Cm130820EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
August 20, 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
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ROLL CALL
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Josh McClure, Police Sergeant
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Roger Neumaier, Finance Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Doug Fair, Municipal Court Judge
Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr.
Rob English, City Engineer
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Deputy City Clerk Linda Hynd called the roll. All elected officials were present.
2.
3.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO ADD AS AGENDA ITEM 7A, PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADOPTING A MORATORIUM ON
MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED,
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED.
Councilmember Buckshnis requested Item D be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO,
TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 6, 2013
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 20, 2013
Page 1
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #203614 THROUGH #203769 DATED AUGUST 8,
2013 FOR $967,970.14 AND CHECKS #203770 THROUGH #203918 DATED AUGUST 15,
2013 FOR $282,492.14. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT & CHECKS
#60351 THROUGH #60378 FOR $478,789.50, BENEFIT CHECKS #60379 THROUGH
#60390 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $211,550.74 FOR THE PERIOD JULY 16, 2013
THROUGH JULY 31, 2013
C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM SOUVONNAH
RAMSEY ($5,400) AND YOON KIM (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED)
E. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JULY 30, 2013 FOR THE 224TH ST. WATERLINE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO EARTHWORK
ENTERPRISES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $79,114.13
F. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED AUGUST 1, 2013 FOR THE 2013 SEWERLINE
REHABILITATION PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO INSITUFORM IN
THE AMOUNT OF $135,344.74
G. TRANSFER AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT FOR POLICE DOG DASH TO
SERGEANT JOSH MCCLURE
H. AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION FUNDING FOR THE 76TH
AVENUE W WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Item D. JUNE 2013 BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT
Councilmember Buckshnis asked Finance Director Roger Neumaier to describe the changes made to the
report. Mr. Neumaier explained the monthly and quarterly budgetary financial reports are tools used to
determine how the City's is doing financially. Changes made to the report include relocating primary
revenues, fund balances and expenditures to the front of the report; adding graphs for utility fees; adding
comparable information from the prior year; and deleting graphs on monthly departmental expenditures.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether quarterly presentations will be made to the Council. Mr.
Neumaier agreed he will make quarterly reports in the future.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO ACCEPT THE JUNE 2013 BUDGETARY FINANCIAL REPORT. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ray Martin, Edmonds, referred to an email from Councilmember Buckshnis stating his input to My
Edmonds News was incorrect. He stood behind his statements. He relayed Councilmember Buckshnis'
comments that it was Councilmember Bloom who raised the cat issue, not her. Mr. Martin said it was his
opinion that Councilmember Buckshnis was behind the cat leash issue. He offered to provide
documentation regarding the history of problems on 94th Avenue West. He referred to comments about
BB guns, property damage and a police report. He summarized Councilmember Buckshnis had been
provided a few facts together with a lot of bologna.
Peter Laylin, speaking on behalf of the Train Horn Noise Advisory Committee, explained he and his
wife purchased a new home in Edmonds about I1/2 years ago very close to the railroad tracks, fully aware
of the noise generated by the trains. During a trip, they noticed trains passed through Steilacoom without
any horns. In discussions with their neighbors, they learned about the potential for a quiet zone and that
Mukilteo had established a quiet zone. City staff indicated the City Council had previously expressed a
desire to establish a train horn quiet zone in Edmonds and had done some preliminary work. The study
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 20, 2013
Page 2
the City issued in April 2008 reveals substantial benefits that could be achieved with a quiet zone. Staff
indicated following the financial crisis and recession in 2008, no funds were available for further work on
a quiet zone and no further work was done. It was suggested he research creating a local improvement
district (LID) through which the creation of a quiet zone could be funded without financial contribution
from the City. His research found East Vancouver Washington recently created an LID to fund a train
horn quiet zone and he felt their experience could assist Edmonds in establishing an LID. Based on the
record, he assumed the Council was already persuaded of the desirability of creating a train horn quiet
zone in Edmonds and the lack of funding was the only obstacle to proceeding. He urged the Council to
pick up where the City left off in 2008 and to continue the work necessary to create an LID to establish a
train horn quiet zone for Edmonds. He offered the committee's assistance.
Jamie Jensen, Mukilteo, attorney representing Hon and Regina Park, Edmonds, explained their plat,
Anglers Crossing, has been approved. A buyer who wants to develop the property has been found;
purchase of the City parcel is still outstanding. A request was made in March to purchase the parcel; the
City has done an appraisal of the parcel but no action has occurred He asked if there was something they
should be doing to move the process forward. Mayor Earling invited Mr. Jensen to contact him tomorrow
to briefly discuss the matter. He advised the Council has had executive session regarding the matter. Mr.
Jensen relayed his understanding there had been some discussion about the effect of the vacant parcel on
the creek in the area and that the City may want the parcel to remain vacant. He expressed their
willingness to work with the City and their desire to move forward with the plat.
Val Stewart, Edmonds, relayed her discovery after work today that the house across the street had been
taken down. A trained sustainable building advisor, she is aware there are other options to demolishing a
building such as de -construction. She was uncertain whether the City informs builders and property
owners that de -construction is an option. She commented no notice to the neighbors when a building is
demolished; Bellingham provides notice to neighbors. Notice would give neighbors an opportunity to
assist with de -construction. Seattle uses King County green tools that describe options and alternatives to
demolition such as salvage and de -construction which can result in cost savings. The house demolished in
her neighborhood was built in the 1930s and could have been preserved instead of demolishing it to build
two houses on the lot. She encouraged the Council to discuss on alternatives to demolition such as
salvage and de -construction as part of sustainable building practices.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled discussion at last week's Council meeting regarding the community
service director. He referred to a public hearing regarding step -backs where a change in building heights
from 25+5 feet to 30 feet was not advertised. He referred to a recent presentation to the Planning Board
regarding RM zones and the proposal to eliminate the parking requirement in the RM zone. He expressed
concern that the employee the Council was considering for the development services director position,
Rob Chave, had developed that proposal. Although Mr. Chave does a good job in presentations, he leaves
things out when it is convenient. Mr. Hertrich also referred to an email regarding a citizen's conversation
with Mr. Chave and his attitude toward eliminating parking requirements in RM zones. He recommended
the Council reconsider promoting Mr. Chave and expressed his support for interviewing several
candidates and selecting the best one, stating he did not trust Mr. Chave.
Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, said contrary to Mr. Hertrich's statements, he trusted Mr. Chave. He
supported Mayor Earling's recommendation to name Mr. Chave the Development Services Director on a
permanent basis. He first met Mr. Chave in 1991 when his Aurora Marketplace neighborhood was
pursuing annexation; Mr. Chave was very helpful in providing facts and figures and explaining the
process. The Aurora Marketplace neighborhood was successfully annexed in 1995. He worked with Mr.
Chave, who staffed the Planning Board, during his two terms on the Planning Board, including two terms
as Chair. He found Mr. Chave to be knowledgeable in long range planning and visioning, accessible and
easy to work with. He has been a member of the Highway 99 Taskforce since its inception 10 years ago
and Mr. Chave has been actively involved in staffing the taskforce. Mr. Chave has a breath of knowledge
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 20, 2013
Page 3
about the issues facing Highway 99 and its impact on the surrounding single family neighborhoods. He
has also worked with Mr. Chave as a member of the Economic Development Commission and the Land
Use and Business Incentive subgroup and found Mr. Chave perceptive and informed about form based
codes and incentive zoning. Mr. Chave is diligently working on the code rewrite. He is well respected and
works collaboratively with other directors and City staff. He is recognized as a regional leader in planning
and development and has expertise in GMA and Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Earling's recommendation
to permanently appoint Mr. Chave as Development Services Director also takes advantage of his
institutional memory as well as saves the City approximately $180,000 over the cost of hiring a new
director. With 22 years' experience working with Mr. Chave as a citizen volunteer, he wholeheartedly
supported Mayor Earling's recommendation to promote Mr. Chave to the position of permanent
Development Services Director.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, expressed his support for the appointment of Rob Chave to the permanent
position of Development Services Director. He concurred with Mr. Witenberg's comments regarding Mr.
Chave. This is a rare situation where the better alternative is also the least expensive. In addition to the
cost savings, it is also the safest alternative; when a person is hired, there is always a risk of making the
wrong selection. Mr. Chave is well known by staff and many citizens and best known by Mayor Earling.
He recalled when making his recommendation Mayor Earling said Mr. Chave has done a fabulous job. He
questioned why the City would look elsewhere when there was someone like Mr. Chave who has been
doing a fabulous job.
SWEARING -IN CEREMONY FOR SERGEANT JOSH MCCLURE
Police Chief Al Compaan commented an oath is an important public recognition of personal achievement
and a personal pledge to the highest legal, ethical and professional standards critical to the law
enforcement mission. He described Sergeant Josh McClure's background: he started with the Edmonds
Police Department as a 17-year old police explorer in 1993, graduated from Shoreline Community
College's criminal justice program and worked as an Edmonds reserve officer before accepting an entry
level officer position with the Tukwila Police Department in 1998. Sergeant McClure returned to the
Edmonds Police Department in August 1999 as a full-time officer. He has served as a narcotics detective
and field training officer and from 2006 until last month was one of Edmonds two K9 officers working
nights with his partner Dash. Sergeant McClure and Dash were certified as a Master K9 team for the past
three years. Sergeant McClure and Dash also performed a significant public relations function for the
department, providing K9 ridealongs for community members and doing K9 demonstrations at numerous
community events, most recently Edmonds Night Out.
Sergeant McClure was promoted to corporal in May 2011, holding that rank until his promotion to
sergeant. Sergeant McClure received letters of commendation, awarded to employees who perform
noteworthy acts or provide exemplary service, in 2004, 2007 and 2008. He was the Edmonds Police
Department Officer of the Year in 2007 and received the City of Edmonds Distinguished Service Award
and Police Medal of Valor in 2008. Chief Compaan recognized members of Sergeant McClure's family
including his wife Kellie, daughters Kiley and Ashton, brother Jeremy, and in-laws Kathy and John
Herrington.
Chief Compaan administered the oath of office to Sergeant McClure. Sergeant McClure's daughter
Ashton pinned his badge. Chief Compaan presented Sergeant McClure with a framed Certificate of
Promotion.
Sergeant McClure identified another family member in the audience, his aunt Carol. Sergeant McClure
thanked the Police Department for the honor of earning this promotion. He recognized there were a lot of
people in the room that he owed thanks. Being part of the department since the age of 17, he has been on
ridealongs with many of the people in the room. He thanked Assistant Chief Jim Lawless who has been a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 20, 2013
Page 4
mentor to him and Sergeant Mike Richardson who used to take him on ridealongs as a 17-year old and
now provides the best professional advice. He commented as a leader it is no longer about him but about
those he leads. The true definition of a leader is his wife Kellie who constantly encourages him.
6. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING POSSIBLE AMENDMENT OF ANIMAL CONTROL CODE
PROVISION ECC.5.05.050. RUNNING AT LARGE
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Mac Kenny, Edmonds, provided a list of reasons that allowing cats to run at large was a bad idea. First,
referring to a City of Edmonds publication, when it rains, pet waste is washed into drains and eventually
discharged untreated into creeks, Lake Ballinger and the Puget Sound. Pet waste is raw sewage and
contains harmful organisms that can make children sick and contaminate water. Pet waste is one of the
leading causes of surface water contamination. Second, the Center for Disease Control website states
people with compromised immune systems such as those on chemotherapy, the elderly, AIDS/HIV,
congenital immune deficiencies, pregnant women, organ or bone marrow transplant recipients are
affected by cat feces. People can be infected by eating food, drinking water or accidentally swallowing
soil that has been contaminated with infected cat feces. Third, the proposed amendment indicates only
licensed, spayed or neutered cats can roam freely. There is no evidence that licensed, spayed or neutered
cats produce less waste material. Fourth, many running at large cats are killed, maimed or injured by cars,
dogs, other cats, wildlife, and poisons. Fifth, none of the reasons for allowing cats to run at large
outweigh citizens' health, cats' safety and healthy, clean vegetables from his garden on his private
property.
Sherri Kenny, Edmonds, asserted the Council was failing to acknowledge a flagrant disregard for public
health and safety and presenting a solution that was not a solution. When this issue was last discussed,
Councilmember Buckshnis and Councilmember Peterson demonstrated they cared about the health and
safety of Edmonds citizens. She found the remaining Councilmembers' flagrant disregard for public
safety unacceptable. She relayed that cat feces harbor pathogens, bacteria and parasites. The difference
between fertilizing with cow or horse manure was those animals do not eat other animals who may carry
pathogens, bacteria and parasites or even the plague. A member of the healthcare industry, she relayed
that some colleagues chose to purchase property outside Edmonds where they felt their right to personal
safety would be better safeguarded. Their purchase of property totaling $1.8 million represents lost tax
revenue to Edmonds. She relayed seeing a toddler running in the grass at an Edmonds park and a cat
defecating a few feet away, suggesting that would not be good marketing material for the City.
Cynthia Hodges, an attorney with a background in environment and natural resources law, said her two
cats enjoy the outdoors in a cage on her deck where they are safe and other animals are safe from them.
She spoke in favor of the amendment to the running at large statute. Cats are invasive species and threaten
to destabilize the ecosystem. It is estimated 100 million cats kill over a billion small mammals and
hundreds of millions of birds each year in the United States; a single free roaming cat may kill as many as
100 or more birds or mammals per year. Feeding cats does not reduce their predatory behavior. Many of
the animals cats prey on are federal and state protected animals that are threatened or endangered. Cats
also compete with native predators. Federal wildlife laws protect species such as migratory birds and
animals listed under the Endangered Species Act. The ESA prohibits a taking of any listed fish or
wildlife; a take includes harm or kill. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service defines harm as kills or injures
wildlife and may include habitat modification or degradation. A free roaming cat that kills or injures a
listed animal may be a taking under ESA. The City may be liable under Section 9 of the ECA for
allowing cats to run at large and kill listed animals. She cited applicable Massachusetts and Florida cases.
Ray Martin, Edmonds, expressed support for draft 2, viewing it as a reasonable compromise. His second
choice was to do nothing. He offered to share his extensive knowledge on the history of cat trapping, the
cat leash law, etc. in the 94'h Avenue West neighborhood.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 20, 2013
Page 5
Cheri Zehner, Edmonds, recalled she testified five years ago regarding the issue of free roaming cats;
she supports controlling free roaming cats. She has a master's degree in public health and worked for
Seattle -King County Health Department for 10 years and was familiar with diseases that can be
transmitted from cats to humans, most significantly toxoplasmosis which can be transmitted by cat feces
infected with toxoplasmosis. Pregnant woman are cautioned not to change cat litter boxes due to the
threat of infection with toxoplasmosis which can be transmitted to the fetus. She referred to a National
Geographic article about Jaroslav Flegr who is researching toxoplasmosis in humans and his findings that
the latent toxoplasmosis parasite is causing mental disorders. Other studies show higher accident rates
with people who have latent toxoplasmosis. Studies have found an increase in sea otters' exposure to
toxoplasmosis due to cat feces in stormwater runoff entering Puget Sound and contaminating shellfish.
She dispelled the myth that cats are effective at catching rodents; in fact outdoor feeding as well as feces
attract rodents. She submitted written material.
Eleanor Corner, Edmonds, addressed the sentimentality issue related to cats. A cat owner for 35 years,
she used to let them roam freely outside. The evolution of understanding related to companion animals
has been delayed as it related to cats versus dogs. In the past, dogs were allowed to roam freely; laws
related to containing dogs were followed by laws requiring owners to pick up their waste. Cats have been
allowed to roam freely; however, studies show cats do better when living in a safe, indoor environment.
She urged the Council to support containment of cats.
Alan Mearns, Edmonds, also representing the Pilchuck Audubon Society, described his monitoring of
neighborhood birds and wildlife for two decades. Since 2005, the number of species in his yard have
declined due to cutting tall trees, construction, window kills, climate change and house cat predation. He
stopped letting his cats outside 10 years ago but one of his neighbors' cats preys on birds in his yard. A
biologist for NOAA that protects birds from oil spills, a literature review of house cat predation retrieved
over 75 papers on the subject. A study published in January 2013 concluded outdoor cats kill 434 million
— 1.1 billion US bird each year; many more than NOAA responds to in oil spills. PAWS and other
wildlife rehabilitation centers have literature on ways homeowners can keep their cats happy and
occupied such as outdoor cat enclosures. He relayed his and Pilchuck Audubon Society's support for
renewing City regulations requiring residents to keep cats indoors or contained. He provided written
materials.
Dr. Robert Chaffee, Edmonds, spoke in favor of reinstating the phrase, "no animal shall be running at
large" into the Edmonds animal control code. According to the Human Society of the United States, a free
roaming cat can be expected to live approximately 5 years; a cat that lives exclusively indoors can often
live 17 or more years. Threats to free roaming cats include automobiles; poisoning from lawn chemicals,
antifreeze or rodent poisons; animals attacks by dogs, other cats and other wildlife; human cruelty, abuse,
harm and death; and being caught in traps set for other animals. Free roaming cats are also largely
responsible for cat overpopulation. Cats are subject to multiple diseases, a few of which can be spread to
humans including the plague and rabies. Cats that stay at home live healthier, longer lives than free
roaming cats. He urged the Council to return to the old animal control policy.
Debbie McCallum, Edmonds, referred to articles regarding the destructive nature of cats on the wildlife
population. While other cities and nations are strengthening laws regarding cat containment, the City
Council made the irrational decision to abolish the ordinance passed in 2007 after many months of
testimony and a cost of $18,000 to the City. Most Councilmember indicated they did not understand and
were given erroneous information about its enforceability from a public employee who indicated to her
today that he misspoke. Citizens should not be forced to undertake the task of keeping a neighbor's cat off
their property; it should be the responsibility of a pet owner to keep their cat safely contained. Cat owners
who chose to ignore a trespassing pet that hunts on their property, turning garden beds and children's play
areas into litter boxes or spreading diseases, should at a minimum think about the cat's welfare. She
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 20, 2013
Page 6
encouraged the Council to read PAWS' philosophy. She demanded the Council place human and property
rights above trespassing pets. The 2007 ordinance banning cats running at large was functional, effective
and enforceable.
Mark MacDonald, Edmonds, relayed his shock when he learned an earlier amendment to include cats in
the running at large ordinance was overturned by the Edmonds City Council in large part because not
enough tickets had been written to warrant the revision to the ordinance. Laws and ordinances are enacted
for the safety of the population, not based on the number of citations written. The 2007 amendment to
include cats in the running at large ordinance was based on expert testimony that included veterinarians
and representatives of PAWS who provided facts about increased maiming and death of cats that are
allowed to run at large. He encouraged the Council to review the testimony provided in 2007, pointing out
that testimony and much of the testimony presented tonight is from professional experts, not just personal
opinion from pet owners. Experts have cited the dangers from cat feces in gardens, roaming cats violating
trespass laws, and dangers to wildlife caused by uncontained cats. He summarized the Council had heard
enough expert testimony to reinsert cats in the running at large ordinance. A vote to continue to exclude
cats from the running at large section of the animal control code showed a Councilmember refused to cast
his/her vote based on fact but instead vote based on personal bias or because they were beholden to
someone else. If the Council votes to exclude cats from the running at large section of the animal control
code, they opened the City to potential lawsuits by any non -cat owner within the City's boundaries who
became ill from gardening in ground poisoned by cat fecal matter and show willful disregard of human
health and safety. He urged the Council to vote to reinsert cats in the running at large section of the
animal control code.
Anne Meier, Edmonds, expressed support for all pet owners being responsible for their pets. She
circulated a photograph of cat hair on her outdoor furniture from someone else's cat. She questioned the
Council spending time debating whether someone should be responsible for their own pet.
Victor Eskenazi, Edmonds, (Esperance), acknowledged the frustration of people who find animal waste
on their property. He does not have any pets because he is not in a position to take responsibility for a pet.
Recognizing it is not the City's responsibility to protect a citizen's property from animals, he
recommended pet owners be responsible for their animals' actions.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the minutes of a year ago where Assistant Police Chief Jim
Lawless indicated this was an unenforceable part of the code. Assistant Chief Lawless said the issue was
passive versus active enforceability and his response a year ago may not have been clear. The Police
Department is either responsive or proactive in their approach. The point that he was trying to make
regarding enforceability of the ordinance as it existed was the Police Department's inability to actively
enforce it but rather be responsive.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said when this was discussed a year ago, she voted against changing the
ordinance to exclude cats because there had not been a public hearing. It was her understanding that since
then there had been a number of complaints regarding cats in people's yards. She pointed out changing
the ordinance would not stop cats from roaming; it will be citizens' responsibility to call animal control
when problems arise. Assistant Chief Lawless answered it will be the pet owners responsibility to care for
their pet regardless of the species and citizens can call animal control regarding animals on their property.
He agreed more often than not animal control's response would be reactive rather than active.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out under the current ordinance cats can roam free without any
intervention from the Police Department. Assistant Chief Lawless agreed, advising there is currently a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 20, 2013
Page 7
nuisance provision that requires three neighbors to sign a petition about an animal and then enforcement
action can be taken.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out she was not on the City Council in 2007 and she had nothing to do
with the cat leash law. She disagreed the issue was about leashing cats, the issue was cat containment and
preventing cats from roaming at large. This issue was brought up at the Public Safety Committee which is
chaired by Councilmember Bloom. Her interest was in due process; the revision to the 2007 law occurred
without public participation.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO.3937 (ATTACHMENT 7), AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ECC 5.05 TO REVISE THE "RUNNING AT
LARGE PROHIBITED" PROVISION OF THAT CODE SECTION.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said responsible pet owners need to be responsible for all their pets. This
section does not address specific animals. She does not own any pets and does not wish to have other
people's pets on her property. She encouraged the Council to pass the ordinance.
Council President Petso clarified the ordinance Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to in her motion
deleted the phrase "with the exception of cats." Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed.
Councilmember Bloom said she would vote against the ordinance. She has no cats or dogs but has not
seen any change in her neighborhood or the City since the previous ordinance prohibiting cats roaming at
large was passed. This ordinance is based on the belief that cats and dogs are exactly alike; she has owned
cats and dogs and knows they are not alike. She will only support the ordinance if the people who believe
cats and dogs are exactly the same will find a location, funding and design for an off leash cat park.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled Councilmember Bloom testified in 2007 against the ordinance. She
said the difference between cat and dog owners is dog owners have to walk their dogs and pick up their
feces. She was recently bitten by a dog and the only treatment she required was a bandaid; if she had been
bitten by a cat, a visit to the emergency room and antibiotics would have been required. She felt cats were
more dangerous when they attack and therefore should not be roaming free. She supported returning to
the original ordinance.
Council President Petso said she will reluctantly support the motion primarily because she believed with
this tool in place animal control can do a better job of getting neighbors to work together.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed concern with pointing fingers and laying blame, pointing
none of the current Councilmembers were on the Council in 2007.
Councilmember Yamamoto said he initially voted not to remove the exclusion of cats but had been
convinced by the testimony. He owns a dog and two cats and does not allow them to roam freely. Dogs
and cats are similar and it is important for owners to take responsibility for their pets.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO.
7. SALARY INCREASE TO CONTINUE RECEIPT OF COURT IMPROVEMENT ACCOUNT
FUNDS
Municipal Court Judge Doug Fair explained in 2005 the legislature passed a law that allowed cities and
counties with elected judges to receive funds from the state. In 2006 the Council changed his position
from appointed to elected so the City could receive funds from the Court Improvement Account Fund
program. That program requires cities to reimburse judges at 951/oof a district court salary. The district
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 20, 2013
Page 8
court salary has not changed since 2008. In 2013 the State Salary Commission approved a 2% increase in
2013 and a 3% increase in 2014 for district court judges. In order for the City to be eligible to continue to
receive the funds, approximately $12,000 - $13,000/year, his salary must be raised by the same amount.
The annual cost is described in the agenda memo.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the Citizens Salary Commission sets the compensation for all
elected officials including the judge. While the Commission established the salary for the Council and
Mayor, they did defer the judge's salary to the Council. The Commission meets in the spring of every
even numbered year; they can address the 2014 increase at that time. He suggested when the Commission
meets, they are asked to tie the judge's salary to this formula.
Human Resources Reporting Director Carrie Hite explained she was the staff liaison to the Citizens
Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials in 2012. She referred to the May 1, 2012 Council
minutes in which the Commission deferred the judge's salary to the 95% of the district court judge and
that any changes in the state salary rate be reflected in the judge's compensation for 2013 and 2014. Mr.
Taraday explained that means the Council does not need to take any action; it will happen automatically.
He cited RCW 35.21.015 which states any change in salary shall be filed by the Commission with the
City Clerk and shall become effective and incorporated into the city or town budget without further action
of the city council or salary commission. He summarized in accordance with the RCW, it would be
improper for the Council to take action on the judge's salary.
7A. PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADOPTING A MORATORIUM ON MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES
Mayor Earling read the title of the ordinance: An ordinance of the City of Edmonds, Washington,
relating to collective gardens and the recreational use of marijuana, establishing an immediate emergency
moratorium on the siting, establishment and operation of any structures or uses relating to collective
gardens, marijuana production, marijuana processing, or marijuana retailing, to be in effect until the City
of Edmonds adopts zoning regulations addressing such marijuana uses, and establishing an immediate
emergency moratorium on the submission of any business license applications for such uses, setting six
months as the effective period of the moratorium, to allow the Washington State Liquor Control Board an
opportunity to complete its rulemaking for the licensing of such uses and to allow the City to study the
secondary land use impacts of such uses, establishing the date of the public hearing on the moratorium
and declaring an emergency.
Mayor Earling explained he asked the City Attorney to prepare the ordinance. With the passage of I-502,
there is a series of new regulations. With the recent news that the Liquor Control Board extended 90 days
for additional rulemaking consideration, it was appropriate for the City to take this action immediately.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed this was appropriate, noting the State of Washington needs time and
the City needs time.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON,
TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3938, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, RELATING TO COLLECTIVE GARDENS AND THE RECREATIONAL USE
OF MARIJUANA, ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE
SITING, ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF ANY STRUCTURES OR USES RELATING
TO COLLECTIVE GARDENS, MARIJUANA PRODUCTION, MARIJUANA PROCESSING, OR
MARIJUANA RETAILING, TO BE IN EFFECT UNTIL THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTS
ZONING REGULATIONS ADDRESSING SUCH MARIJUANA USES, AND ESTABLISHING AN
IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM ON THE SUBMISSION OF ANY BUSINESS
LICENSE APPLICATIONS FOR SUCH USES, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE
PERIOD OF THE MORATORIUM, TO ALLOW THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR
CONTROL BOARD AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLETE ITS RULEMAKING FOR THE
LICENSING OF SUCH USES AND TO ALLOW THE CITY TO STUDY THE SECONDARY
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 20, 2013
Page 9
LAND USE IMPACTS OF SUCH USES, ESTABLISHING THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC
HEARING ON THE MORATORIUM AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented everyone will be looking at how Washington State handles this
law. She personally preferred to "tax the heck out of it" to generate additional revenue. The State and the
City need time to do things thoughtful because it has the potential to change the face of Edmonds.
Councilmember Peterson did not support an emergency moratorium without notice to the public even
though he understood the reasoning. If the ordinance passes, he hoped a public hearing would be
scheduled as soon as possible. He viewed this as an opportunity to recruit businesses and move forward in
a very progressive way as the State has.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the ordinance include an automatic repeal of the
moratorium after six months. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the ordinance has a provision that
requires the Council to take action to terminate the moratorium. He read Section 5 of the ordinance,
"Duration of Moratorium. The moratorium imposed by this Ordinance shall commence on the date of the
adoption of this Ordinance. As long as the City holds a public hearing on the moratorium and adopts
findings and conclusions in support of the moratorium (as contemplated by Section 6 herein), the
moratorium shall not terminate until six (6) months after the date of adoption, or at the time all of the
events described in Section 3 have been accomplished, whichever is sooner. The Council shall make the
decision to terminate the moratorium by ordinance, and termination shall not otherwise be presumed to
have occurred." Mr. Taraday clarified as the ordinance is currently drafted, the Council would need to
take subsequent action to terminate the moratorium but that sentence could be revised if the Council
wished. If the Council wanted a permanent ban on marijuana facilities as some cities have done, he
recommended that not be done by simply leaving the moratorium in place, but rather by adopting a
permanent ban.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether a public hearing was required. Mr. Taraday answered if the
moratorium is adopted, a public hearing is required within 60 days of adoption. Council President Petso
advised the date of the public hearing was unknown at this point, possibly September 3, 2013.
Council President Petso asked whether the moratorium could be repealed following the public hearing if
the Council chose. Mr. Taraday answered this is not an interim ordinance but a moratorium; the City is
not required to leave the moratorium in place for six months. Like any ordinance, it can be repealed.
MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON AND FRALEY-MONILLAS
VOTING NO.
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A GRANT ACCEPTANCE INTENT NOTICE
AND GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF
ECOLOGY FOR A MUNICIPAL STORMWATER CAPACITY GRANT FOR $50,000 AND A
PROJECT SPECIFIC PLANNING AND DESIGN OF RETROFIT/LID PROJECT GRANT UP TO
$120,000
Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry Shuster reviewed grants the City has received in the past
(agenda items shown in italics):
Period
Type
Amount
2007-2009
Municipal Stormwater Capacity Grant
$75,000
2010-2012
Municipal Stormwater Capacity Grant and Stormwater Retrofit or
LID Planning & Design
$178,115
2012-2015
Statewide Stormwater Grant Program — Vactor Waste Facility Retrofit
$259,745
2013-2014
Watershed Protection and Restoration Grant — Perrinville Creek
Stormwater Flow Reduction Study and Pre -Design Report
$188,772
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 20, 2013
Page 10
2013-201 S
Munici al Stormwater Capacity Grant
$50, 000
2013-2014
Stormwater Retrofit or LID Plannin & Design
$120, 000
Total
$871,632
Mr. Shuster provided examples of grant expenditures:
• Municipal Stormwater Capacity Grants
o Compliance with Municipal Permits
■ Utility bill inserts
■ Updated codes, developed customer handouts, system mapping, and equipment purchase.
■ Maintenance — pile covers, vehicle wash, and equipment purchase
• Stormwater Retrofit or LID Projects
o Shell Valley Emergency Access Road - porous asphalt
o Perrinville Creek Watershed retrofit planning and predesign
o Incorporation of LID into City Transportation projects (planning & design)
Councilmember Buckshnis commended staff for receipt of the grant. She asked whether this was the most
money a city could receive. Mr. Shuster answered it was.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON,
TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN GRANT ACCEPTANCE INTENT NOTICE AND
GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY.
MOTION CARRIED (6-0). (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote.)
2013 AUGUST BUDGET AMENDMENT
Finance Director Roger Neumaier explained the Council passes an annual budget in November/December
of each year that governs City expenditures throughout the upcoming year. During the year, it is
necessary to make adjustments to the budget. The proposed ordinance includes changes to multiple funds
and departments. Several of the changes result from department analysis of their 2013 budgets as a basis
for planning their 2014 budgets. Some changes are a result of policy direction and prior operational
authorization from the Council. Other changes serve as a request for Council to authorize certain
operational activities.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked for an explanation regarding the additional $100,000 for the 76t'
Avenue project which is a Lynnwood project. Public Works Director Phil Williams agreed this is a City
of Lynnwood project; Lynnwood is installing a large diameter sewer line on 76t" Avenue, a street shared
by Edmonds and Lynnwood. Since Lynnwood was tearing up a great deal of 76t'' Avenue followed by
restoration, Edmonds wanted to piggyback on their work and replace Edmonds' waterline. The increased
cost is due to change orders and claims for equitable adjustment as a result of changed conditions. The
change is the discovery of contaminated soil; apparently 76t'' Avenue was an oiled road in the past years
that resulted in a 6+ inches of contaminated soil two feet below the surface of the base material. That soil
is being removed and disposed of in accordance with State regulations and replaced with clean fill. The
same thing must be done for the City's waterline. In addition there were old cedar logs in a number of
locations that were used in the past to form bridges over soggy places. A change order was executed for
$48,000 to pay for the City's share of the problem. Original Council approval of the project included
$53,000 in management reserve to pay for change orders; the first change order was $48,000 and the
project is nowhere near completion. The requested additional $100,000 in spending authority will be used
for any future change orders but will only be spent if necessary. He anticipated there would be other
change orders.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to page 21, an amendment in the amount of $250,000, $128,800 to
cover the negative balance in the fund and $121,200 for future Council authorized settlements. She asked
whether the intent was to bring the Risk Management SubFund up to 2% of the General Fund or was this
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 20, 2013
Page 11
amount was satisfactory. Mr. Neumaier answered the intent was to fully fund it as part of the 2014
budget. It could be done sooner if the Council wished. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if there would be
a need for additional funds based on pending litigation. City Attorney Jeff Taraday recommended it be
increased somewhat.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the Mayor's increase and asked why in the past the Council was
allowed not to approve a salary increase for the Mayor and this year it was automatic. Mr. Taraday
answered RCW 35.21.015 gives the City the authority to create a Citizens Commission on Compensation
for Elected Officials. When the Commission was created and the ordinance adopted creating that
Commission, it was not done consistent with State law. State law trumps City code whenever there is an
inconsistency between City ordinance and State law. The City code says the Commission makes a
recommendation and the Council takes action on the recommendation which suggests the Council has
some discretion in accepting or not accepting the Commission's recommendation. The RCW (subsection
3) states any change in salary shall be filed by the commission with the city clerk and shall become
effective and incorporated into the city or town budget without further action of the city council or salary
commission. State law also states (subsection 8) the action fixing the salary by a commission established
in conformity with this section shall supersede any other provision of state statute or city or town
ordinance related to municipal budgets or the fixing of salaries.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the code will be changed to delete the language regarding the
Council considering the Commission's recommendation. Mr. Taraday agreed it would be prudent to
amend the code prior to the Salary Commission convening in spring 2014.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3939, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3920 AS A RESULT OF
UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. BUDGET APPROACHES AND RECOMMENDED FUND BALANCE POLICY
Finance Director Roger Neumaier explained the first step in developing an annual budget is identifying
available resources. Within that context, the decision regarding how much fund balance should be set
aside is a primary decision. Prior to making a recommendation to the Mayor regarding the 2014 General
Fund budget, he checked with various sources including the Government Finance Officers Association
(GFOA) and Moody's who rates the City's bonds for market. GFOA talks about different types of needs
in a Best Practice Statement. He summarized the GFOA statement, in establishing a policy governing the
level of unrestricted fund balance in the general fund, a government should consider a variety of factors,
including:
• The predictability of its revenues and volatility of its expenditures
• Perceived exposure to significant one-time outlays
• The potential drain upon general fund resources from other funds as well as the availability of
resources in other funds
• Liquidity (the disparity between when financial resources actually become available and when
they need to be paid)
• Commitments and assignments
GFOA's statement indicates the adequacy of unrestricted fund balance in the general fund should be
assessed based on the government's own specific circumstances. GFOA recommends at a minimum that
general purpose governments, regardless of their size, maintain unrestricted fund balances in their general
fund of 16% of regular general fund operating revues or regular general fund operating expenditures.
GFOA also states a government's particular situation often may require a level of unrestricted fund
balance in the general fund significantly in excess of this recommended minimum level.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 20, 2013
Page 12
Mr. Neumaier recommended an overall general fund reserve target equal to 32% of annual revenues. The
City's current policy for 16% contingency reserve focuses on one-time, non -recurring expenditures, one
of the critical elements of GFOA's recommendation. It reserves 2% for risk management reserves focused
on litigation -related payouts. The City's general fund policy does address fluctuation in liquidity a critical
issue in an environment where revenues and expenditures do not occur on an even basis. The cyclical
fluctuation which reduced fund balance from the 2012 year end fund balance by 12.5% of annual
revenues by March 31 is an issue of concern.
Moody's Rating Services shared information that general fund balance as a percentage of revenue for AA
rated cities of less than 50,000 residents average between 32.8% (Aa3 rated cities) and 38.7% (Aal rated
cities). Edmonds is an Aa3 rated city, to be at a level of other Aa3 cities, Edmonds' target would be
32.8%. At the end of 2012, the City had achieved this level of fund balance. Implementation of this
approach for 2014 would mean:
• To the extent that budgeted revenues and expenditures exceed 32%, the City would be able to
increase its 2014 budget to the extent that budgeted yearend fund balances do not reduce the fund
balance below 32%
• The budget should include an assumption of 2% of total authorized expenditures not being
expended. These expenditures should focus on one-time projects.
If the Council supports this approach, he will update the City's general fund reserve policy to include the
broader policy goal of 32%.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested applying this to Edmonds actual projects to see how fast the City
runs out of money using liquidity. She noted Moody's ratings consider a variety of factors not only fund
balance. It appears Mr. Neumaier's goal is an Aal rating. Mr. Neumaier answered that is not the primary
objective. In an environment where interest rates increase significantly and a recession occurs, the City
could be in a position of paying a significant amount of interest if reserves are not at this level.
Councilmember Buckshnis was concerned with tying up an additional $10 million in reserves for
liquidity when that liquidity already exists as working capital/working cash. Mr. Neumaier said the entire
32% is approximately $11 million; the additional 14% represents approximately $5 million.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she needed to see the numbers in order to make a determination. She
recalled reviewing the reserve policies of Mukilteo, Lynnwood, Shoreline, Redmond and Issaquah; only
Shoreline ties their reserves to one revenue source. Mr. Neumaier responded most cities tie their reserve
policy to revenues or a percentage of expenditures. Councilmember Buckshnis summarized liquidity is
part of working capital.
Councilmember Yamamoto noted the 2013 reserve was 31.5% and Mr. Neumaier's recommendation is
32%. He asked how much that '/2% represents. Mr. Neumaier answered his estimates only included
General Fund operating and General Fund reserves. The'/z% is approximately $150,000.
Council President Petso suggested bringing this back on a future agenda for further discussion after
Councilmembers have had an opportunity to follow up with Mr. Neumaier.
Councilmember Peterson suggested including the discussion in a budget workshop.
11. DISCUSSION REGARDING CODE OF ETHICS
Council President Petso suggested due to the late hour and remaining items on the agenda items that this
item be postponed to a future meeting.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 20, 2013
Page 13
Councilmember Peterson agreed with postponing this item. He was glad it had been scheduled on the
agenda and materials included for Council review. He advised Councilmember Bloom, Ms. Hite and he
found several excellent examples of Codes of Ethic and Codes of Conduct. Kirkland and Bellevue's code
are nearly identical and likely will be used as a starting point. He suggested Councilmembers familiarize
themselves with Kirkland and Bellevue's codes.
Postponing this item was also acceptable to Councilmember Bloom. She requested Councilmembers
review Kirkland and Bellevue's policies, noting there are a few significant differences. She pointed out
the intent to have an Ethic's Officer.
Councilmember Johnson asked about the fiscal impact of an Ethics Officer. Councilmember Peterson
responded Kirkland has an Ethics Officer and they contact with a law firm. To date they have not had to
utilize their services; the law firm is on standby in the event an issue arises.
Councilmember Bloom noted Kirkland and Bellevue have a City Manager form of government. The
references in their Code of Ethics to elected officials do not include the Mayor.
Councilmember Buckshnis was concerned with the issue of subjectivity. She recalled former
Councilmember Plunkett's concern about the subjectivity of some policies. She noted there are state laws
related to ethics for Councilmembers. She commented on new behaviors she has seen this year,
recognizing that people see things differently based on their backgrounds.
It was agreed to postpone this to a future meeting.
13. PROPOSAL TO RESCIND ORDINANCE NO. 3935 — AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO
AMEND THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS ECDC 23.40.220,
23.40.320, 23.50.020, 23.50.040 AND 23.90.040, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN LEGALLY
ESTABLISHED IMPERVIOUS AREAS AND WITHIN BUFFER AREAS THAT ARE
PHYSICALLY SEPARATED AND FUNCTIONALLY ISOLATED FROM AN ASSOCIATED
CRITICAL AREA
Councilmember Bloom explained when she reviewed the issue more carefully, she apologized to the
Planning Board for sending the matter to them prematurely. Her concerns are related to the structure
language versus development footprint as well as physically separated and functionally isolated. The
language defines legally established structures or similar circumstances and suggested if something was
functionally isolated and physically separated it did not serve to protect the wetland from adverse impacts
of development. The question then arises if it does not protect the wetland from adverse impacts of
development, can enhancement be enforced. She pointed out physically separated and functionally
isolated are not clearly defined and impervious surfaces are too broadly defined and include gravel roads
as well as compacted surfaces. In addition the enhancements are not clearly defined. Mr. Chave indicated
to her that he preferred to wait until 2015 to clarify the enhancements.
Councilmember Bloom was concerned that rushing to pass the ordinance due to two projects could
possibly result in unintended consequences. In particular functionally isolated and physically separated
could affect numerous properties in the City, not just the spray park. For those reasons, she reconsidered
her vote and asked for this to be scheduled on the agenda. She suggested the Council rescind the
ordinance and bring back the amendments at a future meeting as soon as possible.
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO, TO
RESCIND ORDINANCE NO.3935.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with the lack of transparency on this item. When she left
Friday, the packet did not include this item. The discussion occurred between two Councilmembers and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 20, 2013
Page 14
the City Attorney. This was an issue for the Planning Board to consider. She emphasized the intent of the
original ordinance was for the code to reflect Best Available Science as it relates to structures. Repealing
the ordinance will potentially cost the City time and money and will affect the timing of the spray park.
Councilmember Peterson did not support the motion. There were open and frank discussions previously
and a great deal of information presented on two separate occasions. Sometimes Councilmembers may
not be happy with the end result of the process but the Council followed the proper process. Unless there
were extenuating circumstances that the Council had not been made aware of, he did not see a reason to
rescind the ordinance. He suggested Councilmembers respect the process and even if they disagreed or
wanted a redo, it was not always the best course of action.
Council President Petso commented on the process, pointed out this was the Council's first opportunity
under Roberts Rules to rescind a motion. She explained when Councilmember Bloom indicated her
interest in changing her vote, she consulted Roberts Rules and followed the procedure. That procedure
includes notice of the intent to rescind in the meeting notice which was done on Friday. There was still
time to amend the agenda on Friday and City Clerk Sandy Chase created the amended agenda Friday
afternoon. She has been working with Mr. Lien and Ms. Hite on the topic and Councilmember Bloom has
been meeting with staff. She mentioned the topic to at least two other Councilmembers in conversation.
Everyone is working hard to do this right without messing up the spray park project. It may be that the
projects costs more money or needs to be redesigned or that the Council cannot wait for the Planning
Board's expedited review and staff returns with a different proposal. The motion to rescind the interim
ordinance does not stop the Council or staff from working on the issue or the Planning Board from
working on a permanent ordinance. Rescinding the ordinance will stop applications and give the Council
and Planning Board more time to work with staff. She noted paving within critical area buffers is a big
deal and the City must proceed carefully. She was happy with the effort to follow the process under
Robert Rules. She will support the motion to rescind the interim ordinance.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether a motion to reconsider or rescind was appropriate. City
Attorney Jeff Taraday answered there is a Roberts Rules process to place the matter on the agenda. To the
question of how to repeal an ordinance, Mr. Taraday explained an ordinance is repealed via the adoption
of another ordinance. To the extent a majority of the Council desires to repeal the ordinance, there is an
ordinance on the City's Z drive that would accomplish that. The proper motion to undo the interim
ordinance is a motion to approve the ordinance to repeal.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out Councilmember Bloom's motion was to rescind the motion. Mr.
Taraday explained rescind is the Roberts Rules term and repeal is the RCW term. He preferred the
Council use the term repeal. He interpreted the motion to be to repeal the motion. If the motion is
interpreted as a motion to adopt an ordinance that repeals the interim ordinance, that ordinance should be
presented to the Council.
Councilmember Bloom explained her intent was to repeal the ordinance that was passed two weeks ago
and ask staff to return with an amended ordinance. Mr. Taraday summarized the options:
1. Do nothing
2. Repeal the interim ordinance adopted on August 6
3. Amend the interim ordinance adopted on August 6 (two versions available)
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the interim ordinance addressed making the critical areas
ordinance consistent with BAS. The discussion now is adding more teeth to the new ordinance. Mr.
Taraday clarified the motion on the floor is to repeal the August 6 interim ordinance.
Council President Petso asked whether the preferred action would be a motion to adopt the ordinance in
the packet that effectively repeals the interim ordinance. If the Council's intent is to repeal the August 6
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 20, 2013
Page 15
interim ordinance, Mr. Taraday recommended a Councilmember move the ordinance displayed on the
screen. He summarized repealing an ordinance requires adoption of an ordinance that repeals the original
ordinance.
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE
SECOND.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3940, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, REPEALING INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3935, WHICH AMENDED THE
CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS EDC 23.40.220, 23.40.320,
23.50.040 AND 23.90.040, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN LEGALLY ESTABLISHED
IMPERVIOUS AREAS AND WITHIN BUFFER AREAS THAT ARE PHYSICALLY
SEPARATED AND FUNCTIONALLY ISOLATED FROM AN ASSOCIATED CRITICAL AREA.
Recognizing this may be the proper process in Roberts Rules, Councilmember Peterson pointed out the
Council is voting on an ordinance that neither they nor the citizens of Edmonds have seen before now and
that did not satisfy his desire for transparency and public process.
Councilmember Bloom took issue with Councilmember Peterson's reference to transparency, relaying
that this was a transparent process. Under Roberts Rules, a Councilmember has the option to change their
mind which is what she did. She spent a great deal of time talking to staff as well as spoke to the Planning
Board. She relayed Mr. Lien's indication that the interim ordinance could potentially allow an increase in
impervious surface in wetland buffers in other parts of the City. She did not understand why
Councilmember Peterson did not feel this was a transparent process when everything had been done to
make it transparent. The interim ordinance came to the Council without approval of the Parks, Planning
and Public Works (PPP) Committee; the committee recommended it go directly to the Planning Board.
When it was presented to the Council, an interim ordinance was proposed. Her primary concern was
making changes of this degree to the critical areas ordinance without fully considering the unintended
consequences that may result. She found Councilmember Peterson's comments that it was not transparent
very offensive, pointing out this is as transparent as it gets.
Councilmember Peterson appreciated that it was transparent to Councilmember Bloom because she had
been working on it for the last several days. He has not; this is the first time he has seen it. The interim
ordinance was considered over two meetings so that staff could provide additional information. If this had
not been done at the last minute, he still would not support it because he believed in the action the
Council took previously. One of the reasons he did not support the motion was while Councilmember
Bloom, Council President Petso and Mr. Taraday have done a lot of work and talked with staff, he was
not briefed on it and there was nothing in the packet. The last minute nature of this item raised his
concern with transparency. If this had been scheduled on the agenda and he had time to have his questions
answered, that would be transparent. He summarized it has been transparent for a few but not all.
Councilmember Bloom pointed out it had been on the agenda since Friday. Councilmember Peterson
responded there was no supporting documentation in the packet. What the Council is voting on was not
included in the packet.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained after the PPP Committee meeting forwarded the issue to the
Planning Board, President Petso decided to bring it to full Council. This is an interim ordinance; it is on a
fast track for review by the Planning Board. She objected to repealing ordinances on the fly, preferring to
wait for the Planning Board's review. She preferred to allow the spray park project to proceed,
commenting this will impact the timing, budget and scope of that project.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 20, 2013
Page 16
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. MOTION FAILED
FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Council President Petso said the PPP Committee forwarded this matter to the Planning Board without
coming to full Council. The first the Council heard of it was during reports on committee meetings. Some
people were uncomfortable with the two committee members making the decision to send it to the
Planning Board so she made a decision to include it as a discussion item on a Council agenda. When it
was scheduled, it was no longer a discussion item but included an interim ordinance. She asked the City
Clerk to remove the interim ordinance from the agenda. During the discussion item, staff indicated they
would present an interim ordinance the following week. At that meeting, the Council voted 4-3 to approve
the interim ordinance. One member of the four person majority changed her mind and followed the
correct procedure to bring it back to the Council.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO AND
COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, BLOOM AND JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS YAMAMOTO, BUCKSHNIS, AND PETERSON VOTING NO.
12. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF AUGUST 13 AND 19, 2013
Finance Committee
Councilmember Yamamoto reported on the following items considered by the committee:
• Salary Increase to Remain Eligible for State Court Improvement Account Funds — addressed on
tonight's agenda
• Discussion regarding Authorization to Recruit for Development Services Director — will be
scheduled for full Council discussion on a future agenda
• Discussion and Recommendation on Proposed Utility Rate Adjustments — will be scheduled for
presentation to full Council
• June 2013 Budgetary Financial Report — approved on Consent Agenda
• 2013 Budget Amendment — discussed on tonight's agenda
• Sharing 2-14 Budget Approaches and Recommending Fund Balance — discussed on tonight's
agenda
• Bond Sale Report
• Public comment from two citizens
Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee
Councilmember Johnson reported on the following items considered by the committee:
Forwarded for approval on the Consent Agenda:
• Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for Inter jurisdictional Coordination Relating to Affordable
Housing within Snohomish County
• Additional Construction Funding for 76th Avenue West Water Main Replacement Project
• Report on bids opened July 30, 2013 for the 224th St. Waterline Replacement Project
• Report on bids opened August 1, 2013 for the 2013 Sewerline Rehabilitation Project
• Acceptance of a Grant for Stormwater Planning and Design
Referred following to future Council meeting_
• Utility Rate Adjustments
• Five Corners Roundabout Art Selection
Carried over for further discussion:
• Harbor Square
• Street Tree Management Policy
Public comment
Jamie Jensen regarding the Angler's Crossing PRD
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 20, 2013
Page 17
Public Safety & Personnel Committee
Councilmember Bloom reported on the following items considered by the committee:
• Transfer and Hold Harmless Agreement for Police Dog Dash to Sergeant Josh McClure —
approved on the Consent Agenda
• Revisions to Edmonds City Code Chapter 2.10 — will be scheduled for full Council discussion on
a future agenda
• Discussion regarding Authorization to Recruit for Development Services Director —will be
scheduled for full Council consideration of a budget amendment related to funding of the
Development Services Director.
14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling had no report.
15. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Petso advised two Councilmembers have indicated they will be absent from the
September 17 and 24 meetings. She asked the remaining Councilmembers to inform her whether they
planned to attend both meetings. If only four Councilmembers are available for those meetings, the
meetings will have a very light agenda or the meetings may be canceled.
As her attempt to finesse the committee referral directly to the Planning Board was not entirely
satisfactory, Council President Petso relayed her plans to ask the Public Safety & Personnel Committee to
consider whether decisions of that nature should be made at the committee level or referred to the full
Council. In response, Councilmember Buckshnis questioned the purpose of having committees.
To those who saw the moving van in front of her house this weekend, Councilmember Buckshnis assured
she was not moving.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reminded of the Volunteer Picnic on Sunday at 1:30 at City Park. She
asked board and commission members to RSVP to Councilmember Johnson or Ms. Spellman. Special
guests will include Mayor Earling and Council President Petso.
16. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(i)
The executive session was postponed to a future meeting.
17. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
18. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 20, 2013
Page 18