Loading...
11/15/1999 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES Budget Workshop Special Monday, November 15, 1999, Council Meeting ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT. STAFF PRESENT Tom Miller, Council President -late arrival 7:10 p.m. Peggy Hetzler, Admin. Services Director Dave Earling, Councihnember Doug Farmen, Accounting Manager Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember Noel Miller, Public Works Director Jim White, Councilmember Ray Miller, Development Services Director Gary Haakenson, Councilmember Mayor Barbara Fahey Absent: John Nordquist, Councilmember Jana Spellman, Recorder The meeting was called to order by Council President Pro -Tem Dick Van Hollebeke at 7:00 p.m. stating that this Special Council Meeting was being held for the purpose of budget discussion. He advised the audience that Council President Miller was going to be about a half an hour late. He started by asking Administrative Services Director, Peggy Hetzler, to begin by discussing the Agenda Memo and attachments Council received. He explained that after Peggy had completed her presentation, the Council would have an opportunity to ask Peggy questions so the Council would be able to begin to focus on a direction regarding the 2000 budget. PRESENTATION BY PEGGY HL+'TZLER, ADMIN. SERVICES DIRECTOR Peggy began her presentation with Exhibit A attached to the Agenda Memo. This exhibit served as a re- orientation of what has changed since the budget was filed on November 1, 1999. She then gave the figures for beginning cash, revenues, expenditures, excess /deficiencies and ending cash for the preliminary budget, revised budget, and changes that had occurred. She clarified that the figure listed in the preliminary budget regarding revenue estimates assumed that the MVET and sales tax equalization would be in place, there would be a 6% property tax increase, a garbage utility tax of 6 %, a new planning fee structure and a business excise tax. Since the passage of . I -695 she stated, that the Mayor had instructed the Finance Department to put together a budget that reflected the loss of the revenues affected by I -695 with the assumption that there would be no property tax increase and no new revenue sources of any kind. The estimated revenues were adjusted to be slightly under 20 million dollars. Peggy said the Mayor then directed all department Directors to make a series of cuts to their budget submissions and stated that, for most departments the cuts accumulated to approximately 8 to 9% of their budgets. After those cuts had been made, expenditures amounted to 20.3 million which Edmonds City Council Budget Workshop Approved Minutes Monday, November 15, 1999 Page 1 1 LJ still left a gap between the current year revenues and current year. expenditures of about $783,000 which would leave an ending cash balance of $434,000. She then proceeded with Exhibit A -1 which was a Revenue/Expenditure Forecast Trend for the Years Ending December 31, 1998 to the year 2002. This exhibit showed that by the end of the year 2002, the city would have a deficit of almost 3 million dollars. These figures were estimated with no new property taxes, no new revenue sources, and the loss of income from Initiative 695. Expenditures were based on the historical rate of about 5 %. She informed the Council that she had prepared this memo to give them insight into what. the upcoming gap between the City's expenditure growth and revenue growth is and the impact on ending cash for the next three years. She said the exhibit was intended to demonstrate the dollar amount of the revenue sources the City will need so it can adopt a balanced budget in 2001 and 2002. She then referred to Exhibit D -1 which showed the City's Reserve Fund balances and explained that the City, in the past, has had a policy of maintaining 5 to 7% of the general fund operating expenses in the Emergency Reserve Fund. She explained to maintain that 5% level, the Emergency Reserve Fund could go below a million dollars. Council President Tom Miller arrived at 7:10 p.m. She then brought forth Exhibit D -4 which information had been requested . at the November 6, 1999, Council Budget Workshop that showed three revenue sources that the Council had identified as areas of interest. The revenue sources included raising property taxes 3% (estimated revenue $188,500), a utility tax on sewer (estimated revenue $180,000), telephone tax reallocation ($90,000), and transfer from emergency Reserve Fund ($335,000 — represents a one -time transfer only). She explained that, although the Council had asked her to investigate a utility tax on garbage -collection, the window of opportunity had closed because a 60 -day notification was required to be given to a private utility. She stated that a utility tax could. still be applied on the internal utility tax on sewer. She stated the approximate amount of revenue from new resources would be $793,500. The following section of Exhibit D -4 showed the following: 1. Avoid city-wide. layoffs (includes Public. Safety Reserve personnel) $ 566,320 2. Restore Public Safety Positions (includes Public Safety vacancies) 631,580 3. Fund Fire Battalion Chiefs 211,540 4. Restore Senior Center, Alliance and Flower Program Funding I I4,9T0 5. Increase Council Contingency Level 100.000 6. Maintain current service levels ,x,172.230 7. Maintain current staffing levels 971,340 . Peggy went through the items stating the figure of $566,320 was only designed to keep people that are currently in positions from being laid off. Item number 2 was a request to the Finance Department to cost out what amount of money it would take to restore all positions to Public Edmonds City Council Budget Workshop Approved Minutes Monday, November 15, 1999 Page 2 Safety, including positions that are identified to be cut plus vacancies and their reserves. She reiterated that figure was approximately $632,000. She explained that item number 3 was an estimate of the additional revenues that would be required to fund the Battalion Chief positions stating that the figure included the estimate for the civil service costs that would have to be paid in addition to salaries, benefits, uniforms, etc. Item number 4, identified the revenues that would need to be generated to restore some of the economic development programs that are now in place including the Senior Center, Alliance, and flower program funding. She stated that item number 5 was a request to increase the Council Contingency Fund by $100,000 and that was why it was included. Peggy said that item number 6 was a request made by Council which would show how much money would be necessary for the City to be able to maintain its current service level. Peggy elucidated the calculation of $2,172,230 was made assuming that all the positions that are in place in 1999 remain, a 3% cost of living increase was put in for supplies and services and non - personnel- related issues. Any new positions that were requested in the budget were not included in the figure listed in item number 6 ($2,172,230). She reiterated that was the Finance Department's best estimate of what it would take to keep everything in the City that exists now full. Peggy said that she included item number 7 as a reference and referred to the itemized listing of department staff cuts which were included in the packet. She explained that $971,340 consists of employee lay offs and staff reductions. Ms. Hetzler said she wanted to add an item number 8, which was not shown in Exhibit D -4, which was a request to put a dollar figure against the amount of money that the City would need if it wanted to defer lay offs until April of 2000. She stated that figure was approximately $130,000. She indicated that she would get it on the schedule for the next meeting. Council President Tom Miller called on Councilmember Van Hollebeke. Mr. Van Hollebeke asked Peggy for a clarification of the exact meaning of items 1, 2, and 3 on Exhibit D -4 and for a recap on a continuation of things until April, 2000. Mr. Van Hollebeke stated that he wanted to get a better grasp of that information. Peggy stated that in the packets was a detailed listing of all the filled positions and that the $566,320 figure relates to those positions. She further explained that those positions would require an actual notice of lay off. Mr. Van Hollebeke repeated that any cut in the $566,320 figure would be an actual lay off and not a filling of a vacancy. Ms. Hetzler concurred. She reiterated that item number 2 took all staff reductions listed that related to Public Safety including all fire personnel, all police positions, whether currently filled or vacant, the fire and police reserves, it also included the fire mechanic and the public safety custodian. She repeated that all of those positions were built into item number 2. Mr. Van Hollebeke asked if the Fire Battalion Chiefs were built into the item number 2 figure of $631,580. Ms. Hetzler replied that figure was costed out separately on item number 3. He then asked Peggy if she was saying that for 3 months, until the 1St of April, 2000, the City could continue at current staffing, not replacing vacancies but not incurring any lay offs, for a cost of $130,000. She concurred. Edmonds City Council Budget Workshop Approved Minutes Monday, November 15, 1999 Page 3 1 Council President Tom Miller then called on Councilmember Plunkett. Mr. Plunkett stated that he had three or four question§ and asked Mr. Tom Miller if he preferred the Councilmembers to wait until they were completely done or ask questions now. Tom answered that it might be best to ask questions now while the subjects was being discussed. Mr. Plunkett then referred to the 3% property tax increase on the potential revenue sources. He asked Peggy if he heard her say that the-recent Puget Sound inflation is 2.4 %. She stated that was an approximate figure: He asked her to e-mail him the difference. He also asked if there was a new inflation figure coming out soon. She explained that for property tax purposes the July implicit price deflator was used. She informed Mr. Plunkett that was the figure she used. Mr. Plunkett asked her if the 2.4% was the figure that the City would be using. She agreed. He then stated 2.4% not 3 %. She explained that.-the 2.4% was the CPI and the 1.42 was the IPD. He then went on to speak about the transfer from the Emergency Reserve Fund stating that she had shown that there was actually $453,640 and that she had used the figure of $335,000 asking her if that was the figure she was suggesting but it was not what was available. She agreed. She explained that she was conservative. He asked if it was her professional opinion if she was suggesting that it would be unwise to take more than the $335,000. She stated that the 5% benchmark is the absolute. lowest that. is recommended by the professional organizations, the m governent finance officers, etc. and when a city gets real close to that .5 %, it starts looking less rosy for the City. She stated that she would say that somewhere between 5 and 7% is a good place to keep the reserve. Mr. Plunkett then stated that there is another $153,000 and she agreed. Council President Miller then called on Councilmember Haakenson. Mr. Haakenson referred back to the beginning of her presentation when she covered estimated expenditures for the year 2001 and that she had mentioned that it did not include the payment of the library bonds because they would be paid off and that was not included in the figure. She said yes. He then asked if the payment for. the 800 - megahertz bonds were included in that figure. and she stated yes. She also informed Mr. Haakenson that they were in the 2000 figure. The second question Mr. Haakenson asked referred to the amount of the 3% property tax increase which was $188,500. He asked her what was 3% of the City's budget. She stated that 3% of the City's budget was approximately $600,000. Council President Miller then called on Councilmember White. Mr.. White stated to Peggy that he had read some articles that suggested that the 5% emergency fund figure may no, longer be applicable since the City does not have taxing authority without a public election. He asked Peggy if she had heard anything to that effect. She stated that she had not. She asked if they were saying that it was a meaningless benchmark and he replied yes. Mr. Miller then acknowledged Councilmember Earling. Edmonds City Council Budget Workshop Approved Minutes Monday, November 15, 1999 Page 4 Mr. Earling asked for a clarification from Ms. Hetzler regarding the use of the portion above the 5% of the Emergency Reserve Fund and the "identification of new resources ". Mr. Earling wanted to know what were the new resources. She stated that the Finance Department was extremely hopeful that the State Legislature was going to come through and free up some budget reserve or find some other way to assist the cities that had lost so much of the sales tax equalization. She clarified that at this point it was just a hope that it was going to happen. She said that according to some of the statements that Governor Locke has made is that one of the first priorities is to find a way to keep the smaller cities from going under. Council President Miller then asked Peggy if she had more slides. She responded that she did and proceeded with Exhibit E in the Council's packet. She explained the exhibit showed a menu of the major revenue options that could be considered by the City. She mentioned that these options were in addition to the three that were mentioned in Exhibit D -4, She began by showing the different income levels that would be realized by different property tax percentages as follows: Property Tax Amount Annual Impact Residential Business. Assumptions 1% $ 62,825.00 $5.00 Based on median home value of $235,000 2% 125,650.00 $10.00 " 3% 188,500.00 $16.00 " 4% 251,300.00 $21.00 " 5% 324,100.00 $26.00 6% 376,950.00 $31.00 " Recapture of protected levy capacity (equivalent of 9% increase) 868,000.00 $71.00 « She explained the last figure was formulated on information from the Assessor's Office and was the amount banked by the Assessor's Office when the City approved a 3% property tax increase instead of the full 6 %. She clarified that the City can go back and assess that 3 %. Ms. Hetzler stated that the cost based on a median home value of $235,000 would be approximately $71 a year. She reiterated for a Councilmember that if the Council voted in a 6% tax increase and then went back and recaptured the 3% the total would be approximately $71 a year based on the median home value of $235,000. She referenced the next section on Exhibit E which showed an array of utility taxes thought possible. She explained that the only source now available would be a utility on the City's internal utility (sanitary sewer). Because of a 60-day notice required for private utilities, the City will not now be able to look at that as a revenue source. Peggy then went on to discuss business excise tax structures that could be put in place. She told the Council if they decided to levy an annual business tax of $50 a year, the revenue associated Edmonds City Council Budget Workshop Approved Minutes Monday, November 15, 1999 Page 5 1 with that tax would be about $83,000. If the Council wanted to look at a figure of $100 per year, that figure would double the revenue to about $166,000. She pointed out that the City of Edmonds does not have a non - resident business license fee; and if this fee were implemented ,it would bring in approximately $17,000 to the City. She pointed out that the largest number of non - resident businesses that work in the City are contractors and would be easily identified as working in the City without a license. Mr. Van Hollebeke then asked Peggy about the figure given to her by the Assessor's Office of $868,000 in recoverable taxes. He wanted her to make sure.that was the correct figure and that the percentages were correct. She explained that if the City does not want to go back and levy, any of it's protected capacity, the base the City would be working from is 6.2 million dollars. If the City wants to go back and recapture that additional capacity, the base the City would start from would be 6.7 million dollars. She stated that annexations also have had an impact on the base figure on which calculations are figured. Ms. Hetzler said she had reworked the figures and it came out to be the same amount of money. Mr. Van Hollebeke asked how many businesses the non - resident fee would apply to, and why the figure of $25 was chosen when there was a consideration being made to have a resident business annual excise of $50 to $100. She stated the $25 amount was based on the fact there was no inspection of the facility and the $25 was meant to recoup paperwork costs of the City Clerk's Office. Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked if the City decided to. charge an excise tax to the resident businesses of Edmonds would it be feasible to charge the same to non - resident business: Peggy indicated that she would have to research that information for him. Council President Miller referenced the ALS and BLS fees and stated that the Council had an agreement with the community not to implement those fees and asked Peggy to move on to the next section of Exhibit E which was telephone utility tax. She stated that is the $90,000 that would be transferred from the Emergency Reserve Fund directly to the General Fund. She indicated that she did not have all the information on the section on increased permit fees and stated that would be discussed at the November 23, 1999, Council Meeting. Council President Tom Miller explained that he had asked the Council to review, over the weekend, material which Peggy had prepared and which they havexeceived in their packets. He then opened the floor for the Council to ask the staff members any questions they may have so they may begin to focus in on some of the priorities. Council President Miller then called on Mr. Plunkett. Edmonds City Council Budget Workshop Approved Minutes Monday, November 15, 1999 Page 6 Mr. Plunkett then referenced Exhibit D -4, Funding Requests per Budget Workshop, number 2, Restore Public Safety Positions (includes Public Safety vacancies), $631,580. He then asked Chief Tomberg how close that figure would come to the original budget that Chief Tomberg proposed. Chief Tomberg asked Mr. Plunkett if he was talking about the fire battalion chiefs (item 3). Mr. Plunkett replied that he was not but was talking about item 2, Restore Public Safety Positions (includes Public Safety vacancies), and that was exclusive of the battalion chiefs. He then asked, exclusive of the battalion chiefs, how close would that figure come to meeting Chief Tomberg's original budget. Chief Tomberg indicated that he thought item 2 included police also and Mr. Plunkett replied that it did. Chief Tomberg indicated that he was not sure what the exact breakdown was. Peggy Hetzler clarified item 2 picked up the fire fighter that was scheduled for lay off, restored Fire Inspector, restored the part-time secretary, and all of the overtime was added back in. She stated the rest was the Police Department. Chief Tomberg stated that Peggy Hetzler was referencing the fact that the personnel cuts would be restored. Ms. Hetzler said that was correct, all personnel. Mr. Plunkett stated that item 2 comes as close as simply restoring the personnel and there' are other items that would not be restored and obviously that would be the difference. Chief Tomberg stated, as with all departments, they had to eliminate things that made the department operations work. He mentioned training, supplies, etc. Councilmember White then asked Chief Tomberg to look at page 8 of Exhibit B. He then asked if the fire mechanic to equipment rental fund was going to happen regardless. Chief Tomberg said that due to various factors they'did not need the fire mechanic as much as in the past but would like to retain him at a 50% level. Mr. White asked if.the firefighter position ($62,140) was a new position that would not be filled. Chief Tomberg explained that the fire inspector position was eliminated, and because of his union standing, he would then go back to being a senior fire fighter, and that would mean that the most junior fire fighter in the Department would be laid off. Mr. White asked if the $5,000 listed in the Fire Department's cuts related to the Sr. Inspector bump back to senior fire fighter. Chief Tomberg indicated that amount was the difference between the Sr. Inspector moving back to Sr. Fire Fighter. Councilmember White then asked Chief Tomberg to describe the Fire Department, Reserve Program. Fire Chief Tomberg explained the reserve program was a group of people that live in the City of Edmonds that work in a reserve capacity to aid and support the Fire Department.. He further elucidated that those individuals respond to major fires and set up rehabilitation areas, run the staging area and are frequently the overtime people that one sees at civic events in the City; and if the Fire Department becomes overextended at fire calls, they can operate the aid units. Edmonds City Council Budget Workshop Approved Minutes Monday, November 15, 1999 Page 7 Mr. White then asked if the program was eliminated would there. be a correlating impact in over time for the full -time people., Chief Tomberg stated that the impact of the overtime cuts would severely limit the Fire Department's use of overtime staff and he explained that he would have to be conservative in providing standby overtimes dedicated to a specific event that they now support. He stated that he would have to retain that overtime to bring fire fighters back for major structure fires or major medical events because eventually the Department would run out of resources: He stated that the Department would try to dedicate fire fighters on duty -to civic events but explained if they got a call outside of the area, they would have to leave the event. Chief Tomberg stated that the reserves are a cost - effective use for the City and provide a great deal of support to public safety. Mr. White then asked about new Station 16 furnishings: He wanted to know why that was not represented in the bonds that were issued for construction of the facility. The Mayor then stepped in to answer Mr. White's question and told him at the time the bond was conceived, the Council wanted the bond to be for bricks and mortar only and any furnishings had to be purchased in another way: i.e., through the budgeting process and the normal revenues coming into the City. Council President Miller called on Mr. Haakenson. . Councilmember Haakenson referenced exhibit D -4, Funding Requests for the Budget Workshop, number 1 — Avoid city -wide layoffs (includes Public Safety Reserve personnel) stating the figure was approximately $566,000, number 2, Restore Public Safety Positions (includes Public Safety vacancies), $631,580, asking . Peggy if the difference in the two figures was four police vacancies. Peggy added the fire mechanic, and a couple of other positions. Mr. Haakenson wanted to know if the custodian that supported public safety was in their budget. Peggy said that was right. Councilmember Haakenson then clarified that the difference between number 1 and 2 was predominantly 4 police vacancies. Peggy agreed. Council President Miller asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Earling then commented on Street Fund 111 and asked Ms. Hetzler how much money was set aside in the 2000 budget for resurfacing streets. Noel Miller commented that there is nothing in the 111 fund, that it would be in the 112 fund. Ms. Hetzler commented that there was $125,000 (page 160 of Preliminary Budget Book for the Year 2000) listed for street resurfacing. Mr. Earling asked if the amount of $125,000 would allow the City to keep up with resurfacing. Mr. Noel Miller commented that amount would not enable the City to keep up. Mr. Earling stated that in the next couple of weeks, with the passage of I -695, the City will be falling further and further behind regarding street repair and asked that the Council might want to consider to advance a substantial amount in 2000 to try and catch up a bit on the streets even though that it might be tough to identify further revenue or cuts. He further stated if I -695 holds its own and the Council does not go out after some sort of street bond, the streets will continue to Edmonds City Council Budget Workshop Approved Minutes Monday, November 15, 1999 Page 8 fall apart. He asked the Council to think about a number in terms of $500,000 to $600,000 to make an effort to begin to catch up. He felt that while the City now has cash, it might be better for the City to bring some streets closer to current standards. He again asked the Council to think about his suggestion mentioning a substantial ending cash balance. Mr. Earling talked about the Council not making a decision until after the election on replacing the Community Services Director position. He stated that since the election is complete, he wanted to make clear that because there was a political atmosphere that seemed counterproductive to making the decision, he felt it was better to make the decision at a later time. He stated that because of the enormous workload of large projects that the former Community Services Director had in hand that consideration should be given to replacing that position. He noted that the Mayor had taken that position out of the budget but wanted to point out that some of the large projects that the City of Edmonds is currently working could lose windows of opportunity, i.e., ferry dock, federal funds, grant writing, etc. He said there was a need to_ know how that would be covered by staff, citing there may be all the expertise in the world sitting out there for it, but he would need convincing. He stated he felt there ought to be consideration given to replacing that position even if no title or salary had been determined. He stated if the City did not replace that position enormous problems would be caused. regarding some of the competition that has to be undertaken regarding large City projects. He. further commented that some of the items had already been discussed by other Councilmembers, pointing out the Alliance, stating with the HyettPalma study the City now had some basis with which to proceed with a program under the Alliance. He stated he would like to see the City find ways to replace that money. He stated that it might hurt the business community by not being supportive of the Alliance pointing out that the business community is one of the City's chief generators of income. He also said that as part of supporting the business community he felt the flower program was beneficial and would like to see that restored. He felt that the City had a commitment to the $37,000 related to the Senior Center and would like to see that restored. He again reiterated that those were the issues he was interested in pursuing. Mr. Tom Miller then called on Councilmember Van Hollebeke. Mr. Van Hollebeke stated he would hate the City to lose programs that bring business to this community, i.e. flower program and Alliance; and as a business owner in Edmonds, he said he would favor the addition of $100 per business excise tax on a business license. He referenced the public hearing regarding a new business tax and stated that. most business owners testified that they supported some sort of tax but not the method that was brought before them at that time (square footage /number of employees tax). He said that he would like to see areas outside the immediate downtown Edmonds area enhanced also if the Council decided to charge a $1.00 excise tax on business licenses. Mr. Van Hollebeke then commented that he was not in favor of only enhancing Public Safety and having no cuts in those departments at the even more extreme expense of the other departments and division personnel within the City. He reiterated that he would not be supportive of any proposal that only enhances Public Safety at the extreme detriment of all of the rest of the City and its employees. Edmonds City Council Budget Workshop Approved Minutes Monday, November 15,1999 Page 9 Mr. Miller then called on Mr. Plunkett. Mr. Plunkett asked Peggy to reiterate on a subject that had been discussed earlier which was how much it would cost to avoid layoffs through April 1, 2000. Ms. Hetzler replied $130,000 emphasizing that figure did not include any vacancies, again stating the $130,000 figure would allow the City to make no layoffs prior to April 1, 2000. The Mayor stated that she had asked that'this figure be included because without knowing what the Legislature was going to do regarding replacing the loss of MVET fees, it would be costly to the City to lay off well- trained employees as of January 1, 2000, receive funding from the State, and then have to train newly -hired employees. Council President Miller then called on Mr. Haakenson. Mr. Haakenson suggested to the Council that they start with Peggy Hetzler's revenue options of 3% property tax increase $188,500, utility tax on the sewer $188,500, telephone tax reallocation, $90,000, transfer from the Emergency Reserve Fund of $335,000, and in addition include the non - residents business license fee which brings in another $17,000. Mr. Haakenson asked Peggy if that was done in other cities and she commented that Edmonds was about the only City that did not require a non - resident business license fee. He stated that would bring in new revenues for the year 2000 of approximately $810,000. He suggested that with those new revenues the Council fund, referencing Peggy's list on Exhibit D -4, item number 1 — avoid City -wide layoffs (including Public Safety reserve personnel) - $566,320, item number 4 — restoring the Senior Center, the Alliance, and flower program funding of $114,910, and lastly add in the position of Community Services Director or appropriate title to take over the responsibilities of that vacant position. He stated that suggestion roughly amounted to the revenue options he had proposed. Mr. Haakenson specified that his proposal was clearly a one -year fix stating that if there was no action taken by the Legislature, the same problems will be faced in a year without the benefit, of using the Emergency Reserve Fund. He felt this was a good starting place and discussion could follow. Mr. Van Hollebeke asked Mr. Haakenson to recap revenues he had just mentioned. Mr. Haakenson stated the 4 items listed under Revenue Options per Budget Workshop in Exhibit D -4 plus a non - residents business license fee of $17,000 which would amount to' approximately $810,000. Council President Miller asked Peggy if the possible negotiation of the City's library fees would occur for the year 2000 or sometime beyond. Peggy stated that the City was locked in until the year 2001 so that was not an option. The Mayor clarified that although the City was locked into a contract it might be feasible with them to shorten service hours and try and find ways to cut back on the amount of staff so it would not be so costly to run the library, i.e., maybe sharing hours with Mountlake Terrace Edmonds City Council Budget Workshop Approved Minutes Monday, November 15, 1999 Page 10 where Edmonds would alternate days open. She-suggested that although no discussions have happened, that might be a place where some money could be saved next year. She said that an observation had been made in working through the budget that because the City is looking at taking 8 to 9% cuts in all departments, that it may be fair to go back to the agencies that are serving the City that actually gave it increases for the year that the City has to absorb, and ask them to look at their budgets and find ways to cut the same percentages. And even though they are not funded by WET fees, everyone they serve is and she stated that dialog would be pursued. She stated that one item had been left off the table was increasing the permitting fees to recoup costs associated with doing business. She stated she felt it was warranted because it was a recouping of costs associated with providing the service. Council President Miller stated that he had suggested the same revenue options as Mr. Haakenson but had included the permit fees and not the non - resident business fee for a total of approximately $900,000 (Revenue Options per Budget Workshop, Exhibit D -4) and then taking item number 1, item number 4, and as much of option number 2 as feasible and was looking at specific positions in police and fire (Exhibit D -4, Funding Requests per Budget Workshop). He stated that if you overlaid Mr. Haakenson's suggestions with Mr. Miller's, they would be similar. Mr. Haakenson stated that until going over the permitting fees one by one, he would be uncomfortable including them in any revenue streams. Mr. Miller called on Mr. Van Hollebeke who stated that these had already been discussed in the Community Services Committee and the logic behind these increases was to raise them to be commensurate with the costs; and during the public hearing phase, developers and builders gave their approval but stated that along with those increases they would like to see better service. Mr. Van Hollebeke asked Mr. Ray Miller, Director of Development Services, if he understood that the Community Service Committee came to a consensus that the permitting fee recommendations, in total, made sense, as long as service was enhanced. Mr. Ray Miller agreed that it was a unanimous consensus. It was clarified that these permitting fee increases would come before the full Council on November 23, 1999. Council President Miller called on Mr. Plunkett who stated that he would support the potential revenue streams, within reason. He then stated that he was comfortable with enhancements item 1, some enhancements out of item 2, and funding item 4 and would only consider funding the Community Services Director position after those items were taken care of. He then reiterated that he would like to see items 1, 4, and as much of 2 as possible before looking at the Community Services position. Edmonds City Council Budget Workshop Approved Minutes Monday, November 15, 1999 Page 1,1 Council President Miller asked Mr. Plunkett if he intended to use the same revenue sources that had been discussed and Mr. Plunkett said approximately. The Council President asked if Council had any more comments. None being heard, he summed up the meeting by asking Peggy and staff to try and put together a preliminary proposal for a balanced budget based on what had been discussed at the evening's Council Budget Workshop, using the revenue streams, for which Council President Miller thought there was probably a consensus of Council. He continued by stating he did not hear any objections to the positions described by Councilinembers Haakenson and Plunkett. Council President Miller announced that there would be a budget hearing on November 16, 1999 at which there would be an audience portion. Mr. Miller asked and received confirmation from Peggy Hetzler that the information asked for . would be available for the November 16, 1999, Council meeting. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. BARBARA S. FAHEY, M`YOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Budget Workshop Approved Minutes Monday, November 15,1999 Page 12