08/03/2010 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
August 3, 2010
At 5:15 p.m., Mayor Cooper announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
labor negotiation strategy and negotiations related to a real estate matter. He stated that the executive
session was scheduled to last approximately one hour and forty -five minutes and would be held in the
Police Training Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a
result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor
Cooper, and Councilmembers Bernheim, Plunkett, Fraley - Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and
Wilson. Others present were City Attorney Scott Snyder, Human Resources Director Debi Humann,
Community Services /Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The
executive session concluded at 7:02 p.m.
The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council
Chambers, 250 5`h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Cooper, Mayor
Steve Bernheim, Council President
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley - Monillas, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Stephen Clifton, Community Services /Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Michael Clugston, Planner
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Plunkett requested Item D be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2010.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #120331 THROUGH #120457 DATED JULY 29, 2010
FOR $408,351.73.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 1
ITEM D: UPDATE ON PROGRESS OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS HEALTH BENEFITS
COMMITTEE.
Councilmember Plunkett explained the Health Benefits Committee is reviewing the upcoming change in
employee health benefits. This item includes $21,000 to hire a consultant but does not indicate the source
of those funds. Human Resources Director Debi Humann responded after discussion with Finance
Director Lorenzo Hines, it was determined the $21,500 to hire Wells Fargo as the broker /consultant in the
health insurance process would come from the Human Resources Professional Services' budget. That
budget is currently at 50% and with position vacancies down, it is possible the budget will be under -spent
enough to absorb that cost. The budget will be reviewed again in November and if required a budget
amendment will be submitted requesting additional funds from the General Fund.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
APPROVE ITEM D. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - CAR
SHOW
Chris Fleck, Treasurer, Edmonds Chamber of Commerce and Chair of the Car Show, announced
the 10'h annual Edmonds Classic Car Show on Sunday, September 12. The display of 300 -400 cars during
the car show attracts thousands of people to the city. Downtown shops are open including restaurants,
four of which have on- street dining. He acknowledged the car show did not directly generate funds other
than to the Chamber via the participant fee. He assured the event was a great deal of fun and encouraged
everyone to attend.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the Chamber Foundation, a 501(c)(3), allows people to donate to
the Chamber. Mr. Fleck explained the car show is self - supporting but the Chamber appreciates all
donations. The Chamber Foundation's greatest need is funds for the 4"' of July which is entirely funded
by donations.
4. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: ADOPT -A -DOG
Charles Greenberg explained Old Dog Haven cares for and finds homes for older dogs. He introduced
Alvin, a 12 -year old, 7 -lb. Toy Poodle available for adoption at Old Dog Haven. Alvin is a very friendly,
loving dog; his only health issue is a heart murmur that causes him to cough when excited.
Mr. Greenburg invited anyone interested in adopting Alvin or another dog to call him at 425 - 774 -0138.
Further information on dogs available for adoption is available at O1dDogHaven.org.
5. UPDATE FROM MIKE CARTER OF STEVENS HOSPITAL AND CAL KNIGHT OF SWEDISH
HOSPITAL REGARDING THE HOSPITAL AFFILIATION AND HOSPITAL DISTRICT.
Michael Carter, President and CEO, Stevens Hospital, commented on Stevens Hospital and Swedish's
similar missions; both are not - for - profit organizations, both are secular, and their mission strategies are
very similar. He displayed statistics regarding Stevens Hospital in 2010, summarizing Stevens has been
growing consistently but slowly in the four years he has been there, they have high quality statistics in all
measurable areas, have happy employees — employee satisfaction is now in the 84`" percentile nationally,
stable operations, and are profitable — $15 million in net profit last year and slightly less in 2010.
However, Stevens Hospital has a weak balance sheet, a poor brand image, and restless physicians. For
those reasons, despite outward symbols of prosperity, Stevens Hospital did not think they had a future
without a connection with another organization.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 2
Mr. Carter reviewed the process of developing a Strategic Plan which included involving the public and
community leaders. The six pillars in the Plan (people, serve, quality- safety, finance, growth, community)
all identify the need for a partner. For example, he pointed out affiliation will aid in recruitment and
retention of physicians and employees, something that was becoming more difficult for Stevens.
Cal Knight, President and Chief Operating Officer, Swedish, explained Swedish has two tertiary
hospitals in downtown Seattle, a community hospital in Ballard, a new hospital under construction in
Issaquah, and a relationship pending with Stevens. Swedish's philosophy about the future of healthcare is
it needs to be provided in the communities where people live; their relationship with Stevens Hospital is
consistent with that philosophy. Ideas in health reform and the future of healthcare that most everyone
agrees on include the following, 1) scale matters — to provide the best healthcare to residents in a
community requires a system with scale and scope, and 2) an electronic medical record is essential. He
explained Swedish will install the EPIC electronic health record system at Stevens and begin its use in
January 2012. EPIC is installed at Swedish and does exactly what it was expected to do — reduces errors,
connects clinicians, and allows seamless monitoring of care across the system. EPIC, a very expensive
system that Stevens would not be able to acquire and implement on its own, is one example of what
Swedish will provide as part of the partnership.
Mr. Knight described the free - standing emergency department and ambulatory center that has been in
operation in Issaquah for the past five years. Mill Creek was identified as an area similarly underserved
and a free - standing emergency department is being established in that area. Mr. Knight summarized the
relationship between Stevens and Swedish will be good for the community, good for Stevens and
Swedish as organizations and a great example of how the future of healthcare will be better with systems
rather than independent organizations.
Mr. Carter explained the Hospital District Commission considered all alternatives such as offering the
hospital for sale, developing a joint venture with another organization in which a new company would be
formed, and signing a management agreement to assist with hospital operations. The Commission chose
an operating lease in which the Hospital District retains ownership of the hospital but leases the
operations to a third party, in this case, Swedish. He described how the affiliation will work. Under the
current structure Stevens Hospital and additional Stevens services are operated by Snohomish County
Public Hospital District #2; and the three Swedish campuses, Swedish physician division and additional
Swedish services are operated by Swedish Health Services.
Under the new structure, Public Hospital District #2 will continue to own the hospital and lease the
hospital operations to Swedish on a 30 -year term. Swedish will pay the District $600,000 a month in lease
payments; payments escalate 3% per year and by year 15 will reach approximately $1 million/month and
level off for the remaining 15 years of the lease. The lease has a 30 year term and two 10 year extensions
are offered. One milestone remains, State approval of the Certificate of Need; a positive decision is
expected on August 17. Beginning September 1, 2010 (if State regulatory approval is received) Swedish
Health Services will begin to operate Stevens as a private hospital, begin making monthly payments to the
District, and rename Stevens Swedish Edmonds.
The Hospital District will continue to exist under a new name and receive Stevens' cash reserve of
approximately $20 -23 million, $600,000 /month in lease payments from Swedish as well as $2
million/year via the M &O levy. The other $2 million capital levy will continue until it is paid off in
March 2011. The District will establish a new office, he will go to work for Swedish, the District will hire
a new Superintendent and Commissioners will form a business plan. He explained after September 1,
2010, the hospital's meetings will no longer be public. The Commission will continue to hold public
meetings and will receive periodic reports on the hospital. A Strategic Collaboration Committee will also
be formed in which both organizations work together.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 3
Mr. Carter explained the Commission retains several reserve powers under the agreement including that
Swedish cannot change the hospital's location without the Commission's permission, and any product
line that generates at least $3 million in net revenue (which covers nearly all product offerings) cannot be
eliminated or reduced without the Commission's permission.
Dr. Bruce Williams, Public Health Hospital District #2 Commissioner, explained Hospital District #2
was initially created to operate the hospital. Under the RCW, it has a much broader mandate for the health
of the citizens of the District. He explained the benefit of a lease rather than a sale was that it maintained
the commitment the community has made to the services offered by Stevens Hospital. If the hospital were
sold, there would no longer be any control over retaining those services in the community. Via the
affiliation, the District has leveraged the nominal contribution from the property owners in the District
(the average home in the District contributes via the M &O approximately $25 /year per household) to a
much larger amount that can be used to develop wellness and prevention programs. Those programs will
include educational programs and recreational opportunities. He commented on Yost Pool as an example.
Retaining the District also allows the Commission to have some influence via the Strategic Collaboration
Committee.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether expansion at the Swedish Edmonds campus would require
approval of the Commission. Mr. Carter answered that was completely within Swedish's control. There
are several large projects pending due to Stevens' shortage of capital.
Councilmember Wilson recalled the contentious Council meeting with Mr. Carter approximately two
years ago. He was concerned at that time that Stevens Hospital was moving forward without a great deal
of public input. He expressed appreciation for Stevens bringing in Howard Thomas, conducting town hall
meetings, forming a stakeholder advisory committee and now touring area cities to describe the
affiliation. He hoped Stevens agreed that his concern and the subsequent process resulted in a better
product for the community.
Councilmember Wilson commented the District was now in a position to do something tremendously
innovative in terms of health care, in particular public health. He invited Dr. Williams to comment on the
game changing nature of this new entity. Dr. Williams explained it is a direct mechanism for funding
preventative health service, educational and interventional opportunities to help keep people out of the
hospital. The District is open to all ideas such as bike helmets for kids, visiting nurse services for seniors,
diabetes education programs, nutritional education programs, etc. The Commission plans to have public
meetings to hear from the community what they want. For example, members of the public have already
raised the issue of Yost Pool, bicycle lanes, fitness runs, etc.
Mr. Knight explained this is a unique relationship that has not occurred elsewhere in the State of
Washington. The district hospital law in Washington was originally passed so that hospitals could exist in
places that otherwise could not afford a hospital such as rural areas. As a private, non - profit organization,
Swedish feels strongly that a tax subsidy is not necessary to operate a hospital. For example, he compared
Evergreen Hospital which has a large tax subsidy to Overlake Hospital which has none. Swedish's
philosophy is if taxpayers are to be taxed for healthcare, the funds should be used for things those
property owners would not otherwise have access to and that a traditional hospital cannot provide well.
The result of this agreement is the best of both worlds — a private hospital with resources and know -how
to provide medical services and a hospital district that is focused on healthcare in a new and different way
to address some of the gaps.
Mr. Carter agreed that a good process resulted from the two years spent reviewing the potential
partnership with Swedish. The beauty of the agreement is that Swedish would have spent the
$600,000 /month or more on debt service if they had purchased a hospital. The agreement keeps that
money in the community.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 4
Councilmember Wilson noted the approximately $10 million/year in lease payments and the $20 million
cash was a great deal of money but could quickly be spent on many things. He asked whether those funds
would be used for asset acquisition, an endowment or used operationally on an annual basis. Dr. Williams
agreed although it sounded like a great deal of money, it could easily be spent quickly in a number of
different health arenas. The Commission has a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens to be as wise as
possible and will take time to determine how the funds will be used. He noted the District will continue to
have landlord issues for the hospital property and will retain a reserve for that.
Councilmember Wilson recalled two years ago when this issue was presented to the Council, a resolution
was passed that committed the Council to oppose any sale or transaction of this type. He planned to make
a motion that the Council support this transaction/affiliation or could draft a resolution to that effect.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas thanked Stevens and Swedish for everything they have done for the
community, commenting her family has used Stevens and Swedish for the past 50 years. She looked
forward to a great future for the community.
Mayor Cooper congratulated Stevens and Swedish for engaging in a process that resulted in a much better
product.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
THAT THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL RESOLVE TO SUPPORT THE AFFILIATION AND
AGREEMENT BETWEEN STEVENS HOSPITAL AND THE SWEDISH MEDICAL CENTER.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2010 WATER SYSTEM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
UPDATE.
Public Works Director Phil Williams introduced Tom Lindberg, MSA, the consultant on the development
of the Water Comprehensive Plan and Rob English, City Engineer. Mr. Williams explained since the
Council's last consideration of the 2010 Water System Comprehensive Plan, staff met with
Councilmember Petso to discuss her comments on the plan and subsequently made changes to the
document. He highlighted two of the changes:
• A concern was raised regarding the project list in the Plan that identified the order in which
projects would be completed. Because there are many things that influence when a specific
project is done such as receipt of grant funds, leveraging a private development project, or
another City project, language in Chapters 7, 9 and 10 was modified to create more flexibility
than the original draft appeared to allow.
• The tables illustrating the results of the hydrologic modeling showed five out of hundreds in the
system that have deficient fire flows. Detail was added to explain that many of the hydrants close
to hydrants with deficient flows are well supplied with water and that in any fire event a number
of hydrants would be used to fight the fire and nearly all have more than sufficient fire flow.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out there have only been two rate increases of less than 3% during the
past 6 years; the draft Plan proposes increases of $0.08 and $0.075 to fund what should have been funded
in the past. In the historical financial performance it appears the General Fund at some point was utilized
to fund those deficits. She asked Mr. Williams to explain that General Fund monies were not used for the
Water Utility. Mr. Williams assured there was no General Fund support/subsidy of the Water Utility. He
explained in the past there were only two inflationary sized adjustments in water rates over a 5 -6 year
period which results in an erosion of the fund balance. The update of the Plan considered that as well as
the work facing the Water Utility. Edmonds, like many other cities, has not had an ongoing effort to
replace its aging water infrastructure. A goal was established in this Plan to fund the annual replacement
of approximately 1% of the lineal footage of the City's water mains. He acknowledged at 1% per year, it
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 5
will take 100 years to replace all the water lines, but it provided an ongoing funding source for that effort
and requires a noticeable rate increase.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the fire hydrant revenue and asked if it was used to replenish
the General Fund. Mr. William explained in Lane v. City of Seattle, a rate payer of the Seattle Public
Utility sued the Utility for a charge on his bill for fire hydrants. Water Utilities have always viewed
providing fire flow for the community as part of their responsibility. After a series of lower court rulings,
the State Supreme Court ruled in Mr. Lane's favor that the provision of fire service was a general
governmental responsibility and not the Utility's responsibility. The Seattle Public Utilities and the City
of Seattle's approach to pay the cost of hydrant maintenance and other fire protection services was to
raise the internal tax on the Water Utility to generate enough revenue to equal the amount they would
need to pay to the Utility to provide those fire protection services. That funding method was also appealed
and the Supreme Court ruled that was appropriate. In 2009 Edmonds raised the utility tax on the Water
Utility by 8.7% to generate resources in the General Fund to pay the Water Utility to provide water -
related fire protection services. This is reflected in the financials as hydrant revenue to the Utility.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that was the Intergovernmental services. Mr. Williams explained for
the Edmonds Water Utility, the overall tax rate is 18.7 %; it was only the last 8.7% that was used to
generate revenues for fire protection. The preexisting 10% plus the 8.7% equate to the total
intergovernmental transfer, the total utility tax the Utility pays to the General Fund.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, explained his primary concern was the high cost, an approximately 65%
increase over the next 10 years. Salaries make up 24% of the budget, averaging 6% /year increase, an
amount he suggested be reduced. He pointed out although a portion of the City was 100 years old, much
of the City was constructed in the last 30 -40 years and the water mains in the newer areas would not need
to be replaced for a long time. He commented on the City's funding of water service under the double
tracks being installed by BNSF and asked what happened to the money in the General Fund that used to
pay for water mains. In a time when many citizens are having a difficult time, an increase in water rates
can become overwhelming. He suggested the increases be more reasonable.
Rebecca Wolfe, Edmonds, explained she participates on a national team, Carpe Diem Western Water &
Climate Change. One of the things they are working on is to ensure municipal water supplies in the West
have abundant and pure tap water for the future. As a result, many cities are updating their systems. She
expressed her support for the Water System Comprehensive Plan and the rate increase to ensure water
lines remained clear to allow citizens to "take back the tap" and stop using bottled water.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented on water leakage from aging pipes. He expressed his support for the
Plan and the increase to replace water mains.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPROVE THE 2010 WATER SYSTEM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. MOTION
CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT VOTING NO.
7. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO AMEND
THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 3.65 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATING TO THE
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT IN ORDER TO EXPAND THE FUNCTIONS AND
AUTHORITY OF THE DISTRICT TO INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIRTY -SEVEN
(37) TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING STREET OVERLAYS TO EXTEND
THE LIFE OF CITY STREETS CONSTRUCTION OF KEY PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO RELIEVE CONGESTION TRAFFIC CALMING
MEASURES, CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS, PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING, SIGNALIZATION
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 6
INSTALLATION AND REPLACEMENT AND BICYCLE LOOP SIGNAGE WITH THE
PROCEEDS OF A FORTY DOLLAR ($40) VEHICLE FEE INCREASE, IF APPROVED BY THE
VOTERS.
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained if passed, the proposed ordinance would expand the
authorities of the existing Edmonds Transportation Benefit District (TBD) which the Council created in
November 2008 under Ordinance 3707. The TBD's duties under that ordinance were limited to
preservation and maintenance. The TBD Board implemented a $20 vehicle license fee that is collected at
every vehicle license transaction for vehicles registered within the city limits of Edmonds which is
contiguous with the boundaries of the TBD.
The proposed ordinance would modify the TBD's authorities to authorize the TBD to seek voter approval
of a $40 increase to the fee that will be used to fund a list of 37 projects identified in the City's
Transportation Improvement Plan.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Diane Talmadge, Edmonds, expressed concern that the proposed ordinance was extending the Council's
own authorities which was not addressed in the explanatory statement in the voter's pamphlet. Although
she supported allowing the voters to decide on the proposed 200% increase in the vehicle license fee, she
disliked the tax because it extended beyond those who own homes to everyone who drove a car. She
preferred the excise tax that taxed drivers based on the value of their car. She viewed this as a very
regressive tax, noting levying a tax on homeowners was less regressive than a 200% increase in car tabs.
To the argument that the increase equated to only a cup of coffee, she pointed out most residents had two
cars. She summarized citizens were facing many increases including water rates and other State taxes and
was concerned many citizens could not afford the $40 increase in addition to the existing $20 fee.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, recalled the Transportation Committee began with a proposal for a $70 fee that
was later reduced to $40. He suggested establishing a fund for projects that come up and a committee to
educate the public regarding the project list.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, supported vehicle owners paying a tax to pay for overlays and other repairs
to extend the life of the streets because drivers use those facilities. However, the proposed list includes
not only overlays but a list of 37 projects totaling $61 million. He objected to several projects on the list
including the roundabout at Five Corners and several traffic signals including one at 91" & Caspers. He
anticipated staff would have no incentive to apply for grants with a dedicated funding source from a
license fee. Voters may have supported a proposed increase in the vehicle fee to fund the road system
used by vehicles but likely would not support an increase that funded this extensive project list.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
To Ms. Talmadge's comment regarding the regressive nature of this fee, Councilmember Peterson
pointed out it would fund improvements that would benefit the community, particularly projects that will
improve safety around schools, allow students to walk to school and allow citizens to utilize alternate
forms of transportation.
With regard to Mr. Hertrich's comment that there would be no incentive to apply for grants, Mr. Williams
explained the fee provides an ongoing source of revenue that can be used as matching funds for grants the
City is able to obtain. Although the number and size of federal and state grants has diminished in recent
years, there are still grants available and staff will continue to apply for grants to stretch the funds as
much as possible. Staff will also seek to partner with utility projects, private development projects
installing frontage improvements, etc. to complete as many of the projects as quickly as possible.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 7
Councilmember Petso commented no one spoke in favor of the proposed increase likely because, as many
citizens have indicated, it is the wrong revenue source to fund the project list for a variety of reasons.
Although some may view the transfer from the General Fund for roads and sidewalks a subsidy, she
believed voters would be willing to spend some of their property tax revenue on streets and sidewalks.
She did not support the proposed increase.
Councilmember Wilson commented it was good public policy to tax cars because they create a public
nuisance by the creation of carbon monoxide. He next referred to the regressive nature of the proposed fee
increase versus the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) that was tied to the value of a car. He pointed out
if voters approved the proposed fee increase, it would take over 60 years to fund the 37 projects on the list
and none of the projects were prioritized. He preferred in these economic times to focus on a specific list
of 4 -7 projects that would be completed in a short period of rime. He summarized it was a regressive tax
with little accountability for elected officials. Although he supported taxing negative externalities of
vehicles, this was not the right method. He opposed the proposed increase and pledged to campaign
vigorously against it. He asked to be appointed to the committee writing the con statement for the voters'
pamphlet.
Councilmember Wilson concluded this was "fiddling while Rome burns." While the Council has been
discussing a City Manager - Council form of government and placing this vehicle license fee on the ballot,
the most important item to place on the ballot, a property tax levy to pay for basic City operations, has not
been accomplished. Although the City has been discussing an operational levy for nearly two years, the
Council has not been able to make a decision to place it on the August or November ballot. To place a
levy on the February 2011 ballot will cost the City $115,000.
To Councilmember Petso's comment that no one spoke in favor of the increase to the vehicle license fee,
Council President Bernheim acknowledged it was difficult to rally citizens to speak in favor of a tax
increase. By placing the measure on the ballot, the voters would have an opportunity to indicate whether
or not they support the fee. He disagreed it was a regressive tax. As the owner of low cost, subcompact
cars, under the old MEVT, he paid very little MVET whereas owners of heavy, expensive vehicles paid
more tax. The regressive argument also did not apply because the increase was only $40 /year and taxed
those who could already afford cars and insurance. The funds generated would not go into a "black hole,"
but would be used to fund specific transportation - related projects. If voters approved the fee increase,
those projects will be constructed; if the voters do not approve the fee increase, the projects will not be
built because there are no funds from any other source.
With regard to Councilmember Wilson's comment that the projects were not prioritized, Council
President Bernheim assured there would be an annual review process and projects would be prioritized
year to year. He pointed out those who are opposed to the license fee have not suggested alternative
funding sources. Although Councilmember Wilson suggested a reprioritization of the projects, his list
contained the same projects. He invited voters to volunteer for the committees to write the pro and con
statement for the voters' pamphlet. He expressed his support for the proposed fee increase.
Councilmember Buckshnis voiced her support for the proposed fee increase, noting 21 of the 37 projects
are walkways, safety or bicycles. She was willing to pay $6.66 /month for 2 cars, recalling during the
Town Hall meetings that she and Councilmember Fraley - Monillas conducted, citizens repeatedly
expressed interest in more walkways. If the voters approved the increase fee, the first eight projects on the
project list were walkways.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas explained although she drove a 9 -year old car with 140,000 miles on it,
the wear and tear on the road was the same as a new car. She agreed with Council President Bernheim's
statement that people who cannot afford to pay insurance, buy gas, etc. don't drive cars. She found it
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 8
ironic that the Councilmembers who wanted to reprioritize the project list to add walkways and non -
motorized projects were the ones who now did not support the fee. She asked how these projects would
be funded if not by the proposed fee. She questioned whether Edmonds wanted to be a city where the
roads were crumbling because its citizens were not willing to pay $3.33 /vehicle /month. She supported
allowing the voters to decide.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3804 TO AMEND THE PROVISION OF CHAPTER
3.65 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATING TO THE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT
DISTRICT IN ORDER TO EXPAND THE FUNCTIONS AND AUTHORITY OF THE DISTRICT
TO INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIRTY -SEVEN (37) TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING STREET OVERLAYS TO EXTEND THE LIFE OF CITY
STREETS, CONSTRUCTION OF KEY PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS, INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS TO RELIEVE CONGESTION, TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES,
CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS, PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING, SIGNALIZATION INSTALLATION
AND REPLACEMENT, AND BICYCLE LOOP SIGNAGE WITH THE PROCEEDS OF A FORTY
DOLLAR ($40) VEHICLE FEE INCREASE, IF APPROVED BY THE VOTERS.
Councilmember Wilson explained he opposed this when it came up as a policy vote in November 2009.
Although he did suggest reprioritizing the projects, he was clearly opposed to the fee and intended to vote
against it. The alternative is a levy. He recalled last April, 8 groups comprised of 65 people who
participated in the Levy Review Committee, told the Council that the City needed more money in the
form of a property tax levy.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas reiterated her support for allowing the voters to decide; whether they
wanted to spend $3.33 /car /month, the cost of a coffee at Starbucks, or whether they wanted to go
backward.
Councilmember Peterson expressed his support for the motion, explaining if approved by the voters, the
revenue generated by the fee would be used to fund projects and would not get lost in the "netherworld of
the General Fund," an important concept to voters. He agreed a levy was needed to support the General
Fund, those dollars are spent on a variety of governmental activities and are not as easy to pinpoint as the
funds generated by a license fee. Similarly, revenue generated by the increase in water rates is used
specifically for water - related projects. Approving a fee that is used for a specific purpose allows voters to
track its use and does not allow funds to be used for day -to -day operations of the City. He summarized the
projects on the list are tangible projects that are important to the livability of the City, the City's economy
and have a greater good than the fee itself.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM AND
COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY- MONILLAS, PETERSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES;
AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, WILSON AND PLUNKETT VOTING NO.
Mayor Cooper reminded that a meeting of the TBD Board to make a final decision regarding this issue
will follow tonight's City Council meeting.
8. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
UPDATING THE NUMBER OF PERMITTED PERMANENT SIGNS PER SITE IN BUSINESS
AND COMMERCIAL ZONES. ( EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 20.60.025)
(FILE NUMBER AMD20100014).
Planner Mike Clugston reported the Planning Board has recommended for the Council's review and
approval an important change in Chapter 20.60 of the Sign Code. The Sign Code contains numerous
regulations regarding the size and location of signs as well as the maximum number of permitted signs on
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 9
a site. In the current code, a free standing business is allowed a total of three signs of whatever type is
allowed in that area. For multi- tenant sites, each tenant is allowed one sign. Staff has received many
requests from multi- tenant businesses asking for more flexibility. The Planning Board considered several
alternatives and recommended that three signs per multi- tenant site be allowed, similar to a standalone
business. All the existing requirements for size and location still apply. In addition, window signs are
exempt from the total number of permitted signs. Window signs have their own requirements with regard
to size and location. Mr. Clugston provided the proposed language for ECDC 20.60.025.A(4) regarding
the maximum number of permitted permanent signs of three per site. The Planning Board determined the
proposed change would allow multi- tenant sites throughout the City more flexibility.
Council President Bernheim inquired about the rationale for exempting window signs. Mr. Clugston
answered window signs have maximum area requirements, one square of window sign for each lineal foot
of window frontage. Window signs are currently exempt from the maximum sign area, thus are already
allowed the additional sign area. The way the code was previously written window signs were not
excluded from the number of total signs. Council President Bernheim summarized the proposed change
did not affect the maximum permitted area of window signs, only the distribution. Mr. Clugston agreed.
For Councilmember Petso, Mr. Clugston referred to Chapter 20.60.035 that states the maximum area for
window signs is one square foot for each lineal foot of window frontage. Councilmember Petso observed
a business could do a one square foot sign all the way across their window. Mr. Clugston answered if a
business had 20 feet of lineal window, they could put a 20 square foot sign in one window or spread it
over multiple windows. The intent is to provide flexibility. Design standards in areas of the City would
also apply such as the downtown business zones that state windows cannot be completely covered with
signs. Councilmember Petso asked whether there were regulations regarding window signs in the
Neighborhood Business zone. Mr. Clugston answered the same window requirements apply in the
downtown business, neighborhood business and commercial zones.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, supported the City reviewing its sign regulations, recalling his inability to
find the entrance to the new Ace Hardware and the manager's comment that they were not allowed
additional signage. He found the proposed change helpful to businesses and customers which helped the
City's economy. He also welcomed Mayor Cooper.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented he attends most Planning Board meetings and there is often a
Planning Board representative at City Council meetings although there was not tonight. He suggested
Councilmembers attend Planning Board meetings. He supported the proposed change.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, pointed out that previously the size of the building was used to determine the
total square footage of allowed signage for a building including window signs. Under this proposal
windows could be used for extra signage. Although window signs can be good, including window signs
would allow a business a great deal of additional signage. He also felt filling windows with signs looked
junky.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO ADOPT THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE SIGN CODE.
Councilmember Peterson thanked the Planning Board and staff for developing the proposed changes. As a
small business owner, the sign code can seem like a big deal when opening a new business and anything
the City can do to assist small businesses is important. This was a step in the right direction to show the
Council's support for the business community.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 10
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the ordinance will be scheduled on the Council's next Consent
Agenda.
9. PRESENTATION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION TO PROCEED WITH A PARTNERSHIP WITH
THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON GREEN FUTURES LAB FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
SPECIAL DISTRICT PLANS FOR THE FIVE CORNERS AND WESTGATE COMMERCIAL
CENTERS.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained in March 2010 the Council adopted Resolution 1224 in response
to recommendations from the Economic Development Commission (EDC). One of the Commission's
recommendations was to initiate neighborhood center plans for Five Corners, Perrinville and Westgate in
order to position these areas to attract redevelopment. In an effort to implement that recommendation,
staff and the EDC's land use subcommittee worked with the University of Washington's Green Futures
Lab and the Cascade Land Conservancy (CLC) to develop an 8 -9 month project at a substantial cost
savings to the City. The project would involve University professors working with students and classes as
well as utilize CLC, who by contract with the City, has 25 hours to provide.
Mr. Chave explained the project is a public design process with the assistance of University students and
CLC to develop regulations, design guidelines, etc. that would implement design and green development
within the Five Corners and Westgate areas. This would position these areas for future improvement and
redevelopment to provide services for the neighborhoods, improved access and potentially serve as a
template that could be used in other neighborhood planning efforts in the City.
With regard to funding, the base project is expected to cost approximately $40,000. There have been
savings within the Planning Department's Professional Services budget such as money left over from the
code rewrite that will not be spent this year and because development activity is down substantially, funds
in professional services that would have been used for development studies will not be spent this year.
This is a unique opportunity because, 1) the University of Washington can include this project in their
curriculum this year, and 2) there are unlikely to be savings in professional services next year. The EDC
land use subcommittee presented the proposal to the full EDC who unanimously recommended
forwarding it to the Council. The University is ready to proceed upon approval by the Council.
Mr. Chave explained although funding is available for the base study, the University recommends some
type of market analysis accompany the study. The Council would need to identify funding for the market
analysis. There are two levels of funding for a market study, 1) $25,000- $30,000 would provide a full
market analysis for the two centers, or 2) $10,000 would be an expert looking over the shoulder of the
university participants and CLC and providing expert advice on what was feasible.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Council was being asked to approve a dollar amount for a
market study. Mr. Chave answered yes, pointing out in the scope of work, the market analysis occurs in
the early stages of the project, this fall. The Council could defer a decision on the market study for a few
weeks. However, for the University to include this project in their curriculum, they need the Council to
approve the project.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. Chave for the assistance he has provided the EDC. As Council
liaison to the EDC, Councilmember Buckshnis commented on the report given by the land use
subcommittee regarding this project. She is also the liaison to the Port who is also utilizing UW students
to do a similar project for Harbor Square. She was concerned with using the Council Contingency Fund
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 11
as a funding source for the market study, preferring to have it reconciled first. She supported proceeding
with the partnership with the UW Futures Lab and CLC.
Councilmember Peterson complimented the work done by Mr. Chave and the EDC, finding this an
incredible opportunity for $40,000. Because the market is somewhat volatile at this time, he suggested it
may be preferable to do the over -the- shoulder look and when the economy is more stable in 1 -2 years,
conduct a more detailed market analysis. Mr. Chave answered that was one way to proceed. He supported
at least having someone with some market analysis ability reviewing the concepts and providing an over -
the- shoulder look. He recalled a Planning Board Member mentioned a similar concern with performing a
detailed analysis at this time. He explained the type of market analysis that is done in support of a
planning study was more long term and did not focus on existing development and current possibilities
within a 1 -3 year period. Staff has heard that there are some property owners and developers interested in
development at Five Corners and Westgate but their timeframe is unknown.
For Councilmember Peterson, Mr. Chave explained the UW and CLC project would begin with fall
quarter and extend into mid -2011. The University suggested in their scope of work doing the market
analysis upfront during the fall prior to producing alternatives and discussions with the neighborhood.
Councilmember Wilson advised approximately $25,000 /year is budgeted for the Council Contingency
Fund. The purpose of that fund is for meetings the Council has, cookies for receptions, etc. In the past,
any remaining balance went into a Council Contingency Reserve Fund. In recent years, the balance was
added to the ending fund balance. He suggested if the Council wanted to fund a market analysis, it be
funded from the ending fund balance.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out this is a perfect example of redeveloping and reenergizing
neighborhoods, fostering economic development and being collaborative. This project would be very
inexpensive via the use of CLC and UW under -grad and graduate students - $15 /hour for graduate
students was a great value.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO INITIATE THE NECESSARY AGREEMENTS WITH THE
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON TO PROCEED ON THE STUDY, WITH FUNDING AS
INDICATED.
Councilmember Petso asked how this differed from what had already been done. She referred to the scope
of work, examine existing condition in phase 1, gather public input in phase 2 and plan zoning changes in
phase 3 and asked whether former Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerend had done this for
Five Corners. Mr. Chave answered Ms. Gerend had done the initial public outreach and developed very
general policy direction for Five Corners; however, it was never implemented. That process was not
followed at Westgate.
Councilmember Petso asked what would be different via this project. Mr. Chave answered much more
detail. Councilmember Petso asked if it would simply be another study for the shelf. Mr. Chave answered
the end result would be zoning proposals plus design guidance that could be adopted by Council.
Councilmember Buckshnis added this project would also result in a template that could be used in other
areas. The presentation made to the Port indicated the students would prepare 3 -1) figures, graphic
models, etc. She summarized this was a wonderful opportunity for a partnership between the City, UW
students and CLC.
MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 12
Councilmember Wilson asked staff's recommendation with regard to the market analysis. Mr. Chave
answered he wanted to see something in the way of market analysis. Either approach would be acceptable
depending on what the Council feels it can afford. The main difference is a formal analysis with numbers,
etc. via the higher level effort equates to more confidence. However, with the right team, value could be
achieved from the lower level study. The Council could proceed as Councilmember Peterson suggested,
doing a lower level study now, and a more detailed look in the future.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO REVIEW A COMPREHENSIVE MARKET FEASIBILITY
ASSESSMENT NOT TO EXCEED $20,000.
Mayor Cooper inquired about the funding source. Councilmember Wilson answered the funding source
was the ending fund balance.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked the amount of the ending fund balance. Councilmember Wilson
responded the Comprehensive Annual Finance Review projected the ending fund balance at yearend to be
$1.2 million.
Councilmember Petso commented she did not have enough background to support the motion. She was
unclear about the scope of the project other than some hearings and one Councilmember is concern about
the funding.
Council President Bernheim pointed out the project scope was well described in the draft agreement. He
was confident in the UW's and CLC's integrity in accomplishing the objectives. He was not concerned
with paying $20,000 to an outstanding UW team of under - graduate and graduate students to develop a
specific draft ordinance to accomplish the EDC's recommendations. However, with regard to the market
study, he felt the City could afford a scaled -back study. He observed the market study would set the
parameter for the students regarding the type of development that was feasible for the area. Mr. Chave
agreed, noting there may be more than one option. Council President Bernheim did not support an
extensive market study that cost $25,000 - $30,000. He preferred the $10,000 type of study where a person
with some expertise assisted the UW students.
Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to delay this decision for two weeks until the Council had an
accounting with regard to the balance in the Council Contingency Fund.
Councilmember Wilson offered to withdraw his motion and have staff identify the most appropriate
funding source. Mr. Chave offered to confer with the UW to determine if they have a preference
regarding the level of market analysis.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE
SECOND.
Mayor Cooper advised this would be scheduled on the Council's August 16 agenda.
10. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, explained last April she asked the Council to clarify a description that
appeared in the ferry system's long range plan, an allowance of $26 million to enhance multimodal
connections. Four months later, the City received a reply from the ferry system: the $26 million is a
placeholder for unspecified future enhancements to multimodal connections at the existing facility. No
specific projects have been scoped at this time. She did not find this response adequate or true, referring
to a statement on a previous page in the long range plan that states, one improvement project is scheduled
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 13
to be completed at Edmonds in the 2029 -2031 biennium and will total $26 million. She anticipated that
one project would be a second slip at the existing pier. She urged the City clarify that with the ferry
system, pointing out a second slip would double the capacity of the existing terminal. She planned to
continue speaking and writing until she got an answer to how the $26 million would be spent in Edmonds.
Dave Page, Edmonds, welcomed Mayor Cooper. He recalled in the past the Council was non - partisan
although there were often heated debates and many 4 -3 votes. He urged Councilmembers to abandon their
personal agendas and work together. He recalled the enthusiasm when the Levy Review Committee
subgroups made their reports to the Council, commenting that was the time to pass a levy. He urged the
Council to place a levy on the ballot as soon as possible.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, reported on the successful toy drive at Top Foods July 9 -26, thanking the city
for the Channel 21 and 39 coverage. He thanked Council President Bernheim for participating in the kick-
off, noting there will be other toy drives in the future. With regard to the Stevens /Swedish presentation, he
urged the public to attend the Hospital District meetings.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled the City had been discussing the ferry system for the past 20 years.
Although he enjoyed sitting on the beach and watching the ferries, he did not like the ferry traffic and the
disruption it caused. He preferred to have the ferry terminal relocated to allow the City to reclaim the
mid - waterfront area and ferry lane. He agreed with Ms. Shippen that the ferry system worked in strange
and mysterious ways but they usually had a plan, particularly for $26 million. He referred to the two slips
in Kingston that occupy the entire waterfront. He referred to the "Four No's" developed when he was
Councilmember that stated the Council's opposition to a second slip. A second slip is undesirable because
the ferry system will park a ferry there overnight, a 60 -foot tall structure that will block views. Because
the railroad tracks would be impassable with double tracks, he envisioned the ferry system constructing a
large dock on the water side to house ferry holding lanes.
Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, a member of the EDC, thanked the Council for moving forward with their
proposal. He explained there are a lot of volunteers on the EDC working hard to pursue good ideas and
plan to present additional proposals in the future. Speaking personally, he supported the Council's
decision to delay a decision on the marketing study. The delay would allow the Council to determine
whether there were alternate funding sources to fund the marketing study.
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Cooper welcomed a Boy Scout who was in the audience working on his Communications Merit
Badge.
Mayor Cooper informed the Council that the Hearing Examiner, City Attorney and Prosecuting
Attorney's contracts expire at the end of 2010. He invited Councilmembers to inform staff if they were
interested in doing RFQs for those contracts.
Mayor Cooper reported Snohomish County and the FAA have decided to move forward with additional
study of commercial passenger air at Paine Field. He assured he will continue to communicate the City's
position.
Given the interest in this year's budget, Mayor Cooper announced the budget review committee will
include all seven Councilmembers. He planned to schedule a special meeting on a Saturday morning in
late August to allow the Council to review staff's proposal. He would then use the Council's input to
prepare a budget.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 14
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Wilson commented last week he thanked Council President Bernheim for his leadership
during the interim mayoral period. He relayed his and the Council's appreciation for City staff,
particularly the directors who bear the brunt of long Council meetings. He expressed appreciation for staff
doing what was right, working hard and staying loyal to the community.
To Mr. Page, Councilmember Wilson assured he had not tried to put a bunch of democrats on the
Council. Although there have been comments to the contrary, he assured he was a democrat. He thanked
Mr. Hertrich for his concern about a 60 -foot ferry occupying a second slip and blocking views from
midnight to 4:00 a.m. To Ms. Shippen, he pointed out she had received an answer from the Department of
Transportation that the $26 million was a placeholder. He suggested she not expect any Council action
strengthening the City's position opposing a second slip.
Councilmember Peterson echoed Councilmember Wilson's comments about staff, especially the way staff
works with citizen volunteers whether it is the Transportation Committee, the EDC, the Chamber of
Commerce or the Floretum Garden Club. These organizations care about the City and one of the reasons
staff works closely with those groups was because they also care about the City. He urged citizens to
acknowledge City staff.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas assured staff they were not spinning their wheels and the Council heard
their concerns.
Councilmember Petso echoed the praise for staff, particularly the Public Works Director's heroic effort in
meeting with her for nearly two hours on one of his first days on the job. She was impressed with what
they had accomplished. She thanked Mr. Hertrich and Ms. Shippen for their public comment. She
appreciated Mr. Hertrich history of the ferry system and said Ms. Shippen is entitled to ask how the ferry
system plans to spend $26 million.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff for their assistance with developing information for the Levy
Committee. She explained the Levy Committee is working on a comprehensive way of looking at the
budget and helping the public understand the process. Several presentations will be made to the Levy
Committee; at the last meeting, one of the members who is a CPA gave a presentation on the difference
between governmental accounting standards and financial accounting standards. The Committee's next
meeting is Monday, August 9 at 6:00 p.m. in the Brackett Room.
Council President Bernheim observed the gardens throughout the City look outstanding. He echoed the
appreciation of staff and thanked Mayor Cooper for inviting the Councilmembers to participate in the
budget process. He also thanked Mayor Cooper for the notice regarding expiration of the Hearing
Examiner and City Attorney contracts.
13. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:38 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 3, 2010
Page 15