02/22/2011 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
February 22, 2011
At 7:53 p.m., Council President Peterson announced that the City Council would interview a candidate
for the Arts Commission, Suzie Herivel Maloney. Elected officials present were: Councilmembers
Bernheim, Plunkett, Buckshnis, and Petso. Ms. Maloney responded to questions from the Council. The
interview concluded at 7:56 p.m.
The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council
Chambers, 250 5`s Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Cooper, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley - Monillas, Councilmember (via
telephone)
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Peter Gibson, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carl Nelson, CIO
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Council President Peterson requested Item 7 be moved to follow Item 4 to ensure that Councilmember
Fraley - Monillas, who was participating via telephone due to illness, could participate in that item.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL RETREAT MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 4 AND 5, 2011.
C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15, 2011.
D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #123915 THROUGH #124039 DATED FEBRUARY 17,
2011 FOR $336,867.66. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS
#50231 THROUGH #50258 FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 1, 2011 THROUGH
FEBRUARY 15, 2011 FOR $619,089.68.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 1
E. AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND BUDGETED CONFERENCE REGISTRATION FUNDS
FOR EDMONDS ARTS COMMISSIONERS.
F. APPROVAL OF 2011 TAXICAB OPERATOR'S LICENSE FOR NORTH END TAXI.
3. CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE ARTS COMMISSION.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF SUZIE HERIVEL MALONEY TO THE
ARTS COMMISSION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Laura Townsend, Edmonds, commented the City has a City Attorney with experience. Ogden Murphy
Wallace represents more mid -sized cities than any other firm in the area and they have done a good job
representing the City. With several family members in the legal field, she relayed their recommendation
for experience. Her research indicates the other firm under consideration does not have the same
experience that Ogden Murphy Wallace has. She feared one lawsuit could cost the City a great deal of
money. Ogden Murphy Wallace knows the City's history which a new firm does not.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, recalled Councilmember Bernheim prevailed in litigation against the City in
2004; litigation that cost him, his wife and neighbors a considerable amount of money and time. Although
Councilmember Bernheim has said if Mr. Snyder is selected he will not have any difficulty continuing to
work with him, Mr. Wambolt anticipated Councilmember Bernheim will harbor some resentment toward
Mr. Snyder. Although the selection was not a quasi judicial matter and the Appearance of Fairness
Doctrine does not apply, for the process to appear fair to citizens, he urged Councilmember Bernheim to
recuse himself from the vote. Next, Mr. Wambolt referred to Councilmember Petso's several year legal
battle with the City and Mr. Snyder, costing the City in excess of $150,000 and Councilmember Petso
considerable time and money. Anticipating such an extended adversarial relationship would taint how she
viewed Mr. Snyder, Mr. Wambolt recommended Councilmember Petso also recuse herself from the vote
in order for the selection process to appear fair to citizens. He requested before voting all
Councilmembers state the reasons for their selection.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, urged the Council to make a decision to change the City Attorney. In his
opinion Mr. Snyder had been involved in a number of unnecessary lawsuits or extended lawsuits longer
than necessary. Mr. Hertrich supported the use of the $1.3 million in the Public Safety Reserve to pay off
the City Hall bond to free up funds in the REST funds to purchase parks such as the Civic Center
playfields if it became available. He anticipated it was too late to refinance bonds as transaction costs and
increasing interest rates reduced the savings. With regard to the Shell Valley access road, he recalled the
road originally proposal was an 11 -foot road due to environmental issues. Engineering is now
recommending a 22 -foot wide road and $65,000 more for a consultant to upgrade the project. He
questioned whether the residents had an opportunity to provide their opinion and he feared Engineering's
recommendations did not reflect what the residents want. He cited the Five Corners roundabout as an
example of a project Engineering was pursuing when the Council had not yet decided that was the best
solution for Five Corners.
Steve Jones, Edmonds, Shell Valley resident, was hopeful that providing emergency access, which he
supported, was not a step toward creating through traffic. He was concerned the scale of the emergency
access as proposed would lead to through traffic. He pointed out that providing an emergency access
route did not guarantee emergency access. Two years ago during winter storms when Pioneer was closed,
Main was also closed for a period of time thus the proposed emergency access would not have been
available.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 2
Joan Bloom, Edmonds, relayed her choice of final City Attorney candidates would have been Gary
McLean and the Lighthouse Group. Gary McLean provided her the most hope for the future of Edmonds;
she appreciated his ideas about green issues and water gardens as well as his work as City Manager and
City Attorney in Puyallup. The Lighthouse Group is very well qualified and she appreciated their
youthful energy and the wealth of experience they offer. When she learned the Council had narrowed the
selection to Ogden Murphy Wallace and the Lighthouse Group, she emailed the Council with her
concerns about the process. She understood that there would be two comment periods, and that Council
would narrow the field on the 15`". So, she sent an email out and expressed her concerns and received an
email back from DJ Wilson which was forwarded from Adrienne Fraley Monillas with charges laid out
against Gary McLean. She expressed concern that the Council was willing to eliminate Mr. McLean on
the basis of potentially unsubstantiated charges, yet nothing was done to investigate the delay in
publishing the Critical Areas Ordinance in which Mr. Snyder was involved or his failure to present the
Council the framework for resolution. She preferred the Council had eliminated Ogden Murphy Wallace
from the candidates under consideration and suggested other candidates be considered. She summarized
the Lighthouse Group is a good option for City Attorney.
Matt Douglas, Edmonds, invited citizens, Councilmembers and the Mayor to attend the Edmonds -
Woodway High School Booster Club /Parent Student Organization's auction on March 19. Budget cuts
have impacted funding for education and proceeds from the auction will be used to provide funds to
athletics as well as other programs at Edmonds - Woodway High School. Tickets can be purchased at the
Edmonds- Woodway High School Athletic Booster website.
Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, resident of the Aurora Marketplace neighborhood and an attorney
practicing in King and Snohomish Counties since 1975, 2 -term member of the Planning Board, current
member of the Economic Development Commission and Highway 99 Task Force and Harbor Square
Steering Committee, explained he has never been sued by the City or sued the City or been professionally
involved in any litigation with Ogden Murphy Wallace or the Lighthouse Group. During his volunteer
activities in the City he has had opportunity to work with Mr. Snyder and other members of Ogden
Murphy Wallace on issues affecting the City. Mr. Snyder regularly staffed Planning Board meetings and
always treated him professionally and courteously. As a member of the legal community, he is aware of
Ogden Murphy Wallace and Mr. Snyder's excellent reputation. Ogden Murphy Wallace has been in
existence for 100 years and has 30 lawyers in Seattle and 13 in Wenatchee as well as numerous support
staff. The firm represents more municipalities than any other firm in the state and as a result Edmonds has
the benefit of economy of scale because other municipalities they represent face similar issues. He
anticipated a new City Attorney will have a substantial learning curve which could adversely impact day -
to -day legal services provided to the City as well as the loss of Ogden Murphy Wallace's institutional
memory and costs associated with transitioning to a new firm. The Lighthouse Group has only existed for
a few months, has not represented a municipality and do not have the experience that Ogden Murphy
Wallace has. He urged the Council to consider the totality of the circumstances, not just the cost. Based
on the totality of the circumstances, he urged the Council to support the retention of Ogden Murphy
Wallace as the most qualified candidate for City Attorney.
7. FINAL CITY COUNCIL DELIBERATION ON SELECTION OF CITY ATTORNEY.
Council President Peterson thanked the applicants, the Council and citizens for their patience with the
process.
Councilmember Plunkett explained he was not pleased with the two candidates the process resulted in.
With additional discussions and review, he has become more supportive of the Lighthouse Group. He
supported a third alternative, Weed, Graafstra and Benson. He spoke with Mr. Weed today who provided
additional information. If the Council chose not to select a City Attorney tonight, he has considered
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 3
suggesting the process be reset to consider other candidates. However, he reached the decision it was
preferable that the Council select a City Attorney tonight and planned to make a motion to reconsider
Weed, Graafstra and Benson. One of the concerns with Mr. Weed was that he is the lead attorney for
another city and would not be able to attend all Council meetings. If the Council moved Committee
meetings to another week, Mr. Weed could attend Council meetings and be the City's lead attorney. Mr.
Weed also provided additional information regarding his fees.
Councilmember Wilson explained he has been an advocate for pushing the process forward. He drafted a
resolution to provide a third option, review other applicants, in the event there were not four votes for one
candidate. He anticipated that would not be necessary and there would be four votes to select a City
Attorney tonight. The reason he did not second the motion to include Weed, Graafstra and Benson was
Mr. Weed was unavailable to participate as the lead City Attorney, a situation that has since changed.
Based on interviewing the other members of Mr. Weed's firm, he was not interested in them as City
Attorney. He knew Mr. Weed through some of the more contentious issues the Council has addressed in
executive session and he has always been a very calming influence and fully competent. He offered to
second a motion to consider Weed Graafstra and Benson, recognizing neither of the two candidates under
consideration was as strong as they could be and both have fundamental flaws.
Councilmember Wilson commented in the end, Edmonds was a great community. Whoever the Council
selected as City Attorney, this was one staff position and there was not a single staff person or elected
official that the City could not do without.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas commented one of her concerns with the process was not having the
opportunity to interview more than four applicants. She acknowledged it may have been due to her
absence because of illness but she did not recall the Council narrowing the number of candidates in an
open meeting to the four who were interviewed. There was at least one other candidate she would have
liked to investigate further. She preferred Council proceed as Councilmember Wilson's resolution stated
to consider additional candidates. Her goal was to ensure the City had the best City Attorney and felt the
process was flawed because she had been unable to vote on the other seven applicants in an open meeting.
Councilmember Bernheim explained the Council voted on January 4 to interview four candidates. None
of the Councilmembers recommended interviewing any of the other candidates. He summarized there was
nothing untoward or off -base about the process; it was entirely public. Prior to the January 4 Council
meeting, Councilmembers had months to review the 11 applicants. All 11 applicants were extremely
competent and the remaining 2 candidates, Ogden Murphy Wallace and the Lighthouse Group are very
competent. He cited the qualified, 10 -year experience of attorneys in the Lighthouse Group including
lawyers at Microsoft, Nordstrom, City of Woodinville, Ogden Murphy Wallace and the extensive
experience of the environmental attorney. He supported the Lighthouse Group as the City Attorney.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO RETAIN THE LIGHTHOUSE GROUP AS THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas reiterated her question about how the four candidates who were
interviewed were selected. She recalled the four were presented to the Council. Mayor Cooper
commented Councilmember Fraley - Monillas may have been absent when the decision was made
regarding which candidates to interview. He recalled Councilmember Bernheim made a motion for three
firms and Councilmember Petso made a motion for an additional firm. Those were the only four that the
Council selected for the interview process.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed the Council was provided the 11 applications for City Attorney and
invited to conduct their own research. She researched all 11 candidates and was impressed with her
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 4
discussions with the labor attorneys with the Lighthouse Group. She felt the Lighthouse Group was a very
strong group and she favored the team concept they offered.
Council President Peterson agreed with a team concept; one of the reasons he has supported Ogden
Murphy Wallace during this process is the similar business model they offer. His concern with the
Lighthouse Group was not their individual experience but their experience as a group. He referred to his
experience in the construction business, explaining the best carpenter may not be a good contractor. In his
experience in the restaurant business, a great home cook is not necessarily a restaurateur. Until they have
experience as a business entity, it is risk for the citizens of Edmonds to select the Lighthouse Group as the
City Attorney. He anticipated in a few years the Lighthouse Group would prove to be excellent attorneys
and excellent business people; he was uncomfortable with Edmonds being the test subject.
Council President Peterson acknowledged the Lighthouse Group's offer was outstanding but in his
experience as a small business owner, one of the biggest reasons business owners fail is they do not
charge /make enough money. He was concerned with the Lighthouse Group, who is hungry and willing to
make a deal, that serious litigation could overturn the flat fee. He questioned whether the Lighthouse
Group could put in the necessary hours with that type of fee structure. He did not support the Lighthouse
Group because he was uncomfortable with their business model and a business that was so young.
Councilmember Petso spoke in favor of the Lighthouse Group, recalling she added them to the candidates
to be interviewed. She found their fee proposal intriguing and would provide significant benefit. She was
satisfied with the attorneys' competence, noting some appear to be outstanding. Hiring a new law firm
was not the same risk as hiring another new business; rules of conduct for attorneys do not allow them to
refuse to prepare to go to court. Attorneys are not allowed to decide they do not want to represent the
City; they are required to arrange a smooth transition to new legal counsel and assist new counsel with
getting up to speed. That mitigates the risk of selecting a newly formed firm.
Councilmember Wilson commented both firms could perform admirably and competently. This decision
is less about threats of litigation because the attorney is not typically the reason the City gets sued. The
City gets sued because the Council or staff does something. Hiring a new City Attorney is not as much of
a liability as a new Council. One of his concerns with the Lighthouse Group is one of the attorneys has a
full -time job at Nordstrom, a fundamental, though not fatal, flaw. Because he did not think the Lighthouse
Group interviewed well, he met with Mr. Taraday as he did with Mr. Snyder and Mr. Weed. During his
discussion with Mr. Taraday, many of his concerns were allayed. In the end, this is a cultural decision;
whether to select the most qualified and most expensive firm, Ogden Murphy Wallace, the luxury
Cadillac option, or the very competent and apparently efficient Hyundai version, the Lighthouse Group.
He viewed Edmonds as a very frugal minded community, willing to pursue a good investment. Edmonds
is not in a position to select a Cadillac; the City has Hyundai staff and Council. He expressed his support
for the Lighthouse Group and hoped they would serve the City well. He offered Mr. Snyder and Mr.
Weed his highest recommendation, noting he thought the world of Mr. Snyder.
Councilmember Plunkett acknowledged the Lighthouse Group was a viable alternative, just not his first
choice.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON, BERNHEIM,
BUCKSHNIS, AND PETSO VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND
COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND FRALEY- MONILLAS VOTING NO.
Councilmember Wilson suggested keeping Ogden Murphy Wallace on for all matters related to
bargaining/labor issues. Mayor Cooper responded the Council could request that staff and he negotiate a
contract with Ogden Murphy Wallace; he offered to provide a recommendation to the Council at the next
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 5
meeting. He commented that may be appropriate given the City is in the middle of contract negotiations
with three bargaining units.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON,
TO KEEP OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE ON FOR ALL LABOR NEGOTIATIONS AND TO
COMPLETE EXISTING LITIGATION.
Councilmember Petso did not support the motion, noting one of the Lighthouse Group's strengths was
their two outstanding labor attorneys and that they do not bill extra for labor negotiations. She recognized
some transition time to get them up to speed would be necessary. She anticipated the same process for
ongoing litigation. She did not support the City continuing to pay an additional fee for litigation when the
Lighthouse Group's fee structure includes litigation expenses, which encourages them to settle litigation
as quickly as possible.
Councilmember Bernheim did not support the motion because he preferred Mayor Cooper return with a
recommendation regarding the transition after talking with the Lighthouse Group and Mr. Snyder.
Councilmember Buckshnis did not support the motion, echoing Councilmember Bernheim and
Councilmember Petso's comments. She found the labor attorneys with the Lighthouse Group very
knowledgeable.
Councilmember Plunkett did not support the motion because he welcomed someone new stepping into
labor negotiations. He suggested an executive session to outline why Mr. Snyder should continue with
existing litigation.
MOTION FAILED (2 -5), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND WILSON VOTING YES.
Mayor Cooper advised that unless the Council provided specific direction regarding the timing of the
transition, he will discuss the transition with the Lighthouse Group and Ogden Murphy Wallace and
return to the Council with a contract containing transition time periods.
Councilmember Plunkett commented it may be appropriate to keep Ogden Murphy Wallace involved in
litigation that is approaching conclusion.
5. UPDATE FROM THE 2010 -11 CITIZEN LEVY COMMITTEE
Councilmember Buckshnis recognized members of the Levy Committee in the audience, Darrol Haug,
Harry Gatjens and John Carlin. She provided a summary of the Committee's work to date, where they are
now, what to do in the future and obstacles. She relayed the following with regard to what the Committee
has researched to date and where are they now:
• The Levy Committee conducted information sessions with representatives from the cities of Lake
Forest Park, Shoreline, and Redmond and the Edmonds School District to obtain an
understanding of how they approached preparing levies in addition to discussing what has worked
and what did not.
• City expenditures have been examined to the extent possible (with the exception of labor cost
which includes benefits). The purpose in examining expenditures is to assure the public that all
expenditures have been fairly examined in concert with the fiscal responsibilities of the
Legislative Branch.
• The majority of the Committee believes labor cost (salaries, benefits, and retirement) exceed the
Levy Committee's authority to review but suggest benefits be separated and reviewed separately
with a Committee Member. The Committee recommends the Council continue to negotiate in
"good faith" on labor cost and benefits and ensure the public is made more aware of these costs.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 6
• The Committee believes the 2011 budget represents a financial baseline of information for the
future even though we have yet to receive the final document.
• The Levy Committee has produced various sample models which will be presented tonight by
Mr. Haug.
• The Levy Committee recognizes that the City of Edmonds' previous cost control and revenue
generation efforts have resulted in a relatively sustained level of service to date, in spite of
economic difficulties.
• The Levy Committee was in the process of initiating a survey but it was later determined no
survey would be initiated.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed the following ideas developed by the Committee:
• Any levy should be for 2 -3 years.
• A general operations levy for projected shortfalls.
• A capital levy for one or more specific projects such as roads, fixing up Yost Pool and /or City
buildings where levy funding is used for certain capital cost in lieu of using General Fund
operating dollars — thus reducing the operating budget.
• Two propositions on the ballot — one general operations and one capital improvement levy
Challenges the Committee sees in the next few months include:
• Trying to get the Council, Administration and Levy Committee to agree on a strategy
• Obtaining current, accurate and complete financial statements
• Making sure the right levy, (i.e., type and amount) is put before the citizens
• City Council elections in 2011
• Public education and addressing public perceptions
Tasks to move forward include:
• The Levy Committee needs to finalize an annual report and provide it to the City Council
• The Levy Committee must finalize work products which includes an agreed upon levy type and
funding options and model samples
• Council conducts full, educational public discussions on recommendations
• Attempt to keep the levy committee members together
Councilmember Buckshnis read emails from the following Committee Members: Evelyn Wellington,
Barbara Chase, and Jessie Beyer. Mayor Cooper requested Councilmember Buckshnis provide a copy of
the emails to the Council.
Darrol Haug, Levy Committee Member, provided a PowerPoint presentation, beginning with the
statement, "good government costs money, better government costs more." His credentials include: 20
years of revenue forecasting for a $1 Billion Fortune 500 and for a $500 Million Start Up.
Mr. Haug provided the following background information:
• Edmonds has a $75 million budget
• General Fund is $35 million
• Property taxes generate approximately $14 million
• Other taxes and fees generate the rest.
He displayed a chart illustrating a one month General Fund reserve 2005 -2016, the emergency reserve,
and forecasts in 2007 and 2008. During that time period, March 2009, the first Levy Committee was
established comprised of 80 members. That Committee recommended a $2 -4 million levy. The Council
took no action.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 7
Next, Mr. Haug provided a chart illustrating the actual General Fund Ending Balance 2005 -2010
compared to the 1 month reserve. During that period of time, staff has made extensive cuts including 9
furlough days, layoff of 23 employees and $3.8 million in cuts as well as generated new revenues via
EMS levies, transport fees, contracting with Fire District 1, and annexation to the Sno -Isle Library
District. These actions extended the budget shortfall into the future. He provided a comparison of budget
growth compared to CPI for the years 1991 -2010:
• CPI:
3.09% annual growth rate
• Police:
5.56% annual growth rate
• Fire:
9.34% annual growth rate
• Parks & Recreation:
4.82% annual growth rate
• Streets:
1.66% annual growth rate
He provided a comparison of the 1 month General Fund reserve compared to the 2011 budget projection
that illustrates a decline below the 1 month reserve beginning in 2012. The challenge is how to address
that; the options are to make more cuts or increase revenue.
Mr. Haug provided a summary of Edmonds property tax, highlighting the decrease in assessed value and
revenue:
He demonstrated several models that illustrated the cost of a levy to an individual tax payer. He
emphasized no decisions or recommendations had been made, these were simply examples. He
demonstrated the impact of a $1 million General Fund levy on a home valued at $100,000 ($0.16/$1000
AV or $16 /year), a home valued at $1 million ($016 /$1000 AV or $155 / year0 and an average Edmonds
home valued at $400,000 ($0.16/$1000 AV or $62 /year). He offered to provide the models to anyone who
was interested, explained the numbers in the models, both the levy amount and the property value, could
be changed to reflect individual property values /taxes. He provided a model illustrating the cost of an
additional $1.5 million levy on a home valued at $400,000 ($93 /year); the combined total for a $1 million
levy and a $1.5 million levy on a home valued at $400,000 is $155 /year, increasing an Edmonds home
owner's City taxes from $844 to $999 /year.
Next he demonstrated a model that illustrated the impact of a $10 million project over 20 years; $62 on a
home valued at $400,000. He summarized a $10 million project financed for 20 years generally costs
approximately $20 million over the 20 year period.
Mr. Haug referred to a list of unfunded projects that totals $130 million and $61 million in transportation.
Funding $100 million in projects would cost a home owner of a $400,000 home $433 for 30 years. The
model allows the insertion of various project costs to determine the cost to an individual tax payer. He
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 8
2009
2010
2011
Assessment
$7,709,209,490
$6,955,482,717
$6,450,768,068
Type of Tax
Rate /$1000
Rate /$1000
Rate /$1000
Regular
1.20
1.35
1.47
EMS
0.50
0.50
0.50
Bonds
0.12
0.13
0.14
Total
1.82
1.98
2.11
Revenue
Revenue
Revenue
Regular
$9,251,051
$9,389,902
$9,482,629
EMS
$3,854,605
$3,477,741
$3,225,384
Bonds
$925,105
$904,213
$903,108
Total
$14,030,761
$13,771,856
$13,611,121
He demonstrated several models that illustrated the cost of a levy to an individual tax payer. He
emphasized no decisions or recommendations had been made, these were simply examples. He
demonstrated the impact of a $1 million General Fund levy on a home valued at $100,000 ($0.16/$1000
AV or $16 /year), a home valued at $1 million ($016 /$1000 AV or $155 / year0 and an average Edmonds
home valued at $400,000 ($0.16/$1000 AV or $62 /year). He offered to provide the models to anyone who
was interested, explained the numbers in the models, both the levy amount and the property value, could
be changed to reflect individual property values /taxes. He provided a model illustrating the cost of an
additional $1.5 million levy on a home valued at $400,000 ($93 /year); the combined total for a $1 million
levy and a $1.5 million levy on a home valued at $400,000 is $155 /year, increasing an Edmonds home
owner's City taxes from $844 to $999 /year.
Next he demonstrated a model that illustrated the impact of a $10 million project over 20 years; $62 on a
home valued at $400,000. He summarized a $10 million project financed for 20 years generally costs
approximately $20 million over the 20 year period.
Mr. Haug referred to a list of unfunded projects that totals $130 million and $61 million in transportation.
Funding $100 million in projects would cost a home owner of a $400,000 home $433 for 30 years. The
model allows the insertion of various project costs to determine the cost to an individual tax payer. He
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 8
commented there were several capital projects that could be considered including an aquatics center,
Senior Center, repair of the Boys & Girls Club, library repairs, purchasing ball fields, art center, etc.
Mr. Haug provided examples of 3 -year levies, emphasizing they were examples only, they that had not
been approved or recommended:
Levy Examples
Amount
Cost/$1000
Tax/Year
Street Overlay
$1,500,000
.23
$93
Deferred Maintenance
$500,000
.08
$31
Yost Pool and Operating Reserve
$1,000,000
.16
$62
General Fund
$1,000,000
.16
$62
Subtotal
$4,000,000
.62
$248
He displayed the comparison of the 1 month General Fund reserve to the 2011 budget projection,
illustrating how a $1,000,000 General Fund levy would affect the forecast. He provided a summary of the
impact to a property owner of a $400,000 of $4 million in levies ($0.62/$1000 AV or $248 /year) and $10
million for a project ($0.16/$1000 AV or $62 /year), increasing an Edmonds residents' City taxes from
$844 /year to $1,154 /year.
Next, Mr. Haug reviewed a model of Fire District 1 costs and growth rate, assessed value and growth rate,
and revenues (EMS, transport fees and General Fund) and rate /$1000 for 2011 -2018, advising the Council
will need to make a decision in 2014 regarding the future of fire service in Edmonds.
With regard to how this impacts the General Fund, Mr. Haug again displayed the comparison of the 1
month General Fund reserve to the 2011 budget projection. He displayed how a $1 million or a $2 million
General Fund levy would impact the General Fund Ending Balance, and the impact of a change in the tax
structure for Fire District 1 in 2014, providing $3 million to the General Fund.
Mr. Haug summarized the models are a tool that can be used to demonstrate the impact of various levy
amounts on the General Fund forecast and on individual homeowners' taxes. With regard to what's next,
he explained it was up to the Council. He suggested the Council begin to have public discussions whether
at Council meetings, a retreat or prior to Council meetings.
Councilmember Buckshnis advised her PowerPoint presentation as well as Mr. Haug's models would be
available on the City's website.
6. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO THE PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PERTEET, INC FOR THE SHELL VALLEY EMERGENCY
ACCESS PROJECT AND REPORT ON THE JANUARY 27, 2011 . PUBLIC MEETING. PUBLIC
COMMENT WILL BE RECEIVED ON THIS ITEM.
City Engineer Rob English explained this project has been in the design phase for several years and
received momentum last year when the State provided a $250,000 appropriation to build the project. The
two issues to be discussed with the Council tonight are:
1. An option to modify the design to incorporate a 22 -foot street alternative.
2. Operational considerations for this new public street.
He displayed an aerial photograph, identifying the location of the emergency access that provides a
connection from Main Street to Pioneer Way. The original design called for a 15 -foot wide roadway. He
provided photographs of the area looking north from the end of Pioneer Way at the hammerhead for the
Madrona Cove development, looking north from the 12 -foot wide path at the end of Pioneer Way to the
gate and looking south toward Pioneer Way. He provided a drawing of the roadway footprint,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 9
highlighting the connection at Main Street and the roadway connecting to the gate at the hammerhead in
the Madrona Cove development. He advised the access would provide a 7% slope, an improvement over
the existing access to the area that is quite steep. A water line will also be constructed as part of the
project to connect to the water main on Main Street and continue to Pioneer Way, improving water
service by providing a loop water system. The new roadway will impact approximately 280 square feet of
a 2500 square foot wetland. The project mitigates those impacts by providing 1500 square feet of new
plantings.
Another design feature that the public commented on at the January 27 meeting is the use of bollards to
prevent vehicles from accessing the road via Main Street. The bollards, 8 -inch diameter posts, would be
locked in place and unlocked and removed when the access is needed. The bollards were selected as the
road also serves as a pedestrian and bicycle path and the bollards provide 31/2 feet between them for
access. There were concerns expressed at the January 27 meeting that the space could allow a motorcycle
to access the road. Staff will consider whether a side pedestrian access would be preferable.
Mr. English reviewed the proposed Addendum #4:
• $34,595 — Design & permitting a bid alternative for a 22 -foot wide road
0 $13,617 — DOE design modifications (related to 2010 grant for stormwater improvements)
0 $4,377 — Pervious hot mix asphalt pavement
0 $12,446 — Construction support services
$65,035 — Total Fee
Mr. English provided a comparison of the options:
Mr. English reviewed the construction budget for the project:
$200,000 — State Grant
$ 85,000 — DOE Grant
$ 80,000 — Stormwater Utility Fund
$ 55,000 — Water Utility Fund
$420,000 — Total
Due to the current bidding climate, Mr. English was hopeful the construction bid would be within this
budget. If that is not possible, the 1.5 -foot wide road will be constructed. The benefit of a 22 -foot wide
road is safety as it would allow two vehicles to pass. He recommended the Council approve addendum #4
to provide a 22 -foot roadway if the construction bids are favorable.
Mr. English advised the agenda packet contains a summary of the January 27 meeting with Shell Valley
residents, questions asked by the residents and staff responses. A majority of the concerns were related to
operation of the access road such as how long it will be open, when it will be open and how it will be
opened.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the four components of Addendum #4, assuming tasks 3 and 4 would
still be completed for a 15 -foot roadway and asking whether task 2 would still be necessary. Mr. English
answered task 2 (design modifications to comply with State Department of Ecology (DOE) grant
requirements) would still be necessary as it would change the current pavement structural section to a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 10
15 -foot Wide Road
22 -foot Wide Road
Construction
$267,900
$441,500
Contingency
$ 53,600
$ 88,300
Construction Management
$ 48,000
$ 53,000
Total Construction
$369,500 Cost
$582,800
Mr. English reviewed the construction budget for the project:
$200,000 — State Grant
$ 85,000 — DOE Grant
$ 80,000 — Stormwater Utility Fund
$ 55,000 — Water Utility Fund
$420,000 — Total
Due to the current bidding climate, Mr. English was hopeful the construction bid would be within this
budget. If that is not possible, the 1.5 -foot wide road will be constructed. The benefit of a 22 -foot wide
road is safety as it would allow two vehicles to pass. He recommended the Council approve addendum #4
to provide a 22 -foot roadway if the construction bids are favorable.
Mr. English advised the agenda packet contains a summary of the January 27 meeting with Shell Valley
residents, questions asked by the residents and staff responses. A majority of the concerns were related to
operation of the access road such as how long it will be open, when it will be open and how it will be
opened.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the four components of Addendum #4, assuming tasks 3 and 4 would
still be completed for a 15 -foot roadway and asking whether task 2 would still be necessary. Mr. English
answered task 2 (design modifications to comply with State Department of Ecology (DOE) grant
requirements) would still be necessary as it would change the current pavement structural section to a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 10
section that would allow use of the DOE grant funds. Councilmember Plunkett asked what would be
necessary if the Council wished to proceed with a 15 -foot wide road. Mr. English responded a 15 -foot
wide road has already been designed. If the Council wanted to pursue a 15 -foot road, the first task
($34,595 design and secure permits for a 22 ft wide street alternative) would be eliminated. The
addendum then would be $13,617 for DOE design modifications, $4,377 for pervious pavement and
$12,446 for construction support services.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the decision to increase the width from 15 feet to 22 feet was to allow
vehicles to pass. Mr. English answered that was the primary reason; two 11 -foot lanes provide adequate
space for vehicles to pass particularly in ice /snow conditions. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether
the 15 -foot option impacted the wetland less than the 22 -foot option. Mr. English answered both widths
impact the wetland by approximately 200 square feet.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the cost to add 7 -10 feet of asphalt in the future would be nominal.
Mr. English answered there were economies of scale by doing it all at once. He anticipated the cost to add
7 feet in the future would be more than adding it as part of this project, for example a new building permit
would be required. The current bidding climate also may be more favorable than in the future.
Councilmember Wilson observed this was a vision question. There are 92 houses in that area and
assuming most traffic left in the morning and returned in the afternoon, it would be rare that two cars
would pass. He asked if an estimate had been done of the trip count during bad weather when the
emergency access would be open. Mr. English answered no. Councilmember Wilson estimated with 92
houses, there would be 5 -10 occasions when 2 cars needed to pass. If the vision is emergency access
during bad weather conditions, an additional $200,000+ for those few occasions did not seem appropriate.
If the road were open five months of the year and was intended to be a full service road, it may be more
appropriate.
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained it was his understanding the original intent of the project
was use by emergency vehicles only. This was expanded to a roadway both for emergency vehicle access
in /out of the community as well as use by the neighborhood during winter events which results in the
proposed change in the design parameters. He explained there are two issues associated with this project,
first the roadway width, 15 feet versus 22 feet. He referred to information provided to the Council today
regarding staff's rationale for a 22 -foot road rather than a 15 -foot road, primarily public safety. He
explained drivers entering the roadway would not know when they might meet another vehicle. Passing a
garbage truck, emergency vehicle or snow plow on a 15 -foot road would be difficult on the small gravel
shoulders with a drop -off on either side with no guardrails and snow and ice on the roadway. He relayed it
was the combined recommendation of Public Works, the Police Department and Fire District 1 to
construct a 22 -foot road. He acknowledged a 15 -foot road could work but would require accepting a
number of compromises.
The second issue is operation of the road. There were concerns expressed at the January 27 neighborhood
meeting with staff's initial proposal to have the road open during the winter, starting early November
through the end of February. Staff has considered the neighborhood's input and now recommends
opening the road during the months of December and January, the period when the majority of winter
events occur. He preferred to have a period when the road was open because opening and closing the road
would be an operational and maintenance issue for Public Works. It may be difficult to determine when
the road should be opened/closed and what constitutes winter weather. Additional access to the
neighborhood via the dirt road through Yost Park has only been opened 3 -5 times in the past 20 years. If
the road is only opened during those types of events, his concern is constructing a roadway with the intent
of increasing safety in the neighborhood and not using it during events when safety could be increased.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 11
Mr. Williams anticipated if the road were only opened when events occurred, staff could be opening and
closing the road daily for an extended period of time which would be a burden on staff and the budget. He
preferred to have the road open for a period of time during the winter months. During the other winter
months, the road could be opened on an as needed basis. He noted if the roadway is opened only when
events occur, there is the issue of communicating with the neighborhood when the roadway is
open /closed.
Councilmember Petso asked if the Council could address the street width tonight and leave the
operational question for another time. Mr. Williams recognized the only item in the agenda packet is the
addendum; however, he anticipated many of the neighborhood residents would speak about the operation
of the road.
Council President Peterson asked Mr. Williams to expand on the Police Department and Fire District 1's
recommendation regarding the roadway. Mr. Williams relayed Police Chief Compaan's support for staff's
recommendation.
John Westfall, Fire Marshal, Fire District 1, explained from Fire District 1's perspective, the roadway
width and operation of the road are connected. He agreed when the emergency access road was originally
proposed, it was intended to be used by emergency vehicles. The 15 -foot width was approved when the
use was limited to seasonal access by Law Enforcement, Fire Department, and Public Works /Utilities.
When the community suggested they be allowed to use the roadway during snow events, a 15 -foot width
became a concern. If the intent is to allow the community to use the roadway during winter events, a 20-
22 foot width would be preferable.
Councilmember Wilson defined emergency access as access for emergency vehicle during any time of
year as well as access for residents in emergency 1 -2 day cold weather situation. Fire Marshal Westfall
defined emergency access as access by Law Enforcement, Fire Department, and Public Works /Utilities.
In the event of an emergency during a cold weather event, residents could call 911.
Councilmember Wilson recognized a 22 -foot roadway would be easier for operations and maintenance
but is not reflective of the original vision or what the Shell Valley community wants. He viewed it as a
"no brainer" to save $200,000, give the residents what they want and provide emergency access. Mr.
Williams answered the 15 versus 22 feet does not affect maintenance and operations. He was concerned
with the potential liability of constructing a new access to the community that was safer than the existing
access and then not opening it during a cold weather event. He cited the importance of an operational plan
for the road once it is constructed.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if Mr. Williams had vetted this issue with City Attorney Scott Snyder in
terms of liability. Mr. Williams answered it was up to interpretation of the City's construction standards.
When asked about the liability he described above, Mr. Snyder did not have an answer. Mr. Williams
asked the Council for direction regarding operation of the road whether it is 15 feet or 22 feet wide.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if the road through Yost Park is used for emergency vehicles. Fire
Marshal Westfall advised that access has always been a concern as it was not built to accommodate
emergency vehicles. When Shell Valley was being developed, the developer paid half the cost of a mini -
pumper/bush truck. That small 4 -wheel drive vehicle is how the Fire Department anticipated addressing
problems in Shell Valley for the first 20 years. The pump eventually failed and was surplused and no
adequate replacement was identified. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the Yost Park emergency road
could be used by the Fire Department. Fire Marshal Westfall answered no, it was not constructed to carry
apparatus.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 12
Councilmember Plunkett asked where the road through Yost Park goes. Mr. Williams replied he was not
familiar with that road. It is a dirt road and cannot be plowed. Councilmember Plunkett asked if it could
be paved. Mr. Williams answered paving that road may be more expensive due to the length. Student
Representative Gibson explained the road goes from the lower parking lot where the basketball court is,
north of the pool.
Mayor Cooper opened public comment on this item.
David Thorpe, Edmonds, commented during last year's snow, a call to the Assistant Police Chief
resulted in opening the gate through Yost Park. He thanked everyone involved in this project since its
inception over 20 years ago, especially Mr. Spellman for his constant voice to see this through. He
supported limiting the use of the access road to a bikeway and walkway, emergency and maintenance use
only. He did not support it being a through street for any length of time and wanted a gate to limit access.
He recalled on January 21, 2003, a street amendment was presented to the Council for this project. At that
time, staff indicated the combination of steep slope and wetland left little room for a road. Staff also
indicated the minimum for a bikeway, walkway, and emergency access was 11 -16 feet. When asked about
a 20 -foot road, then -Fire Chief Tomberg pointed out there was an additional shoulder provided.
Following questions, the Council voted unanimously to limit the use of the access road. Now there is a
proposal for a 22 -foot road and leaving the access open 4 -5 months. He did not support the 22 -foot road
due to increased cost and damage to the wetland. He questioned whether the road would be required to
have drainage, sidewalks, gutters and lighting. He urged the Council to limit pavement to 15 feet, not
have it be a through street and to place a gate at the entrance.
Matthew Douglas, Edmonds, a Pioneer Way resident, pointed out the line on the aerial map was not
representative of a 22 -foot roadway and identified a road on the map that was 22 -feet wide. He thanked
staff for the public meeting they held with the neighborhood to gather their input. He relayed his
concerns: 1) everyone in the neighborhood only wants one way in and out and do not want a through
street, 2) the vegetation near the gate provides a sound buffer for the neighborhood. A 22 -foot road would
remove more vegetation than a 15 -foot road, 3) the existing gate provides space for bikes and pedestrians,
4) the additional $240,00 cost of a 22 -foot road, 5) a 15 -foot road causes less damage to the wetland, and
6) smaller gates are required for a 15 -foot road. He anticipated few residents would use the emergency
access, noting during recent snow days most residents stayed home. He also objected to leaving the
emergency access open for a period of time as it would eliminate on- street parking. He suggested giving
the key to one of the City employees who lives in Shell Valley or one of the other residents.
Ross Conley, Edmonds, a Pioneer Way resident, agreed with Mr. Douglas' comments, expressing his
support for an emergency access that was only opened for a few days during the year when it was needed.
He disagreed with selecting December and January as the months to leave the access open, pointing out
the snow that fell this year did not fall during those months. He expressed appreciation for the deicer the
City has spread. He noted the access through Yost Park worked in the past until the snow melted and
created mud.
Donna Vasdrin, Edmonds, echoed the previous speakers' comments. She pointed out the residents on
Pioneer Way have managed to get in and out during snow events in the past, parking their cars above, etc.
The Yost Park entrance provides ample access during genuine emergencies. She encouraged the Council
to consider the community's concerns as well as the considerable expense.
Paul Harrison, Edmonds, a resident of Shell Valley, commented although they have managed to
enter /exit the neighborhood for the past 25 years, as they get older, walking up Pioneer Way during
inclement weather has become more of an issue. He anticipated the 22 -foot road was proposed due to the
drop -off and suggested that be addressed by a sign stating emergency road, use at your own risk. He has
objected to the City's occasional placement of a Road Closed sign at Pioneer Way, viewing it as an
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 13
attractive nuisance because it encourages children to sled while vehicles still drive on the hill. He also
expressed concern with the consultant fees to date and the proposed additional fee. He supported an
access road for emergency vehicles and emergency use by Shell Valley residents and that it not be open
for a period of time during the winter. He questioned why Public Works felt opening /closing the gate
would be their responsibility; in the past the gate through Yost Park has been opened by the Police or Fire
Departments.
Walter Orowski, Edmonds, a Pioneer Way resident, commented he has managed the hill for the past 33
years but is finding it more difficult. For example, tonight he must decide whether to park on top of the
hill and walk down the hill and back up the slippery hill next day, or drive down and be stuck if it snows.
An emergency access road is needed and vital to allow residents to get in and out.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, suggested staff consider a level access toward Yost Park. He noted in the
original report the engineer estimated the lanes had the capability of accommodating a certain number of
vehicle trips per day, which he assumed anticipated it would be a two -way road. He pointed out the
significant angle to enter the road from Main. Street as well as sight distance issues when exiting up the
hill. He anticipated the access road would also be used by customers visiting home occupations.
David Moore, Edmonds, a resident on the proposed access road, pointed out everyone who has spoken is
opposed to opening of the access road longer than the weather event. If that is not possible, he
recommended minimizing the width of the road to prevent it being used as a thoroughfare. He agreed with
the comments made by his neighbors.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed public comment on this item.
Mayor Cooper commented the operational opening /closing of the road is an important issue that the
Council may wish to discuss in the future regardless of the roadway width. The action staff is seeking
tonight is approval of the addendum to allow the design of the 22 -foot road to be completed.
Councilmember Bernheim did not support the Council approving funds to design a 22 -foot road,
preferring the 15 -foot road.
Mayor Cooper asked whether Council action was necessary if the desire was a 15 -foot road. Mr. English
answered if no action is taken, the road will be 15 feet wide. The tasks in the proposed addendum are:
1. Design and secure permits for a 22 -foot wide street alternative
2. Design modifications to comply with State Department of Ecology (DOE) grant requirements
3. Change the pavement material to pervious hot -mix asphalt
4. Provide consultant support services during construction.
If the Council does not proceed with a 22 -foot roadway, the first task is eliminated. The remaining tasks
are required for the 15 -foot roadway.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
MODIFY THE CONTRACT TO ADD DESIGN MODIFICATIONS TO COMPLY WITH STATE
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) GRANT REQUIREMENTS, CHANGE THE PAVEMENT
MATERIAL TO PERVIOUS HOT -MIX ASPHALT AND PROVIDE CONSULTANT SUPPORT
SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION.
Councilmember Wilson assumed during wet and cold weather events the dirt road in Yost Park is not
constructed for use by a great deal of traffic. Mr. English agreed, relaying comments from a resident that
when it snows or is wet, the road condition deteriorates.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 14
Councilmember Wilson expressed support for the motion and offered to make an additional motion to
clarify the Council's vision for the access road such as ensuring it is a 15 -foot road and how often the
road is opened.
Council President Peterson offered an amendment to include the first task, design and secure permits for a
22 -foot wide street alternative. His reasons for offering the amendment were, 1) public safety — the Police
Department and Fire Department recommend the wider road for safety reasons and he deferred to those
professionals, 2) this is a bid alternative and may provide insight into what could be, and 3) the Council
just hired a law firm whose advice was to avoid litigation to save money; a safer road avoids liability.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED TO INCLUDE $34,595 FOR DESIGN AND
SECURE PERMITS FOR A 22 -FOOT WIDE STREET ALTERNATIVE. MOTION DIED FOR
LACK OF A SECOND.
Councilmember Wilson disagreed with Council President Peterson's characterizations. He did not
anticipate the City's liability would be increased if the road were open for emergency vehicles and a
couple times a year to provide a better access than the existing 21% grade hill into the area.
Mayor Cooper relayed the intent of Councilmember Bernheim's motion, which did not include the first
task, was for a 15 -foot road.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
THAT THE ACCESS ROAD ONLY BE USED FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS AND THAT
EMERGENCY ACCESS IS DEFINED AS USE BY EMERGENCY VEHICLES WHICH CAN BE
POLICE, FIRE OR OTHER CITY RELATED VEHICLES, AND DURING PERIODS OF
EMERGENCY COLD WEATHER ACTIVITY.
Councilmember Wilson wanted to limit use of the road as the residents have requested and leave it to
Public Works or Engineering to determine what constitutes emergency cold weather, anticipating it was
not just temperatures below 32 degrees; it may include periods like tonight when snow is predicted. He
suggested staff work with the residents to determine "something that works." He did not support leaving
the access open for 2 -5 months, he preferred it only be open for select period of time when temperatures
and climate conditions suggest.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas commented in her discussions with Shell Valley residents, they have
indicated a desire for pedestrian and bicycle access in addition to emergency access.
Councilmember Wilson clarified his intent was motorized vehicles; pedestrian traffic would be
appropriate.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Senior Center observes the Edmonds School District closures.
The access road could be opened when the Edmonds School District closes due to weather.
Councilmember Bernheim did not support the motion as the operation of the road was not included on the
agenda. Tonight's agenda item was a 15 -foot versus 22 -foot roadway width. The decision regarding
operation could be made at a later time.
Councilmember Wilson suggested if the intent was to use the road for anything other than as described in
the motion, a 15 -foot road width may not be adequate. He pointed out staff is seeking policy direction
from the Council.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 15
Council President Peterson commented without a definition of cold weather, emergency, ice, etc., the
Council was not providing staff policy direction. He would not support the motion because it did not
provide direction to staff.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed support for the motion, questioning what more the Council could say
to staff. He questioned whether the Council should define inclement conditions via an ordinance. If
conditions are defined, they are still subject to interpretation. In the end, emergency personnel, whether a
police officer, firefighter or Public Works employee, will make the decision when to open the gate. He
anticipated that decision would be made based on conditions on the ground, not what the code states.
Student Representative Gibson agreed the Police Department was unlikely to consult the code before
opening the gate. In the past, when it looked like Main Street needed to be closed, the Police Department
closed it.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3 -4), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, WILSON AND
PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, AND COUNCILMEMBERS
BUCKSHNIS, FRALEY- MONILLAS, AND BERNHEIM VOTING NO.
Mayor Cooper suggested scheduling this on a future Public Safety Committee agenda to have further
discussion about options for opening the gate. As an alternative, he suggested scheduling it for Council
discussion at a future meeting.
8. DISCUSSION REGARDING HOUSE BILL 1265, RELATING TO LAND USE PLANNING IN
QUALIFYING UNINCORPORATED PORTIONS OF URBAN GROWTH AREAS; AND
AMENDING RCW 36.70A.110.
Mayor Cooper explained HB 1265 was sponsored in the House by Representative Kagi and in the Senate
by Senator Chase. It deals with density and land use in unincorporated areas and their ability to permit
projects that exceed the density of the neighboring community, more specifically, Pt. Wells. HB 1265
would not allow development at Pt. Wells to exceed the density in Woodway or Shoreline's
Comprehensive Plan. He suggested the City support HB 1265 as long as it was clear that it was
specifically Pt. Wells and would not have an unintended consequence on a development in Edmonds
adjacent to Esperance.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested developing a resolution of support. She pointed out traffic
generated by development at Pt. Wells would have a tremendous impact on traffic. Mayor Cooper advised
Friday, February 25 is the Committee cutoff date, making it too late for the Council to pass a resolution.
The Council's support tonight would allow staff to work with the City's lobbyist on a letter that could be
emailed to Representatives. A resolution in the future may be appropriate if the bill continues to move.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, TO DIRECT THE MAYOR TO DRAFT A LETTER TO MIKE DOUBLEDAY
EXPRESSING THE COUNCIL'S SUPPORT.
Councilmember Wilson suggested a motion expressing the Council's support for passage of the bill.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
THAT THE COUNCIL SUPPORTS PASSAGE OF HB 1265 AND COMMUNICATE THAT TO
THE APPROPRIATE LEGISLATORS.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 16
Councilmember Wilson explained he testified in support of HB 1265. He suggested the Council consider
an amendment to require an annexation process by the city whose building standards must be met. For
example if Pt. Wells is required to be developed in accordance with Shoreline's building standards,
Shoreline should annex the area. He added the following to the motion:
RECOMMEND REQUIRING ANNEXATION BY THE JURISDICTION WHOSE BUILDING
STANDARDS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MET.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Wilson advised there are other bills sponsored by the City's House delegates such as
banning the sale of fertilizers that contain phosphorous. The bill has moved out of committee. He asked
whether the Council was interested in a motion to support HB 1489 and SB 5194.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON,
TO EXPRESS THE COUNCIL'S SUPPORT FOR HB 1489 AND SB 5194.
Councilmember Plunkett asked what is phosphorous, what does it do and why is there interest in banning
it. Councilmember Wilson responded it provides no benefit to fertilizing lawns but is included in
fertilizers. When it rains, the phosphorous enters the watershed and when it reaches lakes or streams it
creates food for algae growth which consume the oxygen in the water. As a result the ecology within the
lake dies due to the lack of oxygen and it also has downstream effects.
Councilmember Plunkett asked why fertilizers contained phosphorous. Councilmember Wilson agreed
that was a great question. He recalled at the retreat Public Works Director Phil Williams mentioned he
was one of the lead forces in banning this in the Spokane and northern Idaho area. The Lake Ballinger
Forum took a position today to support these bills.
Councilmember Petso indicated she would abstain as the topic was not on the agenda and had not been
reviewed by Council Committee.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCILMEMBER
BERNHEIM VOTING NO.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3 -1 -3), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND
WILSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER
BERNHEIM VOTING NO; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, FRALEY- MONILLAS AND
PLUNKETT ABSTAINING.
Mayor Cooper offered to provide further information by next week's meeting.
9. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS.
Councilmember Wilson reported the Lake Ballinger Forum took a position supporting HB 1489 and SB
5194. The Forum also discussed removing culverts between I -5 and the Nile Country Club which will
eliminate much of the flooding that occurs in that area.
With regard to the Community Technology Advisory Committee (CTAC), Councilmember Plunkett
reported the Council budgeted $35,000 to improve the City's website. The City contracted with Paul
Bishop who is working on the update. After considering hundreds of websites, staff chose to model
Bellingham's site. A difference in the City's website should be noticeable later this spring.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 17
CTAC is discussing with Planning and Public Works extending fiber from Main to Dayton in connection
with Sound Transit and a business is also interested in that extension. With regard to targets of
opportunity, there are 1 -2 businesses interested in connecting to fiber. A fiber pricing subcommittee has
been formed to determine the charge for businesses to hookup to fiber. The Council will be provided
individual contracts for the individual businesses.
Councilmember Plunkett reported the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) has $48,000 for a
Heritage Tour; $24,000 from events that was matched by the Hubbard Foundation that will be used to
identify historic sites along the 4`" Avenue Corridor. The HPC also sent out an RFQ for a historic
architect to inventory sites to be placed on the historic register, funded by a grant. The HPC also adopted
the 2011 Historic Preservation Strategic Plan which is included in the Comprehensive Plan and helps with
obtaining grants.
Councilmember Buckshnis advised she would provide the Council the emails written by the three Levy
Committee Members. She offered special thanks to Committee Member Darrol Haug for his presentation.
She commented the Levy Committee is having difficulty with a quorum due to members being out of
town.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported on the Economic Development Commission (EDC) meeting,
advising that comments on the Strategic Plan RFQ need to be submitted this week. The EDC discussed
progress on the Five Corners and Westgate studies and what the Commission wants to work on during the
coming year such as tourism and a development agreement for the post office site.
Councilmember Bernheim reported the Port's Harbor Square Steering Committee continues to review
development ideas for Harbor Square. The Port Commissioners are interested in eliminating the perceived
artificial ground floor commercial requirement as they are considering a plan that includes ground floor
residential.
10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Cooper reported on Saturday's State high school wrestling tournament, offering congratulations to
Ryan DeWeese, Edmonds - Woodway High School, who won the State 4A wrestling title, the first State
champion from Edmonds - Woodway in the history of the school. Three other Edmonds - Woodway
wrestlers placed at State and the team finished in 81" place, the highest ever. He planned to congratulate
the team on behalf of the City at their awards banquet. The Edmonds - Woodway High School basketball
team is in the State tournament.
Mayor Cooper reported Council President Peterson, Councilmember Wilson and he were in Olympia last
week and received a good reception from the legislative delegation who are working hard on the citizens
behalf to convince the appropriate committee chairs to send capital dollars to Edmonds, recognizing that
there are no capital dollars. Representative Liias and Senator Shin are supporting funding for the Main
Street project and Representative Moscoso and Senator Shin are supporting the 228`h/Hwy 99 realignment
project. Both have some limited opportunity to be included in the budget. He invited Councilmembers to
communicate with the Chairs of the Transportation and Capital Budget Committees.
Mayor Cooper reported the bill to extend the PFD legislation is struggling; he encouraged the House
Ways and Means Chair to move the bill forward although he is not inclined to do so because he wants to
capture the sales tax credit for budget balancing measures. The public records issue is moving forward in
some manner although it is difficult to tell what it will look like. He recommended Councilmembers
follow Mr. Doubleday's weekly updates regarding that matter anticipating the Council may need to take a
position on that bill depending on what it becomes.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 18
Mayor Cooper reported the local government bailout bill that extends deadlines on buildable lands and
stormwater mandates, is moving forward. The requirements are not being changed but the deadlines for
compliance may be extended. A proposal to allow cities the ability to form a street utility has turned into a
bill that will set up pilot projects in several cities who have expressed interest including Edmonds. Again
this is legislation the Council may want to consider because it has gone from a bill that would allow the
city to establish a street utility via Council action to legislation that will require a public vote, perhaps a
super majority, and only allowed it to happen in a few cities. If those cities do not place the street utility
on the ballot in six years, they lose their opportunity to put it on the ballot. He encouraged
Councilmembers to email legislators regarding extending the PFD legislation.
11. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Plunkett thanked Mayor Cooper for the legislative update.
With regard to the selection of a City Attorney, Councilmember Plunkett commented it was an
accomplishment that Mr. Snyder had been the City's Attorney for 27 years, approximately 6 -7
generations of Councils. In many cities, when the Council, City Manager or Mayor changes, the City
Attorney is changed. Mr. Snyder has prevailed through several generations of Councils and 5 -6 Mayors.
He doubted there was another attorney in the State that had lasted 27 years with one city through so many
different City Councils. After working with Mr. Snyder for 15 years, he had a great deal of respect for
him and wished he had the opportunity to tell him that personally.
Councilmember Buckshnis advised she planned to call Mr. Snyder to wish him the best of luck.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported she was notified by WRIA 8 that the deadline to move the Edmonds
Marsh cleanup from the 10 year plan to the 3 year plan was February 28. She welcomed the Lighthouse
Group and their environmental attorney. Mayor Cooper advised staff had already met the deadline.
Councilmember Bernheim advised he voted against the motion to express the Council's support for the
bills to eliminate phosphorous from fertilizer because he did not have any information and he preferred to
have it scheduled on the agenda. If it did not pass at the State level, he suggested a local ban.
Councilmember Wilson requested consideration of support for HB 1489 and SB 5194 be scheduled on
next week's agenda. He advised the Public Safety & Human Resources Committee is meeting on March I
at 5:30 p.m.
Councilmember Wilson suggested Council President Peterson determine an appropriate method of
recognizing Mr. Snyder. He found the vote regarding selection of a City Attorney very difficult. He thinks
the world of Mr. Snyder and always found him to be very competent. The rationale for change and
opportunity to do things differently and save over $200,000 was worth the risk. He noted the Lighthouse
Group had big shoes to fill.
Councilmember Petso apologized for missing a PFD meeting this morning. She has relied on the emailed
packets to inform her of the date and has been informed that her email is having problems. She also
apologized to the public who provided testimony at the last Finance Committee meeting, relaying that she
was informed her minutes of a citizens remarks were not sufficiently detailed. In lieu of not allowing
public comment, she committed to taking better minutes in the future.
Council President Peterson welcomed the Lighthouse Group and looked forward to working with them.
He thanked Mayor Cooper and Councilmember Wilson for attending the events in Olympia and special
thanks to the legislative delegation for meeting with them. The legislature is working hard in a very
difficult situation.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 19
12. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 22, 2011
Page 20