occur on the same date are likely to be the subject of litigation.
He explained an approved levy was not self - executing; if the voters gave the City the authority to levy the tax,
that authority could be held until a determination was made regarding I -1033.
For Council President Wilson, Mr. Snyder explained if the Council waited to execute the levy until any issues
were resolved by the courts, the Council would be aware of the impact I -1033 would have on the levy. He
clarified the Council could delay levying the tax until the courts determined what the impact of I -1033 would be
on simultaneous tax levies.
Council President Wilson commented only one of the court's determinations would have a negative outcome for
the City. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting the negative outcome would be a decision by the court that levies enacted
on the same date count against the General Fund benchmark. Mr. Snyder offered to verify the length of time the
Council had to exercise an approved levy.
Mayor Haakenson asked how long a court case of that magnitude typically took. Mr. Snyder answered it would
be given priority, settled via summary judgment and likely reviewed directly by the Supreme Court. He
estimated a 1 V2 - 2 year timeline.
Councilmember Plunkett stated if the City's levy was successful and I -1033 was successful and the courts
upheld I -1033, once the Council executed the levy, it would be under the I -1033 constraints. Mr. Snyder
answered yes. Councilmember Plunkett asked if a new levy could be placed on the ballot to comply with I-
1033. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting although a number of taxing districts have made a decision not to place issues
on this ballot, a number were moving forward, thus there was a reasonable likelihood it would be litigated.
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the cost of the levy election. City Clerk Sandy Chase relayed estimated
costs from the Auditor's Office of $3.00 per registered voter; Edmonds has 26,746 registered voters for a cost of
approximately $80,000.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 2
Councilmember Wambolt asked whether the base year was 2009 from which expenses could be increased. Mr.
Snyder answered that was his understanding.
Council President Wilson recalled when the Eyman initiative that capped property tax increases at 1% was
passed by voters, it was invalidated by the courts and within a month the legislature called a special session to
implement the initiative legislatively. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting there was a difference between lawsuits
against the initiative and lawsuits regarding local levies.
Councilmember Plunkett commented it was not a question of how the Council felt about the levy or how it
would be adjudicated, it was whether the Council wanted to take a $80,000 gamble by putting the levy on the
ballot at the same time as I -1033 and risk another $80,000 to put it on a future ballot. He questioned whether the
speculative action of placing the levy on the November ballot was preferable to waiting until next year.
Councilmember Wambolt commented one of the primary reasons he voted to proceed with the levy this
November was input from citizens that 2009 was a better year because of competition from other measures next
year. However, since learning the details of I -1033, he agreed a November levy may risk the $80,000 cost of the
election. If the initiative passed statewide and passed in the Edmonds precincts, he was uncertain the
advisability of a levy when citizens will have just indicated they wanted to curb their taxes.
Council President Wilson explained I -1033, which was certified to be on the ballot this fall, would ask voters
whether municipalities, county governments or other taxing authorities should be limited by inflation and
population in the amount they can collect in their General Fund with a benchmark of 2009. He explained one of
the consequences for cities like Edmonds was because sales taxes in 2009 were very low, the benchmark would
be very low. If I -1033 passed and sales tax collections increased dramatically next year, the Council would be
required to reduce property taxes to offset the increase in sales tax. The only exception was votes by the public
that occurred after the November election which raises the question if funds from a levy approved in November
could be collected due to the wording in the initiative regarding voter - approved levies approved after November.
Councilmember Bernheim observed because the outcome of I -1033 was unknown, that should be disregarded as
a factor in the Council's analysis. If the Council believed the levy was necessary to fund essential government
services, the Council should proceed with the levy regardless of other measures on the ballot.
Council President Wilson recalled the Council had voted six times in support of placing a levy on the ballot in
November, making that the Council's policy. If any Councilmember was interested in changing that policy, he
suggested a motion be made and a vote taken.
Councilmember Orvis noted there would always be Eyman initiatives. If Council did not begin asking voters
for help, no help would be forthcoming. He acknowledged the levy may need to be placed on the ballot again.
Councilmember Peterson agreed with Councilmember Orvis it was likely there would be Eyman initiatives on
future ballots. In addition to I -1033, more information was being provided regarding contracting with Fire
District 1 and the nation was facing a very difficult economic situation. He was concerned with the cumulative
affect these would have on the promotion of such an important levy.
Councilmember Wambolt commented should the City reach an agreement with Fire District 1 regarding fire
service, the Council could lower the levy amount.
Observing there had not been a motion to change the levy timeline, Mayor Haakenson clarified the Council
intended to move forward with the levy in November.
Councilmember Bernheim observed for several months Council discussed alternate forms of a ballot measure,
whether the funds raised were directed to the General Fund for general expenditures, which he acknowledged
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 3
was a legitimate approach, or for specific purposes. For him, the specific purposes would be additional funds
for the senior center and Yost Pool. He noted he initially opposed funding Yost Pool because he visited it rarely
and it was a special interest. However, Yost Pool had tremendous public support and contributes to the culture
of the City. After further discussions with citizens, other specific items were identified.
Council President Wilson provided a presentation regarding Prop 1 and Prop 2. He explained both proposals
would, 1) fund existing services, 2) set aside reserves to pay for the next five years of operations, and 3) begin to
fund investments deferred. The difference is what deferred investments will be funded; Prop 1, Mayor
Haakenson's proposal, focuses on technology and general operations and their proposal, Prop 2 focuses on
public safety and parks. The reason their proposition focused on parks and public safety was because in a
difficult economic climate, the focus should first be on priorities; public safety was the community's first
priority and parks second. He explained the levy had two cost centers: one time purchases and ongoing funds.
He provided a comparison of items funded in Prop 1 and Prop 2, commenting the $210,000 for economic
development would be $70,000 per year for three years:
General Operations (one time purchases)
Prop 1
Prop 2
Fire: Protective Clothing
114,000
114,000
Fire: SCBA Air Compressor
39,000
39,000
Fire: Fire House Replacement
39,000
39,000
Fire: ALS Equipment for Backup Unit
40,000
40,000
Fire: Standardize Equipment on Eng 20
42,000
42,000
Fire: Replacement Tools and Equipment
50,000
50,000
Parks: Lawnmower
15,000
15,000
Economic Development: Resources/Advertising
25,000
210,000
Total
$339,000
$549,000
General Operations (ongoing)
Prop 1
Prop 2
Parks: Senior Center
100,000
100,000
Total
0
$100,000
Council President Wilson commented many of the technology purchases were grouped together in Prop 2 and
the Mayor would determine how those funds were expended.
Technology (one -time purchases)
Prop 1
Prop 2
Clerk: Document M >mt System
100,000
100,000
IS: Offsite Data Backup
73,000
IS: Offsite Server
24,000
IS: Storage Server Facilities Improvement
25,000
IS Upgrade to Gi E
9,000
IS: Basic Wireless Controllers
37,000
Fire: ePCR Hardware and Software
40,000
40,000
Dev Serv: Automated Permit Package
25,000
Dev. Serv: Digital Records Initiative
30,000
IS: General Technology Purchases
160,000
Total
$363,000
$300,000
Council President Wilson commented Edmonds had the lowest level of police officers per capita of any
comparable city, 55 uniformed officers; the per capita average was 62 officers. He remarked 9 times out of 10
that number was adequate but during busy times it may not be enough. He described a burglary that occurred at
his home where he was able to arrive home from Auburn before the police responded. He acknowledged this
occurred during rush hour when there were three traffic accidents on Hwy. 99. He explained the Police
Department was budgeted for 56 officers; the following proposal would bring the number of uniformed officers
to a total of 58.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 4
Personnel (ongoing costs)
Prop 1
Prop 2
IS: GIS Analyst
87,450
789,900
IS: Server/Apps Support Staff
66,650
250,000
IS: Webmaster & Analyst
88,750
1.50,000
IS Hel desk Staff
38,050
$400,000
Fire: Fire Inspector/Educator/Help Inspector/Educator/Help
109,877
109,877
Police: Crime Prevention
108,803
108,803
Police: Staff Assistant
60,421
60,421
Parks: Parks Maintenance Worker
68,330
68,330
HR: Part -time HR Assistant
26,600
Clerk: Administrative Assistant
60,000
60,000
Public Works: Facilities Maintenance
55,900
Human Resources
Police: 2 New Uniformed Police Officers
1.6
220,000
Total
$770,831
$627,431
Building Maintenance (ongoing)
Prop 1
Prop 2
Public Works: Building Maintenance
200,000
789,900
Parks: Yost/Senior Center /Boys & Girls /Meadowdale
Clubhouse
970,831
250,000
Fire: Station 17 & 20
1,672,831
1.50,000
Total
200,000
$400,000
Council President Wilson advised a third Animal Control officer and the DARE program in Prop 1 would not be
funded in Prop 2.
Costs
Prop 1
Prop 2
One -time
702,000
789,900
Ongoing
970,831
1,127,431
Subtotal
1,672,831
1,916,431
Utility Fund offset
- 104,000
20.5
Cuts from Baseline
83,330
- 91,006
Total
1,508,831
1,825,425
Council President Wilson summarized the following were expenditures by department for one year;
approximately 43% in Prop 1 would fund Fire, Police and Parks, versus approximately 76% in Prop 2. With
over 70% of the funds dedicated for public safety and parks in Prop 2, he was comfortable with identifying it as
a Public Safety and Parks levy.
Department
Pro 1
%
Pro 2
%
Fire
473,877
28.3
623,877
32.8
Police
169,224
10.1
389,224
20.5
Parks
83,330
5.0
433,330
22.8
Economic Development
210,000
11.0
Public Works
255,900
15.3
Information Services
448,900
26.8
100,000
5.3
Human Resources
26,600
1.6
Clerk
160,000
9.6
160,000
8.4
Dev Services
55,000
3.3
Subtotal
1,672,831
1,901,431
Offsets
- 104,000
- 91,006
Total
1,568,831
1,810,425
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 5
Council President Wilson provided the following ending fund balances, noting the target represented
approximately one month of annual expenses:
Year
Target
Prop 1
Prop 2
2010
$3,077,822
$3,012,724
$2,760,130
2011
$3,138,860
$4,364,200
$3,946,012
2012
$3,256,552
$5,071,433
$4,487,651
2013
$3,381,646
$5,122,985
$4,3731609
2014
$3,518,401
$4,420,449
$3,505,479
2015
$3,649,797
$3,053,314
$1,972,750
Council President Wilson noted after approximately $1 million in cuts during the budget process and another $1
million in interim cuts made by the Mayor, the City's projected ending fund balance was approximately $1.3
million. Via Prop 2, the City's ending cash balance would be more than it is projected to be this year.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the ending cash balance included the emergency reserves. Council
President Wilson answered it did not.
Councilmember Wambolt referred to an email from a citizen questioning the reduction in Animal Control
Officers from three to two. He explained the third Animal Control Officer was not necessary as the City would
no longer be providing animal control services to Mountlake Terrace.
Mayor Haakenson explained when this process began approximately six months ago, the Council requested staff
and he develop a levy request that identified the City's needs — what was needed to operate the City on a day -to-
day basis, what was needed to get through the time period and continue to provide the current level of service
which he noted was lower than the optimum. Staff's proposal, Prop 1, focused on staff's needs to provide
service to the citizens. Late last week, he was informed of Prop 2, prepared by Council President Wilson and
Councilmember Bernheim, which allowed little time for staff response. Staff met on Friday to discuss Prop 2
and Friday afternoon he emailed Prop 3 to the Council. Prop 3 was not included in the Council packets as
packets are prepared on Thursday and distributed to the public over the weekend. He stated that he emailed
copies of Prop 3 to Council. (Note: A copy of the "Summary of Levy Decision Packages" that includes Prop 3
is attached to the minutes.)
Mayor Haakenson described Prop 3, a compromise between Prop 1 and 2. He acknowledged it was more of a
compromise toward Prop 1 than Prop 2. During his budget message in November 2008 and again several weeks
ago, he stressed the need for technology improvements to the City's infrastructure in order to lessen reliance on
personnel, the City's biggest cost and one that will continue to grow. To reduce labor costs, the City needed to
rely more heavily on technology; technology that would help staff work more efficiently and allow more
citizens to do business with the City online. For that reason, he added back into Prop 3 the technology needs
that were cut from Prop 1. He assured technology was needed and used by public safety and parks employees as
well as all other City employees. He referred to a spreadsheet provided to the Council that identified technology
usage by department, explaining the levy proceeds from Prop 3 were 70% for public safety and parks and after
the one -time expenditures the first year, the percentage increased to 75% for public safety and parks.
Mayor Haakenson explained he removed the $210,000 proposed in Prop 2 for economic development because
Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton advised there were sufficient funds budgeted currently to
fulfill the City's present needs. He also removed the $100,000 Senior Center request from Prop 2 as he had no
idea then or now of the need for the additional $100,000. He advised $60,000 for the Senior Center was
included in Prop 1, the amount the Parks Department pays the Senior Center to provide programs.
Mayor Haakenson explained Prop 2 removed the part-time Human Resources position that was included in Prop
1; he did not add that position back into Prop 3. He added the request for an additional Facilities Maintenance
Worker to Prop 3. Prop 2 added two new Police Officers; after conferring with Police Chief Al Compaan, he
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 6
reduced it to one new officer. Prop 2 doubled the building maintenance budget from $200,000 to $400,000;
because the CIP did not support that amount, in Prop 3 he reduced building maintenance to the original amount
of the $200,000 and dedicated those funds to parks and police as requested in Prop 2.
Mayor Haakenson reiterated when staff was asked to develop a levy request, Council's direction was to keep
requests to what was needed to operate the City for the next few years; Prop 1 and Prop 3 represent staff's
recommendations. He summarized staff could support Prop 1 or Prop 3 but as presented, could not support Prop
2. Staff recommends if Council agrees to contract for fire service with Fire District 1, the fire portion of the
levy request, $642,000, be dropped from the levy, reducing the levy amount and the property tax burden on
taxpayers.
Councilmember Bernheim recalled approximately a month ago there was a Council resolution asking for a
public safety and parks alternative. When Mayor Haakenson indicated he was not able to develop that
alternative, Council President Wilson and he developed Prop 2. In light of the Police Chief's comments, he was
willing to consider reducing one of the police officer positions and to discuss building maintenance. Mayor
Haakenson recalled advising the Council the levy could be titled whatever they wanted, funds from Prop 2
provide 75% for parks and public safety; Prop 3 provides 70 %.
Councilmember Orvis observed in Prop 2 all the technology needs were combined in one amount. Mayor
Haakenson clarified Prop 2 reduced $600,000 in technology in Prop 1 to $100,000.
Councilmember Wambolt commented the development of Prop 2 by Council. President Wilson and
Councilmember Bernheim resulted in the administration developing an improved proposition. He pointed out
the percentage of funds from the levy for parks and public safety increased in Prop 3 because staff had allocated
the technology expenditures by department, a great deal for parks and public safety. He did not support
removing funds from Prop 1 allocated for technology, relaying that in his experience, during difficult economic
times many companies spent more on technology in an effort to improve efficiency. He expressed support for
Prop 3 rather than Prop 2, possibly with some adjustments.
Councilmember Orvis observed Prop 2 did not include the Maintenance Worker but that position was included
in Prop 3. He observed Prop 2 had $400,000 in ongoing costs for building maintenance and asked if those funds
could be used to fund a Maintenance Worker. Mayor Haakenson responded the $400,000 in Prop 2 was for
capital improvement projects although only $200,000 in projects were identified. Council President Wilson
explained the thinking was because all the proceeds from the levy would be placed in the General Fund rather
than capital funds, the administration could use those funds to hire a Building Maintenance Worker. Prop 1
included $200,000 for building maintenance as well as $55,000 for a Maintenance Worker versus Prop 2 which.
includes $400,000 for building maintenance. He pointed out the CIP lists projects and needs based on projected
revenue; however, the City has significant building maintenance needs including approximately $4 million in
needed improvements to the Senior Center. He concluded although the CIP did not include all the City's
building maintenance projects, they did exist. Mayor Haakenson responded if the Council was asking voters to
approve a Facilities Maintenance position, that should be stated in the levy, and not included in a $400,000
capital improvement request.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO
APPROVE PROP. 2.
Councilmember Peterson commented the difficulty he had with Prop 2 was the lack of technology. He
acknowledged although it was not romantic to talk about a GigE server, it would make City government more
efficient including the Fire and Police Departments, the type of investment that made for better business and
better government. He did not support Prop 2.
Councilmember Orvis commented his intent was to begin with Prop 2 as a baseline and suggested adding the
technology requests back into Prop 2.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 7
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED TO AMEND PROP 2 TO ADD THE TECHNOLOGY REQUESTS
BACK INTO PROP 2.
Mayor Haakenson pointed out the total amount needed to be the same; thus any additions required a comparable
reduction, a reduction in the ending cash balance or an increase in the levy amount.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS WITHDREW HIS MOTION.
Council President Wilson pointed out each of the propositions entirely funded parks maintenance. During the
last budget cycle there was discussion of cutting $500,000 from the parks maintenance budget which would
have resulted in the closure of all the City's neighborhood parks. Each proposition also fully funds existing
programs at the Senior Center, funds the Crime Prevention program, and funds Discovery Programs. He
summarized the Council was quibbling over which deferred investments to fund but each was a great proposal
for Edmonds. Mayor Haakenson remarked the quibble was actually over what he and staff believe are the needs
to operate the City versus what the Council views as the needs. Council President Wilson acknowledged staff
may have a different opinion than the Council; staff's responsibility was to operate the City the best way
possible with the available resources; the Council's responsibility was to set the priorities. Thus the argument
was not over needs but over priorities. Mayor Haakenson reiterated the Council asked staff to identify needs,
not the Council's priorities.
Councilmember Bernheim agreed with Council President Wilson, remarking when he balanced staff's needs
with the Council's priorities, he favored the Council's priorities. He was confident that all the ideas would
result in an improved City and he was confident that improved software would become available if some of the
technology improvements were deferred. He compared Mayor Haakenson's request for technology with
Council President Wilson's and his proposal for $210,000 over a 3 year period to fund an economic
development position. He acknowledged Mr. Clifton's efforts with regard to economic development in addition
to the two other jobs he is doing, envisioning a person dedicated to economic development could be an attribute
to the City. He spoke in favor of the additional $40,000 for the Senior Center over the present $60,000,
remarking the Senior Center was his and many other citizens' future. He recognized the efforts of the Senior
Center Executive Director David McNayr and the Board of Directors.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed concern with the amount of police resources devoted to enforcing the
Driving While License Suspended Third Degree, suggesting that aspect of law enforcement be deemphasized
and focus on house - breaking. He was willing to support additional police officers because it would be a positive
contribution to the community. He expressed support for Prop 2.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO AMEND
PROP 2 TO RESTORE THE PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY MAINTENANCE PERSON IN PROP 1,
$56,000, REDUCE THE BUILDING MAINTENANCE ONGOING FROM $400,000 TO $200,000 AND
INCREASE THE IS GENERAL TECHNOLOGICAL PURCHASE LINE TO $304,000.
Councilmember Peterson spoke against Prop 2, commenting that although there were great ideas in Prop 2, Prop
3 was a better starting point because it was a better compromise between staff's proposal and the Council's
goals. Council President Wilson responded Prop 3 was not a compromise, it was Prop l with an extra police
officer and without a part -time HR assistant. Mayor Haakenson clarified Prop 3 represented staff and his
compromise.
Council President Wilson wanted to ensure whatever levy was put to the voters passed. His threshold had been
that 70 -75% of the total levy amount needed to be targeted toward parks and public safety. He expressed
concern that Councilmember Orvis' amendment that took funds from building maintenance for parks and public
safety and allocated it to technology, diluting the specificity of the funds for parks and public safety. He
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 8
anticipated diluting the specificity would undermine the ability to pass the levy. Mayor Haakenson pointed out
70% the proceeds from Prop 3 were for public safety and parks versus 75% in Prop 2.
Councilmember Wambolt spoke against the motion to approve Prop 2 and the current amendment. He found it
strange when the City had a funding shortfall and was preparing to ask taxpayers for money, that the levy would
include funds for things the administration was not asking for. He expressed support for Prop 3.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE
SECOND.
Council President Wilson asked whether the intent was to have $100,000 or $160,000 in total funding for the
Senior Center. Councilmember Bernheim responded his intent was $100,000 total. Council President Wilson
observed the $100,000 line item could be amended to $40,000 as the budget already included $60,000 for the
Senior Center.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO
AMEND PROP 2 TO CHANGE THE SENIOR CENTER REQUEST TO $40,000 FROM $100,000.
Councilmember Wambolt explained the money provided to the Senior Center funds programs the Senior Center
provides for the Parks Department. He suggested reaching an agreement between the Senior Center and the
Parks Department regarding additional programs and then determine what additional funds were needed.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Recognizing that some of the one -time technology purchases would have a greater impact on public safety and
parks, Council President Wilson made the following amendment:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO
MOVE THE $60,000 INTO LINE 19, GENERAL TECHNOLOGY PURCHASES, TO MAKE IT $160,000.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Wilson advised the $60,000 that had been allocated to the Senior Center was for ongoing
costs ($240,000 over 4 years) versus the $60,000 in one -time technology purchases. The net benefit will be an
additional $180,000 in the ending cash balance.
Mayor Haakenson reiterated the Parks Department did not have any request or identified need for the additional
$40,000 /year for the Senior Center. Council President Wilson invited Senior Center Executive Director David
McNayr to describe how those funds would be used.
Mr. McNayr responded the Senior Center could offer a day clinic staffed by retired medical professional
volunteers. The clinic could be used to address minor health conditions with referral to family physicians as
necessary. The retired medical professionals could guide members into better healthcare for chronic conditions.
He estimated the cost to operate the clinic for the first year to be approximately $30,000. The second item that
could be funded would be intergenerational programs that paired youth and seniors, providing an alternative for
working parents that would allow youth to work with seniors on projects. He estimated the cost of a 2� /z month
summer program in 2010 to be $5,000. The third area that could be funded would be technological upgrades for
the Center's employment office, an estimated cost of $5,000.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
REDUCE TWO UNIFORMED POLICE OFFICERS IN PROP 2 TO ONE OFFICER WITH THE
SAVINGS PLACED IN RESERVES.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 9
Council President Wilson did not support the amendment, viewing police as an important service for the City to
provide. He pointed out there were times when the City did not have sufficient uniformed police and fire
service personnel. He reiterated the average number of police officers per capita was 62; Edmonds had 55.
Councilmember Plunkett observed the Police Chief did not request two additional officers. Mayor Haakenson
responded Chief Compaan did not even request one new officer. He relayed Chief Compaan's comment that if
police officers were added, he did not want it to be at the expense of other City departments.
Council President Wilson recognized staff at City Hall had to work together and it may be difficult if it looked
like a request for an HR staff person was omitted in favor of additional police officers. The issue for the
Council was priorities and clearly the community's priority was public safety.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5 -2), COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT, PETERSON,
OLSON, BERNHEIM AND PLUNKETT IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS OPPOSED.
Mayor Haakenson commented the Council was slowly moving toward Prop 3 but was still missing
approximately $500,000 in technology upgrades that were in Prop 3 but were not in Prop 2.
UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT
WILSON, AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, PLUNKETT, AND BERNHEIM IN FAVOR; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, PETERSON AND WAMBOLT OPPOSED.
4. RESOLUTION AND FINAL ACTION ON THE 2009 LEVY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO
DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE TO BRING BACK TO THE COUNCIL
ON THE CONSENT AGENDA TO DIRECT THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR TO PLACE A
PROPERTY TAX LEVY IN THE AMOUNT OF $3.75 MILLION ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5A. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION TO DETERMINE THAT THE "EDMONDS BANK" IS ELIGIBLE FOR PLACEMENT
ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. (APPLICANT: HPC / FILE NO. HPC- 09 -8).
Associate Planner Kernen Lien recalled there had been a number of historic preservation requests before the
Council recently that did not require a public hearing. The difference between the Edmonds Bank and the
previous requests was the previous structures /properties were listed on the Washington State Register of Historic
Places which automatically makes them eligible for the Edmonds Register. The Edmonds Bank is not on the
national or state register and therefore has a different approval process. A public hearing was held at the
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) regarding whether the Edmonds Bank met the criteria and the HPC
concluded it did meet the criteria. A public hearing before the City Council was not technically required but
hearings have been held in the past for properties not on the national or state register. He questioned whether
the Council wished to continue that process for properties not on the national or state register.
Mr. Lien explained the Edmonds Bank was located at 324 and 326 Main Street. It was nominated for listing by
the HPC and the property owner has signed the authorization form to list the property on the register. He
reviewed the effects of listing the property on the register:
• Honorary designation denoting significant association with the history of Edmonds
• Prior to commencing any work on a registered property (excluding repair and maintenance), owner must
request and receive a certificate of appropriateness from the HPC
• May be eligible for special tax valuation on their rehabilitation.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 10
He explained the exterior of the building had been nominated for inclusion on the Edmonds Register. He
displayed images of the Edmonds Bank building from 1907 to present, noting the building looks essentially the
same as it did in 1907. He described minor changes that had been made to the fagade over the years including
enlarging the windows on the east side and later filling in the windows, replacing the aluminum exterior with
materials similar to the original and incorporating the recessed entry and column into the interior. He displayed
photographs of historic buildings in the surrounding area including the Beeson Building constructed in 1909, the
Schumacher Building constructed in 1900 and the Kingdon's General Store constructed in 1910.
Mr. Lien reviewed designation criteria, advising the HPC reviewed the criteria and detennined the Edmonds
Bank met the criteria:
• Significantly associated with the history, architecture, archaeology, engineer or cultural heritage of
Edmonds
• Has integrity
• At least 50 years old, or has exceptional importance if less than 50 years old
• Falls into at least one of the designation categories, ECDC 20.45.010.A -K (associated with events that
have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of national, state or local history; embodies
the distinctive architectural characteristics of a type, period, style or method of design construction or
exemplifies; or reflects the special elements of the City's history)
Mayor Haakenson opened the public hearing.
Dave Page, Edmonds, cautioned this building was not to be confused with the Bank of Washington.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented many people visit the historic Log Cabin and placing this building on the
Edmonds Register of Historic Places would attract more visitors.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
FIND THAT THE " EDMONDS BANK" MET THE CRITERIA CONTAINED IN ECDC 20.45.010 AND
TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3748, DESIGNATING THE SITE OF THE " EDMONDS BANK" FOR
INCLUSION ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5B. REPORT BY THE CITY ATTORNEY ON THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE AND
PREJUDGMENTAL BIAS TO PENDING REZONE APPLICATION.
City Attorney Scott Snyder commented the City had received a rezone application related to the Antique Mall
property on the Edmonds waterfront. He referred to his memorandum regarding Appearance of Fairness
Doctrine and Prejudgmental Bias to Pending Rezone Application and requested Council permission to make the
memorandum available to anyone running for office. He noted it was unlikely the application would be before
the Council until next year and the points he raised would be equally applicable to any elected official next year.
Mr. Snyder explained Councilmembers not running for office were bound by both the Appearance of Fairness
Doctrine and limitations related to prejudgmental bias. Seated Councilmembers serving in a quasi judicial
capacity were very limited in what they could say prior to the time the matter is presented to the Council. There
are exceptions in the codified Appearance of Fairness Doctrine including legislative decisions, policy decisions
and opinions expressed in the course of a campaign. He explained the codified Appearance of Fairness Doctrine
exclusion applied only to the judicial Appearance of Fairness Doctrine and not other matters. Prejudgmental
bias or making one's mind up before something comes to the Council, was not waivable. Regardless of whether
a Councilmember was running for office, he cautioned them to be very careful regarding statements they made
about a pending rezone application.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 11
He provided examples of problematic and protected statements, commenting the intent was to make the Council
as well as their constituents aware of the limitations:
Problematic Statements
"I will never approve any height over 25 feet"
"I am opposed to this specific application"
Protected
"I support review and amendment of zoning ordinances to limit the height of buildings on the waterfront"
"I must review every application on its merits under existing City code but any code that permits 70 foot
buildings must be reviewed"
Mr. Snyder explained when the Council sat as a legislative body and were amending the code in a general
manner, they were permitted to express their opinions in any forum. There would be a number of legislative
proposals attached to this proposal. Any application that was submitted was vested; however, if the Council felt
the application raised concerns about the existing code, the Council was allowed to comment. He observed a
contract rezone had been proposed, explaining a contract rezone had two parts, first, a site specific rezone which
was a quasi judicial decision. Councilmembers and candidates need to be very careful about expressing
prejudgment regarding the application.
The second part, the contract, was a legislative decision and the Council could express opinions about the
contract. He explained in a contract rezone, an applicant proposed limitations by contract. The purpose of the
contract was to satisfy code criteria. In order to grant a site specific rezone, an applicant must meet criteria in
the code that conform to the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Code, etc. He cautioned the Council and
candidates about expressing opinions that could be viewed as prejudging this application.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the application would require a code change. Mr. Snyder answered no,
this was a site specific rezone application to an existing zoning category, the CG zone. If the Council felt the
CG zone was too lenient as it exists, the Council could recommend amendments to existing ordinances.
Councilmember Plunkett clarified Councihmembers were free to discuss aspects of the zone. Mr. Snyder agreed
the Council could comment on what the code provides and whether it should be amended. Once an applicant
submits an application and pays the fee, they are vested in the codes as they exist. When a Councilmember
discussed a change in the code, it would not apply to the application but how it could be applied in the future.
Council President Wilson inquired about the process for challenging a Councilmember's participation. Mr.
Snyder answered a challenge to a Councilmember under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine or bias must be
stated at the opening of the proceeding and the Councilmember responds. The Council has no authority to
remove a member; recusal was at that member's discretion. Reasons for a prejudgmental bias should be stated
if known at the beginning of the process; however, prejudgmental bias can be raised later in a Land Use Petition
Act (LUPA) proceeding.
Council President Wilson asked if general statements that were not parcel specific but were geographically
specific were appropriate. Mr. Snyder explained the key distinction was that Councilmembers /candidates not
make up their mind or give the appearance that they had made up their mind on an application and would
consider an application on its own merits. If the Council did not like the ordinances under which the application .
was made, the Council could comment about the legislative process. He summarized the general rule was not to
talk about the applicant or the application.
Council President Wilson asked whether a Councilmember who recused themselves from the quasi judicial
proceeding was also invalidated for the legislative portion of the review. Mr. Snyder answered no. In addition,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 12
if challenges destroyed a quorum of the Council, Councilmembers were returned to the quorum; challenges
could not be used to prevent the Council from making a decision.
It was the consensus of the Council to make Mr. Snyder's memorandum regarding Appearance of Fairness
Doctrine and Prejudgmental. Bias to Pending Rezone Application available to the public.
Councilmember Wambolt asked the difference between a site specific rezone and a spot rezone. Mr. Snyder
advised a rezone was an area -wide rezone. An example of an area -wide rezone was the neighborhood near
Stevens Hospital to change the zoning designation of dozens of parcels. He explained a spot rezone referred to
designating one piece of property differently than the surrounding zone. A site specific rezone is a request to
make a change to a specific property. The Comprehensive Plan designations are broad and several zoning
categories may fit within a Comprehensive Plan designation.
Mayor Haakenson asked whether he could say whatever he wanted. Mr. Snyder answered yes but depending on
what he said, he may need to step down as the chair of the meeting.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if Mayor Haakenson could break a tie. Mr. Snyder responded the Mayor was
unable to vote on any matter that required the passage of an ordinance. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether
a Councilmember could send Mr. Snyder potential phrases they were contemplating in a campaign to ensure
they were appropriate. Mr. Snyder answered no because he was paid by the City.
6. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE
CREATION OF A NEW MIXED USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR FIRDALE VILLAGE TO
IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. (FILE NO. AMD- 2008 -10 / APPLICANT: SHAPIRO
ARCHITECTS)
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this was an application by Shapiro Architects representing the owner of
the Firdale Village commercial property. They are seeking a new zoning classification in the Development
Code that would implement the Comprehensive Plan and apply to the Firdale commercial center that is
identified in the Comprehensive Plan. He clarified this was a legislative proposal for Council consideration.
The applicant received unanimous favorable support from the Planning Board.
Tony Shapiro, Shapiro Architects, commented this was an example of a spot zone because it was specific to
the Firdale Village site although the zoning language was general and would not be applied until the zone were
approved and created. Another approval process would be required to apply the zone to this site.
Mr. Shapiro displayed an aerial photograph identifying the approximate property lines of the site, explaining
development on the property was outdated, originally developed in the 1960s. He identified the two existing
access points, easements across the site to adjacent properties, and significant grade change from the southwest
to the northeast corner of the site. The goals of the property owner are to rezone the property in the most
general and flexible manner while establishing constraints on development that would provide the City and
neighbors assurance that new development would comply with Comprehensive Plan goals and have attributes
that were beneficial to an urban center. He displayed a wider view aerial photograph, identifying structures and
roadways in the surrounding area. He explained Firdale Village was located within a residential area with one
large apartment complex nearby and surrounded by single family housing.
Mr. Shapiro displayed a Comprehensive Plan map that identified the designation for the Firdale Village site and
the surrounding area. The site is currently zoned BN, an outdated zone that staff has expressed interest in
phasing out. The property owners decided to rewrite the zoning ordinance themselves because the City did not
have the budget or time to create an appropriate zone. They worked closely with planning staff in developing
the zone language, met twice with neighbors and met several times with the Planning Board, culminating in the
Planning Board's unanimous support on April 22, 2009.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 13
Mr. Shapiro displayed and reviewed the existing language for the BN zone including primary and secondary
allowed uses. He pointed out secondary uses in the BN zone limit the property to one dwelling unit per lot. The
site has seven lots and creating a mixed use with seven units is not economically feasible. He reviewed the
Comprehensive Plan language for Firdale Village that refers to an attractive mix of uses that create a
"neighborhood village" pedestrian - oriented environment, commercial spaces oriented toward the street in order
to maximize visibility, parking behind or underneath structures, four stories in height, design that breaks up the
mass and bulk of buildings and a mix of uses of not less than one quarter commercial space. He advised this
proposal was more complex than a Master Plan that established exact development. The property owner plans
to offer the property to a developer who would implement the zoning language. The proposed language was
intended to be flexible enough to accommodate an assisted /extended care facility on the upper floors with
commercial on the lower floors or a general mixed use project. The intent was for the zoning language to be as
flexible as possible while giving assurance that it would be a positive development.
He envisioned a Neighborhood Village Design with mixed use building types, ground floor retail with
commercial office or residential above, retail uses closer to the primary street, parking below or behind the retail
building. Their proposed zoning criteria establish a commercial zone against Firdale Avenue with residential on
the back side of the property. In addition to the significant grade change from the northeast to the southwest
corners of the site, there are significant stands of fir trees on the north property line. He referred to a proposed
20 -foot setback along the north property line to retain the trees. He displayed a sketch of the site, identifying the
trees inside and outside the 20 -foot setback and the existing rockery on the north property line. He advised a
stormwater line and sanitary sewer line that run through the site would need to be relocated. The proposed
zoning criteria mandates below grade parking to achieve a high density build -out. He anticipated a maximum of
160 units on the site and 60,000 square feet of commercial space.
Mr. Shapiro displayed sketches illustrating trees as buffer between the project and residential, existing houses on
adjacent property, trees outside the setback subject to removal, and existing Firdale Village building proposed to
be removed. He displayed a sketch illustrating the location of the proposed zone districts, a commercial lower
height (39 feet) zone in District 1 and residential above commercial and higher heights in District 2. He
identified an area between the districts that could be either District 1 or District 2 to provide flexibility. He
displayed drawings illustrating the possible location of buildings via a massing study, cautioning they were for
discussion purposes only. He commented on access points to the site, advising no traffic analysis had been
conducted at this time.
In response to concern by the Planning Board regarding the proximity of the commercial building on the west
property line to the existing residence with a 15 -foot setback, the height of the building was restricted to 2
stories at the rear toward the residence and stepping up to 4 stories at the front. He displayed several sketches
from the massing study illustrating the possible location and height of buildings. He briefly commented on
design standards for the site that address site design and planning, architectural design, pedestrian orientation,
outdoor spaces and amenities, vehicular access and parking, site landscaping and screening elements, signage,
site lighting, safety issues and sustainable design. He remarked the criteria requires 20% open space which he
acknowledged may be difficult to achieve.
Council President Wilson asked if traffic signals would be required. Mr. Shapiro stated they may be appropriate
at the intersection to the south where Firdale Avenue becomes 205th. Council President Wilson inquired about
the feasibility of open space if there were three access points to the site. Mr. Shapiro commented service access
would likely be at the western entrance and the mid- access point may be only for emergency access.
Council President Wilson expressed concern there many not be enough space on the site to incorporate all the
good things that are proposed. He referred to the definitions that indicate "will" and "shall" were directives and
"should" were nice -to -have items, pointing out there were few "shall" or "will" in the document compared to
"should" and "maybe" in the language. He understood the owner's interest in maximum flexibility but as the
process moved forward he was interested in changing many of the "should" to "will" or "shall." Mr. Shapiro
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 14
noted there were many "shall" in the document including the 20% open space. Council President Wilson
commended the language that required the development to achieve at least a four star level of the Build Green
Washington program or LEED gold standard certification. Mr. Shapiro indicated they were open to discussion
of any components the Council wanted changed from "should" to "shall."
Council President Wilson referred to the ultimate height limit in the residential district, 4 stories, 48 feet plus a
modulated roof of 4 feet, plus 5 feet for mechanical equipment and an additional 10 feet on top of the maximum.
Mr. Shapiro clarified 52 feet was the maximum building height. The additional 10 feet would be for an elevator
shaft. He suggested the language be changed to 10 feet above the base roof line.
Councilmember Orvis asked why the step -back adjacent to the residence on the west was not proposed adjacent
to the remainder of the single family residential development. Mr. Shapiro responded a 20 -foot setback was
proposed in the other areas; an additional step -back would make the building uneconomical. He pointed out the
significant number of fir trees that would be retained along the north property line.
Councilmember Bernheim referred to the gold LEED standard certification and other green building incentives,
concluding the buildings would be constructed in a more sustainable manner. Mr. Shapiro agreed.
Councilmember Bernheim commented many of the massing diagrams illustrate a squarish building; he asked if
they would be interested in maximum floor area standards with a flexible height standard in lieu of strict height
limits and open space requirements. Mr. Shapiro responded the Comprehensive Plan restricts heights to 4
stories.
Councilmember Bernheim inquired about the impact of additional traffic from development. Mr. Shapiro
advised an in -depth traffic study had not been done because it would be difficult to assess the traffic impacts at
this point in the process. That would be addressed at the time a development proposal was made.
Councilmember Bernheim concluded there would be a huge impact on the roadway.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed support for lower parking standards and inquired what parking standards
were proposed. Mr. Shapiro answered retail was typically 5 stalls per 1000 square feet of retail; they proposed 1
space per 400 square feet of retail. Their residential parking ratio was 1.5 spaces per unit. They also envisioned
shared parking due to mixed use.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained if the zone were approved, the applicant would need to apply for a
rezone. A traffic study, SEPA, etc. would occur at that point. He commented a floor area ratio approach was
appropriate for a flat site in close proximity to single family development; this proposal uses the buffer to soften
the impact on the surrounding residential and a floor area type approach such as step -backs in areas where the
tree buffer did not exist.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing, noting the Council received an
email from Roger Mithen, Edmonds, with several concerns regarding the project.
Lora Petso, Edmonds, requested the Council take advantage of Mr. Shapiro's offer to do more work on the
proposal and urged the Council not to approve the zone tonight. The proposal did not comply with the
Comprehensive Plan which requires a minimum of 1/4 commercial space; there was no requirement in the zoning
ordinance to implement that Comprehensive Plan goal. Without that requirement, it would be a multi family
residential zone with a 62 -foot height limit rather than a mixed use development. She urged the Council not to
allow increased density until the failed intersection at 244th & Highway 99 was addressed. She recalled that
intersection was declared failed at least eight years ago. She recommended both districts be mixed use; under
the current proposal, District 2 has possible commercial on the ground floor. She pointed out 15 feet was not
enough setback between commercial and residential development for a 62 -foot building. Rather than approve
an illegal spot zone, she urged the Council to update the Neighborhood Business Zone so that it could be applied
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 15
to similar neighborhood business zones. She was opposed to reducing the parking ratios, advising many
residents would walk to the site in good weather but would drive in poor weather.
David Page, Edmonds, commented this project and the levy were defining moments for Edmonds. He favored
a compromise that would allow this project to proceed. He remarked the passage of the levy would illustrate
that Edmonds was moving toward a more cosmopolitan type of town rather than a village. He pointed out the
Planning Board, comprised of professionals, was in favor of this project.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, expressed concern the proposal did not indicate the total cost of the project. He
recognized the City recently increased their permit fees which would be applicable to this project.
Tamara Ancona, Shoreline, whose residence overlooks the site, stated the parking requirements for an assisted
living facility would be significantly less than typical residential because most of the residents did not drive.
David Thorpe, Edmonds, recalled a presentation in the past regarding a proposed project at 220th & Hwy. 99
that had not materialized. He expressed concern that having Mr. Shapiro represent the property owner was like
the fox guarding the hen house. He noted this highlighted the inability to collect revenue; there should be staff
and citizens involved in these proposals. He commented on limited public involvement in this process. He
pointed out there were several neighborhood centers that could be redeveloped, recalling staff meetings in the
past to discuss development at 5 Corners. He was opposed to a site specific rezone when there was zoning and
Comprehensive Plan designations in place. With regard to Mr. Shapiro's interest in a flexible zoning
classification that allowed the developer more flexibility; he urged the City to ensure its interests were
considered. He acknowledged development needed to occur but favored having more City involvement.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to Ms. Petso's reference to the failure of the 244th & Hwy. 99 intersection.
Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss answered it was a highway of statewide significance and the
intersection was under Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) jurisdiction and did not have
to meet the City's level of service standards. The modeling performed for the 2009 Comprehensive
Transportation Plan identified the intersection as a LOS D which is not failed.
Councilmember Wambolt pointed out the project at 220th & Hwy. 99 had been put on hold due to the economy.
He referred to Mr. Thorpe's comment about meetings held regarding development of 5 Corners, explaining the
City's former Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerand held similar discussions for Firdale Village. He
referred to Ms. Petso's reference to 62 foot building heights, clarifying the buildings are a maximum of 52 feet
with the ability to have a 10 foot elevator shaft.
Councilmember Wambolt asked if this was an illegal spot rezone. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered a spot
zone was not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan designation or those in the surrounding area. This
proposal was similar to the zone proposed on Sunset Avenue, a general application zone proposed for a specific
area. When reviewing the proposal he had two areas of concern including the definition of height which
although used in the Comprehensive Plan needed to be integrated into the zoning code. His other concern was a
decision of the Washington Court of'Appeals Division 1, Property Rights Alliance v. Ron Sims, that struck down
the King County Native Growth Protection Areas because they were without a proper foundation and violated
RCW 82.02.020 as an illegal development fee. If the Council wanted to proceed, he suggested that portion of
the requirement be addressed via a development agreement that binds the developer to preserving the trees.
With regard to spot zoning, Mr. Chave explained this site was designated as a Neighborhood Center. The
reason there was a proposal from only one applicant was because the entire site was under one ownership. He
envisioned development zones would be developed for other neighborhood centers in the City. In those cases it
would likely be done by staff because there were multiple properties and property owners.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 16
Council President Wilson referred to Ms. Petso's comment about '/4 commercial. Mr. Chave answered that was
a good catch; he recalled Mr. Shapiro had agreed to include that but it was inadvertenly overlooked.
With regard to parking, Mr. Chave explained the parking standards downtown were changed to a flat rate one
space per 500 square feet, rather than a per use standard. That ratio was appropriate for downtown due to the
amount of on- street parking. Development at Firdale Village may require a slightly higher standard although
there was an opportunity for shared parking due to the mixed use. He explained an agreement would need to be
reached regarding what parking was shared and what was reserved. With regard to whether there should be
mixed use in both districts, Mr. Chave explained the concept was a mixed use zone with different parts. The
applicant did not feel it was appropriate to have commercial inside the site particularly against the residential.
Council President Wilson inquired if a 15 foot setback was sufficient between the existing residential and this
project. Mr. Chave referred to the proposed step -back on the west where there was a 15 -foot setback and no
trees which would result in essentially a 2- story, 25 -foot height adjacent to the residence; elsewhere on the site
there was a 20 -foot setback with trees to provide a buffer. Mr. Shapiro described the 30 -foot setback at the
street before 3 stories can begin and two 25 -foot zones, essentially 80 feet from the street edge before buildings
could be 4 stories. Mr. Shapiro pointed out the 20% open space requirement excluded the setbacks. He
anticipated commercial space would face all plaza areas.
Council President Wilson asked whether Mr. Shapiro would agree to a requirement for commercial on the first
floor throughout the entire development. Mr. Shapiro was reluctant to impose criteria, noting the northeast
corner of the site may be appropriate for four stories of housing. He assured a developer would not propose a
development with housing facing a public area. He reiterated the requirement for 20% of the buildable site to be
open space. He noted the open space was required to be an 8 -foot minimum width. Council President Wilson
pointed out the 8 -foot width was a "should" not a "shall." He was in favor of tightening that requirement.
Council President Wilson referred to Mr. Shapiro's reference to 60,000 square feet of commercial space. Mr.
Shapiro answered the exact amount was unknown but they were required to have 25% of the built area in
commercial space. Council President Wilson pointed out 60,000 square feet could amount to only 3 -4
commercial spaces. He referred to permitted uses and the exclusion of buildings over 20,000 other than
drugstores, noting as an example Starbucks stores were 1,500 square feet. Mr. Shapiro envisioned multiple
different stores the size of Starbucks that would achieve the 25% minimum commercial space. .
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Wilson suggested the language be clear that the Council preferred small, neighborhood stores
versus three 20,000 square foot stores. He offered to identify where "should" in the language should be changed
to "shall."
Councilmember Bernheim inquired whether a straight height limit could be imposed rather than allowing the
roof to extend 5 feet above the stated high limit. Mr. Shapiro commented a strict height limited architectural
options and would result in more mundane and less attractive buildings.
Councilmember Bernheim asked what Mr. Shapiro was asking from the Council. Mr. Shapiro responded he was
asking the Council to approve the zone with any modifications. Councilmember Bernheim asked the next step
once the zone was approved. Mr. Shapiro answered they would return to the Planning Board to ask that the
zone be applied to the Firdale Village site. Mr. Snyder explained this was the legislative act of creating the
zone. A site specific rezone would follow.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether the current BN zone allowed residential. Mr. Chave answered it allowed
only one dwelling unit per lot.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 17
Council President Wilson suggested scheduling further discussion on the August 17 or August 25 agenda. Mr.
Chave suggested staff prepare an ordinance that clarified the issues the Council identified and options for other
issues. Mr. Snyder cautioned the public hearing would need to be re- advertised if there were any substantive
changes; therefore September 1 may be a more appropriate date. Council President Wilson agreed a second
public hearing on September 1 would be appropriate. Mr. Snyder advised he would like an opportunity to work
with the applicant on a mechanism to require and make the rear setback to protect the trees enforceable.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
7. PRESENTATION ON THE 2009 COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss reviewed major milestones to date:
• Completion of the Draft Transportation Plan in June which was reviewed by the Planning Board,
agencies and community members
• Community involvement that included three open houses and meetings with the Transportation,
Walkway, Bicycle, and Parking Committees
• Presentation to the Planning Board including a public hearing on June 10 and a recommendation from
the Planning Board to forward the Plan to the City Council.
The purpose of the Transportation Plan was to guide development of multimodal transportation, identify
transportation infrastructure /services needed to support the City's adopted land use plan and transportation goals
and policies. Elements of the Transportation Plan include Transportation Goals, Objectives and Policies; Street
System; Non - Motorized System; Transit and Transportation Demand Management; and Implementation and
Finance Plan.
He explained the Plan reflects the existing (2008) and projected (2025) population and employment and growth:
He noted the new travel demand forecasting model developed by the consultant reflects build -out of the City's
adopted 2025 land use plan and provides a basis for updated impact fees. He described major differences from
the 2003 Transportation Plan:
• Future planning year 2025 instead of 2022
• Stronger emphasis on non - motorized transportation projects (25% of the plan cost rather than 5% in the
past)
• Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Project not included in City financial plan (no planned City
expenditures), still planned as a long range project
• Updated traffic impact fee ($1,071 /trip, increased from $764 /trip
• Adds Traffic Calming Program and ADA curb Ramp Transition Plan
Mr. Hauss explained the Street System element identifies capital projects that include concurrency projects,
safety projects and highways of statewide significance. With regard to concurrency, he explained state law
requires the transportation system be adequate to support planned land use as measured by adopted level of
service standards (LOS D). There are four existing concurrency deficiencies (LOS E or F). The modeling
indicates there will be 4 additional locations by 2015 and 3 additional locations by 2025. He explained safety
projects are identified by previous studies or accident data. Highways of statewide significance are intersections
on the local state highway system that are under WSDOT jurisdiction and are not subject to the City's
concurrency standards. The Street System element also describes the Traffic Calming Program and
maintenance and preservation projects.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 18
Existing
2025 Project
Growth
Population
40,000
44,880
>12%
Employment
— 10,400
1.2,190
>17%
He noted the new travel demand forecasting model developed by the consultant reflects build -out of the City's
adopted 2025 land use plan and provides a basis for updated impact fees. He described major differences from
the 2003 Transportation Plan:
• Future planning year 2025 instead of 2022
• Stronger emphasis on non - motorized transportation projects (25% of the plan cost rather than 5% in the
past)
• Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Project not included in City financial plan (no planned City
expenditures), still planned as a long range project
• Updated traffic impact fee ($1,071 /trip, increased from $764 /trip
• Adds Traffic Calming Program and ADA curb Ramp Transition Plan
Mr. Hauss explained the Street System element identifies capital projects that include concurrency projects,
safety projects and highways of statewide significance. With regard to concurrency, he explained state law
requires the transportation system be adequate to support planned land use as measured by adopted level of
service standards (LOS D). There are four existing concurrency deficiencies (LOS E or F). The modeling
indicates there will be 4 additional locations by 2015 and 3 additional locations by 2025. He explained safety
projects are identified by previous studies or accident data. Highways of statewide significance are intersections
on the local state highway system that are under WSDOT jurisdiction and are not subject to the City's
concurrency standards. The Street System element also describes the Traffic Calming Program and
maintenance and preservation projects.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 18
For Council President Wilson, Mr. Hauss identified the four existing concurrency deficiencies: Main & 9th
(LOS E), 212th & 84th (LOS F), Walnut & 9th (LOS E) and Puget/196th & 881h (LOS F). Council President
Wilson asked what improvements were necessary to address the deficiencies. Mr. Hauss answered at 212th &
84th a roundabout was recommended to lower the level of service; traffic signals were recommended at the
remaining intersections. He advised the intersection levels of service were identified on the map in Figure 3 -9.
Although a traffic signal was recommended for three of the four intersections, further study would be necessary
to determine whether the intersections met the traffic warrants.
Jennifer Barnes, ICF Jones & Stokes, explained it was not uncommon for an intersection to operate at LOS F
and not meet the signal warrants. Council President Wilson asked if the recommended traffic restrictions at the
intersection of Puget /1961h & 881h intersection would improve the level of service. Ms. Barnes answered an
analysis would be necessary; restricting turning movements at the intersection may improve the level of service.
The Non - Motorized System element of the Transportation Plan includes the Walkway Plan and the Bikeway
Plan. The Walkway Plan identifies 10 new short walkways ( <1,000 feet) and 24 new long walkways ( >1,000
feet), the 4th Avenue Enhancement Project and the ADA Transition Plan (curb ramp retrofits). The Bikeway
Plan identifies locations for additional bike parking, signing of three (short, medium and long) bike loops,
recommended bike routes (provided bike lanes were feasible as part of future roadway projects and "sharrow"
pavement markings to indicate shared use of road by vehicles and bicycles), and completion of the Interurban
Trail.
The Transit System element of the Plan includes City policies that support additional and improved bus shelters,
additional transit service and Transportation Demand Management. No direct transit investments by the City
are currently included in the Plan.
Ms. Barnes reviewed the cost of the draft Plan, explaining the total cost was $105,213,300 for 2010 through
2025 (current dollars). She pointed out the estimates were conservative and detailed engineer estimates were
likely to be lower. She displayed a chart illustrating breakdown of costs, approximately 1/2 in roadway
improvements (concurrency, safety and highways of statewide significance), 1/4 for preservation and
maintenance (primarily road overlays every 20 years), and 1/4 in non - motorized projects.
She provided a comparison of cost versus revenue, explaining revenue from identified sources was estimated at
$40,906,611. This assumed the City would continue the current funding of transportation projects. The
difference between the total project costs and identified funding is $64,306.689. The identified sources of $40
million include several sources that require matching funds. Input from the Transportation Committee and
public involvement efforts supported a balanced allocation of available funds to project categories. The
projected revenue would fund approximately 23% of the Plan. She anticipated approximately $16 million
would be "left on the table" due to the unavailability of City matching funds. She pointed out the Transportation
Plan was a plan and funding decisions did not need to be made as part of the adoption of the Plan.
She identified additional revenue sources explored for funding scenarios including an additional Transportation
Benefit District (TBD) vehicle license fee up to $80 (for a total of $100) allowed by law with voter approval.
She calculated funds that could be generated by an additional $80 /vehicle /year: 40,000 population x 0.91
(vehicles per capita) = 36,400 licensed vehicles x $80 /vehicle /year = $2,912,000 /year x 16 years = $46,592,000
through 2025. She displayed a summary of example funding scenarios illustrating what projects could be
funded via the current funding level, and with an additional $20, $40, $60 and $80 TBD vehicle license fee.
Ms. Barnes described the conceptual leverage of additional funds:
• $80 TBD (added to existing $20 TBD committed to operations
• Projected to generate up to $46 million over 16 years
• Projected to enable approximately $63 million addition transportation investment over current
funding
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 19
o Each $1.00 spent would result in a $1.35 additional transportation investment due to the ability to
leverage other sources of funds.
Illustrates order of magnitude based on the example funding scenarios. Actual leverage will depend on
mix of projects and availability of grants and other external funding sources.
Additional potential revenue sources to close the funding gap could include additional grant funding and
higher revenue from existing sources (such as REST)
She reviewed alternatives for recommendation
Approve Plan with recommendation to pursue additional funding in the future. Funding level and
projects to be funded would be developed as part of total funding package.
Approve Plan with recommendation for no additional funding and one or more of the following future
actions: lower City concurrency standards, revise City policies to support lower level of non - motorized
infrastructure, lower City's level of commitment to maintenance and preservation, revise future land use
plan to reflect lower level of future development and /or shifts in land use densities.
Ms. Barnes noted a questionnaire completed by those in attendance at the open house indicated support for
investigating a higher TBD vehicle license fee. Next steps for the Transportation Plan include:
Agency review of draft Plan by Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic
Development (CTED), Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), WSDOT, Snohomish County and
adjacent cities
Incorporate feedback from agencies, community and Council into recommended Transportation. Plan
Schedule a public hearing on August 4 with approval of the Plan at that time; and adopt the Plan as part
of the annual Comprehensive Plan update in fall 2009.
Councilmember Wambolt questioned the 20 -year street overlay cycle. Ms. Barnes answered a 20 year cycle
was the ideal number of years. The longer timeline for overlays in the City was likely reflective of the funding
reality.
8. DISCUSSION REGARDING 523 ALDER BUILDING.
Planning Manager Rob Chave displayed an aerial photograph, identifying 523 Alder, a 30 -foot wide property
west of the Mariner Condominiums. The area is zoned RM 1.5 and the grade increases up the hill. He
displayed the approved building plans, noting due to the orientation of the lot, the pitch of the roof was east to
west which would have maximum impact on the uphill property. He displayed drawings of the east elevation as
viewed from the condominium, the west elevation as viewed from down the hill, noting due to the slope when
looking at the building downward, it looked like a 2 -story building; looking up from 5th Avenue, it looked like a
3- story. He also displayed north and south elevations, pointing out the roof contained a number of pitches that
met the minimum 4:12 pitch. He also displayed photographs that were forwarded to staff of construction in
progress.
Mr. Chave displayed a dictionary definition of roof, commenting there was a misconception that a 4:12 pitch
roof was only the roof and nothing else underneath; the definition of roof in the code is the upper portion of the
structure. Buildings often have dormers on the roof indicating there is living space under the roof. The 4:1.2
pitch simply regulates the shape of the roof but does not mean living space cannot occur under the roof. He
assured the building permit was approved according to the code. The property is slightly over 3,000 square feet
which with RM 1.5 zoning could have allowed 2 units. The developer chose to construct a single dwelling. The
height limits in a multi family zone are the same for a multi family and a single family structure. A recent
height inspection confirmed the structure was under the height allowed by the zoning.
Councilmember Orvis relayed he measured the building and confirmed it was within 30 feet above average
grade. He commented the roof was angled, had a flat spot and then angled up again and asked why the code
allowed that flat spot. Mr. Chave answered he was not familiar with the flat spot.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 20
Councilmember Orvis inquired why the neighbors were not provided notice. Mr. Chave answered notice was
only required in a multi family zone for development of four or more units.
For Council President Wilson, Mr. Chave advised in a RM 1.5 zone, one unit was allowed per 1500 square feet
of lot area. Council President Wilson asked why a single family dwelling was a conforming structure in a multi
family zone. Mr. Chave responded it was a permitted use in the zone. All the City's multi family zones had a
unit per lot area density but also allowed a single family dwelling as a permitted use. Council President Wilson
asked if a mother -in -law apartment would be allowed on the site. Mr. Chave answered there was sufficient lot
area for two units. A single family residence in a multi family zone entitled the property owner to the accessory
uses of a single family zone; in this instance the property owner would be allowed to have an accessory dwelling
unit (ADU). He noted the current developer had not applied for an ADU.
Council President Wilson asked whether the multi family design standards applied to a single family residence.
Mr. Chave answered the project was under the 4 -unit threshold for ADB review and thus there were no
applicable design standards. Council President Wilson commented this was an awkward looking building on a
difficult lot that was a permitted use but not reflective of the vision for the zone. The Council may want to
revisit the downtown residential design standards.
Councilmember Bernheim displayed a sketch of three roof types that could extend above the 25 foot height
limit; a traditional gable roof, and two roofs with multiple pitches that meet the pitch requirement. He suggested
simply having a maximum roof height. Mr. Chave provided a sketch of a roof with two pitches, noting this was
historically what was constructed. He agreed this was not the vision but was allowed by the code and should be
revisited.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Orvis suggested consideration be given to what the 5 meant in 25 + 5. He noted the code also
allowed a "hat" type roof. Mr. Chave clarified that was allowed in the BC zone but not in the RM zone.
Councilmember Orvis also suggested consideration be given to requiring ADB review in the higher density
zones regardless of the number of units. Mr. Chave suggested a design standard approach may be preferable,
noting with good design standards, the number of units was less important. The reason for ADB review was to
ensure unforeseen circumstances are addressed. Staff has intended to review and update the RM zones as there
was little difference between the height and bulk standards in the RM -3, 2.5 or 1.5; the only difference was the
number of units. He noted different areas of the City should also have different standards in the multi family
zone. There was also interest in allowing incentives in multi family zones for sustainable, green building.
Councilmember Orvis noted the balcony on the right freed up a great deal of view from the adjacent property.
Councilmember Wambolt commented the intent of 25 +5 roof versus a 30 -foot height was to discourage flat
roofs. He noted this home was a good example of why a single family dwelling should be allowed in a multi
family zone. The size of the lot, 7% of an acre, and the assessed value of $487,000 required a substantial
building to gain a reasonable return.
:���I�[K� ul�i►�i l �1�Y If.�
JoAnn Green, Edmonds, commented she was not convinced the structure at 523 Alder was what the Council
wanted for Edmonds or wanted citizens to experience in their backyard. She questioned whether there was an
opportunity to modify the design, pointing out the proximity and height of the structure eliminated the sun and
sky from her unit and the windows on the east side eliminated privacy in her bedroom. She was encouraged by
Mr. Shapiro's presentation and his reference to allowing sunlight into the development. She planned to research
Fair Housing laws that prevented a building from obstructing an adjacent property's sunlight.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 21
David McNayr, South County Senior Center, recalled several speakers had thanked the Council over the past
five months for their support of the South County Senior Center including continued funding for 2009. He
thanked the Council for including additional funding for the Senior Center in the levy. He relayed the 2009
Recreational Services Agreement between the Senior Center and the City, signed by Board President Rose
Cantwell today, allows the Senior Center to provide recreational and social service programs on the City's
behalf for the seniors of Edmonds. They plan to provide these programs with cost economies and efficiencies.
He noted this was not only a great social partnership but also a great business partnership. The Senior Center
pledges to be an active organization dedicated to the total betterment of all citizens of Edmonds.
George Murray, Edmonds, was disgusted by how the house at 523 Alder blocked the views of the adjacent
condominiums. He commented constructing that residence on a 30 -foot wide lot may be legal but it was not
justice. He described standards in other communities he has lived in, not only strictly controlling the land and
architecture but also colors and materials. One community required structures be erected delineating the corners
of new construction and allow 30 days for comment by the local community.
Jan Darcy, Edmonds, recalled her children's grandfather, a noted architect, saying any architect or contractor
with any talent or integrity would design a building that unobtrusively blends into the landscape and not scream
and shout I don't belong unless the architect or builder was motivated by greed. She displayed photographs of
the roof angles of the building at 523 Alder. She referred to the City's encouragement of a caring community in
previous agenda items, and urged the Council to follow the lead of other communities that encouraged the
construction of eco- friendly, green, stylish, one - family homes that encourage neighborliness where a developer
could still make a reasonable profit. She acknowledged Mr. Michel was simply trying to earn a buck, and had
designed a building that met the code. However, he owned over 40 properties in the Edmonds area, many of
them undeveloped, and this structure may be a prototype for small narrow spaces. She requested staff
investigate the canopy on 523 Alder that extended into the setback, noting eaves, the edge of a roof, were
allowed to extend into the setback. She referred to the requirement in the code that the roof may only extend
above 25 feet if all portions of the roof above the stated roof have a slope of 4:12 or greater. She alleged the flat
roof of 523 Alder was illegally permitted. Mayor Haakenson invited Ms. Darcy to provide her documentation to
Building Official Ann Bullis who would investigate.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, advised Lynnwood's Transportation Plan included an $18 million project in 2014. He
anticipated Lynnwood would be seeking state and federal funds for that project and recommended the City seek
state and federal funds for its transportation projects. Next he advised Stevens Hospital may have three new
Commissioners next year. Stevens Hospital plans to present a plan to voters for three funding options in 2010.
With regard to the $100,000 in the levy for the Senior Center, he assumed it represented $25,000 /year for four
years. With regard to the building on Alder, he recommended the Council respond to the questions raised.
10. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF JULY 14 2009
Finance Committee
Councilmember Wambolt reported staff briefed the Committee on surplus water and wastewater parts. The
salvage value was $25,000. This item was approved as Item 2F on tonight's Consent Agenda. Next the
Committee reviewed proposed equipment rental hourly rates which were approved as Item 2G on tonight's
Consent Agenda. The final item was the second quarter budget report. The City's financial situation is
unchanged; sales tax collections are $1 million less than projected and expenses and other revenues are as
projected. In response to a question raised at the Citizens Economic Development Commission regarding the
source of the City's revenues, Councilmember Wambolt relayed 40% are from property taxes, 17% from sales
tax, 14% from utility tax, and 29% are from a variety of sources.
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 22
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Bernheim recommended staff investigate the flat roof on the building at 523 Alder. Next, he
displayed two reams of paper, the amount necessary to produce each Councilmeinber's agenda packet this week.
He suggested Councilmembers be provided the agenda packet electronically which would save a great deal of
paper as well as staff time to prepare and deliver the packet.
1Rc [ 1X1111 j01
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:28 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 23
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Summary of Levy Decision Packages
As of July 16, 2009
General ;Onerations
One time Purchases
Prop 1
Prop 2
Prop 3;
Fire
Protective Clothing
114,000
114,000
114,000
Fire
SCBA Air Compressor
39,000
39,000
39,000
Fire
Fire Hose Replacement
39,000
39,000
39,000
Fire
ALS Equipment for Backup Unit
40,000
40,000
40,000
Fire
Standardize Equipment on Eng 20
42,000
42,000
42,000
Fire
Replacement Tools & Equipment
50,000
50,000
50,000
Parks
Lawn Mower
15,000
15,000
15,000
Economic Development
Resources /Advertsing ($70k/yr, 3 yrs)
25,000
210,000
25,000
339,000 549,000 339,000
General Ojge rations Ongoing Prop 1 ` Prop 2 Prop 3
9. Parks Senior Center 100,000
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
35.
36.
0 100,000 0
Technolo
One time Purchases''
Prop 1'
Prop
Prop 3` -'
City Clerk's Office
Document Management System
100,000
100,000
100,000
Information Services
Offsite Data Backup
73,000
Prop 2
73,000
Information Services
Offsite Server - Growth/Recovery
24,000
24,000
Information Services
Storage Server Facilities Impv.
25,000
25,000
Information Services
Upgrade to GigE
9,000
9,000
Information Services
Basic Wireless Controllers /Svrs
37,000
37,000
Fire
ePCR Hardware and Software
40,000
40,000
40,000
Development Services
Automated Permit Package
25,000
108,803
25,000
Development Services
Digital Records Initiative
30,000
60,421
30,000
Information Services
General Technology Purchases
68,330
100,000
68,330
770,831 627,431 854,231
$78K Utility Funded
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 24
363,000
240,000
363,000
$26K Utility Funded
Personnel
Ongoing
Prop 1
Prop 2
Prop 3
Information Services
GIS Analyst
87,450
87,450
Information Services
Server /Apps Support Staff
66,650
66,650
Information Services
Webmaster & Analyst
88,750
88,750
Information Services
Helpdesk Staff
38,050
38,050
Fire
Fire Inspector /Educator/Help
109,877
109,877
109,877
Police
Crime Prevention/Analyst Officer
108,803
108,803
108,803
Police
Staff Assistant
60,421
60,421
60,421
Parks
Parks Maintenance Worker
68,330
68,330
68,330
Human Resources
Part time HR Assistant
26,600
City Clerk's Office
Administrative Assistant
60,000
60,000
60,000
Facilities Maintenance
Facilities Maintenance Worker
55,900
55,900
Police
1 New Uniformed Police Officer
220,000
110,000
770,831 627,431 854,231
$78K Utility Funded
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 24
Building Maintenance Ongoing Prop 1 '! Prop Prop 3
39. Facilities Maintenance Building Maintenance /Repair 200,000
Yost/Senior Center /Boys &
40. Parks Girls /Meadowdale 250,000 100,000
41. Fire Stations 17 & 20 150,000 1.00,000
42.
Fire
200,000
400,000
200,000
Total All Requests
1,672,831
1,916,431
1,756,231
Amount to be funded by Utility Fund
(104,000)
433,330
(104,000)
Cuts from Baseline
0
(91,006)
0
Total Requests to be funded by Levy
1,568,831
1,825,425
1,652,231
Ongoing
970,831
1,127,431
1,054,231
One time Purchases
702,000
789,000
702,000
City Clerk's Office
1,672,831
1,916,431
1,756,231
Amount to be funded by Utility Fund
(104,000)
0
(104,000)
Cuts from Baseline
1,672,831
(91,006)
1,756,231
Fire
1,568,831
1,825,425
1,652,231
Fire
473,877
623,877
573,877
Police
169,224
389,224
279,224
Parks
83,330
433,330
183,330
Economic Development
0
210,000
0
Facilities Maintenance
255,900
0
55,900
Information Services
448,900
100,000
448,900
Human Resources
26,600
0
0
City Clerk's Office
160,000
160,000
160,000
Development Services
55,000
0
55,000
1,672,831
1,916,431
1,756,231
Fire
28.33%
32.55%
32.68%
Police
1.0.1.2%
20.31%
15.90%
Parks
4.98%
22.61%
10.44%
43.43%
75.48%
59.01%
Economic Development
0.00%
10.96%
0.00%
Facilities Maintenance
15.30%
0.00%
3.18%
Information Services
26.83%
5.22%
25.56%
Human Resources
1.59%
0.00%
0.00%
City Clerk's Office
9.56%
8.35%
9.11%
Development Services
3.29%
0.00%
3.13%
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 21, 2009
Page 25