In a study session Tuesday night, the Edmonds City Council dug deeper into the draft 2015 city budget, including the exploration of projects proposed by individual city councilmembers as part of $250,000 that Mayor Dave Earling has earmarked for one-time council priorities.
Included on the list of council projects are:
-Veterans Park design $10,000
-Train trench study $100,000
-Highway 99 study $100,000
-Planned Action Environmental Impact Study (also for Highway 99) $75,000
-Council meeting video taping $6,500
-Building and facility maintenance needs study $20,000
Budget director Scott James noted that the total of the above projects adds up to $311,500 — $61,000 more than what the mayor budgeted. Councilmembers then began asking detailed questions of each other about the various projects proposed, and one in particular — the $6,500 for council meeting video taping proposed by Council President Diane Buckshnis — received the lion’s share of the attention. Buckshnis explained that the amount would cover staff costs for videotaping council meetings, which would free up budget dollars to cover the cost of a legislative assistant to serve all councilmembers.
But some on the council said they would like to have additional discussions on the qualities needed in a legislative assistant before any decision is made on the proposal.
The council also engaged in a detailed discussion about the status of the city’s efforts to update its Development Code. Development Director Shane Hope explained that the city currently has $110,000 unspent in the budget for the Development Code Update, with $85,000 of that proposed to carry forward as part of the 2015 budget. That amount would cover updating more than a dozen areas of the city code, and would be followed in future years with additional updates, phased in over time. However, Councilmember Joan Bloom noted that code rewrites have been proposed since 2000 but have never been completed, and she advocated for spending an additional $300,000 — all in 2015 — to cover a complete city code rewrite.
“My concern is that it’s costing us more money (to not update the code),” Blooom said, adding that the current code “is very difficult for staff to enforce and is contradictory.”
Among other areas of budgetary concern, the rising cost of incarcerating prisoners was presented by Edmonds Police Chief Al Compaan. Snohomish County Jail is raising its costs in an effort to provide more medical and mental health care for inmates in light of recent inmate deaths and other serious medical issues. Compaan proposed to the council that Edmonds use the Yakima County Jail in Eastern Washington “for our more long-term commitments,” which he defined as between 10 and 14 days.
The Yakima County inmate housing rate for 2015 will be $54.75 day with no booking fee, compared to Snohomish County’s rate of $84 a day plus a $115 booking fee. “There’s quite a bit of savings and when possible we intend to use the Yakima County jail,” he said.
Budget Director James also provided an update on where the city stands with Snohomish County Fire District 1 and the $1.67 million it billed the city for retroactive payments to firefighters and paramedics after the settling of two years’ worth of labor contracts. Mayor Dave Earling told the council there would be an executive session at next week’s council meeting to go into more detail, but James noted that the city has budgeted $978,000 to cover the 2015 Fire District 1 contract — an estimate since it is currently being negotiated. As for the $1.67 million the city owes in back pay, the Fire District has offered to let the city pay is back over two years in quarterly installments, James said.
Due to the lateness of the hour, the council decided to delay to a future meeting discussions on the proposed 2015-2020 Capital Facilities Plan/Capital Improvement Program and the format of council study sessions.
A little background about the Code Rewrite is found in Harry Gatjen’s February 21, 2011 article titled:
“Second citizen coffee includes visit with City Attorney Scott Snyder”
Following are the related comments:
Concerns were brought up about the City code, which was last written in its entirety in 1978 and has been amended many times over the intervening period. In 2004, Snyder suggested to the Council that a code rewrite was probably a shrewd thing to do. Money was appropriated to do that the next year, but the process itself has been slow and cumbersome. Political issues have brought this issue almost to a standstill. It is not the City Attorney who writes the code, but rather the staff with advice from the City Attorney when issues come up. Snyder still believes a rewrite should be a priority, but to achieve it will take someone who can push it through without getting to deeply involved with minor political issues.
More on the Code Rewrite:
From August 20, 2007 City Council Meeting Minutes:
Councilmember Moore inquired about the status of the code rewrite. Mr. Bowman answered the review had been completed for Chapter 15 and 17; City Attorney Scott Snyder was working on Chapter 16 and Chapters 18-21 and the critical area regulations in Chapter 23 remained. He noted there was still a great deal of opportunity for citizens/developers to participate in the code rewrite. He expected the review of all the chapters would be complete by next spring and ready for presentation to the Council a chapter at a time. Councilmember Moore referred to a suggestion to form a committee to assist with the rewrite. Mr. Bowman advised he could facilitate that effort.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled staff’s indication that some of the code rewrite would be available this fall. Mr. Bowman answered Chapter 17 and the non-conforming regulations would be presented to the Council this fall. He explained the nuisance regulations were contained in Chapter 17; staff planned to schedule separate hearings for the nuisance provisions and for the non-conforming regulations. He anticipated a series of code rewrite presentations to the Council.
From November 3, 2008 City Council Meeting Minutes:
Mr. Snyder recalled three years ago he recommended updating the Community Development Code, yet only two chapters had been addressed, chapters that staff had identified as the least controversial. The most important chapter that needed to be updated was the procedures chapter which needed to be streamlined, made user friendly via the use of charts and less dissentient. Further there were several areas of the code that were out of compliance with State law. He recommended the City’s permit revocation procedures be updated while Mr. Bowman was still on staff and suggested using a stakeholder process of citizens, organizations, builders and developers to review the procedures section. He noted there were other issues more appropriately addressed in Executive Session.
It is amazing that we would spend $100,000. to study the feasibility of building a train trench, and then even waste money to build a trench. This reminds me of the movie, “Dumb and Dumber To.” Where has common scence gone?
Where has common scense gone?