Loading...
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