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