The URL can be used to link to this page

2010.07.13 Transportation Benefit District Board A AGENDA City of Edmonds Transportation Benefit District Board Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds ______________________________________________________________ JULY 13, 2010 5:00 p.m. Call to Order and Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Approval of Consent Agenda Items A. Roll Call B. AM-3201 Approval of Transportation Benefit District Meeting Mintues of June 22, 2010. 3. AM-3173 (90 Minutes) Continued discussion regarding possible increase in TBD license fees to be placed on the General Election ballot in November 2010. 5.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person) 6. (15 Minutes)Board Comments Adjourn Packet Page 1 of 75 AM-3201 2.B. Approve 06-22-10 TBD Minutes Transportation Benefit District Board Date:07/13/2010 Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:Consent Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action Information Subject Title Approval of Transportation Benefit District Meeting Mintues of June 22, 2010. Recommendation It is recommended that the Board review and approve the draft minutes. Previous TBD Action N/A Narrative Attached is a copy of the draft minutes. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: 06-22-10 Draft TBD Minutes Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/08/2010 11:23 AM APRV 2 Community Services/Economic Dev. Stephen Clifton 07/08/2010 11:52 AM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/08/2010 04:06 PM APRV Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 07/08/2010 11:09 AM Final Approval Date: 07/08/2010 Packet Page 2 of 75 Edmonds TBD Draft Minutes June 22, 2010 Page 1 CITY OF EDMONDS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT BOARD DRAFT MINUTES June 22, 2010 The Edmonds Transportation Benefit District meeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m. by Board President Steve Bernheim in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. OFFICIALS PRESENT Steve Bernheim, Board President Strom Peterson, Board Vice President D. J. Wilson, Board Member (arrived 6:06 p.m.) Michael Plunkett, Board Member Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Board Member Diane Buckshnis, Board Member STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA BOARD MEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Board Member Wilson was not present for the vote.) 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS BOARD MEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED (4-0-1), BOARD VICE PRESIDENT PETERSON ABSTAINED. (Board Member Wilson was not present for the vote. Board Vice President Peterson explained he was not present for the 05-04-10 TBD Meeting and therefore abstained from voting on the approval of the minutes.) The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 4, 2010. 3. PUT POSSIBLE $70 INCREASE IN TBD LICENSE FEES TO A PUBLIC VOTE DURING THE NOVEMBER 2010 GENERAL ELECTION Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss reviewed the list of priority projects presented at the May 4 TBD Meeting. Mr. Hauss explained with a $20 TBD fee, the TBD is collecting approximately $500,000 per year or approximately $5 million over the next 10 years. Packet Page 3 of 75 Edmonds TBD Draft Minutes June 22, 2010 Page 2 Rank Project Name Project Type Projects funded via a $20 License Fee Option - collect $500,000 per year or $5 million over 10 years; 1 Street Overlay/Resurfacing ($500,000/year) Overlay Projects funded via a $40 License Fee Option – collect $1 million per year or $10 million over 10 years: 2 Main Street @ 3rd Signal Upgrade Safety 3 212th @ 84th / Five Corners Intersection Improvements Concurrency 2009 4 234th Street SW / 236th Street SW (#1 long walkway) Walkway 5 Bicycle Loop signing Bicycle 6 Main Street @ 94th Avenue W Signal Installation Concurrency 2009 7 2nd Avenue S (#1 short walkway) Walkway 8 Citywide Traffic Calming Program Maintenance 9 Dayton Street (#2 short walkway) Walkway Projects funded via a $60 License Fee Option – collect $1.5 million per year or $15 million over 10 years: 10 212th @ 76th W Intersection Improvements Concurrency 2015 11 100th @ 238th Upgrades Maintenance 12 Maple Street (#3 short walkway) Walkway 13 Maplewood Drive (#2 long walkway) Walkway 14 Walnut Street (#4 short walkway) Walkway 15 220th Street SW @ 76th Intersection Improvements Concurrency 2015 16 Walnut Street @ 9th Avenue W Intersection Improvement Concurrency 2009 17 Meadowdale Beach Road (#4 long walkway) Walkway Projects funded via a $80 License Fee Option – collect $2 million per year or $20 million over 10 years: 18 228th Street SW Corridor Improvements / Hwy. 99 @ 76th Intersection Improvements Safety 19 80th Avenue W / 180th Street SW Walkway (#7 long walkway) Walkway Additional projects: 20 Olympic View Drive @ 76th Avenue W Intersection Improvements Concurrency 2015 21 Walnut Street (#5 short walkway) Walkway 22 Caspers @ 9th Avenue W Concurrency 2015 23 238th Street SW walkway (#9 long walkway) Walkway 24 84th Avenue W (212th Street SW to 238th Street SW) Safety/Walkway Mr. Hauss explained if the City acquired grant funding over the next 10 years for some projects, the funds collected via the license fee would be used to fund the additional projects on the list. He identified 2009 and 2015 concurrency projects, explaining to be identified as a concurrency project the location has a level of service below the City’s accepted level of service standard of D. For example 212th @ 84th /Five Corners intersection is currently at a LOS F, Main Street @ 9th Avenue W is at a LOS F, and 212th @ 76th Avenue W is a LOS D but projected to be LOS F by 2015. Mr. Hauss explained for the intersection improvements at Main @ 9th and Walnut @ 9th an interim solution to a signal was identified at a cost of approximately $900,000 per intersection or $1.8 million for both. The interim solution would be to restripe the intersection to provide two lanes north and southbound and eliminate parking on both sides (currently there is one lane north and southbound with parking on Packet Page 4 of 75 Edmonds TBD Draft Minutes June 22, 2010 Page 3 both sides). The cost of restriping is approximately $30,000 and would improve the LOS at one intersection to D and LOS C at the other. Mr. Hauss reviewed Board President Bernheim’s suggested project list that would reprioritize projects 6, 10, 16, 22 and 24. He provided the current level of service for those projects: Project # Project Current LOS 2015 LOS 6 Main Street @ 94th Avenue W Signal Installation F F 10 212th @ 76th W Intersection Improvements D F 16 Walnut Street @ 9th Avenue W Intersection Improvement F F 22 Caspers @ 9th Avenue W C E 24 84th Avenue W (212th Street SW to 238th Street SW) – will add sidewalks on both sides as well as center left turn lane Mr. Hauss explained the possible consequence of not doing a concurrency project is the State may stop development in the vicinity of the project. For example, not doing the 212th @ 76th Avenue W intersection improvement could impact development at Five Corners and potentially Stevens Hospital. Not completing concurrency projects could also impact the City’s ability to obtain grants. Mr. Hauss explained Board President Bernheim’s suggested list recommends a $70 license fee in addition to the current $20 license fee. Neal Tibbett, Vice Chair, Citizens Transportation Committee, explained he has been involved as a volunteer in the development of the Transportation Plan six years ago as well as the current Transportation Plan. He explained the development of the Transportation Plan included review of traffic studies, level of service designations, as well as different types of transportation such as automobile, bicycle and walking. Several open houses were held to gather citizens input regarding safety concerns and citizens’ vision which was followed by a planning/approval process where the Transportation Committee’s recommendations were submitted to the Planning Board, further revised by the Committee and approved by the Planning Board and forwarded to the City Council for approval. Mr. Tibbett explained projects are prioritized using the LOS rankings, traffic trends, solicitation of information from other cities, citizens’ input regarding safety concerns around schools and in neighborhoods and potential for grant funding. He noted the City could lower its LOS standards. However, one of the unintended consequences of lowering level of service and increasing wait times at intersections is vehicles are pushed off main arterials into neighborhoods which creates safety concerns on residential streets not intended for those traffic speeds/volumes. He cited the Interurban Trail as an example of a project that was funded via federal, state and local funds. Mr. Tibbett relayed the Citizens Transportation Committee’s recommendations: 1. Consider no more than a $40 license fee. This amount would provide the highest potential approval rate. The Committee feels a case can be made to citizens for a $40 license fee. If progress can be shown on those projects, a higher license fee could be recommended in 2015. 2. Focus on improving LOS particularly concurrency projects that are already at LOS D or F. 3. Look for and complete highly visible projects in the City that demonstrate attentiveness by the Committee and City Council to provide for the safe transit of citizens. Jeff Daggett, Citizens Transportation Committee, relayed his background in engineering as President and CEO of a large regional firm involved in transportation, aviation and land development projects. He emphasized the importance of a Transportation Plan and Capital Improvement Plan because agencies Packet Page 5 of 75 Edmonds TBD Draft Minutes June 22, 2010 Page 4 such as the Puget Sound Regional Council allocate funding via those plans. He pointed out now was an excellent time to begin projects because construction costs are low due to the down economy. The availability of contractors also allows projects to be completed in a timelier manner. Fred Gouge, representing the Port of Edmonds on the Citizens Transportation Committee, explained the Committee worked very hard to develop a plan. He stressed the need to keep concurrency projects on the priority list to ensure funding could be obtained for those projects. The Committee recommended a license fee of $40 because they believe the citizens will support the projects that amount will fund. Board President Bernheim asked when the Committee recommended a $40 license fee. Mr. Gouge answered it had been discussed in the past 2-3 meetings. He relayed the Committee’s intent to actively support a $40 license fee. Mr. Hauss answered the list was presented to the Committee in May 2010 as well as last week; both times they recommended a $40 license fee. Board Member Fraley-Monillas explained three former members of the Transportation Committee are now on the Board, including herself, and they thoroughly understand the City’s transportation issues. She explained in addition to information provided by the consultant, Committee members walked and biked the City to identify issues. Board Member Fraley-Monillas asked whether staff was recommending a $40 license fee. Mr. Hauss answered staff was providing the priority list, not a specific amount. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained staff is recommending a set of projects tied to each funding level. Board Member Fraley-Monillas observed the Committee’s recommendation was a $40 license fee in addition to the existing $20 license fee. Board Member Plunkett asked whether the Committee’s three goals were incorporated into the ranking. Mr. Tibbett agreed they were. Board Member Plunkett referred to Mr. Tibbett’s comment that the City could lower its LOS standard, asking whether that would impact the City’s ability to obtain grants. Mr. Hauss answered with a LOS F, several of the projects would not be identified as concurrency projects and would not impact the City’s ability to acquire grants. However, the delay at those intersections would be significantly increased. Board Member Plunkett observed the level of service at the intersection of 9th & Main was F. He explained there may be times there are 3-5 cars at the intersection, sometimes more or less, however, as a layperson he would not rank that intersection as F. Mr. Hauss explained Jones & Stokes conducted modeling of the entire City which included machine and manual traffic counts during PM peak hours. He agreed the intersection of Main & 9th may not be a LOS F during the entire day, however, during the PM peak of 4:00 – 6:00, the average delay at the intersection was over 55 seconds, a LOS F. Board Member Plunkett commented the proposed project would improve a 55 second delay during the PM peak at the cost of $900,000. Mr. Hauss explained the intersection improvements were identified as a 2009 concurrency project in the Transportation Plan. Board Member Plunkett questioned whether improving a 55 second delay was worth a $900,000 expenditure. Mr. Hauss noted the Transportation Plan also identified a lower cost, interim solution to restripe the lanes on 9th Avenue between Main and Walnut which would improve the LOS. This interim solution would replace projects 6 and 16. Board Member Fraley-Monillas asked whether the intersection improvements at Main & 9th impacted the LOS at other intersections. Mr. Hauss answered Walnut & 9th and Main & 9th were within ¼ mile of each other and Caspers & 9th is 2015 concurrency project that is also impacted. Packet Page 6 of 75 Edmonds TBD Draft Minutes June 22, 2010 Page 5 Board Member Buckshnis pointed out the cost of the three projects on 9th was approximately $2.5 million. She preferred to construct sidewalk projects and suggested the projects on 9th be moved to 2015 and projects such as #23 (238th Street SW walkway) and #19 (80th Avenue W / 180th Street SW Walkway) be moved up. The input she has received from citizens is that sidewalks are needed and most people attending the open houses indicated a signal was not needed at 9th & Walnut. Board Member Buckshnis relayed an announcement at the Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) meeting regarding the availability of $19.8 million from Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) specifically for beautification enhancement projects. Mr. Hauss advised the City was applying for pedestrian/lighting grants for Main Street between 5th and 9th as well as the Hwy. 99 International District expansion. Board Member Buckshnis asked whether staff ever sought a recommendation from SCT for those projects, noting several jurisdictions such as Marysville, Bothell, and Snohomish have made presentations to SCT. Mr. Hauss responded the City planned to obtain letters of support from several organizations within the city because Main Street is not a regional project. Public Works Director Noel Miller explained staff also works with the Snohomish County Infrastructure Coordinating Committee, a group of Snohomish County cities, who coordinate projects for funding via PSRC. Board Member Buckshnis asked whether the 2009 concurrency projects could be moved to 2015 and moved back up if a grant were received. Mr. Hauss answered the projects could be moved around. Board Member Buckshnis reiterated her preference for sidewalk projects, noting $2.5 million for signals on 9th Avenue to improve a 55 second delay was inappropriate. Mr. Hauss suggested the Council indicate whether staff should pursue the interim solution identified for the intersections on 9th Avenue. Board Member Plunkett asked whether the $2 million roundabout project at Five Corners was predicated on redevelopment of that area. Mr. Hauss answered that cost was a rough estimate prepared a few years ago; the cost estimate includes acquiring a significant amount of right-of-way. He explained the LOS at that intersection is currently an F and that is the reason it is identified as a concurrency project. Board Member Plunkett expressed surprise that that intersection was a LOS F. Board President Bernheim reminded August 10 is the deadline to submit information to the auditor to place a license fee on the ballot. He anticipated additional TBD Board meetings would be scheduled before that deadline. Board Member Wilson explained SCT is typically a group attended by Councilmembers. He expressed his appreciation for Board Member Buckshnis’ attendance at those meetings, pointing out Edmonds has not participated in that group for a number of years. He has been attending PSRC meetings. Board Member Wilson inquired about the replacement cycle via the proposed $500,000/year overlay project. Mr. Hauss answered it was approximately a 37 year cycle; the City’s current overlay cycle is approximately 80 years and the industry standard is 20 years. Board Member Wilson asked whether consideration was given to providing $900,000/year for overlays which would increase the overlay cycle. Mr. Hauss answered $900,000/year for overlays would significantly delay the other projects. The goal was to fund overlays as well as walkway and concurrency projects. Board Member Wilson observed the prioritized list provided by staff was a 10 year list; some projects will be completed in less than 10 years. He asked whether a license fee approved by the voters would sunset. Mr. Clifton answered according to TBD legislation, the TBD must cease collecting the additional license fee upon completion of the project list funded with that license fee. The $20 license fee for street operations previously adopted by the TBD Board expires in 2026. Packet Page 7 of 75 Edmonds TBD Draft Minutes June 22, 2010 Page 6 Board Member Wilson referred to the intent to complete projects to demonstrate a return on investment, and asked whether an $80 license fee rather than a $40 license fee was considered to reduce the 10 year period for project completion. Mr. Tibbett responded some projects may receive grant funding and will be completed sooner. The priority of the projects was not based on date of completion. The Committee did discuss increasing the priority of some of the lower cost walkway projects to demonstrate return on investment to citizens. For Board Member Wilson, Mr. Hauss advised each $20 license fee increment generates $500,000/year or $5 million over 10 years. Board Member Fraley-Monillas commented the project at Five Corners had nothing to do with development in that area. The problem is the level of service produced by five lanes of traffic at the intersection. Board Member Fraley-Monillas clarified the Committee is recommending a $40 license fee. If the voters approved a $40 license fee, only projects 1 – 9 could be funded. Mr. Hauss agreed, noting additional projects could be funded if grants were obtained for any of the 1 – 9 projects. Board Member Fraley-Monillas asked whether staff would return to the Board for approval of the projects beyond 9 if the City obtained grant funds. Mr. Hauss answered staff would proceed with projects in the order of priority unless the Board provided additional guidance with regard to reprioritization of projects. Board Member Buckshnis noted the City of Seattle did a 2009 Street levy. She asked whether staff had considered requesting funds for street and/or walkway projects as part of a levy. Mr. Miller answered that was an approach that could be considered. The TBD license fee is an opportunity to generate funds that are dedicated to transportation. Board Member Buckshnis indicated her support for a $40 license fee and suggested staff consider whether to include funding for street and/or walkway projects as part of a levy. Mr. Miller advised staff would consider that. Board President Bernheim recommended Board Members withhold further comments until a future meeting. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Al Rutledge, Edmonds, suggested organizing separate groups of citizens to educate voters regarding a TBD license fee and with regard to a City levy. He anticipated the voters would support a license fee if they were informed of the improvements in their area. 5. BOARD COMMENTS Board Member Wilson commented State law prohibits starting a regular or special meeting before the appointed hour but does not prohibit extending beyond the estimated conclusion time. Board Member Wilson observed a voter-approved $40 license fee that generates $1 million/year would provide $500,000 to street overlay and the remaining $500,000/year could be used to fund projects on the list. He asked whether funds would then need to be accrued over 4 years to fund projects 2 and 3. Due to the late hour, Board President Bernheim requested staff respond to Board Member Wilson’s question in writing. 6. ADJOURN With no further business, the TBD Board meeting was adjourned at 7:03 p.m. Packet Page 8 of 75 AM-3173 3. Possible Increase in TBD License Fees to be Placed on General Election Ballot Transportation Benefit District Board Date:07/13/2010 Submitted By:Jana Spellman Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Time:90 Minutes Department:City Council Type:Action Information Subject Title Continued discussion regarding possible increase in TBD license fees to be placed on the General Election ballot in November 2010. Recommendation Previous TBD Action The TBD met on March 23, May 4, and June 22, 2010 (minutes attached). Narrative Continued discussion regarding possible increase in TBD license fees to be placed on the General Election ballot in November 2010. Fiscal Impact Attachments Link: Attach 1: March 23 2010 TBD Min Link: Attach 2: May 4 2010 TBD Min Link: Attach 3: June 22 2010 DRAFT TBD Min Link: Attach: 4 March 23 2010 Link: Attach 5:May 4 2010 TBD Mtg All Project Description Link: Attach 6: Recommendation from Transportation Committe Link: Attach 7: Memo to Board Link: Attach 8: Draft Resolution - Material Change Policy Form Routing/Status Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status 1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/08/2010 02:24 PM APRV 2 Community Services/Economic Dev. Stephen Clifton 07/08/2010 04:38 PM APRV 3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 07/08/2010 04:56 PM APRV Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 06/25/2010 02:50 PM Final Approval Date: 07/08/2010 Packet Page 9 of 75 Edmonds TBD Approved Minutes March 23, 2010 Page 1 CITY OF EDMONDS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT BOARD APPROVED MINUTES March 23, 2010 The Edmonds Transportation Benefit District Board meeting was called to order at 10:03 p.m. by Board Member Steve Bernheim in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. OFFICIALS PRESENT Steve Bernheim, Board Member D. J. Wilson, Board Member Michael Plunkett, Board Member Dave Orvis, Board Member Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Board Member Strom Peterson, Board Member Diane Buckshnis, Board Member STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Rob English, City Engineer Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA BOARD MEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER WITH THE ADDITION OF ELECTION OF OFFICERS AS AGENDA ITEM 3A. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS BOARD MEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 2, 2009, 3A. ELECTION OF OFFICERS BOARD MEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER PLUNKETT, TO OPEN NOMINATIONS FOR PRESIDENT OF THE EDMONDS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT BOARD. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Board Member Plunkett nominated Steve Bernheim for the position of President. BOARD MEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER WILSON, TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS FOR PRESIDENT OF THE EDMONDS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT BOARD. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Packet Page 10 of 75 Edmonds TBD Approved Minutes March 23, 2010 Page 2 THE VOTE ON THE NOMINATION OF STEVE BERNHEIM AS PRESIDENT OF THE EDMONDS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT BOARD CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. BOARD MEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO OPEN NOMINATIONS FOR VICE PRESIDENT OF THE EDMONDS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT BOARD. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Board Member Wilson nominated Strom Peterson for the position of Vice President. BOARD MEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS FOR VICE PRESIDENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT BOARD. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. THE VOTE ON THE NOMINATION OF STROM PETERSON AS VICE PRESIDENT OF THE EDMONDS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT BOARD CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3B. TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT – ANNUAL REPORT FOR YEAR 2009. Public Works Director Noel Miller explained on behalf of the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District (TBD), the Washington State Department of Licensing (DOL) is currently collecting a $20 fee at the time a registered vehicle notice is issued within the City of Edmonds. The fee took effect on license tabs that expired on or after September 1, 2009. According to Ordinance 3707, the funds generated by the TBD shall be used for transportation improvements that preserve, maintain and operate the existing transportation infrastructure of the City consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.73. As such, funds expended by the District are being used to preserve, maintain and operate the City's previous investments in the transportation infrastructure, reduce the risk of transportation facility failure, improve safety, continue the cost-effectiveness of the City’s infrastructure investments, and continue the optimal performance of the transportation system. Through December of 2009, the amount collected by the Department of Licensing and forwarded to the City of Edmonds TBD was $168,498. Although the amounts collected each month are increasing, they have not been at levels estimated prior to establishment of an Edmonds TBD in early 2009. At that time, using formulas provided by the Association of Washington Cities (AWC), the estimated monthly funds generated from annual TBD $20 vehicle license fee renewals was $59,000. During the first few months of collections, cities with established TBDs all received revenue below what was estimated by each city prior to establishing a TBD. Although DOL acknowledged an internal coding error in December 2009, the City of Edmonds and other cities are concerned there may be additional problems related to address matching. AWC has asked DOL to review options to find an approach to resolving the DOL to Department of Revenue (DOR) address matching problem. While there could be additional circumstances causing the less than expected revenues, City staff believes it is important to ensure DOL is applying the fee accurately. An ongoing conversation has been taking place between representatives from city-established TBDs and DOL over the past few months. Cities with established TBDs are expecting a more formal response from DOL in the near future regarding what is being done to address this issue. Representatives from all city-established TBDs have been invited to participate in a meeting with the Departments of Licensing and Revenue on March 26, 2010. City staff will update the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District Board on the outcome of this meeting. Board Member Fraley-Monillas asked why the funds are not being provided. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton responded he has been the primary staff Packet Page 11 of 75 Edmonds TBD Approved Minutes March 23, 2010 Page 3 contact with DOL, DOR and other cities. It is believed there is a geocoding issue; residents are receiving vehicle license renewal notices that do not contain an announcement regarding the TBD fee and are informed of the TBD fee at the time they purchase license tabs. DOL also missed numerous internet vehicle license renewal notices; DOL feels they have corrected that issue. In addition, DOR initially reversed the 4-digit revenue codes for Edmonds and Lake Forest Park, giving Edmonds’ revenue to Lake Forest Park and their revenue to Edmonds. Lake Forest Park has 1/3 the population of Edmonds, thus Edmonds received 1/3 the revenue it should have and Lake Forest Park received 3 times as much. The following payments were made to the Edmonds TDB for the year 2009: 1 - $1,643.40 2 - $7,306.20 3 - $74,269.80 (includes reimbursement due to coding error 4 - $37,659.60 5 - $47,619.00 Mr. Clifton pointed out the revenue amounts are increasing each month, indicating DOL is beginning to make the necessary corrections. This Friday staff and City Attorneys for all cities will meet with DOL and DOR to address that issue. Board Member Fraley-Monillas asked if the discussion will include how to get the money back. Mr. Clifton responded once vehicle licenses have been renewed, there is no way for residents to pay the TBD license fee. Board Member Fraley-Monillas asked whether Edmonds received the money mistakenly provided to Lake Forest Park. Mr. Clifton answered the third payment the City received in the amount of $74,269.80 included reimbursement due to the coding error. Board Member Wilson suggested the TBD Board and the City send a letter to the Legislature expressing their displeasure with DOL’s customer service. Mr. Clifton responded the three questions highlighted in the TBD 2009 report were raised by one city on behalf of all the TBDs in response to Representative Upthegrove’s concern that cities are not collecting the amounts anticipated. The City has also communicated with its other Legislative Representatives. Board President Bernheim asked how the approximately $168,000 collected to date has been spent. Mr. Clifton explained $288,745 in eligible expenses were identified; the $168,000 was used to offset those expenditures. An additional $120,000 of eligible expenditures occurred during the period the revenue was collected. Mr. Miller explained the expenditures were operation and maintenance of the City’s transportation system which includes patching of roadways, pavement preservation, traffic signal maintenance, and roadway striping. Board Member Buckshnis asked how much the City expected to generate via the TBD vehicle license fee in 2010. Mr. Clifton answered a better idea of estimated revenue would be available following the meeting on Friday. Based on the last two payments, $37,000 and $47,000, he estimated revenue collection of at least $500,000 in 2010. He pointed out in 2009 and 2010, Fund 111 has a $700,000+ subsidy from the General Fund for street operations. If the City collects as much as $500,000 in 2010, the $500,000 subsidy will not be needed from the General Fund to fund street operations. Mr. Miller pointed out the importance of stabilizing this funding source to allow the TBD Board to allocate funds from this revenue source for specific transportation projects. Board Member Wilson pointed out the TBD Treasurer is an ex-officio member of the TBD Board. The person in that position no longer works for the City and he suggested the Board nominate and approve Packet Page 12 of 75 Edmonds TBD Approved Minutes March 23, 2010 Page 4 Stephen Clifton to serve as the Treasurer. Board President Bernheim suggested scheduling appointment of a Treasurer following the next agenda item. 4. REVIEW OF TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL FUNDING OPTIONS. Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss introduced the Chair of the Transportation Committee Don Fiene and Planning Board Member and former Transportation Committee Chair Christiana Johnson. Mr. Hauss explained the 2009 Transportation Plan identified the following projects over the next 16 years: • (34) Walkway projects • (13) Concurrency projects • (7) Roadway Safety projects • Bikeway projects • Maintenance and Preservation projects The 2010-2015 TIP falls well short of those Transportation Plan recommendations due to the funding gap. Most projects identified in the TIP are pending based on new transportation funding sources, such as the TBD. At their March 9 meeting the Community Services/Development Services Committee recommended this funding item be forwarded to the TBD Board for discussion. The purpose of this discussion is to obtain direction from the TBD Board regarding whether to pursue additional funding options to fund the capital transportation projects identified in the Transportation Plan. He provided photographs of projects identified in the Transportation Plan including the 96th Avenue West walkway project near Madrona Elementary School where there are no sidewalks on either side of the street and 80th/180th adjacent to South Snohomish County Park where there are no sidewalks on either side of the street. Staff is applying for a grant for the 80th/180th sidewalk but the lack of matching funds may prevent the City from acquiring the grant. He displayed photographs of overlay projects including Meadowdale Beach Road, 88th Avenue West, and Olympic View Drive. Under the current funding scenario, the City’s overlay cycle is 80 years; the industry standard is 20 years for collectors and arterials and 25 years for local streets. He provided an example of cost acceleration as a road deteriorated; the cost of routine maintenance is $2/square yard, in 5 years the cost of repair activities will increase to $21/square yard, the cost of resurfacing in 10 years will be $46/square yard and the cost of total reconstruction in 20 years is $146/square yard. He provided Five Corners as an example of a concurrency project; the existing level of service is F and the adopted level of service is D. The total cost of projects in the Transportation Plan is $105 Million. Approximately $41 million in funding has been identified from the following sources, leaving a funding shortfall of $65 million:  Traffic impact fees  Real Estate Excise Tax  Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax  Joint Agency (County portion for 84th Avenue W improvement project)  Utility Fund for resurfacing  Parks Funding (Interurban Trail and 4th Avenue. Corridor)  Grants An initial $20 annual fee per registered vehicle was approved and the funds were to be used for operations and maintenance projects only. Additional TBD revenue options are subject to voter approval, up to an Packet Page 13 of 75 Edmonds TBD Approved Minutes March 23, 2010 Page 5 additional $80 or 0.2% sales and use tax is available and must be project specific. As part of the adoption of the Transportation Plan in 2009, the City Council approved a provision to investigate increasing TBD revenue in 2010. Mr. Hauss provided a summary of project types that could be funded via the current $20 fee and an additional $20, $40, $60 and $80 vehicle license fee. Board Member Wilson inquired about the average revenue/year in the TBD options summary. Mr. Hauss explained that amount included all funds generated via various revenue sources including traffic impact fees, REET, grants, etc. Board Member Wilson pointed out the revenue from the TBD vehicle license fee was approximately $450,000 - $500,000/year rather than $700,000/year and the total average revenue/year including the existing fee is approximately $2.4 million and $3 million for the additional $20 TBD. Transportation Committee Chair Don Fiene relayed the Committee’s recommendations. Although the Comprehensive Plan indicates an $80 TBD vehicle license fee is needed, in light of the economy, the Committee considered ways to utilize and adjust existing funding sources such as the following:  Use Olympic View Franchise fees for transportation projects in areas served by Olympic View rather putting them in the General Fund.  Redistribute REET to a 50% - 50% split rather than the first $750,000 to Parks and the remainder to transportation.  $40 TBD vehicle license fee instead of the $80 TBD vehicle license fee in the Comprehensive Plan . Mr. Fiene compared Mountlake Terrace’s 2009 transportation funding with Edmonds; Mountlake Terrace spent $11,000/mile compared to $2,000/mile in Edmonds. Board Member Buckshnis inquired about Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) funding for transit. Planning Manager Rob English answered PSRC has a call for projects every two years for allocation of federal funds and funds are allocated by county. During the last call for projects in 2009 Edmonds submitted the Interurban Trail and the 228th/Hwy. 99 project. The City received funds for the Interurban Trail but not the Hwy. 99 project. Projects are scored based on readiness and availability of a local match. The 228th/Hwy. 99 project did not score well due to the lack of a local match. Board Member Fraley-Monillas asked how projects were ranked such as a traffic light at 9th Avenue versus the Shell Valley access. Mr. English answered the list represented projects that could be funded via the TBD and was not adopted as part of the 2009 Transportation Plan. The Transportation Plan has criteria that are used to determine priorities. Board President Bernheim observed that increasing the TBD vehicle license fee beyond $20 requires a public vote. He asked whether the TBD Board or City Council authorized the vote. Mr. English answered the TBD Board would authorize the public vote. For Board President Bernheim, Mr. English explained this item was a follow-up on the provision adopted as part of the Transportation Plan in 2009 to investigate increasing the TBD revenue in 2010 to fund capital improvements. Staff is seeking direction from the Board regarding their interest in seeking an increase in the TBD license fee in 2010. Board Member Wilson explained the project list the Council approved as part of the Transportation Plan assumed a $20 – $80 TBD fee. The TBD Board now needs to determine whether they are interested in Packet Page 14 of 75 Edmonds TBD Approved Minutes March 23, 2010 Page 6 pursuing an increase in the TBD fee. If the TBD chooses not to, it will be up to the City Council to reconcile the project list with available funding. Board Member Orvis pointed out the deadline to place a measure on the August ballot is May. He asked whether staff could provide a list of projects by May. Mr. English answered it would be a challenge but staff could develop a preliminary project list. The larger, more time consuming discussion would be the Board determining what projects to include and the additional TBD fee to ask the voters to approve. For Board Member Fraley-Monillas, Mr. English explained the existing $20 TBD fee was dedicated to maintenance and operation. Board Member Wilson explained he would not support an increase in the license fee or a pool bond until the City got its own financial house in order. Once the Council decided how to address operating expenses whether via a levy or another mechanism and when to place that measure on the ballot, the Council could then determine whether the next ask to the voters would be a capital bond for transportation/sidewalk improvements, etc. Board Member Buckshnis commented the City was working on getting its finances in order. She cautioned this was completely separate because transportation projects are a public safety issue. Although she was uncertain whether she could support an $80 increase in the TBD fee, she did support some increase. She supported placing an increase in the TBD fee on the August ballot, noting the revenue would be targeted to specific projects. Board Member Orvis reminded the TBD was a separate government entity and in this process Board Members were not Councilmembers. The TBD Board was charged with fixing the streets and sidewalks. Board Member Plunkett agreed with Board Member Buckshnis that transportation projects were public safety issues. He pointed out the voters needed to get used to being asked via local governments placing measures on the ballot. Board Vice President Peterson pointed out in addition to the TBD license fee, the Board had other choices such as using Olympic View Franchise fees for transportation and changing the REET allocation. He acknowledged those choices would have a direct impact on the City’s General Fund. He agreed with Board Member Buckshnis that the TBD fee was a direct funding source; a person who drove a car paid the fee and the fee was used for transportation improvements. He supported a $40 fee and requested further information regarding the impact on the City’s General Fund of using the Olympic View Franchise fees for transportation and reallocating REET to a 50/50 split. Board President Bernheim commented until further information was available regarding the collection of the TBD fee, he would not support asking voters to increase the fee. He questioned the rush to increase the fee, favoring a deliberative, slow approach and first proving to the public that the TBD could handle the funds they were currently collecting. He suggested the TBD Board prioritize funding of 3-4 projects, determine the exact cost of those projects and ask the voters for a TBD fee to fund that amount. Board Member Wilson commented there was interest in addressing transportation under-funding. He agreed there was a public safety issue, particularly with regard to sidewalks but sidewalk and traffic calming projects could also be funded via the General Fund. In his opinion, there were other public safety issues such as the City has fewer Police Officers per capita than any other comparable city and the elimination of the entire Crime Prevention Program, that are more important than fixing potholes. He supported the suggestion to reallocate REET to a 50/50 split. He did not want to rush to the August ballot, particularly since staff was not confident they would have time to develop a project list and when Packet Page 15 of 75 Edmonds TBD Approved Minutes March 23, 2010 Page 7 the City Council had a levy package that was nearly complete. He cautioned if the voters approved an additional $40 TBD fee, the City still would not have a full-time Economic Development Director or a Development Director, Crime Prevention, a plan for Yost Pool, funds for the Senior Center, or adequate funding for seasonable parks employees. He summarized there were more important matters to address than an increase in the TBD fee. Mr. English asked for direction regarding next steps. Board President Bernheim referred to the list of projects approved as part of the Transportation Plan, commenting it was one thing to approve a laundry list of projects versus going to the voters to increase the TBD vehicle license fee. He preferred to see a list of 4-5 top priority projects that could be funded via an increase in the TBD fee. He suggested staff develop a list of accomplishable projects within the next 2-3 years based on a low, medium and high increase in the TBD fee. He did not support including traffic signals in those lists. Board Member Wilson suggested staff also consider what transportation, parks, and public facility capital projects could be achieved via an operational levy increase. He preferred to wait until after the passage of an operational levy to place a non-TBD specific capital request on the ballot. Board Member Orvis commented he could support an $80 increase with the existing project list which has been considered by the Transportation Committee for years. He cautioned using the Olympic View Franchise fees for transportation would have an impact on the City’s General Fund and a 50/50 allocation of REET would affect the project list in the Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan. An increase in the TBD fee would provide a discreet funding source that did not impact other City funds. He suggested the TBD Board determine an increase and determine what projects could be funded. Board President Bernheim asked whether staff could develop a list of projects that could be funded via a $20, $40, $60 or $80 increase in the TBD fee. Mr. English answered yes, explaining the laws governing the TBD require any increase proposed to the voters be dedicated to specific projects. He suggested if the Board was interested in pursuing an increase, staff provide further details regarding projects and funding. Mr. Clifton pointed out Lobbyist Mike Doubleday’s weekly update referenced TBD legislation under consideration by the House and Senate that would increase the flexibility regarding the type of projects that can be funded. Board Member Wilson observed the TBD has an Interlocal Agreement with the City to pay for administrative services. If the voters approved an $80 increase in the TBD fee, he asked whether the TBD could hire 2-3 transportation engineers. Mr. Clifton offered to confer with the City Attorney, anticipating the Interlocal Agreement would need to be amended. It was the consensus of the Board to request staff return with a range of options based on different TBD fee increases and projects that could be accomplished at various funding levels. Mr. Hauss asked whether the Board was interested in pursuing the Olympic View Franchise fees and/or 50/50 allocation of REET. Board President Bernheim answered the Board wanted to keep it simple for the voters; only an increase in the TBD fee. Election of Ex-Officio TBD Board Treasurer and WCIA Representative BOARD MEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS, TO NOMINATE STEPHEN CLIFTON FOR THE EX-OFFICIO POSITION OF BOARD TREASURER. Packet Page 16 of 75 Edmonds TBD Approved Minutes March 23, 2010 Page 8 BOARD MEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS FOR TREASURER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. THE VOTE ON THE NOMINATION OF STEPHEN CLIFTON TO FILL THE EX-OFFICIO POSITION OF BOARD TREASURER CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed concern that the TBD Board has a great deal of taxing authority and wants to get as much as possible. He urged the Board to return to the basics. Because the fee is charged on vehicle license renewals, he urged the Board to utilize the revenue for road maintenance, not trails. He pointed out the availability of the SAFETEA-LU grant program for safe walkways to schools. He also suggested using crack-sealing to address deteriorating roadways. He was concerned with the number of projects on the Six-year TIP and suggested eliminating the $1.9 million Five Corners Roundabout. He also recommended removing the traffic signal projects, suggesting safety be used to determine the need for a signal rather than level of service. 6. BOARD COMMENTS Board Member Plunkett pointed out the Board did not have the ability to tax the people of Edmonds; the Board was discussing allowing voters to decide whether they wanted to tax themselves to fund road improvements. 7. ADJOURN With no further business, the TBD meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Packet Page 17 of 75 Edmonds TBD Approved Minutes May 4, 2010 Page 1 CITY OF EDMONDS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT BOARD APPROVED MINUTES May 4, 2010 The Edmonds Transportation Benefit District meeting was called to order at 6:05 p.m. by Board President Steve Bernheim in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. OFFICIALS PRESENT Steve Bernheim, Board President D. J. Wilson, Board Member Michael Plunkett, Board Member Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Board Member Diane Buckshnis, Board Member OFFICIALS ABSENT Strom Peterson, Board Vice President Dave Orvis, Board Member STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Rob English, City Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA BOARD MEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS BOARD MEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2010 3. ELECTION OF EX-OFFICIO TBD BOARD TREASURER AND WASHINGTON CITIES INSURANCE AUTHORITY REPRESENTATIVE Board President Bernheim explained at its last meeting, the TBD Board elected Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton as Treasurer. The TBD’s bylaws require that the City’s Finance Director be the TBD Board’s Treasurer. Packet Page 18 of 75 Edmonds TBD Approved Minutes May 4, 2010 Page 2 BOARD PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER WILSON TO REVOKE THE APPOINTMENT OF STEPHEN CLIFTON AND ELECT THE CITY FINANCE DIRECTOR LORENZO HINES AS BOARD TREASURER AND WASHINGTON CITIES INSURANCE AUTHORITY REPRESENTATIVE. Board Member Plunkett explained the TBD Board was told after electing Mr. Clifton that the TBD Board Treasurer must be the City’s Finance Director. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained both State statute and the charter require the City’s Finance Director to be the TBD Board Treasurer. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. UPDATE FROM CITY STAFF REGARDING LIST OF PROJECT PRIORITIES Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss introduced Kristina Johnson and Stohn Nishino, members of the City’s Citizen Transportation Committee. Mr. Hauss explained the 2009 Transportation Plan identified an approximately $64 million budget shortfall to fund all the transportation projects. The total cost of the projects in the Plan was approximately $105 million. At the March 23, 2010 TBD Board meeting, staff presented different TBD funding options such as additional vehicle license fees or redistribution of REET funds. The Board directed staff to provide a list of priority projects over the next ten years for different TBD options. Mr. Hauss referred to a list of all the transportation projects identified in the 2009 Transportation Plan and the priority projects highlighted in yellow. He stressed the lists of priority projects were scenarios in assisting the Board in understanding the different TBD options. He noted the cost estimates that include design and construction were preliminary, prepared by the consultant as part of the Transportation Plan. More detailed estimates would be required in the future. Mr. Hauss explained with a $20 TBD, the TBD is collecting approximately $500,000 per year or approximately $5 million over the next 10 years. He explained with the current funding, the City’s overlay cycle is approximately 80 years. The industry standard for overlays of arterials is 20 years and 25 years for collectors. He identified the project that could be funded via a $20 TBD option: • Street Overlay/Resurfacing Mr. Hauss explained if the TBD fee was increased to $40, the amount collected over 10 years is $10 million. He identified additional projects that could be funded via a $40 TBD option: • Main Street @ 3rd Signal Upgrade • 212th @ 84th / Five Corners Intersection Improvements • 234th Street SW / 236th Street SW (#1 long walkway) • Bicycle Loop signing • Main Street @ 94th Avenue W Signal Installation • 2nd Avenue S (#1 short walkway) • Citywide Traffic Calming Program • Dayton Street (#2 short walkway) He referred to a ranked list of short and long walkway projects identified in the Transportation Plan by the Walkway Committee. Packet Page 19 of 75 Edmonds TBD Approved Minutes May 4, 2010 Page 3 Mr. Hauss explained if the TBD fee was increased to $60, the amount collected over 10 years would be approximately $15 million. He identified additional projects that could be funded via a $60 TBD option: • 212th @ 76th W Intersection Improvements • 100th @ 238th Signal Upgrades • Maple Street (#3 short walkway) • Maplewood Drive (#2 long walkway) • Walnut Street (#4 short walkway) • 220th Street SW @ 76th Intersection Improvements • Walnut Street @ 9th Avenue W Intersection Improvement • Meadowdale Beach Road (#4 long walkway) Mr. Hauss explained if the TBD fee was increased to $80, the amount collected over 10 years would be approximately $20 million. He identified additional projects that could be funded via an $80 TBD option: • 228th Street SW Corridor Improvements / Hwy. 99 @ 76th Intersection Improvements • 80th Avenue W / 180th Street SW Walkway (#7 long walkway) • Walnut Street (#5 short walkway) He explained the projects were ranked using the Project Priority list in the Transportation Plan as well as citizen comments regarding pedestrian safety and traffic calming, the reason a number of walkway and other safety improvements were added to the list. He provided project description for the several of the priority projects: • Street overlays – intended to improve the overlay cycle and reduce the cost of Public Works maintenance calls • Main Street @ 3rd Signal Upgrade – Trucks traveling southbound on 3rd Avenue North, turning right onto Main, strike the signal pole approximately twice a month as well as vehicle heads and signal poles are very old • 212th @ 84th / Five Corners Intersection Improvements – current level of service F and will continue to increase as volumes increase • 234th Street SW / 236th Street SW (#1 long walkway) – near Madrona Elementary • 2nd Avenue S (#1 short walkway) – approximately 100 feet of sidewalk • Citywide Traffic Calming Program – identified in the Transportation Plan • 100th @ 238th Upgrades – vehicle heads and signal poles and mast arms have been in place 25-30 years and need to be updated Mr. Hauss reviewed maps that identified the funded projects for the different TBD options, pointing out the projects were located throughout the entire City. Kristiana Johnson, Citizen Transportation Committee, explained the Committee was involved in the preparation of the Transportation Plan. The City hired a team of consultants to work with staff and the Citizen Transportation Committee to develop a Long Range Transportation Plan for the City that considers all transportation needs through 2025. The consultants included Randy Young, Henderson Young and Company, a Transportation Financing Specialist. The Plan was adopted by the City Council in November 2009 and included in the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan is intended to be a balanced, multi- modal Plan that addresses all the City’s transportation needs. Projects fall into three categories, 1) road maintenance, 2) safety, and 3) concurrency. With regard to concurrency, she explained the GMA states that in order to have growth, the city must have its capital facilities in place concurrent with development; if not, development cannot occur or the Comprehensive Plan must be changed. The Plan also includes Packet Page 20 of 75 Edmonds TBD Approved Minutes May 4, 2010 Page 4 walkway projects, curb ramp upgrades for ADA, bicycle projects, SR 104/Edmonds Way projects and traffic calming to reduce the impact of through traffic through neighborhoods. She identified concurrency projects on the Priority Project lists that are needed by 2015: • 212th @ 84th /Five Corners Intersection Improvements • Main Street @ 9th Avenue W Signal Installation • Walnut Street @ 9th Avenue W Intersection Improvement • 228th Street SW Corridor Improvements/ Hwy. 99 @ 76th Intersection Improvements • 80th Ave W / 180th Street SW long walkway • Walnut Street short walkway Mr. Hauss explained if the City obtained grants for any of the projects on the Priority List, the next project on the list would be funded. Board Member Plunkett questioned whether Exhibit A, B and C corresponded to a TBD dollar amount. City Engineer Rob English explained Exhibit A was a list of all the projects identified in the Transportation Plan, the yellow highlight identifies project on that list that were included on the $20, $40, $60 and $80 TBD options. Exhibit B is a list of the short walkway projects and Exhibit C is a list of the long walkway projects. Board Member Buckshnis asked why the signals at 9th @ Main, 9th @ Walnut and 9th @ Caspers that total $2.5 million were needed before sidewalks in areas with parks and schools. Mr. Hauss answered 9th @ Main was a concurrency project. The goal was to do a variety of roadway and walkway projects. Board Member Buckshnis commented those signals were concentrated in the bowl and the existing signals were operational. The cause of the backup was the traffic light at 220th & 9th. She preferred to construct more sidewalks outside the bowl and near schools, noting parents have called her saying they want sidewalks and a child was hit last week. Mr. Hauss pointed out the 234th Street SW/236th Street SW long walkway project near Madrona was not in the bowl and was the #1 walkway identified in the Transportation Plan. Board Member Buckshnis suggested shuffling projects to include walkways by schools, noting there was not really an issue with the blinking lights. Mr. Hauss advised the level of service (average delay at an intersection) was E, the City’s level of service standard is D. Any intersection with a level of service below D was identified as a concurrency project. Board Member Buckshnis reiterated $2.5 million was a substantial amount of money to install three traffic signals. She preferred to spend the money on sidewalks by schools and parks. Board Member Fraley-Monillas asked how the list of projects from the Transportation Plan was prioritized. Mr. Hauss answered the Transportation Plan identified a project priority based on grant eligibility, project magnitude, and concurrency. Board Member Fraley-Monillas advised she served on the Citizen Transportation Committee in 2009 and assisted with prioritizing the projects. She did not recall that the signals at Walnut @ 9th and Caspers @ 9th were discussed during the Committee’s meetings but had been added to the Transportation Plan. She referred to a project on the long walkway list, 238th from Hwy. 99 to 76th Avenue W, explaining this road has no sidewalks and is a frequently traveled route by residents between the Safeway and Lake Ballinger neighborhoods. She recalled seeing pedestrians walking in the grass area to avoid cars on the hill. She questioned why the signals at Walnut @ 9th and Caspers @ 9th were prioritized over that walkway project. Mr. Hauss responded the intersection of Walnut @ 9th as well as Main @ 9th were concurrency projects. Packet Page 21 of 75 Edmonds TBD Approved Minutes May 4, 2010 Page 5 Board Member Fraley-Monillas responded she understood concurrency but those two signal projects were not identified as priorities during the Citizen Transportation Committee’s prioritization. Mr. Hauss advised the 238th walkway was ranked 9th in the Walkway Plan and the Walkway Committee thoroughly evaluated all the areas identified as potential projects. Board President Bernheim explained it was not his intent to adopt a project list tonight. He wanted an opportunity to review the list and look at the project locations and then schedule another TBD meeting when the projects could be discussed further. Board Member Fraley-Monillas asked whether an additional TBD required voter approval. Board President Bernheim responded it did. Board President Bernheim suggested Board Members submit any additional questions to him and he would refer them to staff. 5. DISCUSSION ON PUBLIC VOTE ON TBD ASSESSMENTS IN EXCESS OF CURRENT $20 LICENSE FEE AND RELATIONSHIP TO BUDGET FORECAST Board Member Plunkett asked whether the $10,000 cost of placing an issue on the ballot could be funded from existing TBD fee collections. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered it could. Board Member Plunkett inquired about the amount of existing TBD funds. Public Works Director Noel Miller advised the TBD was collecting approximately $500,000 per year and spending it on street maintenance and operations. The fund could accommodate a $10,000 expenditure. Board Member Buckshnis recalled at the last meeting the TBD had collected only $168,000 through 2009 due to difficulties encountered with the Department of Licensing (DOL) collections. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton responded collections did not begin until the end of August 2009. In addition some amounts have not been collected as the DOL addresses problems with geocoding. DOL hopes to have those issues will be resolved by June. Mr. Snyder commented Edmonds was one of the first cities to enact a TBD Board and as with any new program, there have been difficulties. Board Member Wilson pointed out the City Council approved the list of projects via approval of the Transportation Plan in November 2009 and the list of priority projects is a subset of that list. He pointed out the 84th Avenue West project (212th Street SW – 238th Street SW) with a cost of $16 million has been on the list of priorities for approximately 10 years. The reason it did not score higher on the priority list was because of it was a regional project of significance. He recalled when the Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID), a tri-county agency was created in 2001, Edmonds had 2-3 projects including Edmonds Crossing and the 84th Avenue West project. He relayed the City’s lobbyist Mike Doubleday has indicated there may be a state transportation package next year. It may be appropriate to request State funds for larger projects such as the 84th Avenue West project that are not funded via a TBD. Board President Bernheim suggested Board Members review the projects including their physical locations and determine at a future meeting whether to place a TBD assessment on the November ballot. Board Member Wilson advised the Board had until the second Tuesday in August to take action to place an issue on the November ballot. If it was not placed on the November ballot, the cost was typically higher. He recalled the City Council’s 6-1 vote last November to support placing an additional $80 Packet Page 22 of 75 Edmonds TBD Approved Minutes May 4, 2010 Page 6 vehicle license tab fee on the ballot, noting the funding in the Transportation Plan was premised on that funding source. Board Member Buckshnis relayed a comment from a Port Commissioner regarding REET funding for transportation projects. Mr. Hauss recalled he forwarded the Port Commissioner previous PowerPoint slides from City Council meetings. Board Member Buckshnis requested that information also be submitted to the Board. Board President Bernheim advised another TBD Board meeting would be scheduled in the next 4-6 weeks. Board Member Fraley-Monillas asked whether staff would provide a recommendation regarding a TBD funding level. Mr. Clifton responded it was the TBD Board’s decision. 6. BRIEFING ON PROPOSED SNOHOMISH COUNTY TBD FORMATION Board President Bernheim referred to a letter from Snohomish County inquiring whether the City was interested in participating in a countywide TBD. Board Member Buckshnis advised she contacted Brian Goodnight, Senior Legislative Analysis, Snohomish County Council, who was very complimentary regarding how visionary Edmonds was in establishing its own TBD and stating there was no reason for the City to participate. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented the previous TBD Board meetings were held late in the evening following City Council meetings. He was surprised there was not more public present when the TBD Board meeting was held at an earlier time. He suggested anyone who has commented at a TBD Board meeting in the past be notified of upcoming meetings. 8. BOARD COMMENTS Board Members had no comment. 9. ADJOURN With no further business, the TBD Board meeting was adjourned at 6:53 p.m. Packet Page 23 of 75 DRAFT Edmonds TBD Draft Minutes June 22, 2010 Page 1 CITY OF EDMONDS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT BOARD DRAFT MINUTES June 22, 2010 The Edmonds Transportation Benefit District meeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m. by Board President Steve Bernheim in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. OFFICIALS PRESENT Steve Bernheim, Board President Strom Peterson, Board Vice President D. J. Wilson, Board Member (arrived 6:06 p.m.) Michael Plunkett, Board Member Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Board Member Diane Buckshnis, Board Member STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA BOARD MEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Board Member Wilson was not present for the vote.) 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS BOARD MEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED (4-0-1), BOARD VICE PRESIDENT PETERSON ABSTAINED. (Board Member Wilson was not present for the vote. Board Vice President Peterson explained he was not present for the 05-04-10 TBD Meeting and therefore abstained from voting on the approval of the minutes.) The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 4, 2010. 3. PUT POSSIBLE $70 INCREASE IN TBD LICENSE FEES TO A PUBLIC VOTE DURING THE NOVEMBER 2010 GENERAL ELECTION Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss reviewed the list of priority projects presented at the May 4 TBD Meeting. Mr. Hauss explained with a $20 TBD fee, the TBD is collecting approximately $500,000 per year or approximately $5 million over the next 10 years. Packet Page 24 of 75 DRAFT Edmonds TBD Draft Minutes June 22, 2010 Page 2 Rank Project Name Project Type Projects funded via a $20 License Fee Option - collect $500,000 per year or $5 million over 10 years; 1 Street Overlay/Resurfacing ($500,000/year) Overlay Projects funded via a $40 License Fee Option – collect $1 million per year or $10 million over 10 years: 2 Main Street @ 3rd Signal Upgrade Safety 3 212th @ 84th / Five Corners Intersection Improvements Concurrency 2009 4 234th Street SW / 236th Street SW (#1 long walkway) Walkway 5 Bicycle Loop signing Bicycle 6 Main Street @ 94th Avenue W Signal Installation Concurrency 2009 7 2nd Avenue S (#1 short walkway) Walkway 8 Citywide Traffic Calming Program Maintenance 9 Dayton Street (#2 short walkway) Walkway Projects funded via a $60 License Fee Option – collect $1.5 million per year or $15 million over 10 years: 10 212th @ 76th W Intersection Improvements Concurrency 2015 11 100th @ 238th Upgrades Maintenance 12 Maple Street (#3 short walkway) Walkway 13 Maplewood Drive (#2 long walkway) Walkway 14 Walnut Street (#4 short walkway) Walkway 15 220th Street SW @ 76th Intersection Improvements Concurrency 2015 16 Walnut Street @ 9th Avenue W Intersection Improvement Concurrency 2009 17 Meadowdale Beach Road (#4 long walkway) Walkway Projects funded via a $80 License Fee Option – collect $2 million per year or $20 million over 10 years: 18 228th Street SW Corridor Improvements / Hwy. 99 @ 76th Intersection Improvements Safety 19 80th Avenue W / 180th Street SW Walkway (#7 long walkway) Walkway Additional projects: 20 Olympic View Drive @ 76th Avenue W Intersection Improvements Concurrency 2015 21 Walnut Street (#5 short walkway) Walkway 22 Caspers @ 9th Avenue W Concurrency 2015 23 238th Street SW walkway (#9 long walkway) Walkway 24 84th Avenue W (212th Street SW to 238th Street SW) Safety/Walkway Mr. Hauss explained if the City acquired grant funding over the next 10 years for some projects, the funds collected via the license fee would be used to fund the additional projects on the list. He identified 2009 and 2015 concurrency projects, explaining to be identified as a concurrency project the location has a level of service below the City’s accepted level of service standard of D. For example 212th @ 84th /Five Corners intersection is currently at a LOS F, Main Street @ 9th Avenue W is at a LOS F, and 212th @ 76th Avenue W is a LOS D but projected to be LOS F by 2015. Mr. Hauss explained for the intersection improvements at Main @ 9th and Walnut @ 9th an interim solution to a signal was identified at a cost of approximately $900,000 per intersection or $1.8 million for both. The interim solution would be to restripe the intersection to provide two lanes north and southbound and eliminate parking on both sides (currently there is one lane north and southbound with parking on Packet Page 25 of 75 DRAFT Edmonds TBD Draft Minutes June 22, 2010 Page 3 both sides). The cost of restriping is approximately $30,000 and would improve the LOS at one intersection to D and LOS C at the other. Mr. Hauss reviewed Board President Bernheim’s suggested project list that would reprioritize projects 6, 10, 16, 22 and 24. He provided the current level of service for those projects: Project # Project Current LOS 2015 LOS 6 Main Street @ 94th Avenue W Signal Installation F F 10 212th @ 76th W Intersection Improvements D F 16 Walnut Street @ 9th Avenue W Intersection Improvement F F 22 Caspers @ 9th Avenue W C E 24 84th Avenue W (212th Street SW to 238th Street SW) – will add sidewalks on both sides as well as center left turn lane Mr. Hauss explained the possible consequence of not doing a concurrency project is the State may stop development in the vicinity of the project. For example, not doing the 212th @ 76th Avenue W intersection improvement could impact development at Five Corners and potentially Stevens Hospital. Not completing concurrency projects could also impact the City’s ability to obtain grants. Mr. Hauss explained Board President Bernheim’s suggested list recommends a $70 license fee in addition to the current $20 license fee. Neal Tibbett, Vice Chair, Citizens Transportation Committee, explained he has been involved as a volunteer in the development of the Transportation Plan six years ago as well as the current Transportation Plan. He explained the development of the Transportation Plan included review of traffic studies, level of service designations, as well as different types of transportation such as automobile, bicycle and walking. Several open houses were held to gather citizens input regarding safety concerns and citizens’ vision which was followed by a planning/approval process where the Transportation Committee’s recommendations were submitted to the Planning Board, further revised by the Committee and approved by the Planning Board and forwarded to the City Council for approval. Mr. Tibbett explained projects are prioritized using the LOS rankings, traffic trends, solicitation of information from other cities, citizens’ input regarding safety concerns around schools and in neighborhoods and potential for grant funding. He noted the City could lower its LOS standards. However, one of the unintended consequences of lowering level of service and increasing wait times at intersections is vehicles are pushed off main arterials into neighborhoods which creates safety concerns on residential streets not intended for those traffic speeds/volumes. He cited the Interurban Trail as an example of a project that was funded via federal, state and local funds. Mr. Tibbett relayed the Citizens Transportation Committee’s recommendations: 1. Consider no more than a $40 license fee. This amount would provide the highest potential approval rate. The Committee feels a case can be made to citizens for a $40 license fee. If progress can be shown on those projects, a higher license fee could be recommended in 2015. 2. Focus on improving LOS particularly concurrency projects that are already at LOS D or F. 3. Look for and complete highly visible projects in the City that demonstrate attentiveness by the Committee and City Council to provide for the safe transit of citizens. Jeff Daggett, Citizens Transportation Committee, relayed his background in engineering as President and CEO of a large regional firm involved in transportation, aviation and land development projects. He emphasized the importance of a Transportation Plan and Capital Improvement Plan because agencies Packet Page 26 of 75 DRAFT Edmonds TBD Draft Minutes June 22, 2010 Page 4 such as the Puget Sound Regional Council allocate funding via those plans. He pointed out now was an excellent time to begin projects because construction costs are low due to the down economy. The availability of contractors also allows projects to be completed in a timelier manner. Fred Gouge, representing the Port of Edmonds on the Citizens Transportation Committee, explained the Committee worked very hard to develop a plan. He stressed the need to keep concurrency projects on the priority list to ensure funding could be obtained for those projects. The Committee recommended a license fee of $40 because they believe the citizens will support the projects that amount will fund. Board President Bernheim asked when the Committee recommended a $40 license fee. Mr. Gouge answered it had been discussed in the past 2-3 meetings. He relayed the Committee’s intent to actively support a $40 license fee. Mr. Hauss answered the list was presented to the Committee in May 2010 as well as last week; both times they recommended a $40 license fee. Board Member Fraley-Monillas explained three former members of the Transportation Committee are now on the Board, including herself, and they thoroughly understand the City’s transportation issues. She explained in addition to information provided by the consultant, Committee members walked and biked the City to identify issues. Board Member Fraley-Monillas asked whether staff was recommending a $40 license fee. Mr. Hauss answered staff was providing the priority list, not a specific amount. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained staff is recommending a set of projects tied to each funding level. Board Member Fraley-Monillas observed the Committee’s recommendation was a $40 license fee in addition to the existing $20 license fee. Board Member Plunkett asked whether the Committee’s three goals were incorporated into the ranking. Mr. Tibbett agreed they were. Board Member Plunkett referred to Mr. Tibbett’s comment that the City could lower its LOS standard, asking whether that would impact the City’s ability to obtain grants. Mr. Hauss answered with a LOS F, several of the projects would not be identified as concurrency projects and would not impact the City’s ability to acquire grants. However, the delay at those intersections would be significantly increased. Board Member Plunkett observed the level of service at the intersection of 9th & Main was F. He explained there may be times there are 3-5 cars at the intersection, sometimes more or less, however, as a layperson he would not rank that intersection as F. Mr. Hauss explained Jones & Stokes conducted modeling of the entire City which included machine and manual traffic counts during PM peak hours. He agreed the intersection of Main & 9th may not be a LOS F during the entire day, however, during the PM peak of 4:00 – 6:00, the average delay at the intersection was over 55 seconds, a LOS F. Board Member Plunkett commented the proposed project would improve a 55 second delay during the PM peak at the cost of $900,000. Mr. Hauss explained the intersection improvements were identified as a 2009 concurrency project in the Transportation Plan. Board Member Plunkett questioned whether improving a 55 second delay was worth a $900,000 expenditure. Mr. Hauss noted the Transportation Plan also identified a lower cost, interim solution to restripe the lanes on 9th Avenue between Main and Walnut which would improve the LOS. This interim solution would replace projects 6 and 16. Board Member Fraley-Monillas asked whether the intersection improvements at Main & 9th impacted the LOS at other intersections. Mr. Hauss answered Walnut & 9th and Main & 9th were within ¼ mile of each other and Caspers & 9th is 2015 concurrency project that is also impacted. Packet Page 27 of 75 DRAFT Edmonds TBD Draft Minutes June 22, 2010 Page 5 Board Member Buckshnis pointed out the cost of the three projects on 9th was approximately $2.5 million. She preferred to construct sidewalk projects and suggested the projects on 9th be moved to 2015 and projects such as #23 (238th Street SW walkway) and #19 (80th Avenue W / 180th Street SW Walkway) be moved up. The input she has received from citizens is that sidewalks are needed and most people attending the open houses indicated a signal was not needed at 9th & Walnut. Board Member Buckshnis relayed an announcement at the Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) meeting regarding the availability of $19.8 million from Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) specifically for beautification enhancement projects. Mr. Hauss advised the City was applying for pedestrian/lighting grants for Main Street between 5th and 9th as well as the Hwy. 99 International District expansion. Board Member Buckshnis asked whether staff ever sought a recommendation from SCT for those projects, noting several jurisdictions such as Marysville, Bothell, and Snohomish have made presentations to SCT. Mr. Hauss responded the City planned to obtain letters of support from several organizations within the city because Main Street is not a regional project. Public Works Director Noel Miller explained staff also works with the Snohomish County Infrastructure Coordinating Committee, a group of Snohomish County cities, who coordinate projects for funding via PSRC. Board Member Buckshnis asked whether the 2009 concurrency projects could be moved to 2015 and moved back up if a grant were received. Mr. Hauss answered the projects could be moved around. Board Member Buckshnis reiterated her preference for sidewalk projects, noting $2.5 million for signals on 9th Avenue to improve a 55 second delay was inappropriate. Mr. Hauss suggested the Council indicate whether staff should pursue the interim solution identified for the intersections on 9th Avenue. Board Member Plunkett asked whether the $2 million roundabout project at Five Corners was predicated on redevelopment of that area. Mr. Hauss answered that cost was a rough estimate prepared a few years ago; the cost estimate includes acquiring a significant amount of right-of-way. He explained the LOS at that intersection is currently an F and that is the reason it is identified as a concurrency project. Board Member Plunkett expressed surprise that that intersection was a LOS F. Board President Bernheim reminded August 10 is the deadline to submit information to the auditor to place a license fee on the ballot. He anticipated additional TBD Board meetings would be scheduled before that deadline. Board Member Wilson explained SCT is typically a group attended by Councilmembers. He expressed his appreciation for Board Member Buckshnis’ attendance at those meetings, pointing out Edmonds has not participated in that group for a number of years. He has been attending PSRC meetings. Board Member Wilson inquired about the replacement cycle via the proposed $500,000/year overlay project. Mr. Hauss answered it was approximately a 37 year cycle; the City’s current overlay cycle is approximately 80 years and the industry standard is 20 years. Board Member Wilson asked whether consideration was given to providing $900,000/year for overlays which would increase the overlay cycle. Mr. Hauss answered $900,000/year for overlays would significantly delay the other projects. The goal was to fund overlays as well as walkway and concurrency projects. Board Member Wilson observed the prioritized list provided by staff was a 10 year list; some projects will be completed in less than 10 years. He asked whether a license fee approved by the voters would sunset. Mr. Clifton answered according to TBD legislation, the TBD must cease collecting the additional license fee upon completion of the project list funded with that license fee. The $20 license fee for street operations previously adopted by the TBD Board expires in 2026. Packet Page 28 of 75 DRAFT Edmonds TBD Draft Minutes June 22, 2010 Page 6 Board Member Wilson referred to the intent to complete projects to demonstrate a return on investment, and asked whether an $80 license fee rather than a $40 license fee was considered to reduce the 10 year period for project completion. Mr. Tibbett responded some projects may receive grant funding and will be completed sooner. The priority of the projects was not based on date of completion. The Committee did discuss increasing the priority of some of the lower cost walkway projects to demonstrate return on investment to citizens. For Board Member Wilson, Mr. Hauss advised each $20 license fee increment generates $500,000/year or $5 million over 10 years. Board Member Fraley-Monillas commented the project at Five Corners had nothing to do with development in that area. The problem is the level of service produced by five lanes of traffic at the intersection. Board Member Fraley-Monillas clarified the Committee is recommending a $40 license fee. If the voters approved a $40 license fee, only projects 1 – 9 could be funded. Mr. Hauss agreed, noting additional projects could be funded if grants were obtained for any of the 1 – 9 projects. Board Member Fraley-Monillas asked whether staff would return to the Board for approval of the projects beyond 9 if the City obtained grant funds. Mr. Hauss answered staff would proceed with projects in the order of priority unless the Board provided additional guidance with regard to reprioritization of projects. Board Member Buckshnis noted the City of Seattle did a 2009 Street levy. She asked whether staff had considered requesting funds for street and/or walkway projects as part of a levy. Mr. Miller answered that was an approach that could be considered. The TBD license fee is an opportunity to generate funds that are dedicated to transportation. Board Member Buckshnis indicated her support for a $40 license fee and suggested staff consider whether to include funding for street and/or walkway projects as part of a levy. Mr. Miller advised staff would consider that. Board President Bernheim recommended Board Members withhold further comments until a future meeting. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Al Rutledge, Edmonds, suggested organizing separate groups of citizens to educate voters regarding a TBD license fee and with regard to a City levy. He anticipated the voters would support a license fee if they were informed of the improvements in their area. 5. BOARD COMMENTS Board Member Wilson commented State law prohibits starting a regular or special meeting before the appointed hour but does not prohibit extending beyond the estimated conclusion time. Board Member Wilson observed a voter-approved $40 license fee that generates $1 million/year would provide $500,000 to street overlay and the remaining $500,000/year could be used to fund projects on the list. He asked whether funds would then need to be accrued over 4 years to fund projects 2 and 3. Due to the late hour, Board President Bernheim requested staff respond to Board Member Wilson’s question in writing. 6. ADJOURN With no further business, the TBD Board meeting was adjourned at 7:03 p.m. Packet Page 29 of 75 TR A N S P O R T A T I O N F U N D I N G OP T I O N S TB D B o a r d M e e t i n g Ma r c h 2 3 , 2 0 1 0 Be r t r a n d H a u s s , T ra n s p o r t a t i o n E n g i n e e r Pa c k e t Pa g e 30 of 75 • T h e 2 0 0 9 T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n i d e n t i f i e d t h e fo l l o w i n g p r o j e c t s o v e r t h e n e x t 1 6 y e a r s : – ( 3 4 ) W a l k w a y p r o j e c t s – ( 1 3 ) C o n c u r r e n c y p r o j e c t s – ( 7 ) R o a d w a y S a f e t y p r o j e c t s – B i k e w a y p r o j e c t s – M a i n t e n a n c e a n d P r e s e r v a t i o n p r o j e c t s In t r o d u c t i o n Pa c k e t Pa g e 31 of 75 96 th Av . W n e a r M a d r o n a E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l Wa l k w a y p r o j e c t s Pa c k e t Pa g e 32 of 75 80 th / 1 8 0 th Pa c k e t Pa g e 33 of 75 Ov e r l a y p r o j e c t s Me a d o w d a l e B e a c h R d . / c o l l e c t o r s t r e e t Pa c k e t Pa g e 34 of 75 88 th Av . W Pa c k e t Pa g e 35 of 75 Ol y m p i c V i e w D r i v e Pa c k e t Pa g e 36 of 75 Fi v e C o r n e r s Pa c k e t Pa g e 37 of 75 Fu n d i n g S t a t u s • T o t a l c o s t : $ 1 0 5 M i l l i o n • I d e n t i f i e d F u n d i n g : $ 4 1 M i l l i o n – T r a f f i c i m p a c t f e e s – R e a l E s t a t e E x c i s e T a x – M o t o r V e h i c l e F u e l T a x – J o i n t A g e n c y ( C o u n t y p o r t i o n f o r 8 4 th Av . W i m p r o v e m e n t pr o j e c t ) – U t i l i t y F u n d f o r r e s u r f a c i n g – P a r k s F u n d i n g ( I n t e r u r b a n T r a i l a n d 4 th Av . C o r r i d o r ) – G r a n t s • F u n d i n g s h o r t f a l l : $6 5 M i l l i o n Pa c k e t Pa g e 38 of 75 Fu n d i n g O p t i o n s • T r a n s p o r t a t i o n B e n e f i t D i s t r i c t – I n i t i a l $ 2 0 a n n u a l f e e p e r r e g i s t e r e d v e h i c l e • A p p r o v e d i n 2 0 0 8 b y C i t y C o u n c i l • O n l y a v a i l a b l e f o r Op e r a t i o n s a n d M a i n t e n a n c e pr o j e c t s – A d d i t i o n a l T B D f u n d i n g o p t i o n s • N e e d v o t e r a p p r o v a l • U p t o a d d i t i o n a l $ 8 0 • P r o j e c t s p e c i f i c – C i t y C o u n c i l a p p r o v e d a p r o v i s i o n t o i n v e s t i g a t e i n c r e a s i n g t h e TB D r e v e n u e i n 2 0 1 0 ( a s p a r t o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n p l a n a d o p t i o n i n 20 0 9 ) Pa c k e t Pa g e 39 of 75 Pa c k e t Pa g e 40 of 75 Pa c k e t Pa g e 41 of 75 Pa c k e t Pa g e 42 of 75 Pa c k e t Pa g e 43 of 75 Pa c k e t Pa g e 44 of 75 TB D O p t i o n s S u m m a r y Cu r r e n t + $2 0 T B D + $4 0 T B D + $6 0 T B D +$80 TBD Pr o j e c t e d R e v e n u e $4 0 . 9 M $5 2 . 6 M $6 4 . 2 M $7 5 . 9 M $87.5M Av g . R e v e n u e / Y e a r $2 . 6 M $3 . 3 M $4 . 0 M $4 . 7 M $5.5M % o f P l a n F u n d e d 23 % 40 % 57 % 71 % 83% Ro a d P r o j e c t s 22 % 33 % 57 % 66 % 77% No n - M o t o r i z e d 21 % 52 % 60 % 67 % 87% St r e e t O v e r l a y s 80 - y r 50 - y r 40 - y r 25 - y r 22-yr AD A T r a n s i t i o n 75 - y r 38 - y r 30 - y r 20 - y r 19-yr Tr a f f i c C a l m i n g 0% 50 % 10 0 % 10 0 % 100% Le f t o n T a b l e $1 6 . 6 M $1 0 . 9 M $3 . 6 M $1 . 6 M $0 Pa c k e t Pa g e 45 of 75 P a c k e t P a g e 4 6 o f 7 5 P a c k e t P a g e 4 7 o f 7 5 P a c k e t P a g e 4 8 o f 7 5 P a c k e t P a g e 4 9 o f 7 5 P a c k e t P a g e 5 0 o f 7 5 P a c k e t P a g e 5 1 o f 7 5 P a c k e t P a g e 5 2 o f 7 5 P a c k e t P a g e 5 3 o f 7 5 P a c k e t P a g e 5 4 o f 7 5 P a c k e t P a g e 5 5 o f 7 5 P a c k e t P a g e 5 6 o f 7 5 P a c k e t P a g e 5 7 o f 7 5 P a c k e t P a g e 5 8 o f 7 5 P a c k e t P a g e 5 9 o f 7 5 P a c k e t P a g e 6 0 o f 7 5 P a c k e t P a g e 6 1 o f 7 5 P a c k e t P a g e 6 2 o f 7 5 P a c k e t P a g e 6 3 o f 7 5 P a c k e t P a g e 6 4 o f 7 5 P a c k e t P a g e 6 5 o f 7 5 P a c k e t P a g e 6 6 o f 7 5 P a c k e t P a g e 6 7 o f 7 5 P a c k e t P a g e 6 8 o f 7 5 P a c k e t P a g e 6 9 o f 7 5 City of Edmonds Date: June 17, 2010 To: TBD Board From: Transportation Committee Subject: Transportation Benefit District recommendations ________________________________________________________________________ From the list of TBD options presented by City Staff at the last TBD Board Meeting (May 4, 2010), t he Transportation Committee recommends a $40 TBD increase. Additionally, the committee doesn’t support the removal of the (5) projects indicated in Mr. Bernheim’s new list. (4) of those projects ar e concurrency projects, which need to be addressed under the Growth Management Act (GMA). The other deleted project is an important safety / walkway project, with the addition of a two-way left turn lane and sidewalk on 84th Av. W from 220th St. SW to 238th St. SW. MEMORANDUM Packet Page 70 of 75 City of Edmonds Date: July 7, 2010 To: TBD Board members From: Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Subject: TBD Board meeting on July 13, 2010 ________________________________________________________________________ Please find below the responses to questions from Board members at the last TBD Board meeting on June 22, 2010. 1/ Council member Plunkett asked a question related to the potential consequences of lowering the City’s Level of Service (LOS) Standards (from the City’s Standard LOS D to LOS E or F): City Response: If the City adopts a lower LOS standard, this may lead to unacceptable service levels and reduce livability for neighborhoods near these intersections. Additionally, congestion and inconvenience will continue to increase, including the potential for diversion of through traffic from arterials to local streets. This pattern is present at several City intersections, such as 212th @ 76th, Main @ 9th, and Walnut @ 9th MEMORANDUM , where congestion and queues are frequent during the PM Peak Hours (4pm – 6pm). Many drivers divert to local streets in order to avoid those congested areas, creating an increased safety risk to pedestrians and bicyclists in residential areas and potentially increased street maintenance costs. A balanced LOS standard is one that is not so high to be unreasonable to maintain and not so low as to allow unacceptable traffic congestion. Appropriate levels of service standards help ensure that the transportation system can adequately serve expected growth and development. Any intersection that doesn’t meet the City’s LOS standards is identified as a Concurrency project. If the City keeps the existing City LOS standards but doesn’t address specific concurrency projects, this could result in the rejection of specific future developments in close proximity to that intersection (such as Stevens Hospital, Five Corners…) as well as reduce our chances of securing grants when applying for concurrency improvement projects. A short presentation on concurrency will be made by Scott Snyder. Packet Page 71 of 75 LOS Standards from adjacent jurisdictions: four years ago, Lynnwood modified and increased their LOS standards at all City Center intersections from an F to an E and from an F to a D at all other intersections. Mountlake Terrace has the same LOS standards as Edmonds at most intersections, except along the main arterials such as 212th, 220th, and 244th where it is E. 2/ Council member Plunkett asked a question about the Five -Corners Improvements (212th @ 84th Intersection) and whether the planned/proposed improvements relate to the potential rezoning of property within the immediate vicinity of the intersection, or whether the planned/proposed project is needed solely based on concurrency: City Response: This project is on the list because it is identified within the 2009 Transportation Plan and addresses circulation / public safety concerns. The current LOS is F with an average intersection delay of 110 seconds / vehicle during the PM Peak Hours (estimated as 172 seconds by 2015). During those times, long queues are often generated at (2) of the (5) approaches (westbound and eastbound on 212th Street SW). Driver confusion is also often observed due to the five intersection approaches; specifically, drivers have difficulty determining which movement has right-of-way priority. The installation of a roundabout would improve the LOS to B, reducing the intersection delay significantly to 12 seconds and reducing driver confusion. The proposed improvement (installation of a roundabout) would also significantly improve the aesthetics of the intersection by adding landscaping, color, and/or art to the traffic circle geometry. Although this project is planned/proposed to address the issues of vehicular, pedestrian safety, and circulation, the project should also help facilitate the re- development of the Five-Corners area. 3/ Council member Wilson asked questions about cash flow (following an additional $40 TBD Option as an example) / contingency list / bonding possibilities (at the end of the meeting): City Response: An additional $40 TBD Option would generate an estimated amount of $1 Million per year (less a required Department of Licensing 1% administrative cost). With this option (see project list presented on June 22nd), the initial $20 would fund street overlays (=> $500,000 annually). The remaining $500,000 would fund projects 2 through 9 from the list. Project costs include all costs from the design phase to the completion of the construction. The design of Project 2 and 3 could start within the first (2) years of collecting an additional $40 TBD fee since the design cost of Project 2 is approximately $30,000 and Project 3 is $500,000. Over this same time period, the possibility exists that other projects on the list may be eligible for grants since a TBD fee would provide the required local match. This TBD funding source would then allow several projects to move forward simultaneously, in such a way that the completion of one project isn’t required to start another. The remaining $500,000 over the next 10 years would ensure Packet Page 72 of 75 the completion of Projects 2 through 9 during that time frame. Projects 10 and higher would be incorporated within a contingency list, which identifies projects that could be funded with TBD resources should grant funding be secured for higher ranked projects. Regarding the issue of bonding, the City also has the option of bonding against the projected TBD revenue stream. The decision is rendered by the City Council and may provide a good approach to follow as both current construction costs and interest rates are very attractive. If bonding were used to fund TBD projects, the bonding costs would need to be deducted from the overall TBD funding source collected. Packet Page 73 of 75 {WSS801296.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 - 0006.90000 WSS/gjz 7/2/10 RESOLUTION NO. ______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT, ADOPTING A MATERIAL CHANGE POLICY. WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.73.160 and Section 6.05 of the Charter of the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District, the Board is required to adopt a material change policy that, at a minimum, considers the impacts and appropriate remedies if transportation improvements contained in its annual plan exceed the original cost estimate for an improvement by more than twenty percent (20%), and, WHEREAS, the Board of the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District deems it appropriate to adopt a policy for addressing material changes, as well as informing the Board and the public of other significant changes in transportation improvement costs contained in its annual plan, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Material Change. In the event that the cost of a transportation improvement listed on the Transportation Benefit District’s (“TBD’s”) annual plan exceeds by twenty percent (20%) or more the estimated cost for such improvement, the TBD Board shall hold a public hearing regarding the change in costs and what, if any, action should be taken. The TBD staff shall consult with the Board President when it has reasonable cause to believe that a listed transportation improvement is likely to exceed its original cost by twenty percent (20%) and consult with the Board President regarding setting a public hearing. Packet Page 74 of 75 {WSS801296.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 - Section 2. Material Change in Scope Section 3. . In the event the scope of a transportation improvement materially changes beyond the originally anticipated project shown in the annual plan, TBD staff shall provide a written report to the TBD Board. The TBD staff shall consult with the Board President who shall determine whether or not to convene a meeting of the TBD Board for discussion of the change. Material Change to Schedule Section 4. The TBD Board President shall determine whether or not to convene a meeting of the TBD Board for discussion of material changes in scope or schedule. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to prohibit the TBD Board from convening a meeting for discussion of any change in cost, scope or scheduling. . In the event the schedule for a transportation improvement listed on the annual plan materially changes in a way that could reasonably be anticipated to significantly impact other TBD projects, funding or scheduling in excess of ninety (90) days, the TBD staff shall provide a written report to the TBD Board. The TBD staff shall consult with the TBD Board President regarding whether or not to convene a discussion of the change. RESOLVED this ___ day of ________________, 2010. APPROVED: TBD Board President ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Page 75 of 75