Cm130416EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
April 16, 2013
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Lora Petso, Council President
Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember*
* participated by phone in Agenda Items 7 —11
ALSO PRESENT
Walker Kasinadhuni, Student Representative
1. ROLL CALL
STAFF PRESENT
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Ronald Cone, Interim Finance Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Renee McRae, Recreation Manager
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
City Clerk Sandy Chase called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of
Councilmembers Buckshnis and Peterson.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETSO, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND PETERSON. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Council President Petso requested Item 16 be removed from the agenda.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Bloom requested Item N be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 16, 2013
Page 1
A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 2013.
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #201326 THROUGH #201472 DATED APRIL 4, 2013
FOR $1,847,241.94 (REISSUED CHECKS #201395 $118.27 & #201396 $104.26), AND
CLAIM CHECKS #201473 THROUGH #201594 DATED APRIL 11, 2013 FOR $188,617.98
(REISSUED CHECK #201527 $68A9). APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT &
CHECKS #60108 THROUGH #60123 AND #60136 FOR $469,312.58, BENEFIT CHECKS
#60124 THROUGH #60135 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $201,375.27 FOR THE PERIOD
MARCH 16, 2013 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2013.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECK #201595 DATED APRIL 11, 2013 FOR $219.00.
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JAIMIE WINNETT
AND RICK PATNEAUDE ($8,388.20).
E. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND SNOHOMISH COUNTY FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 1 REGARDING CLASSES.
F. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ANNUAL SPECIAL EVENT CONTRACTS.
G. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO APPROVE ACCEPTANCE AND RECORDING
OF A WATER UTILITY EASEMENT.
H. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE TALBOT ROAD GRIND AND
OVERLAY SMALL WORKS PROJECT AND ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT.
I. QUARTERLY PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT REPORT.
J. SURPLUS OF COMPUTERS AND MONITORS AND DONATION TO
INTERCONNECTION.
K. FEBRUARY 2013 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT.
L. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES G. MURPHY TO SELL SURPLUS
CITY VEHICLES.
M. HR REPORTING DIRECTOR SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT.
ITEM N: ACTING DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR ASSIGNMENT
Councilmember Bloom apologized for scheduling this on the Consent Agenda, recalling a number of
questions were raised at the Public Safety and Personnel Committee meeting. She raised the following
issues:
• The process for approval of this position including whether an interim director position could be
approved on the Consent Agenda.
• Approval of the assignment now when the position was vacated on December 31, 2012.
• Issues raised at the March 6, 2012 meeting related to the interim appointment process in the code
have not been followed up on.
She suggested scheduling this item on a future agenda and to include the minutes of the March 6, 2012
meeting in the packet.
The motion MAYOR YO PRO TPi M PET -SO Aii(W T, SECONDED BY C UNCI AiiTi Ai B D BLOOM, TO
was correctedSCHEDULE TMS 1TEA4 ON NEXT AGENDA. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED,
at the 5-21-13
City Council SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO SCHEDULE THIS ITEM NEXT WEEK AS
Meeting A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 16, 2013
Page 2
Mayor Earling requested an opportunity to address this item. Council President Petso asked if there were
any objections to Mayor Earling addressing this topic. No objections were voiced.
Mayor Earling explained Rob Chave has done an exemplary job in this position for the past year. He was
hesitant to delay it as Mr. Chave was on vacation and could not be reached for questions, funds for the
acting position are included in the 2013 budget, and there are no funds available to hire a full-time
director. Mr. Chave has agreed to remain as the acting director and has done an exemplary job leading the
department, a fact other directors were likely to agree with. He reiterated he was hesitant to delay as there
was no one in charge now.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about Mayor Earling's comment that there was no one in charge.
Mayor Earling advised there was no interim director at this time because Mr. Chave was on vacation.
Councilmember Bloom pointed out there has not been an interim director in that position since the
appointment expired on December 31, 2012. Mayor Earling advised Mr. Chave has been acting in that
role and was aware the assignment would need to be re -approved by the Council. Mayor Earling assured
Mr. Chave was the person who has kept that department engaged and moving forward.
Councilmember Yamamoto said he was unsure why this was an issue when the Council had approved it
in March 2012 and little had changed since that time. His dealings with Mr. Chave have been fine and
there had been few problems. He summarized the Council had discussed this assignment previously along
with the Acting Human Resources Director and little had changed.
Council President Petso clarified the delay was not about Mr. Chave in the position but the lack of
information in the packet and her understanding a year ago that it was a temporary appointment. She
would appreciate clarification of the approval process and determining whether the code amendments
discussed last year were needed.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed Mr. Chave does a fantastic job and always thoroughly answered
her questions. As Mr. Chave would be gone for another week, she felt a week's delay would not be
problematic.
MOTION CARRIED (4-1), COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO VOTING NO.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
As Council meetings are now aired live, Mayor Earling cautioned speakers against giving their address as
it could be used for someone to burglarize their residence while they were at the Council meeting.
Richard Senderoff, Edmonds, stated his comments regarding Harbor Square represent his own
perspectives and not the Economic Development Commission on which he serves as a Commissioner and
are consistent with previous comments he shared with the Port, Council and the community. He urged the
Council to continue discussions regarding the Harbor Square subarea, explaining a subarea plan should
strike a balance between certainty and flexibility. He did not feel the original Port Harbor Square Master
Plan met this condition and contributed to the emotional and polarizing response from the community. He
referenced a term used by Councilmember Buckshnis, non -monetary capital, elements on which the
community places high intrinsic value that contribute to quality of life and the Edmonds brand such as
low level architecture and environmental protection. A balance between certainty and flexibility forms the
basis of incentive zoning where base zoning is established at what currently exist and bonuses provided if
specific criteria are met that address other unmet needs that citizens value and are consistent with
surrounding neighborhoods. That seems to be the Council's direction and is consistent with the concepts
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 16, 2013
Page 3
proposed in the draft Westgate redevelopment plan by the UW Green Futures Lab. Although he favors
protecting low level architecture in downtown Edmonds, he also places great value in restoring the
wildlife sanctuary beyond no net loss and realizes stormwater and flooding at Harbor Square needs to be
addressed. He urged the Council to show leadership and continue down this road.
Darlene Stern, Edmonds, said her comments are her own and do not represent the viewpoints of any of
the organizations of which she is a member. She questioned the Council's vision for the community and
themselves, if they had a plan to improve city revenues, when they would implement a plan, if they
expected to work as a team or a partnership with other organizations, and whether they respectfully
considered all points of view. The Port presented a plan to bring freshness and energy to the community
while providing public spaces, marsh enhancement and needed revenue. She asked what the Council
envisioned as the outcome of their refusal to consider any aspect of the Harbor Square Master Plan
because of the issue of building height. Building height is a minor issue in the larger outcome of benefits
and, had the plan been accepted, the Council would still have control of the building height issue. She
viewed the Plan as a win -win. Even if the Council develops a new plan, there is no assurance the Port will
be interested in being a partner. She suggested contacting the Port to consider and comment on the city's
proposal. The last new commercial building in Edmonds was the bank on 5 h and Dayton, seven years
ago. Without development, the Council has little choice but to ask taxpayers for more money or continue
the decline that has occurred during the 12 years she has been a resident. The city will be out of money by
2015; she inquired about the Council's vision and timeframe to increase revenue. She was concerned with
the demeanor of some Councilmembers, the disrespect shown to the city's directors, demands that a Port
representative answer questions put forth in a condescending and accusing manner, and brushing aside the
detailed research done by the Planning Board and citizens. She referred to the first objective in the
Strategic Plan, to create economic health, economic vitality and sustainability, and asked the Council's
vision to achieve this objective. She looked forward to the prosperity resulting from the implementation
of the Council's vision.
Mike Schindler, Edmonds, a resident and business owner doing government consulting, explained after
the Harbor Square fiasco, he felt he should give back to the process. He favored putting personal agendas
and party politics aside and focusing on the 1% that can be agreed on and moving forward 100% on that
1%. He cited what the Council gave up by voting no: $1.4 million of one-time revenue, $312,000 of
ongoing revenues and 385+ jobs. He asked the Council what their plan is, explaining saying no to a plan
is not a plan. By saying no to the plan, the Council has saddled Edmonds taxpayers with increased taxes.
Without a plan, the Council's legacy will be preserving a declining revenue base. Some Councilmembers
were caught up in personal agendas, party politics and listening to the few instead of looking how future
generations can live in Edmonds if there are no efforts to attract businesses, housing and a destination.
Although he was in favor of preserving the marsh, he asked who took a vacation to a marsh? He
encouraged the Council to develop a plan.
Richard Bisbee, Edmonds, invited the public to a viewing of the film "Chasing Ice" at 6:30 p.m. on
Tuesday, April 23, hosted by Sustainable Edmonds and the Sierra Club. Following the movie, Dr.
Richard Gammon, UW Professor of Atmospheric Science, will discuss climate change.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, asked the intent of the motion made at the March 19, 2013 Council meeting, "to
work with the staff provided a draft of the subarea plan known as Harbor Square as a basis to develop a
new plan," that passed 4-3 with Councilmembers Peterson, Buckshnis, Yamamoto and Johnson voting
yes. He posed several questions that he hoped would be answered this evening:
• Did the motion to direct staff to develop a new plan constitute denial of the Port's application?
• Was it an option to develop a new subarea plan without first denying the Port's Comprehensive
Plan amendment application? If so were funds available in the budget for staff to prioritize and
develop a new subarea plan related to Harbor Square?
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 16, 2013
Page 4
Does developing a new subarea plan require docketing a new plan proposal that needs to go
through the planning process?
Would Port and City taxpayers have benefits from a concurrent Comprehensive Plan amendment
and rezone process?
Would a concurrent process have been more efficient than a Comprehensive Plan amendment
followed by a future rezone effort or development agreement?
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, stated two weeks ago staff proposed a change to the code under the guise of
removing step -backs in the BC zone and changing a couple other things but did not mention building
heights. During discussion some Councilmembers realized the proposed change included increasing
building heights from 25 feet to 30 feet. Council President Petso's motion to retain the 25-foot building
height failed 4-3. Councilmembers Johnson, Peterson, Buckshnis and Yamamoto voted to change
building heights from 25 feet to 30 feet, a fact to remember in future elections.
Dave Page, Edmonds, referred to Agenda Item 7, and recommended the Council either adopt Roberts
Rules of Order or begin following the existing rules. He was subject to Robert's Rules while in local
realtor associations. He was irritated by Councilmembers who address each other rather than the Chair,
get into arguments with each other and audience members and suggested those practices stop. He noted
factions and undercurrents on the Council make it obvious Councilmembers are not following Robert's
Rules of Order or any rules. He expressed concern with Councilmembers speaking while members of the
public were speaking and suggested Councilmembers pay attention to the meeting rather than their iPads.
5. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF EARTH DAY, APRIL 22, 2013.
Mayor Earling read a proclamation designating April 22, 2013 as Earth Day. He presented the
proclamation to Cynthia Pruitt, Rebecca Wolfe, Richard Bisbee, and Bob and Janice Freeman.
Bob Freeman thanked the City for the proclamation. He explained Earth Day dates back to 1970
nationally and 2006 in Edmonds. Although climate change is a global issue, much progress can be made
at a local level. He looked forward to seeing Councilmembers at the Edmonds Climate Protection
Committee meetings on the first Thursday of the month at 9:00 a.m.
6. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF THE OPENING OF THE SWEDISH CANCER INSTITUTE
AT EDMONDS.
Mayor Earling referred to the new building on Highway 99, the Swedish Cancer Institute. He read a
proclamation declaring April 17, 2013 as Swedish Cancer Institute at Edmonds Day. He presented the
proclamation to Swedish Edmonds Chief Executive David Jaffee. Mr. Jaffee expressed his appreciation
for the proclamation, commenting today is a glorious day at Swedish Edmonds, bringing state-of-the-art
cancer care closer to home for patients in need.
Councilmember Johnson reported she attended the open house. She congratulated Swedish Edmonds on
an extraordinary, state-of-the-art facility that can serve up to 175 patients per day. She referred to the art
of healing that represents 13 artists via various media throughout the building.
7. TRAINING AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A DRAFT RESOLUTION ADOPTING
ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AS THE CITY COUNCIL'S NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE.
(Councilmember Buckshnis joined the Council meeting by telephone at 7:38 p.m.)
Mayor Earling provided background on Ann Macfarlane, Jurassic Parliament. Ms. Macfarlane
commended the Council's consideration of adopting Robert's Rules which she strongly recommended.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 16, 2013
Page 5
She explained in some respects, Robert's Rules is a terrible book, over 800 pages. The original book was
first published as a small pocket manual. Over the years substantial additions have been made. There is a
core to Robert's Rules that is essential to the free and democratic society and her company, Jurassic
Parliament, focuses on that core. She noted Robert's Rules recognizes this and have published "Robert's
Rules in Brief." If the Council adopts Robert's Rules, they will have a strong foundation and can proceed
to build on it based on the principles.
She described the two types of organizations:
1. Accountability Hierarchy: a leader at the top with members below in rank and status
2. Voluntary Association: a leader is a peer and each member has equal standing. The Council is a
Voluntary Association.
She highlighted the three duties of a leader:
• Manage or administer the association
• Lead the association
• Preside at the association's meetings
Ms. Macfarlane reviewed the six principles of meetings (with credit to Jim Lochrie):
1. The majority must be allowed to rule.
2. The minority have rights that must be respected.
3. Members have a right to information to help make decisions.
4. Courtesy and respect are required.
5. All members have equal rights, privileges and obligations.
6. Members have a right to an efficient meeting.
She provided a key point: The role of the presider is paradoxical — the most important person and the least
important person in the room.
Council President Petso asked about the process in Robert's Rules when the Mayor requests an
opportunity to speak. Her practice has been to ask the Council, a practice for which she has been
criticized. Ms. Macfarlane answered Robert's Rules is silent on the matter of a Mayor in a Mayor -Council
setting. The Council will want to establish special rules of order to address that. She agreed with the way
Council President Petso handled it tonight, asking if there was any objection to the Mayor speaking. She
summarized the phrases "without objection" or "is there any objection" are among the most useful for a
presider as it acknowledges the group is the final authority. If a member voices an objection, the Council
President immediately takes a vote.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the principle, members have a right to information, pointing out the
Mayor had the ability to provide the information. Ms. Macfarlane agreed, noting the decision to allow the
Mayor or staff to provide the information rests with the Council.
Ms. Macfarlane continued her comments regarding the paradoxical role of the presider; it follows that the
presider must be strict on process. The presider is not responsible for the decision the group makes. The
group is the final authority.
She provided authority for the above:
• RCW 35A.12.120: The council shall determine its own rules and order of business, and may
establish rules for the conduct of council meetings and the maintenance of order.
• Common Parliamentary Law (Robert's Rules of Order is the most commonly used and accepted
formulation of common parliamentary law in the U.S.)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 16, 2013
Page 6
Ms. Macfarlane explained Robert's Rules has "small board rules" that apply to bodies of the Council's
size and offered to provide a handout regarding small board rules. The Council also has the right to craft
its own rules of procedure based on the foundation of Robert's Rules. These "special rules of order" will
allow discussion and debate in the way that makes the most sense for the Council. In Washington State,
the presider, if a Councilmember acting in place of the Mayor, retains full rights of discussion and voting
while running the meeting. State law supersedes Robert's Rules. The Council's own rules must also
conform to state law.
Council President Petso expressed a concern that in the small board rules, motions do not require a
second. Ms. Macfarlane answered the Council is required to have seconds for motions. Council President
Petso asked whether the handout on small board rules would address that. Ms. Macfarlane answered it is
not written to address City Councils but she will consider that and provide input.
Ms. Macfarlane reminded that discussion at board meetings is not a conversation. Structure is essential if
discussion is to be fair. She provided seven essential rules:
I. All members have an equal right to speak, make motions, and vote.
2. Non-members do not have the right to speak, to make motions, or to vote. (However, the Council
may invite anyone whom it chooses to speak. Staff members have this right as a matter of
routine.)
3. One subject at a time
4. One person speaks at a time.
5. No interrupting.
6. Courtesy and respect are required at all times.
7. No one may speak a second time until everyone who wishes to do so has spoken once.
With regard to 47, she suggested there are two methods of keeping track of who has spoken, 1) the
presider keeps a list, and 2) round robin, each person is asked for comments in turn.
Ms. Macfarlane provided a flow of authority at a meeting:
The group adopts its rules and guidelines.
1
In attending, members accept the rules of the group.
1
During meetings, the presiding officer applies the rules for the benefit of the group.
1
All persons present at a meeting have an obligation to obey the legitimate orders of the presiding officer.
Any member who disagrees with a ruling, decision or order by the presiding officer may appeal the ruling.
If another member seconds the appeal, the group will decide by majority vote whether the ruling, decision or order is legitimate.
1
The presiding officer obeys the group's decision.
Ms. Macfarlane described the process to raise a point of order and had Councilmembers demonstrate a
point of order and appeal of a point of order. She recommended staff also be authorized to raise a point of
order in the event a mistake has been made.
She reviewed the process for a request for information:
• This motion is a question. Used to be called "point of information."
• Used to request information that is urgent and relevant to debate.
• Can only be made by a member.
• May interrupt a speaker when necessary.
• Not used to provide information. Providing information is part of debate.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 16, 2013
Page 7
She explained under Robert's Rules a motion must be made before discussion begins. In a small board it
is okay to discuss something before a motion is made. She reviewed making an amendment:
• You "amend" a motion to improve it.
• Amendments are voted on BEFORE the main motion.
• Why? To "perfect" the motion.
• If the amendment passes, it becomes part of the main motion.
• Very common mistake: voting on the amendment and thinking you're done. Must vote on main
motion.
• It feels like voting twice, but it isn't.
• Once something has been amended, it takes special motions to change it again.
She reviewed calling the question:
• This motion is a request by a single member to stop debate and vote now.
• Must not interrupt a speaker.
• Requires a second and a two-thirds vote in favor to pass.
• Cannot be debated.
• Is often misused, violating other members' rights.
She reviewed tabling:
• Cannot be debated and takes only a majority to pass.
• Proper use is to put something aside temporarily.
• May not be used to "kill" a motion.
• Presider may ask, "For what purpose does the member seek to table the motion?"
• If you want to kill something without voting on it, use "motion to postpone indefinitely."
Council President Petso asked about whether a motion to postpone indefinitely was debatable and how
the matter could be brought back in the future. Ms. Macfarlane answered a motion to postpone is
debatable and any motion that has been defeated can be reintroduced at future meetings.
Councilmember Yamamoto asked if anyone could reintroduce a failed motion. Ms. Macfarlane answered
yes. A motion to reconsider, which is only supposed to be used during the meeting, requires that the
person introducing it voted on the prevailing side.
Ms. Macfarlane reviewed abstaining:
• Under Robert's Rules, to abstain is to do nothing and abstentions are not counted.
• The effect of abstaining is to go along with the majority, whatever that is.
• See MRSC article published April 4 on this issue.
She provided information regarding motives:
• Under Robert's Rules, except for conflict of interest issues, a member may not speak about the
motives of other members.
It is fine to speak about one's own motives.
It is fine to speak about the motives of others who are not members.
Ms. Macfarlane noted a member may not criticize a prior action of the group unless the action is under
discussion by the body as a whole, or the member is going to introduce a motion to change or rescind it at
the end of her speech. A member must support the group. A member may not make statements which tend
to "injure the good name of the organization, disturb its well-being, or hamper it in its work."
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 16, 2013
Page 8
She reviewed limits on debate:
• Each member has the right to speak twice for up to 10 minutes at a time.
• In small boards, these limits should be changed.
• We recommend a 5-minute maximum for each speech.
She reviewed possible dangers to governance:
• Presider takes on too much responsibility.
• Members become "free riders."
• Outspoken members and old-timers dominate conversation.
• Members don't want to be seen as troublemakers, so keep quiet when they should speak up.
• People assume that somebody else has thought of their objections, so don't bring up their issues.
• Members become lazy.
• A culture of "go along to get along" develops.
In a truly democratic system:
• All members have equal rights, privileges and obligations.
• Input from everyone is needed.
• Differing opinions are good, not bad.
• Healthy debate is essential.
• Conflict should be welcomed, not swept under the rug.
• We'll try for consensus, but if we don't achieve it, we'll vote.
• The majority will decide.
• The minority will accept the decision (gracefully we hope!)
• The organization will move forward.
Councilmember Johnson asked for clarification regarding working for consensus and if not achieved,
voting, noting debate often follows a motion. Ms. Macfarlane answered under small board rules, the
Council can have debate prior to a motion. She offered to email the Council a specific method of
discussion for building consensus.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if there were other cities that followed Robert's Rules. Ms. Macfarlane
answered few cities in Washington have adopted Robert's Rules. Most have their own rules of procedure
or have nothing.
Council President Petso recalled Robert's Rules suggests motions be stated in a positive manner and the
maker of the motion vote against it if they do not support it rather than making a negative motion. For
example, she asked whether a Councilmember could make a motion to deny a land use action. Ms.
Macfarlane answered a motion to deny was appropriate. Robert cautions against using the word "not" in a
motion. For example, rather than saying the Council does not like an action the Legislature took, say we
deplore or reject the decision. She summarized a no vote on a motion that includes "not" is confusing.
Ms. Macfarlane invited Councilmembers to sign up for Jurassic Parliament's free electronic newsletter.
She is also available to answer Councilmembers' questions.
Councilmember Johnson asked how discussions occur using Robert's Rules. Ms. Macfarlane answered
there were two options, 1) have discussion prior to a motion in accordance with small board rules, or 2)
make a motion and then have discussion.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas summarized her understanding that an agenda topic could be discussed
and at the conclusion of discussion, the Council may/may not make a motion. Ms. Macfarlane agreed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 16, 2013
Page 9
Student Representative Walker Kasinadhuni explained he did a project regarding Robert's Rules in eighth
grade. He asked how Robert's Rules was conducive to creating lively debate; it seemed to slow debate.
He had not seen any evidence of rudeness or disruptiveness on the Council and questioned why it was
necessary to implement Robert's Rules. Ms. Macfarlane answered she has been on many boards where
following Robert's Rules with modifications has worked very well. The default for many boards is a
conversation mode but it tends to be dominated by the outspoken people and may reach a certain
conclusion too rapidly. Even if it is slower to utilize the round robin method, in her experience, it
provided a better picture of what the entire body thinks and results in a better decision.
PUBLIC HEARING ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM,
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN AND SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM TO ADD THE STATE ROUTE-99 GATEWAY/REVITALIZATION PROJECT.
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained in 2006/2007 the City conducted a significant study of
Highway 99 that was limited to potential transportation improvement projects related to safety and to a
less extent capacity and access. The intent of this project is to utilize the work done in that study and add
additional value, specifically pedestrian amenities, access control and softscaping to improve the
appearance as well as the function of the transportation system on Highway 99. The State Legislature has
been debating a number of packages to improve funding for transportation statewide. One of the
possibilities this year or next year is a large capital program designed to further stimulate the economy as
well as solve transportation problems.
The City was asked to provide a significant project with significant funding on the list for consideration.
A project envisioned by Representative Marko Liias, Mayor Earling and others was to utilize some of the
best features of Shoreline's frontage improvements such as pedestrian amenities, access control,
softscaping, better illumination, bicycle facilities, etc. Tonight is the public hearing to add such a project,
with limited scope definition, to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) and the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). This project is envisioned as an initial
$10 million, likely applying to Phase 1. Further improvements would occur in future years via multiple
phases.
Council President Petso recalled at the same time Shoreline initiated their project, Edmonds initiated a
project on Highway 99 to widen the road. She asked if this project would reduce travel lanes. Mr.
Williams answered he did not know but there was a prioritized list of projects as a result of the Highway
99 Study that would serve as a starting point for discussion plus adding other values for a broad -based
transportation improvement on Highway 99. Council President Petso asked if that list was included in the
Council packet. Mr. Williams answered there was a paragraph in the description; a project scope has not
yet been developed.
As a resident in that corridor, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed that most of the people in the area
look forward to improvements. When driving from Shoreline to Edmonds, the difference in the condition
of the road, number and appearance of businesses, etc. was readily apparent. She viewed this as a great
first step to improve the area, noting improvements would attract people and businesses, better
transportation. She noted the road was not widened the entire length; in some places the Swift buses
utilize the regular travel lanes. Mr. Williams responded the goal would be to make improvements in a
way that increases the efficiency and appearance of transportation facilities but also promotes a better
retail climate and development on Highway 99.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was excited by the development of medical facilities on Highway 99 and
she supported improvements to the area that would attract businesses and residents in this transit -oriented
area. Mr. Williams referred to the first project on the list, design and construction of improvements at
228th and Highway 99 which is fully grant funded.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 16, 2013
Page 10
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the Hospital District and the International District and asked if the
project would include gateways, sidewalks, overpasses, etc. Mr. Williams answered the softscape
improvements could include undergrounding of utilities in key areas, median treatments, and gateways.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether bike lanes would be included. Mr. Williams answered bicycles
would be included but he was uncertain whether the project would include bike lanes on Highway 99.
Councilmember Bloom asked when that decision would be made. Mr. Williams stated this project arose
quickly; if funding is provided, staff will begin developing ideas for Council consideration.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of
the audience present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Earling closed the public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BLOOM, TO ADD THE STATE ROUTE-99 GATEWAY/REVITALIZATION PROJECT TO THE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN AND SIX -YEAR
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
Councilmember Johnson advised she participated in the 2007 Highway 99 study; at that time most of the
projects were capacity improvements at intersections. There was insufficient time or money to include
items that would be part of this project. This project is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of
the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Earling declared a 5 minute break.
9. AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT A REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL AND APPROPRIATION OF
FUNDS — CITY OWNED ADMIRALTY ACRES LOT #12 (SNOHOMISH COUNTY TAX
PARCEL ID NO.00370800101200).
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained this is a .66 acre parcel
that was included within a proposed 27-lot Planned Residential Development (PRD) known as Angler's
Crossing that received preliminary approval on January 22, 2007. Pursuant to a recently updated RCW,
preliminary approval is valid for 9 years or until January 22, 2016. After receiving preliminary approval,
the buyer failed to close on the purchase and sale agreement for this parcel and the purchase and sale
agreement expired.
Staff has been contacted by a number of people interested in purchasing Lot #12. He identified Lot #12
on a vicinity map, explaining it constitutes a portion of the 27-lot plat. If the PRD plat moved forward as
approved the developer would need to purchase City -owned Admiralty Acres Lot #12 because some of
the lots depicted on the PRD/Plat map make use of the Admiralty Acres Lot #12 property. Materials
included in the Council packet include:
• 1997 Contract Rezone
• Map depicting Admiralty Acres Lot #12 and its location relative to Angler's Crossing PRD/Plat
• Angler's Crossing Staff Report
• Angler's Crossing Hearing Examiner decision
• Angler's Crossing purchase and sale agreement (which has expired)
• Appraisal conducted in 2005 on Lot #12
• Cost estimates to conduct the appraisal from three firms
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 16, 2013
Page 11
The firms were asked to conduct two types of appraisals, 1) a standalone appraisal as if the property were
not part of the PRD, and 2) as if Lot 12 were part of the PRD and including all the entitlements associated
with the PRD. The cost estimates are as follows:
Firm
Location
Cost
Turnaround Time
Macauley & Associates, Ltd.
Everett
$4,450
4-5 weeks
Northwest Valuation Service
Mill Creek
$5,750
4 weeks
Lamb Hanson Lamb Appraisal
Associates, Inc.
Seattle
$4,500
4 weeks
The City's Parks and Recreation Department has had success using Macauley & Associates in the past
and Lamb Hansen Lamb conducted an appraisal on the property in 2006. At that time it appraised for
approximately $200,000. In order to conduct the appraisal, the City Council will need to identify a
funding source and appropriate funds. Possible funding sources include Council Contingency or Ending
Fund Balance. Once completed, the appraisal will be presented to the City Council for review.
Mr. Clifton relayed an issue raised by Councilmember Petso about whether height variances tied to
certain lots of the Planned Residential Development (PRD) are still valid. Upon review of this issue, City
staff and City Attorney have determined that the height variances do not have the same longevity as the
plat/PRD itself Because the variances were not acted on (by obtaining a building permit) and no request
for an extension was filed, they have expired.
In response to a question raised by Councilmember Fraley-Monillas during a meeting with Mayor Earling
and Council President Petso about the use of the proceeds of the sale of the property, Mr. Clifton relayed
Duane Farman who lives within the general facility of the proposed PRD recalled in 2007 the City
Council discussed using the proceeds for a sight distance project on 80th Avenue near 18461. Senior
Planner Kernen Lien's research found in April 2007 the Council passed Ordinance No. 3638 and
discussed using the proceeds from the sale of the property to fund an 80t'' Avenue Sight Distance Project.
At that time the cost of that project was $292,000. That project is contained in the Transportation Plan but
not in the Capital Improvement Plan. The Council could appropriate the funds to conduct the appraisal,
determine whether to sell the property and if/when the property sells, make a decision regarding use of the
funds.
Council President Petso observed Perrinville Creek was not depicted on the map; it was her understanding
the property was located above Perrinville Creek. Mr. Lien identified the location of Perrinville Creek,
concluding it is not located on this property but across Olympic View Drive. Council President Petso
asked whether the study of Perrinville Creek flows has been completed to determine whether this land
may be useful in addressing flows. Mr. Lien answered the study has not begun.
Councilmember Buckshnis did not support funding the appraisal from the Council Contingency Fund and
preferred to use operating cash. She preferred the Council Contingency be utilized for one-time
appropriations. Councilmember Buckshnis supported using Macauley & Associates because Lamb
Hanson Lamb Appraisal Associates conducted the appraisal in 2006.
Councilmember Bloom asked for further details on the 80t'' Avenue Sight Distance Project. Public Works
Director Phil Williams explained 80t' Avenue has a pronounced crown that limits sight distance, there are
residential properties on both sides, and there is an accident history. The intent was to re -grade the hill to
take approximately three feet out to improve the sight distance. Councilmember Bloom asked the cost of
the project. Mr. Williams answered at the time, the cost was estimated to be $292,000.
Councilmember Bloom asked if the rationale for using the proceeds from the sale of the property for that
project was because the project was in the vicinity. Mr. Williams answered the Council passed the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 16, 2013
Page 12
ordinance with the thought the proceeds from the sale of the property would be used for this project which
is on the road that the project abuts. It was also proposed that the transportation impact fees collected
from the project be used to supplement the cost of the project.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the Council had to adhere to the ordinance that designated how
the funds would be used. Mr. Clifton answered the ordinance did not address using the proceeds from the
sale for the project. The ordinance the Council passed included the project in the Capital Improvement
Program. The Council discussed using the proceeds from the sale to help fund the project. City Attorney
Jeff Taraday answered it would be non -binding on the Council. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed
her understanding the proceeds from the sale of the property could be used for any project. Staff agreed.
Councilmember Johnson asked how many appraisals would be sought. Mr. Clifton answered one,
consisting of two parts. Councilmember Johnson asked if staff had been satisfied with the previous
appraisal. Mr. Clifton answered it was thorough and $200,000 was reasonable at that time, which was the
peak of the market. The appraisal done in 2006 did not include entitlements because it preceded
preliminary plat approval in 2007.
Councilmember Bloom asked why the City originally wanted to sell the property. Mr. Clifton referred to
the Angler's Crossing subdivision, explaining 4-5 lots of the 27 lot Angler's subdivision are located on
the property owned by the City and a portion is retained as open space. In order for the plat to be
developed, the City needs to sell the property. The Council discussed selling the property in 2006 and
using the proceeds for the sight distance project prior to the Hearing Examiner's decision.
Councilmember Bloom asked if the City used the property. Mr. Clifton replied no, it is in its natural state.
Councilmember Bloom asked if there were any critical areas on the property. Mr. Lien answered the site
is very steep and would meet erosion hazards if not landslide hazard areas. He referred to the Angler's
Crossing plat, pointing out the majority of the property was set aside as open space as required in the
PRD with a few of the buildable lots extending into it. The lot would remain primarily in a natural state.
Mr. Lien identified the City -owned parcel in the plat on a vicinity map.
Councilmember Yamamoto asked whether the property was vital to completing the PRD. Mr. Lien
answered if the City did not sell the property, the PRD would need to go through the process again
because the parcel is integral to the plat/PRD.
Council President Petso asked if the preliminary plat approved in 2007 had expired. Mr. Lien answered
the preliminary plat was approved January 22, 2007; recent changes to State law extended the approval to
9 years or January 22, 2016. Another amendment, SHB 1074, has been approved by the Legislature and
will extend preliminary plat approval for subdivisions that received approval prior to December 31, 2007.
COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, THAT THE COUNCIL AUTHORIZE A REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL UTILIZING
THE THREE FIRMS MR. CLIFTON SUGGESTED, WITH FUNDING FROM ENDING FUND
BALANCE.
Council President Petso said she will vote against the motion as she was not ready to make a decision to
sell the property because it is in the Perrinville Creek study area.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS YAMAMOTO, FRALEY-
MONILLAS, JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO.
Councilmember Johnson commented the intent of the motion was to authorize the appraisal but
mentioned three appraisals although staff intends to only obtain one appraisal. Mr. Clifton responded he
contacted three firms to obtain a cost estimate; any one of the three firms may conduct the appraisal.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 16, 2013
Page 13
10. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON INCORPORATING THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN
INTO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Council President Petso relayed a request from Councilmember Peterson, who was unable to be at
tonight's meeting and was unable to phone in, that the Council not take definitive action on this item
tonight. Council President Petso hoped the Council would achieve clarity on options in light of the Port's
decision to withdraw their application.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented there seems to be a tremendous amount of confusion as was
indicated during audience comments. The Council has not finished the process and has not reviewed the
Planning Board's recommendations. She relayed her understanding the Council was moving through a
subarea plan, however, the agenda memo states because the Port has withdrawn their application for a
master plan, continued planning for Harbor Square would require docketing a new plan proposal. City
Attorney Jeff Taraday answered he did not draft the agenda memo. The City Code does not state what
happens in the event a Comprehensive Plan amendment application is withdrawn by the applicant. It is a
legislative process and a legislative determination; therefore an argument can be made that the Council
can proceed, notwithstanding withdrawal of an application. Even if the Council decided it wanted to start
the process over to ensure there was no confusion, it could conclude its deliberations at this state, and
remand to the Planning Board with direction and guidance regarding the subarea plan and the Planning
Board could conduct public hearings. He envisioned the Council would have opted to send the plan back
to the Planning Board for further public comment in light of the significant changes that have been made
even if the Port had not withdrawn its application.
With regard to docketing, Mr. Taraday referred to ECDC 20.00.020 that states upon receipt of a
completed application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment or upon direction of the Council and
following department review, hearings shall be set before the Planning Board and City Council. He
clarified under this code provision an application was not required to start the process, only the direction
of the City Council was required. It is less clear what happens if the Council chooses to proceed forward.
The City Council has the legislative discretion to restart its own planning process and send it back to the
Planning Board.
Councilmember Buckshnis summarized her understanding that the Council could move forward if they
chose. She asked whether the Port could reapply in the future using the same application if the Council
chose not to move forward. Mr. Taraday answered yes.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed all Councilmembers should be present when a decision is made. She
referred to Mr. Reidy's question whether the City Council technically denied the Port's plan by rejecting
the Port's plan and moving forward with a new plan. Mr. Taraday advised the code allows the Council to
modify an application. He referred to 20.00.040, the City Council shall consider the recommendation and
may at that time or subsequently, approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the proposed
amendment. He acknowledged there could be a question regarding what was meant by approve with
modifications. The final City Council modifications are not yet known and therefore it is difficult to say
whether the final modifications would have been similar enough to the Port's application to be considered
an approval with modifications.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the Harbor Square subarea plan could be tabled and other
subarea plans such as Westgate and Five Corners that include incentive zoning, bonuses, and base height,
moved forward. Mr. Taraday answered the withdrawal of the application alleviates the Council from the
timelines in 20.00.040 as there is no longer an applicant waiting for the Council to take action.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 16, 2013
Page 14
Councilmember Buckshnis advised she preferred to continue with the process but wait until all
Councilmembers were present.
Council President Petso referred to legal advice reflected in the February 5, 2013 minutes that the Council
could modify the plan however it wanted and there was no requirement that the modifications resemble
the Port's original plan. Yet tonight Mr. Taraday used the language "similar enough" when referring to
modifications. She asked if the process had to start over if the plan was not similar enough. Mr. Taraday
answered the code was not clear when a change was significant enough that it must go back to the
Planning Board. He recalled the discussion at the February meeting was whether the City Council was
required to make an up/down decision on the Port's vision or could it embark on its own visioning
exercise. His legal advice at that time was the Council could embark on its own visioning exercise.
Whether the Council would want to send that back to the Planning Board out of an abundance of caution
to provide the public process contemplated by ECDC 20.00 may have depended upon what the Council's
final deliberations looked like. Council President Petso recalled at the February meeting, it was
contemplated the Port may bail on the plan if the Council did not stay true enough to their original
proposal. And if the Port bailed, the Council could continue working on a modified proposal.
Council President Petso asked if there was any legal effect of the Port's decision to withdraw their
application. Mr. Taraday answered there was no legal effect on the ultimate outcome; the City Council
can develop a subarea plan for the Harbor Square property; it does not matter whether the Port likes the
City's plan. It is less clear procedurally. Out of an abundance of caution and to provide the full public
process contemplated by ECDC 20.00, it may be prudent for the City Council to send the plan back to the
Planning Board.
Council President Petso asked whether it would be cleaner if the Council denied the Port's Harbor Square
Master Plan and sent a new subarea plan through the full public process. Mr. Taraday answered the Port's
withdrawal of their application makes denial a moot point.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if the statement in the Port's letter, "the Council formally voted to
stop consideration of the Port's proposed Master Plan," was accurate. Mr. Taraday answered he was
uncertain the exact verbiage of the motion but recalled certain Councilmembers made comments to that
effect. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas questioned if the Port would have withdrawn their application if
there was not a vote to stop consideration. Mr. Taraday responded that was a question for the Port.
Councilmember Bloom read the motion: "Councilmember Buckshnis moved, seconded by
Councilmember Peterson, to work with the staff -provided draft of the subarea plan known as Harbor
Square as a basis to develop a new plan. The motion passed 4-3." She assumed that was the action the
Port was referring to. Mr. Taraday reiterated that was a question for the Port. His interpretation of the
motion was the City Council would continue planning for Harbor Square in a way that was not
necessarily tied to the proposal made by the Port. Because he never saw the results of the City Council's
process, he was unable to say that it was a fair characterization that the City Council was no longer
considering the Port's plan. The process would need to be concluded in order to judge whether Council's
plan contained any similarities to the Port's plan.
Council President Petso asked the normal procedure for a Council -initiated Comprehensive Plan
amendment. Mr. Lien referred to ECDC 20.00, explaining a party could request a Comprehensive Plan
amendment or it could be directed by the City Council. If started by the City Council, direction would be
given to the Planning Board to work on the amendment followed by the same process followed for the
Harbor Square Master Plan, deliberations and public hearing at the Planning Board and a
recommendation to the City Council. He summarized the same process is followed; only the initiation is
different.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 16, 2013
Page 15
Council President Petso recalled the process typically includes public hearings at the Planning Board over
the summer, public hearing at Council and adoption in December. Mr. Lien explained there typically is
more than one Comprehensive Plan amendment in a year; the Council may consider and make decisions
on several amendments and they are all approved in one ordinance at the end of the year. Mr. Taraday
explained if the City Council drafted a subarea plan for Harbor Square, it would not necessarily be tied to
that schedule. Council President Petso summarized her understanding the normal process would start at
the Planning Board with public hearing and adoption by the Council in December. Mr. Lien explained
applications for private amendments must be submitted by December 31 for consideration in the
following year. The City may also docket elements of the Comprehensive Plan such as the Sewer
Comprehensive Plan that is being considered this year. All the Comprehensive Plan amendments are then
adopted via one ordinance.
Council President Petso asked if the Council made a determination by May 7, could an amendment go
through the normal process this year? Mr. Lien answered the agenda memo also addresses concerns with
staffing if the planning process were to begin again. Given current priorities such as the code rewrite and
increased permitting as well as current staffing levels, there are concerns about whether there are
sufficient resources to undertake this work. Council President Petso asked whether a high level
Comprehensive Plan amendment would be less burdensome on staff than a detailed subarea plan. Mr.
Lien answered there may be fewer meetings but the process takes the same amount of time.
Councilmember Yamamoto asked if a subarea plan would be easier since there were not the time limits
associated with a Comprehensive Plan amendment. He was uncertain why the process would be started
over again. Mr. Lien answered subarea plans do not adhere to the once a year Comprehensive Plan
amendment schedule and could be adopted whenever the Council completed it. A subarea plan does not
provide more brevity as far as staff time and input.
Councilmember Buckshnis complimented staff on the work they have done, particularly Exhibits 2 and 3.
Exhibit 3 addresses the 14 Planning Board recommendations. She disagreed with the Port's interpretation
that the Council rejected the Port's Plan; her motion was simply that the Council was no longer working
off the Port's plan. She suggested taking a break and then moving forward on the subarea plan.
Observing the contract rezone for Harbor Square prohibits residential, Councilmember Bloom asked if the
Port would be required to apply for a contract rezone if the Council included residential in a
Comprehensive Plan amendment or a subarea plan. Mr. Taraday stated if the new subarea plan for Harbor
Square contemplated residential development, some type of rezoning would be necessary either via the
regular legislative process or another contract rezone or development agreement. He summarized some
type of zoning change would be necessary to make the Comprehensive Plan consistent with the zoning.
Councilmember Bloom asked if that process would be initiated by the Port. Mr. Taraday answered not
necessarily the Port; the City could initiate that process as well. Councilmember Bloom questioned the
amount of work necessary to make the current zoning, which prohibits residential, consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan if residential is included in a subarea plan or a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr.
Taraday answered the amount of work would depend on the kind of rezoning. For example, if an existing
zoning classification that includes residential is applied to Harbor Square, it would not require a great deal
of work. Conversely creating new development regulations that only applied to Harbor Square would be a
great deal of work.
Councilmember Bloom asked about the public process for a zoning change. Mr. Taraday answered
Planning Board and City Council. Councilmember Bloom asked whether public hearings would be
required at both. Mr. Taraday answered he believed so. Councilmember Bloom observed it would be a
long process either way. Mr. Taraday agreed there would be a process.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 16, 2013
Page 16
Councilmember Bloom asked if the process would be shorter if the Port applied for a contract rezone that
included residential. Mr. Taraday answered he did not think so, and that process would be quasi-judicial.
Councilmember Johnson commented 60 minutes had been allotted on the agenda for continued discussion
on incorporating the Harbor Square Master Plan into the City's Comprehensive Plan. She suggested the
Council decide if they wanted to review the Planning Board's recommendations. She felt the Council had
an obligation to follow through with that process. Council President Petso advised next week's agenda is
full and suggested time be allocated for a decision on May 7, assuming all Councilmembers would be
present. Councilmember Johnson asked if the time allocated could be used for that discussion tonight.
Council President Petso observed the time allocated had already been used to discuss the process.
Mayor Earling requested an opportunity to speak. Council President Petso asked if there were any
objections; none were voiced. Mayor Earling suggested after watching the dynamics in the community for
the last several weeks, taking a timeout in the process to allow things to settle down. He acknowledged
there were strong feelings on both sides of the issue and suggested slowing the process. He referred to
current workloads and short staffing as well as priorities such as the Shoreline Master Plan and code
rewrite along with increased permitting. He summarized he had a concern with providing direction that
would result in extensive work by staff.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed this had been overwhelming for the City. The Port's withdrawal
of their application has slowed the process. She suggested the Council discuss starting the process in a
thoughtful, slow manner but she did not support a 4-5 month delay and then a rushed process. If the
Council chose to move ahead, she favored beginning fairly soon and taking the time to digest it rather
than reacting emotionally to the project.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Johnson, pointing out there are only two more
pages to review. She suggested a 15 minute discussion at the next Council meeting. She agreed with
Mayor Earling on slowing down the process, commenting the public is very emotional and many do not
understand what is going on.
Council President Petso advised a 15 minute discussion could be squeezed into next week's agenda. She
noted there are already three hours of agenda items scheduled. Other options include up to 30 minutes on
May 7 and the June 4 agenda is open.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Yamamoto spoke in favor of having a 30 minute discussion on May 7 versus 15 minutes
next week.
Councilmember Johnson asked which Council meeting is a workshop. Council President Petso answered
the work session is next week, April 23.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule a 30 minute discussion at the May 7 meeting.
11. FORMAL REQUEST FROM KING COUNTY AND THE CITY OF SEATTLE FOR $5,000 TO
SUPPORT A HEALTH IMPACTS ASSESSMENT OF THE PACIFIC GATEWAY COAL
TERMINAL PROPOSAL.
Mayor Earling advised he emailed Councilmembers several supporting documents. Several cities in
Washington and Oregon are participating in the study including Marysville and possibly Everett.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 16, 2013
Page 17
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE $5,000 TO STUDY THE HEALTH IMPACTS OF THE PACIFIC
GATEWAY COAL TERMINAL PROPOSAL.
Council President Petso asked about the funding source. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested
ending cash.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested funding the one-time expenditure for this important study from the
$25,000 balance in the Council Contingency Fund.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled the Council Contingency Fund was 45% used.
Finance Director Ron Cone responded that he did not know the status of the Council Contingency Fund.
Council President Petso referred to a printout of the Council Contingency fund, advising there was
$25,000 in the fund and most expenditures are on track although she acknowledged legal fees are a
variable.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas stated she was satisfied with funding it from the Council Contingency
Fund.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE
AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE OF $5,000 FROM THE COUNCIL
CONTINGENCY FUND TO SUPPORT A HEALTH IMPACTS ASSESSMENT OF THE PACIFIC
GATEWAY COAL TERMINAL PROPOSAL.
Councilmember Bloom said she would vote against the Council Contingency Fund as a funding source in
light of Council President Petso's comment that attorney fees are variable.
Council President Petso asked Councilmember Buckshnis to explain her rationale for funding this from
the Council Contingency Fund when an earlier expenditure was from ending cash. Councilmember
Buckshnis responded the appraisal has nothing to do with the Council and is related to operating. In the
past, no more than $10,000 had been spent on attorney fees from the Council Contingency Fund. It was
important for the Council to show their interest in this study via funding from the Council Contingency
Fund.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Councilmember Buckshnis discontinued her participation by phone at approximately 10:09 p.m.)
12. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF APRIL 8 AND 9, 2013.
Finance Committee
Councilmember Yamamoto reported the committee discussed surplus of computers and monitors and
donation to InterConnection and also authorization to contract with James G. Murphy to sell surplus
vehicles; both were approved on tonight's Consent Agenda. The committee further reviewed the February
2013 Monthly Financial Report which was approved on the Consent Agenda. Ron Wambolt and Bruce
Witenberg provided public comment at the meeting.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 16, 2013
Page 18
Public Safety and Personnel Committee
Councilmember Bloom reported on the committee's discussion of the following:
• HR Reporting Director special assignment — approved on the Consent Agenda
• Acting Development Services Director assignment — pulled from the Consent Agenda and
referred to discussion next week
• Consideration of mandatory bike helmets — Chief Compaan will work with the City Attorney on
an ordinance for Council consideration
• Resolution regarding Robert's Rules — discussed on tonight's agenda
• Code of Ethics — Bainbridge Island's Code of Ethics will be used as a framework with inclusion
of provisions from other cities' Code of Ethics. The City Attorney will be asked to draft a policy
for Council review. The Council will also discuss forming an Ethics Board
Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee
Councilmember Johnson reported four items were approved on tonight's Consent Agenda and one item
will be on next week's Consent Agenda. She reported on the committee's discussion of the following:
• Report on the Five Corners Roundabout Project — the project will not start in 2013 due to
complications related to underground easements and construction
• Proposed Interlocal Agreement between Snohomish County and the City of Edmonds for the
SR99-228th Street SW Corridor and Safety Improvements — scheduled for further discussion at a
future Council meeting
• Tracking of items referred by Council to the Economic Development Commission or Planning
Board — agreed quarterly Planning Board reports will continue and the Planning Board extended
agenda will be available online. The Planning Board and staff requested direction from the
Council on proceeding with the Five Corners or Westgate subarea plans. Council President Petso
offered to schedule that on a future Council agenda.
13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported a delegation of 27 visited Hekinan, Japan, to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the
Sister City relationship and the 65th anniversary of Hekinan's formation. The delegation received a
wonderful reception from the citizens of Hekinan and was kept busy from 8:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. for 7 days
straight. He had meetings with heads of the Chamber of Commerce and the hospital and spoke at two
gatherings. A Hekinan delegation is looking forward to visiting Edmonds in October.
14. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Yamamoto said his thoughts and prayer s are with the participants and spectators at the
Boston Marathon.
Council President Petso said the resolution regarding Robert's Rules will be scheduled on next week's
agenda. Other items under consideration for future agendas include changes to the Economic
Development Commission ordinance and possibly a mini Council retreat on a Friday afternoon. She
invited Councilmembers to provide input on both those items.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to comments made under Audience Comments about
Councilmembers using their iPads during Council meetings and not paying attention. She explained
Councilmembers were provided computers to view the Council packet; and paper packets, which require
staff time to copy and deliver, were discontinued. Using the computer to view packets is also more
environmentally friendly. She assured Councilmembers were using their computers to look up
information and some Councilmembers take notes. She concluded the computers were a great use of staff
time and resources.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 16, 2013
Page 19
Mayor Earling advised each of the 27 members of the Hekinan delegation paid for their own expenses.
15. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(i).
Mayor Earling relayed City Attorney Jeff Taraday's indication that the executive session could be
deferred. It was the consensus of the Council to defer the executive session.
16. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was removed from the agenda via action under Agenda Item 1.
17. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:23 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 16, 2013
Page 20