Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-13-2010 - Supplemental MaterialsMedina City Council Regular Meeting Monday, December 13, 2010 Agenda Bill As proposed by Council Member Whitney Subject: 2010 Budget Amendment and 2011 Preliminary Budget 1. PROPOSED HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS FOR THE 2011 BUDGET, AS PRESENTED A. Eliminate the two transfers out of the Reserve Fund. The ending fund balance in the General Fund will be significant enough to handle the GAP, even if the following proposals are not adopted. That leaves the designated Reserve Fund intact. B. Move the Proposed Consultant contracts currently included as a line item under Professional Services in the "Legislative Department" to the same line item in the "Executive Department" to more adequately reflect sometimes regular, and sometimes special, but necessary cost to the City rather than a direct cost of the council. Debit: BARS 001-000-000-513-10-41-00 $18,700. Credit: BARS 001-000-000-511-60-41-00 ($18,700.) 2. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE 2010 BUDGET A. The 2010 budget, as adopted last year, allowed for an anticipated Operating GAP of $686,805. With all accounts closed as of 11/30/10, we have an actual Operating GAP of only $354,240. If all funds are disbursed as allowed by the most recent forecast as presented by the City Manager the Operating GAP by year end will be $716,932. While I do not believe that all of these expenses will be realized, as the budget currently stands, they are authorized. The following budget amendment will reduce that authorization per legislative action. Credit General Fund Police Department $ 120,000 Credit General Fund Central Services 50,000 Credit General Fund Legal Department 15,000 Credit General Fund Municipal Court 15,000 Credit Street Fund 15,000 Credit General Fund Emergency Preparedness 10,000 Credit General Fund Parks Department 5,000 Credit General Fund Legislative 5,000 Credit General Fund Lifeguard Program 630 $ 235,630 1 3. PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PRELIMINARY 2011 BUDGET AS PRESENTED A. General Fund — Legislative Services Reduce the amount donated to Medina Days from $7,500 to $5,000. Credit Medina Days BARS 001-000-000-511-60-49-10 ($ 2,500.) B. General Fund — Municipal Services Reduce the line items for Public Defender and Muni Court — Non Traffic divided, between them by $14,000 to reflect more accurately the expected actuals based on prior years. Credit Public Defender BARS 001-000-000-512-50-41-20 ($ 3,000.) Credit Muni Court non -traffic BARS 001-000-000-512-50-51-10 ($ 11,000.) C. General Fund- Executive Renegotiate the City Manager's current contract effective 1/1/2010 and also require that the CM take over the responsibility of negotiating the Solid Waste Contract as well as the 2011 Labor Negotiations, thus eliminating those specific consultants. Credit Salaries & Wages BARS 001-000-000-513-10-11-00 ($ 5,000.) Credit Car Allowance BARS 001-000-000-513-10-21-50 ($ 4,800.) Credit Professional Services BARS 001-000-000-513-10-41-00 ($ 15,000.) D. General Fund — Finance Eliminate the proposed increase of a Y2 time FTE. Credit Salaries & Wages BARS 001-000-000-514-10-11-00 ($ 25,000.) E. General Fund —Central Services Add back funding for general office supplies and equipment repair to reflect more accurately the costs to run an office efficiently especially with the old copiers etc that are being moved around. Debit Office & Operating Supplies BARS 001-000-000-518-10-31-00 $ 4,000. Debit Repairs & Main — Equipment BARS 001-000-000-518-10-48-00 $ 4,000. F. General Fund — Police Department Postpone the purchase of the new police vehicle, resulting in an increase to the repair and maintenance for autos and reduce funding of travel and training expense. Debit Repair & Maint —Autos BARS 001-000-000-521-20-48-10 $ 10,000. Credit Travel & Training BARS 001-000-000-521-20-43-00 ($ 4,000.) Credit Automobiles BARS 001-000-000-521-20-64-50 ($ 45,280.) G. General Fund — Emergency Preparedness Either renegotiate the consultant contract or reduce hours based on current contract. Credit Prof Sery — EP Coordinator BARS 001-000-000-525-60-41-00 ($ 5,000.) H. General Fund — Recreational Services — Lifeguard Program Eliminate the $1/per hour raise included in the budget based on council policy directive of no salary increases in 2011. Amount is estimated here, exact amount to be determined. Credit Salaries & Wages BARS 001-000-000-574-20-11-00 ($ 1,000.) Credit Overtime BARS 001-000-000-574-20-12-00 ($ 300.) General Fund — Parks Department Line item appears to be a catch all for many different uses. Due to economic constraints leave it to the City Manager and the Public Works Director to prioritize the uses based on the following reduction. Credit Professional Services BARS 001-000-000-576-80-41-00 ($ 20,000.) General Fund — All departments and Street Fund The items listed above generate a net reduction in operating expenses of $123,880. If all are adopted, there would still remain a $93,905. Operations GAP. To fill the remaining GAP while keeping reserves intact until after the completion of the City Hall remodel would require the adoption of roughly two furlough days per month for all non -police staff. Council was quoted by the City Manager that each furlough day (for non -police staff) would result in a savings of $4,000. Credit Furlough savings as quoted for 24 days ($ 96,000.) 3 T a N R 1 pp K = . H i w Ln O Ne O ,8 A 0 o 3 m y N } 9 1A � Q o �m E$S� Q w m �y0 O •"• d S � •6 ry ti bb QSp g uy 6p tlgo rpA�. :w Qp g: w tYo1 � IN H 1-4 'N j IN 1-4 --8a 8b ar° "< n m c N. .i p q g f r A o' General Fund Revenues Expenditures Net impact on cash Equipment Fund Revenues Expenditures Net impact on cash Street Fund Revenues Expenditures Net impact on cash Reserve Fund Revenues Expenditures Net impact on cash Tree Fund Revenues Expenditures Net impact on cash Capital Projects Fund Revenues Expenditures Net Impact on cash Total Use of Funds City of Medina Operations GAP Comparison by Fund For Eleven Months Ended November 2010 2010 BUDGET as of Beg of Year $ 4,870,271 (5,092,803) $ (222,532) 0 (118,762) (118,762) 112,200 (442,7111 (330,511) 0 0 0 0 (15,000) (15,000) 518,647 (1,753,583) (1,234,936) $ (1,921,741) 2010 Year to Date - November 30 $ 4, 242,881 (41280,995) $ (38,114) 0 (77,168) (77,168) 58,735 (298,596) (239,862) 0 0 0 1082 (178) 904 $ ', (354,240) 383,750 (282,372) 101,377 $ (252,862) F7CURREENT 2010 Year -End Projection as of November30, 2010 $ 4, 535,928 (4,874,921) $ (338,993) 0 (115,877) (115,877) 87,000 (349,966) (262,966) ; 0 0 0 1,082 (178) 904 S f716.4323 418,647 (711,567) (292,920) $ (1,009,852) 14 0 {�' � i . Kt '� -,'«'. �F� LA ill �> "'µ Page 1 of 1 Mark Nelson From: "Meredith, Julie" <MeredJL@wsdot.wa.gov> To: <mayor@clydehill.org>; <mayor@ci.yarrow-point.wa.us>; "Fred McConkey" <Fred@McConkeyDev.com>; "Bret Jordan" <bjordan@medina-wa.gov>; "Mark Nelson" <mark@nelsonarchitecture.net>; "Ted Frantz" <tedf@integrity.com> Cc: "Dye, Dave" <DyeD@wsdot.wa.gov>; "Lenzi, Jerry C" <LenzUC@wsdot.wa.gov>; "Cotten, Mike" <CottenM@wsdot.wa.gov>; "Babuca, Daniel' <BabucaD@wsdot.wa.gov>; "Loesch, Marty" <Marty. Loesch @gov.wa. gov> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 5:27 PM Subject: 84th Ave NE flyover ramp proposal Dear Mayors, The Governor's direction to the Department regarding the design issues surrounding the 84th Avenue NE interchange have been consistent. If the design is modified: 1) It must have consensus with the Points jurisdictions. 2) It must not affect schedule or budget. 3) It must not adversely affect mainline operations. We have reviewed the design provided to WSDOT on Friday by Councilmember Nelson, Mayor Martin, Mayor Cooper and Mayor McConkey. Within the short timeframe we've had, we have reviewed the design and have provisionally concluded that it would operate similarly to the half -diamond and loop ramp configurations. Our initial review has not identified any technical fatal flaws. We are interested in discussing the design further and evaluating the cost and schedule implications. However, our initial estimate suggests that this change could result in a $5 million to $10 million cost increase, which is in direct conflict with item number 2 above. I look forward to continue working with each of you to successfully resolve this issue. I will be in touch with you again this week after we've had a chance to review the proposal further. Sincerely, Julie Julie Meredith, PE SR 520 Program Director SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program Washington State Department of Transportation 206-770-3568 direct 1 206-770-3500 main 600 Stewart Street, Suite 520 1 Seattle, WA 98101 Visit us at our Web site: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/sr520bridge/ 12/13/2010 �AE)4EL_ GS STTEPoHENS&KLINGE LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 11100 N.E. 8TH STREET, SUITE 750 BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 JOHN M. GROEN TELEPHONE RICHARD M. STEPHENS (425) 453-6206 CHARLES A. KLINGE E IL SAMUEL A. RODABOUGH (42FACSIMILE 453-6224 BRIAN D. AMSBARY December 13, 2010 To: Mayor Bret Jordan and Medina City Council Members From: Charlie Klinge, Groen Stephens & Klinge LLP Legal Counsel to Charles and Lisa Simonyi Re: Comments on PH-1/OB-1 Repeal and Re -Adopt Chapter 17.60 Relating to Nonconforming Uses, Lots and Structures My name is Charlie Klinge, 11100 NE 81h Street, Bellevue. I am an attorney and represent Charles and Lisa Simonyi. On behalf of the Simonyis, I am speaking in favor of the proposed Ordinance Relating to Nonconforming Uses, Lots and Structures. The document being passed out is simply a copy of my remarks for the record. With the Council's support, Planning Director Robert Grumbach and the Planning Commission moved the item through the process during the last few months and we are pleased with their progress and the result. The old system as applied to single-family homes was unworkable, especially since, as the Planning Commission learned, a large percentage of single family homes in the City are considered nonconforming. Major remodel projects would trigger the reconstruction rule even if the renovations did not change the building footprint. The old rule precluded improvements benefitting property owners and also the quality of housing in the City. The Staff and the Planning Commission undertook a comprehensive look at the entire nonconforming code and sought to identify amendments that provide a more workable and reasonable Code. The proposal accomplishes that purpose. The first key concept states that a nonconforming structure may be remodeled, repaired, structurally altered, and even enlarged as long as the work does not increase the nonconformity. That provides good flexibility to make Comments to City Council December 13, 2010 Page 2of3 GROEN STEPHENS & KLINGE LLP improvements, even expansions, as long as the nonconformity is not made worse —for example, keeping a setback at 10 feet even though the new rule would require 20 feet. The next key concept is the defined term Substantial Destruction as applied in the proposed Code. For single family houses, Substantial Destruction occurs when more than 60% of the exterior wall is removed. The rule applies when any part of the wall, up and down, is removed but does not apply to replacement of windows or doors when the framing is not altered. This rule provides a fair compromise because if more than 60% of the exterior is being taken down or altered, then it is similar to a tear down in which the building should comply with the current rules. Other changes were made due in part to our input. If a fire causes Substantial Destruction, then an application can be submitted within 6 months to retain the prior nonconforming status. We suggested, and an option was added, to allow an extension of 6 additional months for extenuating circumstances. We also asked for recognition of vested rights —that is where a complete application is submitted, then the rules change, but vesting allows construction to proceed according to the old rules. A provision was added to recognize that structures complying with "applicable regulations," which includes vested applications, were not illegal or nonconforming. The Simonyis support these changes and we ask the Council to adopt the Ordinance as proposed. Thank you. 12/13/2010 PROS & CONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER SYSTEM Jeffrey S. Myers Lac; Lys, Daniel, Kamerrer & Bogdanovich December 13, 2010 RCW 35A.63.170(2): EFFECT OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS ■ Decisions maybe designated as either: ■ Recommendations to City Council. ■Council must consider and takes final action. ■ Final Decision ■ Appealable to City Council. ■ Council reviews after closed record hearing. HEARING EXAMINER SYSTEM AN OVERVIEW ■ Cities authorized to use Hearing Examiners by RCW 35A.63.170. ■ Takes place of Planning Commission in Quasi - Judicial decision-maldng. ■ Eliminates need for Board of Adjustment to hear variances. RCW 35A.63.170(2): EFFECT OF HEARING EXAMINER DECISIONS ■ Absolutely Final Decisions ■ Appeal directly to Superior Court under LUPA. ■ Not allowed in case of a Rezone. 1 12/13/2010 Appeal Options: What are other cities doing? ■ Recommendations to City Council ■ Usually limited to specific types of decisions ■ Rezones ■ Subdivisions - Longview ■ Final Decision: Closed Record Appeal to Council ■ Most Common ■ Tumwater, Lacey, Thurston County, Shelton Should Councils still be in the Land Appeal Options: What are other cities doing? ■ Absolutely Final Decision - Appeal directlyto Superior Court ■ Trend towards eliminating Council Appeals ■ Camas, Chehalis, Tacoma. ■ Olympia adopted in December 2007 Liability traps for City Councils ■ Community Sentiment is not a basis for deciding land use issues. ■ Indian Trail Prop. Owner's Assn v. City of Spokane, 76 Wn App. 430, 439, (1994) ■ Maranatba Mining, Inc v. Pierce Cy, 59 Wash.App. 795 (1990) ■ Pleas P. City of Seattle, 112 Wn.2d 794 (1989) ■ Kenart & Assocs. P. Skagit Cy., 37 WmApp. 295 (1984) 3 12/13/2010 Mission Springs v. City of Spokane ■ RESULTS: Violated RCW 64.40.020 as "arbitraryand capricious" action. ■ Violated substantive and procedural due process rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983 ■ Council members were not entitled to legislative immunity ■ PERSONAL LIABILITY ■ PL)NITIVE DAMAGES. Peekay v. City ofLacey (2005) ■ City Council reversed Hearing Examiner decision to issue business - license to adult business as "inappropriate" for downtown PxkgouePoggPon location. ■ City did not define what amount of adult novelties would constitute a "princepp d business purpose" under cetycode. Applied business license provisions arbitrarily and violated due process. ■ Settled state and federal lawsuits for $290,000. Land Use Liability: Case Examples ■ Small Snohomish County cityfailed to timely process plat through Planning Commission for over 10 years. ■ Sued for delay damages under RCW 64.40. ■ Settled for $2 million. Phoenix Development v. City of Woodinville, 154 Wn.App. 492 (2009) ■ Rezone denied rezone from R 1 to R 4on grounds that "services" not available. ■ No evidence to support conclusion that services were unavailable. ■ Court ordered City -to grant rezone and process plat application. ■ Damages Claims Pending. 12/13/2010 HEARING EXAMINERS PROS ■ Ability to Manage Large Public o Hearings o o ■ Legal & Land Use Training enhances quality of decisions ■ Experience with many different jurisdictions ■ Decision -maker Removed from Politics. ' aesness ■ Decisions focused on Code Requirements HEARING EXAMINERS PROS • Reduced appeals and t� judicial challenges. ■ Protective of constitutional' due process rights. ■ Reduces likelihood of judicial reversal on appeal. ■ Reduces likelihood of liability for legal damages. HEARING EXAMINERS PROS ■ Faster more efficient, Q predictable process. ® Greater Public Confidence. ■ Better Customer Service. d ■ Separates quasi-judicial and legislative ?unctions. ■ Frees policy -makers to act on Ion term planning and law malting functions. HEARING EXAMINERS ■ CONS ■ Up -Front Cost to City iF ® ■ More formal process increases costs to parties ■ Interprets Code as � written, not necessarily as intended or as '§ politically popular. 2 12/13/2010 Common Theories of Liability tolltfiliii risk lid rk1� ■ RCW 64.40.020 ■ Arbitrary & Capricious ■ Knowingly unlawfA a Delay Damages ■ Intentional Interference with Business Expectancy ■ 42 L1SC 1983 ■ Due Process Violations ■ Equal Protection e First Amendment Liability Traps: Interjecting "politics" in the Land Use Process ■ Mission Springs v. City of Spokane, 134 Wn.2d 947 (1998) ■ Hearing Examiner had already approved development. ■ City Council required permits be suspended for additional environmental study at request of surrounding neighborhoods. WCIA TOP TEN LAND USE LOSSES 2003 Burien 13,989,852 LU Due Process 2008 Kirkland 600,000 LU Arbitrary & Capricious 2005 Bonney Lake 575,000 LU Due Process 2004 Auburn 500,000 LU Tortious Interference 2006 Bothell 485,000 LU Arbitrary & Capricious 2007 Auburn 400,000 LU Arbigary & Capricious 2006 Bainbridge Island 285,000 LU Arbitrary & Capricious 2006 Woodinville 210 000 LU Arbitrary & Capricious 2005 Kenmore 176,000 LU Due Process TOTAL: S17,386,011 Mission Springs v. City of Spokane ■ Council disregarded advice of City Attorney. ■ Council lacked administrative authority in permit process. ■ Interfered with vested property rights to development permits. 4 12/13/2010 Westmark v. City ofBurien, 140 Wn.App. 540 (2007) ■ Westmark applied to build 216-unit apartment budding ■ CitydelayEd issuing SEPA decision for 3 )Ears & f misrepresented that approval of settlement agreement was in open public meeting. •Developer brought § 1983 due process claim against city and city ■ Plaintiffs alleged improper officials, State -law claims against discrimination aganst apartmenu and bias to build city for negligence, tortious interference with business favor with state representative who opposed project expectancy, negligent Y and Shg misrepresentation. QUESTIONS??? Westmark v. Baden ■ Held City acted for improper political purposes in delaying SEPA determinations; ■ City liable for tortious interference with business expectancies. ~ ■ Verdict: $10,710,000. -- J I W (1) z Q XZ- d- 00 Q Su SAV;,ba E4 p Hkeld OWN IdJM#+!H Ar J h !� i PY X-d 3 iMI+�R Mf 7N+W �A i O V O Cwf#Yi __J 0cc p p a i i z c S o a` a' m 3 7d Ewe' � < INC. : X/ « g � § f | � . a ■ • , | � � � � ■ !! ■ ; . U) .. � 2 « U a 3 2 � � . ^ 3 % k 2 s 4 u ft"N Ppd 4iMf ,,a 4 520/841h Ave Lid Project Flying Ramp Option 12.13 .10 Features: 1. Locates the access to westbound 520 to the intersection of 84th Ave. NE and Points Drive, regulated by 4 way flashing red light, similar to current condition. a. Only one stop to access westbound freeway on -ramp. b. Keeps 520 traffic out of Hunts Point. 2. Adds more landscape buffer to Hunts Points residents adjacent 520. 3. Preserves the existing character to the entrance to Hunts Point without additional road signs, stop lights, widened roadway, and crossing traffic, etc. 4. Delete Regional Bike Path underpass and locate path under lid keeping open area flatter and move bike path further to the south to allow for more landscape buffer... 5. Uses Half Diamond design mitigation for access and egress from Medina Circle and Hawthorne Co rt. 6. Uses residential character two lane road with center landscaped median into Hunts Point. (less Pavement) 7. Relocates Points Loop trail to south side of 520 between Evergreen Point Rd. and 80, Ave. NE 8. Eliminates two private parcel acquisitions in Hunts Point. 9. Allows for left turn from Westbound Points Drive onto 84th Ave. NE southbound 10. Allows for right turn from Northbound 84th onto Points Drive eastbound. 11. Preserves the open area of Half -diamond ramp design as per original goals. 12. Increased barrier heights along the north side of the regional bike path to prevent views into neighbors. 13. Added mature tree plantings and enhanced planting plan in the vicinity of Fairweather Basin. Cost saving features vs. Loop and Half -Diamond Ramp designs: 1. Eliminates need/cost for additional stoplight at north side of lid 2. Eliminates need/cost for bike path underpass 3. Reduces width of 84th street on lid, less pavement 4. Eliminates cost of bike overpass on the Loop on -ramp design 5. Less pavement area than Loop design, similar to pavement area of Half -diamond. Areas for Discussion and more input: 1. Landscape planter along the "Flying Ramp" 2. Location of Points Loop Trail 3. Location of Bike Trail 4. Minimize visual impact of noise walls Rachel Baker From: Mark Nelson <mark@ nelsonarchitectu re. net> Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 1:07 PM To: Rachel Baker Subject: Re: Fly Over Ramp Motion Attachments: Proposed 84th Ave Onramp Revision 121310.pptx; 520 Flying Ramp Features list 121110.docx X-MSK: 2BIG Attached is my power point presentation plus the features list. See attached. Mark L. Nelson Nelson Architecture 1233 Evergreen Point Road Medina, WA 98039 Tel. 425-454-7704 Fax. 425-454-7803 Email: mark@ nelson architecture. net ----- Original Message ----- From: Rachel Baker To: Mark Nelson Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 12:53 PM Subject: RE: Fly Over Ramp Motion Thanks Mark. Could you also send a copy of your presentation for the record? Thanks. From: Mark Nelson [mailto:mark@nelsonarchitecture.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 9:39 AM To: Rachel Baker Subject: Fly Over Ramp Motion Here is the Fly Over Ramp motion. Mark L. Nelson Nelson Architecture 1233 Evergreen Point Road Medina, WA 98039 Tel. 425-454-7704 Fax. 425-454-7803 Email: mark nelsonarchitecture.net +O U,� �. m,OWGW+O. N'A�. O'0 W Nf Vj Oi O+O�(�T A, mOAUi V�'W�tAT A. Wei NI,+O � ml_VIW,N A';�Wim V Wei lNI��A. INJ N_+'. O. /O O1 J O1'Oi�A WI Ni � OI M�C11 Vm N A. WI N�+' O 0' N 2 9 91 G m 9 o, x obi lit < < n O p 8 m g� Ns 0 m d onommwQ p o�o�S�3'� mm�xmo �os 31 m m 1 y m 3 m m.a 3 9-3. 3 o C m awvmo oa c Sa pIIo oo mmm g� g C p m O N N W p ggm O Oi W N+ A O A A W m O O N O W � N O N W N f0 N �I W N W O W O fT ,gm A tT W O) O p� .oi m a a "ii a 8 a a a m w i t w m I w w a$ w a w '1 ("a 0 o �[J3 $� � � A� Z, +-t zt Z? N Q O .tea ` = V W m N V m N.`l W u N A N i0 R + + + + . o o 'o 'o + . o 0 0 o O +o o + + o o + +o + + C c C c C cG 3 0 c W�Cp yy d�ipp o<o ooC i T yy NNG T 3 T NN �pp MCC O O O- y C C S + + O+ + O+ O + 0 0 0 ... 0+ + 0 0+ + O+ N O C I I I N 1!1 10 Iw 0 IN I I'. W to w �rn im N N 1 I 1 I_U m Ij W IW Im IN IW IA IN Fly Over Ramp Alternative Motion: "Medina Council believes that the newly proposed "Fly Over Ramp" option for the 84th Ave. NE on ramp has merit and should be studied and evaluated as an alternate to the Half -Diamond and the Loop designs previously considered. The "Fly Over" Ramp" alternative appears to resolve the street traffic issues plaguing Hunts Point, Clyde Hill and Medina, addresses the concerns about the location of the Points Loop Trail and the Regional Bike Path relative to Hunts Point residents and achieves the connectivity and open space amenity of the Half -Diamond loop design. It appears to be a win -win solution for all the Points Communities.