07/29/2003 City Councilf
1
pprove
/22/03
inutes
pprove
orrection
0 6/24/03
inutes
pprove
laim
hecks
c
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
July 29, 2003
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 50' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Dave Earling, Council President
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Thomas Tomberg, Fire Chief
Jim Larson, Acting Admin. Services Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2003.
(C) APPROVAL OF CORRECTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JUNE 24, 2003.
(D) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #64133 THROUGH #64318 FOR THE WEEK OF
JULY 21, 2003, IN THE AMOUNT OF $318,323.02.
(E) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM RICHARD W. VAN
PELT ($469.60).
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 29, 2003
Page 1
Ord #3464 3. ORDINANCE NO. 3464 PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED
Levy Lid ELECTORS OF THE CITY AT THE NOVEMBER GE_ NERAL ELECTION OF A PROPOSITION
'ft AUTHORIZING A LEVY LID LIFT TO INCREASE THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX BY UP
TO AN ADDITIONAL $.51 NOT TO EXCEED $2.85 PER $1,000 OF TRUE ASSESSED
VALUATION SUPPLYING A BALLOT TITLE, STATING THE COUNCIL'S INTENT TO LIMIT
ITS EXERCISE OF SAID AUTHORITY TO THAT NECESSARY TO RAISE $1.7 MILLION
CURRENT VALUE ANNUALLY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY PURPOSES, PROVIDING FOR
ESTABLISHMENT OF A CITIZENS COMMITTEE AND SEPARATE FUND TO REVIEW AND
CONFIRM EXPENDITURE OF THE MONIES FOR PUBLIC SAFETY PURPOSES, AND
FIXING A TIME WITH THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
Jim Larson, Acting Administrative Services Director, recalled the 2003 budget process was difficult for
the city. The passage of statewide initiatives and a weak economy combined to reduce the city's
revenues. In response, the Mayor proposed cuts to all city departments, including public safety. These
proposed cuts to the fire and police services were of concern to a number of residents. When the time
came for public input on the 2003 budget, these residents asked the City Council not to make the cuts and
allow the voters the opportunity to decide if they would want to increase their taxes to pay for these
services. In response, the City Council decided to use beginning cash to restore the proposed public
safety cuts for 2003, and to place a measure on the ballot, which upon passage, would raise property
taxes to keep the Police and Fire Departments whole. The proposed ordinance would put a measure on
the 2003 General Election ballot which will raise the City property taxes no more than $1.7 Million
dedicated to public safety. It would create a new fund and a citizens committee to insure the funds are
used as the measure provides. Staff recommends passage of the ordinance.
Councilmember Plunkett commented about the reference in the title of the ordinance that the citizens
committee would review and confirm expenditure of the monies for public safety purposes. He noted
that reference sounds like this committee would determine how these funds are spent, and not the City
Council.
Councilmember Dawson commented that while working through the language that should be contained in
the ordinance, City Attorney Snyder had the idea that one thing that might make people more
comfortable with the levy lid lift, and to help insure that future Councils and Mayors would be following
the will of the people and Council as to what these funds would be spent for, was the idea of a citizens
committee. The citizens committee would advise the Mayor during the budgetary process every year,
and would insure that future Councils and Mayors understand the proposition as it was put forth during
this time period.
In further response to the question concerning the citizens committee, Mayor Haakenson read Section 3
of the ordinance: "In order to fully inform of and involve the citizens of Edmonds in the budgeting of the
funds raised by the authorized levy, the Mayor is requested to appoint a citizens advisory committee.
The committee shall advise the Mayor in the preparation of his annual preliminary budget regarding the
use of funds raised through the levy lid lift to insure that such funds are utilized only for public safety
purposes and on such other matters as the Mayor may from time to time request their advice."
Mayor Haakenson also read Section 4 of the ordinance: "Further, the Mayor is requested to provide in
the budget process for establishment of a separate fund to hold and disburse the additional funds raised
by the levy lid lift for public safety purposes."
Councilmember Plunkett stated he is concerned about the word "confirm" in the title of the ordinance.
He questioned if the title of the ordinance would be used as the ballot title. City Clerk Sandy Chase
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 29, 2003
Page 2
responded that the ballot title can be found within the ordinance on page 4. She noted that the title on the
ordinance allows for further clarification of the Council's intent related to the proposition. The ballot
title itself is limited to specific requirements of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW).
Mayor Haakenson pointed out his understanding that the word "confirm" is intended not to confirm the
actual expenditure, but to confirm that the funds were expended in the proper way for public safety
purposes.
Councilmember Plunkett commented that a citizen committee is an excellent idea. However, he is
uncomfortable with the word "confirm," and would prefer it said to "review the monies for public safety
purposes." He will not vote against the ordinance because of this concern, however, the reference to
confirm appears like it is cutting into the obligations and responsibilities of the Council.
Public Comment
Ron Wambolt, 504 6"' Avenue S., Edmonds, commented that he is opposed to the levy lid lift. The
primary reasons for his opposition include: (1) using the Police and Fire Departments as the sole
benefactors of increased taxes is disingenuous and is intended to introduce a fear factor, to make voters
fear that they could lose a substantial amount of vital services. In his opinion, this proposal will effect
other city departments as well. If it doesn't pass, the Council will be forced to shift some funds from
lower priority services to vital services, and to perhaps temporarily freeze or reduce some compensation.
If it passes, the Council will then be spared the task of cutting salaries and other expenditures. (2) It is
not apparent that the City Council has appropriately scrutinized and adjusted department budgets. The
amount being proposed for the levy is the same $1.7 Million spoken of several months ago. (3) The levy
lid lift represents a 22% increase in city taxes, which is incremental to changes resulting from the
County's 2004 property appraisals. On average, the new appraisals will not cause more taxes to be
collected. However, more taxes will be paid by property owners who have appraisals increased more
than the average. He commented that most citizens are willing to accept a reasonable increase in
property taxes, but 22% or more is not reasonable.
Rowena Miller, 8711 182nd Place SW, Edmonds, commented that she conducted a small poll, and has
only come across a few people who think the levy lid lift is a good idea. One of the questions that is
asked is if the levy passes and these dedicated funds go to Police and Fire, would other money that has
already been budgeted for police and fire then go to support other services of the city? She also noted
that people want a detailed list of services they would lose, including fire, police and other services. Her
poll indicates everyone feels the 22% increase is really high.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented he does not believe that the city has made
enough effort to control spending. He referenced salaries as an example. A 22% increase in taxes is
hard for all people to understand. He believes the city needs to do something to raise money, however,
he questions if people would vote for this issue if the city has not gone to a great enough effort to reduce
expenditures. He commented that the salary increases for department heads were outlandish, and
referenced the Mayor's salary increase. He would endorse having an increase in taxes if he could see a
comparable decrease in spending. Mr. Hertrich also noted the wording in the ballot title is confusing.
He does not understand "up to 51¢ not to exceed $2.85." He felt it is not well explained. He commented
police and fire are the first to be funded in the city. He further referenced previous comments he has
made related to the six year road program that is going no where, and his suggestion to decrease spending
by co- sharing the traffic engineering department. He concluded stating it falls upon the administration
and Council to endorse savings and reductions before asking the people to spend more.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 29, 2003
Page 3
Councilmember Petso noted one of the audience speakers asked about the exact services that would be
lost if the levy lid lift did not pass. Mr. Larson stated he did not have a complete list of the services in
front of him, however, the funds from the levy lid lift would include preventing the reduction of three
firefighters and prevent the reduction of a number of police staff. In addition, without the levy lid lift the
Crime Prevention Program would be cut. He pointed out a new funding source for jail costs is required
as this is currently being paid out of the Criminal Justice Fund which is running out of money.
Councilmember Petso requested that copies of the services to be funded as a result of the levy lid lift be
provided to the local papers.
Councilmember Petso also referred to a question posed by an audience speaker that by putting the levy
lid lift funds into police and fire, will that free up significant other funds to go to other departments? Mr.
Larson responded it is important to realize that the money that was restored this year was coming out of
the city's beginning cash. This is a limited source and it is not possible to continue to fund ongoing
programs out of a limited source. Specific costs have been identified that the levy will pay for. The levy
lid lift would not make any additional funds available for other programs.
Councilmember Petso questioned if there is anything on the list that needs to be funded regardless of
whether the levy passes or not? If it doesn't pass would it then be necessary to pull from other funds to
pay for that item? Mr. Larson stated the primary item would be the jail costs. If the levy does not pass,
then somewhere within the General Fund Budget, Council and management would have to find an
additional $200,000 to $300,000 to pay for jail costs at the level that jail costs are today. That does not
take into consideration increased costs that will be seen once the new County jail facility is on line.
Councilmember Petso referred to an additional audience comment that the wording in the ballot title is
confusing. Councilmember Dawson responded that in working with the City Attorney an effort was
made to make the ballot title as clear as possible. She noted state statutes and law specify what a
proposition title has to look like. Basically, the law requires that a proposition discuss what the increase
in the levy lid lift would be as well as what the total tax levy would be for the city if this were to pass.
She pointed out a difficulty in putting the ballot title together is that it will not be known what the final
numbers will actually be until February of next year, which is why additional limiting language was
added that in no event would the amount exceed $1.7 Million. The $2.85 figure would be the maximum
tax levy per $1,000 of assessed valuation, which is an increase of 51¢. She agrees that it is confusing,
but pointed out the state law requires this language. She noted Mr. Snyder made numerous attempts to
make this as clear as could be under the strictures of the state law.
MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3464.
Councilmember Marin clarified this ordinance is sending the opportunity to the citizens to vote on the
levy lid lift. There are important services that it is desired to keep in our city. The intent is to provide
this funding for good programs that are deemed important. The Council is giving the citizens an
opportunity to look at the list and ask them to decide.
Councilmember Marin further stated he wanted to make it clear it is not his intention, nor does he believe
it is the intention of the Mayor or other City Councilmembers, to play any kind of game by reducing the
budget in order to capitalize on a levy lid lift. There is a genuine need; these are programs that are vital
to the city and make a difference in the city. It is imperative that a great effort is made to support this.
Councilmember Petso commented she would support the passage of the ordinance tonight. She agrees
entirely and understands the public comment that a 22% increase is too much. She pointed out she voted
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 29, 2003
Page 4
against most of the salary increases, but noted they passed anyway. Now the reality she faces is to
determine how to pay them. Putting this list in front of the public is one way of paying for all the
increases and allowing the city to retain services. If that is not what the public wants to do, Council will
have to come up with another option.
Council President Earling wanted to make it clear that Council is not increasing taxes tonight. The
obligation of city government is to provide public safety and also infrastructure. But because of some of
the unstable funding that has been experienced over the last couple of years, there is some question about
how much of the entire public safety program the city can continue to fund. This was discussed a great
deal during the budget cycle this past year. This proposition, if approved, would insure stability of the
programs mentioned. The action tonight simply puts the proposition before the voters. It does not
increase taxes unless the voters of Edmonds approve it.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Haakenson stated that this proposition asks the voters to approve a 51¢ per $1,000 tax increase.
He calculated that on a home that is valued at $500,000, the tax would be an additional $255 per year.
4. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson provided a reminder that next Tuesday, August 5, 2003, will be the public hearing
Baring
regarding Planned Residential Development (PRD).
1
5. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Earling wished Councilmember Marin a happy birthday.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
WARVElu
- -
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 29, 2003
Page 5
Revised 7125103 at 10 a.m.
w AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5t" Avenue North, Edmonds
7:00 - 10:00 a.m.
JULY 29, 2003
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order
Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
(A) Roll Call
(13) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of July 22, 2003.
(C) Approval of correction to the City Council Minutes of June 24, 2003.
(D) Approval of claim checks #64133 through #64318 for the week of July 21,
2003, in the amount of $318,323.02.
(E) Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Richard W. Van Pelt
($469.60).
3. (30 Min.) Proposed ordinance providing for the submission to the qualified electors of
the City at the November General Election of a proposition authorizing a levy
lid lift to increase the regular property tax by up to an additional $.51, not to
exceed $2.85 per $1,000 of true assessed valuation, supplying a ballot title,
stating the Council's intent to limit its exercise of said authority to that
necessary to raise $1.7 million current value annually for public safety
purposes, providing for establishment of a citizens committee and separate
fund to review and confirm expenditure of the monies for public safety
purposes, and fixing a time when the same shall become effective.*
*Public comment will be invited.
4. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
5. (15 Min.) Council Comments
ADJOURN
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk at
(425) 771 -0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda as well as a delayed
telecast of the meeting appears on cable television Government Access Channel 21.