Loading...
06/28/2005 City CouncilI� M . ,,. June 28, 2005 Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for an Executive Session regarding a real estate matter, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Richard Marin, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Jeff Wilson, Councilmember Mauri Moore, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir. Kathleen. Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir. Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Steve Bullock, Senior Planner Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Cindi Cruz, Executive Assistant Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: Approve (A) ROLL CALL 6/21/05 Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 21, 2005. Approve Claim (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #80402 THROUGH #80622 FOR THE WEEK OF Checks JUNE 20, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $606,610.84. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #40934 THROUGH #41023 FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 1 THROUGH JUNE 15, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $849,067.74. Claims for (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM CAROL A. Damages TORNROOS (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND ROSE L. LAMEY (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED). Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 28, 2005 Page 1 Cemetery (E') AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE EDMONDS MEMORIAL Columbarium CEMETERY COLUMBARIUM PROJECT. Fireworks (I) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE GREATER Display EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REGARDING FUNDING FOR "AN EDMONDS KIND OF FOURTH" FIREWORKS DISPLAY. PFD Loan (G) APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR A LOAN GUARANTEE RELATED TO THE Guarantee EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT PERFORMING ARTS CENTER CONSTRUCTION. Community 3. PRESENTATION BY COMMUNITY TRANSIT Transit Todd Morrow, Director of Public Affairs, Community Transit, expressed Community Transit CEO Joyce Olson's appreciation for the partnership Community Transit has with the City. He expressed appreciation for the leadership Council President Marin exhibits on the Community Transit Board, noting he brings a customer's perspective to the Board due to his extensive use of Community Transit and his strong advocacy for their transportation system. He also expressed his appreciation for Councilmember Moore who serves as an alternate on the Community Transit Board. Mr. Morrow described the level of service provided in Edmonds, advising there were 600 bus trips every weekday, serving all key locations in the City including Stevens Hospital, Senior Center, Edmonds - Woodway High School, the waterfront, Hwy. 99 corridor as well as outside Edmonds including the mall and Edmonds Community College. He advised of the addition of a service to Edmonds' northern neighborhood in September. He explained one of the best indicators of the level of service Community Transit provides is the percentage of population that live within r/4 mile of a bus stop; 80% of Edmonds residents live within r/4 mile of a Community Transit bus stop. Another level of service factor is frequency of service. Many routes in Edmonds have service every 15 minutes during peak hours, and most other routes have service every 30 minutes during peak hours. Mr. Morrow described Community Transit service from Edmonds south that includes four routes to downtown Seattle every weekday for a total of 43 trips and four trips per weekday to the eastside as well as service to the University of Washington. He pointed out commuter service to downtown was available from a variety of locations in Edmonds, not just Park & Rides. He described efforts to improve service to bring people into Edmonds and to provide connections to the ferry, Amtrak and Sounder. One of the best indicators of the success of Community Transit was the large number of people they serve; he referred to information in the materials outlining the number of people served in March 2005. Mr. Morrow commented on their partnership with the City on the Hwy. 99 Redevelopment Study with Community Transit contributing 25% of the cost, noting mixed use and transit oriented development benefited transit. He reported on Bus Rapid Transit (.BRT), explaining BRT would utilize existing investments in the Hwy. 99 corridor including the Business Access Transit lanes as well as transit signal priority equipment. The benefits of BRT include stations with amenities that riders want such as real time information regarding arriva 1 of the next bus, fewer stops along the Hwy. 99 corridor, comfortable rail - like vehicles, minimal right-of-way impacts, and stimulus for transit oriented development. He concluded BRT would move people in a rail -like atmosphere at a bus -like cost along Hwy. 99 between Everett, Lynnwood, Edmonds, Shoreline and Seattle and would compliment proposed plans for light rail and existing commuter bus service on the I -5 corridor and commuter rail via Sounder and Amtrak. Mr. Morrow explained the results of a BRT feasibility study completed in December 2004 projected that daily ridership along Hwy. 99 would nearly double by 2015 . from the current 12,300 riders; half that growth was attributed to BRT. He explained everywhere BRT has been implemented, ridership has exceeded predictions. He commented on the relatively low cost to implement BRT compared to light rail Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 28, 2005 Page 2 as well as relatively quick implementation. He envisioned both Metro and Community Transit would operate BRT as local transit providers but there would be a single identity to the service and hopefully Sound Transit and Everett would contribute to the cost. The project had already received funding from one regional source and the delegation in Congress was supportive and funds have been requested in the reauthorization bill and the appropriations bill. He advised the next step was a station siting study. Mr. Morrow reported Community Transit was also working with Edmonds staff on bus stop locations, Edmonds Crossing and ways to improve connections with ferries and additional Sounder service. He described Community Transit's loss of State funding when the legislature passed the repeal of the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax following the passage of 1 -695 which eliminated 1/3 of their funding. Community Transit subsequently asked voters to raise the sales tax to recover those funds. In the past several years, Community Transit's CEO and the Board have worked to restore the relationship with the State including educating the legislature on the significant role transit plays in increasing roadway capacity. The recently approved transportation package includes $455 million for transit projects over the next 16 years with approximately $20 million to be distributed by the new State Mobility Office during the next biennium. Mr. Morrow explained Community Transit provides Sound Transit service in Snohomish County via a contract as well as works with Sound Transit on a number of issues including service planning to ensure neither duplicates the service provided by the other. Sound Transit's mission was mass, high capacity transit provider to regional centers whereas Community Transit focuses on providing local and commuter bus service as well as other transportation services such as Paratransit. Sound Transit's success affects Community Transit as their projects have improved the transportation infrastructure in Snohomish County such as HOV ramps on I -5. He noted the missteps of one transit provider also impact the public's confidence in transportation governance, thus the importance of the Council being involved in Sound Transit's processes such as the update of their long range plan and Phase 2 discussions. He thanked the Council for their support of the I -5 light rail alignment and the BRT alignment on Hwy. 99. Councilmember Moore commended Community Transit's express bus service, service to Edmonds - Woodway High School and their efforts with regard to BRT on Hwy. 99. She inquired about Community Transit's plans to fill the gap during 2006 -2012 when work on I -5 and the viaduct would occur at the same time. Mr. Morrow answered it was hoped that during construction of those projects, funding would also be available to provide more transit service to meet commuter needs. He commented on their efforts to work with other transit partners during the bus tunnel closure to mitigate the impact that will have on transit service. Edmonds 4. REPORT ON THE EDMONDS HIGHLANDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT Highlands Affordable Housing Jim Braun, Braun & Associates, Chair of the Citizen's Advisory Committee to the Snohomish County Council and Snohomish County Executive, explained the purpose of this presentation was to dispel the notion that affordable housing and Edmonds were an oxymoron. Maryanne Dillon, incoming Regional Director, YWCA of Snohomish County, explained Pathways for Women YWCA has been operating the Bill & Melinda Gates Sound Families Edmonds Highland project since July 2001, a collaboration between YWCA (Pathways for Women) and the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) that provides housing for 21 single mothers with children at a time who are homeless, low income and in need of comprehensive support. All families entering into the Edmonds Highland project have been with Pathways in emergency shelter or transitional housing before applying for the project. Services provided to the families include weekly intensive home -based case management for the duration of the year -long program. With the assistance of a case manager, families develop an individualized action plan with long range goals and receive instruction and education in Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 28, 2005 Page 3 nutrition, building self- esteem, community resources, child development, positive and non - violent communication, household management and other skills. At the Pathways site in Lynnwood, mothers have the opportunity to attend a variety of classes and support groups. Since their inception, Edmonds Highlands has served 31 families and over 50 children, a total of slightly more than 30,000 bed nights. When mothers come to Pathways, they cite loss of primary income as their primary cause of homelessness; for most, incomes range from $500 -$1000 per month. When families live in a family -safe, friendly community such as Edmonds, it helps to increase a family's sense of security, self -worth and dignity, allowing mothers and children to learn new skills and establish strong family bonds. She emphasized the importance of the families having their own space to allow them to stabilize and rebuild. According to the evaluation of the Sound Families initiative done by the Northwest Institute for Children and Families at the University of Washington School of Social Work, families entering Edmonds Highland project have increased their education and income level, acquired a regular doctor or health clinic for their children, missed fewer days from school and received necessary counseling, support groups, legal, credit repair, job training, childcare, etc. to support the family. Ms. Dillon reported 88% of the families have left Edmonds Highlands positively, receiving Section 8 housing and 100% of those families are still in housing one year later. Over three- fourths of the families successfully completing the one year program decided to transition in place at Edmonds Highlands, a higher percentage than other Sound Families sites that have the transition in place options throughout King, Snohomish and Pierce Counties. To date many families have remained at Edmonds Highlands for a third consecutive year, allowing them to keep their children in the same school and avoid changes. The partnership between HASCO and the YWCA was one of the first Sound Families projects to be funded and is regarded as a successful model project. She presented a brief video of a formerly homeless family living at Edmonds Highlands. Affordable 5. REPORT ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS IT RELATES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Housing Mr. Braun advised Bob Harris, Executive Director, HASCO; and Tony Tow, Executive Director, Homesite, were also available to answer questions. Nathan Gordon, Government Affairs Director, Snohomish County - Camano Association of Realtors, provided the HUD definition of affordable housing, "no more than 30% of a family's annual income spent on housing." He pointed out affordable housing also allowed for and encouraged a diverse range of lifestyles and workforces within a community. He described the need for affordable housing in Edmonds, using a housing continuum or ladder to explain that each time someone moves up a rung on the housing ladder opens a rung below. He cited housing prices in Edmonds, the median price at the end of the first quarter of 2005 was $340,000; the median rent in Edmonds for a two bedroom one bath apartment was $726; the median rent for a three bedroom two bath apartment was $960. He summarized the housing prices in Edmonds price several occupations out of owning a home in Edmonds including teachers, firefighters, and registered nurses. Occupations that are priced out of Edmonds rental market include retail sales workers, restaurant cook or entry -level teacher. He commented on the social implications this has including an increase in commuter traffic and the inability for workers to live within the City's borders. Ann Schroeder - Osterberg, HASCO, pointed out the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan contained a goal that addressed affordable housing. She reviewed several challenges associated with providing affordable housing in Edmonds, the first being the cost of development. Limited land supply has driven up land costs and made building new affordable housing virtually impossible in Edmonds. Strategies for success include purchasing existing multi family rental buildings either preserving the existing affordable housing or converting them to affordable housing. She shared photographic examples of buildings HASCO has acquired including Edmonds Highlands in Edmonds, Whispering Pines in Lynnwood, the historic Soap Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 28, 2005 Page 4 Suds cottages in Snohomish, and Markland Woods Condominiums in Mountlake Terrace. She commented on a possible future opportunity for HASCO to acquire the 88 -unit Olympic View and Sound View development. Mr. Gordon addressed the second challenge, the rapidly appreciating housing market in Edmonds caused by high demand and a low supply of houses and land available for sale. He cited housing prices in Edmonds at the end of the first quarter of 2005, a median price of $340,000; an average sale price of $428,820, 14 houses on the market priced between $200,000 and $250,000; 35 priced between $250,000 and $300,000 and 31 priced between $300,000 and $350,000. He explained the social implications of this were predatory lending and unsafe buying practices such as waived inspections and interest -only mortgages. Studies indicate a stable living environment provided by home ownership or a stable rental environment was better for the family and the City via students with higher scores, higher levels of education, and children who are more likely to become homeowners themselves one day. He concluded a more friendly housing market benefited not only families but also made better citizens. He sited solutions such as encouraging areas of greater density, monitoring the total amount of fees and building inspections which add to the cost of housing, monitor ing the amount of code requirements, and investigating reduced parking requirements in appropriate areas as an incentive for including affordable units. Mr. Gordon highlighted two of the realtors' 2006 legislative priorities, HB 2323 that would remove barriers to accessory housing and a housing tax incentive. Ms. Schroeder - Osterberg reviewed solutions to the rapidly increasing housing market including projects developed with non - profit partners and condominium conversions. Ms. Schroeder- Osterberg addressed the third challenge, neighborhood resistance. She explained HASCO encountered this at Edmonds Highlands but the result was a success story that provided housing for people who work in the community. She provided photographs of successful affordable housing developments in Snohomish County. She noted providing affordable housing would help meet the stated goal in the City's Comprehensive :Plan of reducing isolation among income groups. She addressed the fourth challenge, deterioration of older properties. She cited the Housing Authority's single family rehabilitation loan program that was available to home owners with limited incomes (income below $40,000 for a senior and below $58,000 for a family of four). She displayed photographs of rehabilitated older properties in Snohomish County. She summarized HASCO was the County's local housing provider, had a good track record as developers and were happy to work with Edmonds should an opportunity arise in the future. FAU 71 plorm x41116lu i mal Im Budget Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, recalled in some years the City has had budget Hearings 1 hearings by the end of June. He referred to a citizen effort to build a new aquatic center in the City. He advised a committee established by the Edmonds School District has recommended a reduction in the aquas" center number of surplus sites from ten to five and recommended the sale of three including the former School Distriet Woodway Elementary site, the administration building on 196Yh and the warehouse. Next he advised the Property Senior Center may be seeking matching funds for a grant they received. Rick Miller, 23632 107"' Place W, Edmonds, commented on retaining the old Woodway Elementary Old Elementary y School site. He noted there were man in the audience from the neighborhood surrounding the site and Elementary y g g there were also many others who were concerned with the possible loss of the fields including league teams, informal teams as well as families. The school site is a popular area to walk dogs, fly model airplanes and train/ride horses. The parking lot is often used for training by the Edmonds Fire Department as well as overflow parking for swim meets nearby. He concluded this was rare public land Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 28, 2005 Page 5 that could never be replaced and he encouraged the Council to protect as much of the land as possible for use as fields, aggressively pursue grants and engage the Town of Woodway to assist financially. Old Corinne Beuchet, 10109 238`b Street SW, Edmonds, commented she walks her dogs at the Woodway Elementary entarWoodway Elementary School site daily, people and making connections. This was the only parkland she Elementary rY Y� g h P g Y P was able to reach on foot and it was a place where she and her dogs could walk without encountering traffic. She described her involvement with the Edmonds dog beach, envisioning she could also be involved with taking care of a park on this site. She urged the Council to retain the park. Old Woodway Bobj Berger, 19024 83rd Avenue W, Edmonds, suggested the buildings on the Woodway Elementary Elementary J School could be used for meetings of the local National Model Railroad Association that currently meets in Shoreline. The buildings could be used as an ongoing site for several mode 1 railroad associations and a model railroad museum and the gym for a display room. He explained there was also an opportunity for a garden railroad at the site in cooperation with the Puget Sound Garden Railway Society which was founded by the membership of the National Model Railroad Association. He concluded the second highest revenue generator for the State of California, outside of tax revenue, was the California State Railroad Museum ii Sacramento, an indication that such a facility could contribute to the Edmonds community and make Edmonds a destination. Old Woodway Gerry Ann Nichols, 23620 107th Place W, Edmonds, a former resident on Firdale Avenue who has Elementary since moved to 10,th Place SW, commented on changes in the density and traffic on Firdale Avenue and 1001h. While living on Firdale Avenue, the only place they could walk that was quiet, teach a child to ride a bike, or play with a dog was the area between the cemetery and the Woodway Elementary School. The park was well cared for by the people whose dogs use the park and it was one of the few places in the City to view the night sky. She suggested an observatory on the site and/or a community center. She urged the Council to preserve the property for the community and not to install lights. Isslues John Reed, 720 " Avenue S, Edmonds, incoming President, Alliance for Citizens of Edmonds Bu ues g xeign 6t(ACE), read the goals of ACE, 1) to retain the residential, small town atmosphere of Edmonds and protect it from harmful development, 2) to preserve the low -level architecture of Edmonds which allows minimal obstructions of views and sunlight, and to preserve other amenities that make Edmonds a desirable home, 3) to retain a healthy business community in Edmonds, 4) to encourage types of housing and business development which are harmonious with the character of Edmonds, 5) to identify and support public works and other civic projects which improve the safety, beauty and livability of our community, 6) to encourage the preservation and restoration of older houses and buildings which are reflective of the history of Edmonds, and 7) to protect the natural environment of the city, including its streams, trees, beaches, parks, and open spaces, from uses that adversely affect and impair its use and enjoyment by the people of Edmonds. He commented these goals with a few minor exceptions were similar to the goals of the Council, the Chamber, the City and a large majority of citizens. He remarked the Mayor, city planners, Economic Development Director, and several Councilmembers believe the future of the City rests on creating an environment that encourages development and that taller buildings and higher ceilings would lead to development of high priced residential property and influx of retail business and sales tax. He noted the plan forwarded to the Planning Board allows 30 -33 foot structures downtown except in the Art Corridor and flat roofs may be allowed depending on the outcome of Design Guidelines. He summarized ACE was willing to compromise but believed, a) some of the Council's assumptions may be wrong, and b) the plan forwarded to the Planning Board went much further than necessary for the common goals of economic viability and retaining the small town atmosphere of Edmonds. He urged the Council to reconsider the plan when a recommendation is provided by the Planning Board. Old Woodway Heather Marks, 10522 Robber Roost Road, Edmonds, explained the greenbelt between her house and Elementary the Woodway Elementary School was the reason they purchased their house 19 years ago. She asked for a show of hands of those who wanted to see something good happen with the Woodway Elementary Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 28, 2005 Page 6 School site and a majority of the audience and Council responded. She remarked on the number of children and families who visit the park. She assured that she and other dog owners were good stewards of the property, picking up after their dogs as well as picking up other debris. She concluded the property was a wonderful resource for nature and she urged the Council to preserve the entire property as their legacy for future generations. Old woodWay Kay Waters, 10307 240"' Place SW, Edmonds, spoke in favor of preserving the Woodway Elementary Elementary School site as open space for children and families. She was concerned with the possibility of providing a developer higher density as an incentive. She referred to ACE's goals, pointing out Edmonds and particularly this site was not appropriate for high density housing. Old woodWay Carl Rautenberg, 10610 235th Place SW, Edmonds, referred to the average value of housing in Elementary Edmonds of $427,000, recalling when he purchased his home 30 years ago, the average price was approximately $17,950. He noted assessed valuation for land in Edmonds has increased approximately 20 times the value during the past 20 years. Therefore, if the City purchased the school property for $11 million, in 25 years, it would be worth $250 million. Planned Ron Wambolt, 530 Dayton Street, Edmonds, acknowledged housing prices were escalating in Residential Edmonds as well as throughout the country for a variety of reasons. His research of Snohomish County's Development Assessor's Office website indicated most of the increase was in the land not the home. He commented in addition to the shortage of land in Edmonds, another problem was that via Planned Residential Development (PRD) a developer could build eight homes on an acre versus four homes, thus he would be willing to pay more for the parcel and in fact does. His research found the land prices of parcels where PRDs were built were astronomical. He suggested the Council reconsider the value of PRDs. Roger Hertrieh, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, recalled in Mayor Haakenson's memo to the Council Elementary la woodWay regarding the former Woodwa y Elementa iS' School site , g y p he endorsed retaining only two acres fora ark and stated his unwillingness to pursue any more staff time researching grant funding, yet Councilmember Moore was able to identify several funding sources. He reiterated the suggestion that the Council hire Arvilla Ohlde to pursue grants for the purchase of the site. He supported retaining the entire 11 acre site and urged the Council to listen to the public. Planned Council President Marin asked staff to respond to Mr. Wambolt's assertion that a developer could build Residential p more houses on an acre via a PRD. Development Services Director Duane Bowman responded that was Development p not true. Economic 7. UPDATE ON WORK PLAN FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT OF THE Development COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Element of the Comprehensive Plan Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerend recalled at the Council retreat, the Council reviewed sample outlines of Comprehensive Plan Economic Development elements provided by the State Department Community, Trade and Economic Development as well as policies from other cities. She reviewed the outline she developed for ai Economic Development Comprehensive Plan Element for Edmonds, explaining it would contain an introduction and approach to economic development followed by sections regarding the local economy and economic development goals and policies. She envisioned the element would be approximately seven pages. Ms. Gerend reviewed a proposed work plan for the element, beginning with collection of data, summarizing past local economic development efforts, summarizing relevant national current thinking on economic development, and meeting with local and regional economic development stakeholders during the summer and early fall, followed by a presentation to the Council of her analysis in October/November, creation of the draft economic development element in November /December, update Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 28, 2005 Page 7 to the Council in November /December, Planning Board review in January 2006 and Council adoption of the element with other new /revised elements in April 2006. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the element would contain goals that were measurable and accountable as well as tools for measuring the success of economic development efforts. Ms. Gerend answered she envisioned that would be accomplished during development of the element. 8. DISCUSSION REGARDING GOVERNMENT RELATIONS IN WASHINGTON DC Government Relations in Community Services Director Stephen Clifton explained since the Final EIS was issued for Edmonds Washington D Crossing in 2004, he has been contacted by a number of consultants inquiring about the City's interest in the services of a Washington DC consultant to assist the City in securing more federal funding. Since 2002, the City has successfully secured $6.5 million in three separate appropriations for Edmonds Crossing as well as $372,500 for the Edmonds Center for the Arts. He explained this has involved his meeting with Senate and House staff to educate them on the projects, submitting appropriations, monitoring and following the legislative process, and calling legislative aids to remind and educate them about the projects. He acknowledged the assistance provided by Mayor Haakenson, Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin, Executive Assistant Cindi Cruz and Governmental Specialist Mike Doubleday. Mr. Clifton acknowledged it was unknown whether the City might have secured more funding via the use of a consultant; however, other cities have found they are able to secure more funding. The consultants he contacted estimated the cost at $5,00046,000 per month. He pointed out the City would not utilize a consultant all months of the year, only post - submittal of an appropriations until the legislature approved the budget in the fall. If the Council was interested in securing the services of a consultant, Mr. Clifton indicated he would prepare a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and bring any proposals to the Council. Councilmember Moore endorsed the use of a consultant, particularly since the effort could be isolated to the time of the year when the assistance was most needed in Washington DC. She expressed her thanks to Jack McCray, Edmonds Community College Board, who encouraged her to pursue this concept. Mr. Clifton advised he recently submitted a request for $30 million, but it was too early in the legislative process to determine whether it has been included in any bill. Councilmember Olson also endorsed the City's use of a consultant in Washington DC, remarking Mr. Doubleday has offered valuable assistance at the State level and there were many communities who were able to obtain funding via the use of effective lobbying. Council President Marin asked whether the RFQ process could identify an appropriate consultant and employ him/her only for the necessary period. Mr. Clifton answered yes, explaining it would be similar to the way the City utilized Mr. Doubleday. For the audience, he explained Mr. Doubleday represents the City in Olympia via a concentrated effort during the legislative session and meeting with representatives to describe projects. Mr. Clifton commented once a project begins construction, the likelihood of additional funding increases. Council. President Marin supported identifying a consultant to have available when the appropriate time arose. Councilmember Wilson pointed out the City was not obligated to proceed by advertising an RFQ. Mr. Clifton stated an RFQ would only solicit qualified people to perform the work and determine the cost. Councilmember Wilson expressed interest in reviewing a list of cities of comparable size who utilized the services of a lobbyist and their return on investment. Councilmember Plunkett supported doing due diligence such as Councilmember Wilson described. He was reluctant to employ the services of a consultant absent tangible evidence that the services would be beneficial. Councilmember Moore suggested staff contact the City of Shoreline. Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 28, 2005 Page 8 Old Woodway 9. DISCUSSION ON THE POSSIBLE ACQUISITION OF ALL OR PART OF THE OLD Elementary WOODWAY ELEMENTARY SITE In response to Mr. Hertrich's remarks under Audience Comments, Mayor Haakenson invited anyone with questions /comments about his thoughts on the acquisition of Woodway Elementary School to call or email him. Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Brian McIntosh responded to the following questions raised by the Council at the June 7 meeting: Possible Funding Sources: ? Application to Snohomish County for Mitigation Funds - Snohomish County Parks staff have the ability to act on projects that meet the goals of the County Comprehensive Parks Plan. Acquisition of the entire site would help meet the goals of the County for this area and would be eligible for these funds. County staff could recommend up to $1.24 million at this time toward purchase and additional mitigation funds if they became available. The staff recommendation would be to the County Parks Board for approval and then to the County Executive and County Council for consideration. An Interlocal Agreement would complete the process. ? Parks Acquisition Fund 126 (REST 1) REET I collection 2001 -2003: approximately $750,000 /year REET 1 collection 2004: $978,000 FEET 1 collection 2005: similar to 2004 levels Debt service paid from this fund on City Hall, Marina Beach, library roof and the PSCC purchase will be $736,000 this year and reduced to $668,000 for the next ten years until City Hall debt service is paid off. Long range purchasing priorities from this fund continue to be waterfront /tidelands access, Old Woodway Elementary School, neighborhood park in Meadowdale Heights /north end and miscellaneous open space. Considerations: This fund is doing well with current housing market but can be volatile. Possible matching grant funds for up to $500,000 from State IAC grants. Parks Improvement Fund 125 (REST 2) - REET 2 collection is similar dollar amounts to REET 1 but is not encumbered by debt service. This fund is used for citywide improvements in all parks which include restroom renovations, play structure replacements, drainage improvements and recent projects such as Marina Beach renovation. Projects are prioritized in the CIP. Larger incoming projects include the Interurban Trail development and the proposed skate park. If the entire I 1 acre site were purchased and fully developed, the costs would be $1.1- $1.4 million which would include design, permitting project management and standard amenities including two playfields, play structure, basketball, tennis, restrooms, shelters, trails, paths, open turf areas, landscaping and parking. The costs could be put on hold or phased in as development resources became available. Development of a smaller 2 -4 acre park site with standard amenities would be $1.00,000 - $600,000. Consideration: Possible matching grant funds from IAC for development but they cannot be applied for during the same year as an acquisition application. ? Conservation Grants - Generally used for natural and open space preservation of farmland, steams, river trails and corridors. Private Foundations - The larger foundations in this area are usually for specific goals: Gates — education, Allen — health, Bullitt — natural, physical environment, Weyerhaeuser — support communities they are located in (pool in Federal Way) ? State Capital Budget for Local /Community Projects -Pursue funding through local legislators outside the IAC process. Maintenance Costs - Maintenance costs for a fully functioning 11 acre park with standard fields and amenities would be approximately $65,000 per year. Costs include labor, vehicbs, supplies and Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 28, 2005 Page 9 equipment. To maintain the 11 acre site in its current condition with minimal maintenance and no major improvements would be approximately $8,000 per year. Maintenance Costs for a fully functioning 4 acre park would be $20,000 per year and $10,000 per year for a 2 acre park. Costs include labor, vehicles, supplies and equipment. Conflicts /Competition for Same Dollars with Old Woodway High School - There are no acquisition funds needed for the old high school site. The property is owned by the School District with deed restrictions requiring the site be used for educational and/or recreational purposes. Both the elementary and high school sites require development /improvement funds. As a partner in the development of the old high school site, Fund 125 for park improvements would be the City funding source. Sate IAC grant applications would likely accompany all phases of this project. Demolition Costs - The School District recently demolished 2 elementary schools, Martha Lake approximately 5 years ago and Esperance Elementary 3 years ago. A fire partially destroyed the Martha Lake School which resulted in an emergency situation to expedite the demolition process and allowed the district to reduce overhead and work in a time and materials mode. Cost of demolition was $421,000. The Esperance School, with sections built in the 1930's, created many more challenges and final costs were $1.19 million. Councilmember Wilson asked how the Old Woodway Elementary School was identified in the current Comprehensive Plan. Mr. McIntosh answered it was listed as a neighborhood park Councilmember Wilson noted a neighborhood park was also identified for the Meadowdale Height area. Mr. McIntosh answered that park would be second in a list of priorities; the area was identified as lacking but there was currently no property identified. Councilmember Wilson asked how a neighborhood park was defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. McIntosh answered there were 10 neighborhood parks in the City ranging from 1 acre to 5.5 acres. A neighborhood generally drew from a % mile walking radius. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Comprehensive Plan identified a size for neighborhood parks, commenting the existing neighborhood parks tended to be smaller than the Woodway Elementary School site. Mr. McIntosh answered because Edmonds is largely a built community, many of the parcels were smaller and averaged approximately 2 acres in size. Councilmember Wilson commented much of the public comment supported the City purchasing the entire 11 acre site to obtain the full use of the site. What position would this put the City in should the residents in Meadowdale want a park of a similar size. Mr. McIntosh doubted that a property of that size would become available in that area. In areas that were underserved, the City generally entered into a capital partnership with the elementary schools to enhance the school sites to serve as a neighborhood park. Councilmember Wilson referred to comments from the public that ranged from retaining the fields to using the property for passive recreation. Mr. McIntosh answered that given the size and location, all those uses could be accommodated within the park Councilmember Wilson asked whether there was any reason to demolish the buildings such as the presence of safety hazards or the age of the building. Mr. McIntosh stated the buildings were constructed in the 1950s and had been used until a few years ago. The buildings would need to be evaluated in order to make a determination whether they could be retained. If the buildings were retained as a community center, the costs for maintenance and operation would be much higher. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the $1.1 -$1.4 million estimate for improvements included any infrastructure such as sidewalks to reach the park, signalization to accommodate increased use of the fields, etc. Mr. McIntosh answered the cost estimate was for park improvements only. Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 28, 2005 Page 10 Councilmember Moore questioned the $8,000 estimate to maintain the park as it is now. Mr. McIntosh stated the City did minimal maintenance during the summer months when the fields are rented The City has an Interlocal Agreement with the school district for those fields and a few others to provide maintenance daring the season. Councilmember Moore inquired about the amount of rental the City received from field rental and the Montessori School. Mr. McIntosh was not certain the amount of rent paid by the Montessori School but estimated the field rent at $3,000 - $5,000. Councilmember Moore concluded the net maintenance costs then would be less than $8,000. Councilmember Moore asked where a 2-acre park might be located if the remainder of the site were developed with housing. Mr. McIntosh anticipated the park would be in the southeast corner. Councilmember Moore noted under that scenario, houses would replace the fields. She inquired about the size of the greenbelt. Mr. McIntosh answered the location of the park and the size of the greenbelt would depend on what portion of the site the City obtained and what portion a developer obtained. Administrative Services Director Dan Clements displayed an aerial map of the area, identifying the former Woodway Elementary School and the former Edmonds - Woodway High School site. He reviewed the following funding scenarios requested by the Council: * These sources are not guaranteed funding During his review, Mr. Clements explained the school district indicated they have received seven offers over $7 million; thus an acquisition cost of $7.5 million (prorated for the smaller acreages) was used in the above scenarios. He relayed staff's understanding that the County Council funding would not be available for purchase of smaller portions of the site. Mayor Haakenson clarified any park land provided by a developer would be as mitigation. With regard to a question regarding the stability of BEET as a repayment source, Mr. Clements advised finance staff felt the purchase of the entire site could be funded although it would limit future purchases such as an acquisition in the Meadowdale area. Councilmember Moore pointed out if the City purchased the entire 11 acre site and another opportunity arose in the future, the City could sell a portion of the 11 acre site to purchase property elsewhere. Mr. Clements acknowledged that was a Council option. Mayor Haakenson clarified once the park was 11 acres, it would be difficult to sell a portion of it to purchase property elsewhere. Councilmember Dawson asked whether staff had approached Woodway about a joint partnership to purchase the property. Mr. Clements answered no. Mayor Haakenson cautioned if Woodway contributed to the purchase, they would want a walkway /path to the park, an issue that had been argued in the past. Councilmember Dawson found it worthwhile to explore having Woodway provide some funding, particularly since Woodway residents likely used the property as much as Edmonds residents. Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 28, 2005 Page 11 Full Site Nei hborhood Park Item 1l. Acres 11 Acres 2 Acres 3 Acres 4 Acres 6 Acres 8 Acres Acquisition /Site Prep Cost $7,500,000 $7,500,000 $0 $681,818 $1,363,636 $4,090,909 $5,454,545 Demolition /Hazmat $1,000,000 $0 $181,818 $272,727 $363,636 $545,455 $727,273 Funding: County: Council $1,240,000 $1,240,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 County: Lund Gulch* $800,000 $800,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 City: Fund 126 Acquisition $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 City: Fund 126 Balance $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 State: IAC * $500,000 $500,000 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 Funding Surplus Deficit ($3,960,000) ($2,960,000) $1,818,182 $1,545,455 $772,727 ($2,136,364) ($3,681,818) Debt Service Annual Debt Service $318,000 $237,518 $0 $0 $0 $171,427 $295,439 * These sources are not guaranteed funding During his review, Mr. Clements explained the school district indicated they have received seven offers over $7 million; thus an acquisition cost of $7.5 million (prorated for the smaller acreages) was used in the above scenarios. He relayed staff's understanding that the County Council funding would not be available for purchase of smaller portions of the site. Mayor Haakenson clarified any park land provided by a developer would be as mitigation. With regard to a question regarding the stability of BEET as a repayment source, Mr. Clements advised finance staff felt the purchase of the entire site could be funded although it would limit future purchases such as an acquisition in the Meadowdale area. Councilmember Moore pointed out if the City purchased the entire 11 acre site and another opportunity arose in the future, the City could sell a portion of the 11 acre site to purchase property elsewhere. Mr. Clements acknowledged that was a Council option. Mayor Haakenson clarified once the park was 11 acres, it would be difficult to sell a portion of it to purchase property elsewhere. Councilmember Dawson asked whether staff had approached Woodway about a joint partnership to purchase the property. Mr. Clements answered no. Mayor Haakenson cautioned if Woodway contributed to the purchase, they would want a walkway /path to the park, an issue that had been argued in the past. Councilmember Dawson found it worthwhile to explore having Woodway provide some funding, particularly since Woodway residents likely used the property as much as Edmonds residents. Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 28, 2005 Page 11 Councilmember Wilson referred to Mayor Haakenson's memo that referenced funding via Representative Sullivan and asked whether that was included in the funding scenarios. Mr. Clements answered it was not included. Councilmember Wilson pointed out to obtain that funding, the fields would need to be lighted. Councilmember Plunkett thanked the Mayor and staff for researching funding scenarios, commenting until about 11:00 a.m. today, the Council did not know the revenue stream to acquire more acreage existed He concluded where the funding could be identified had been resolved; the question was now how much property to purchase. Councilmember Moore commented she had not heard anything that would dissuade her from pursuing purchase of the 11 acres, noting there were a number of uses that were dependent on acquiring the entire parcel including the open space and the wooded greenbelt. Breaking up the land between development and park would radically alter the current uses on the site and likely result in the loss of the greenbelt and fields. She did not favor demolishing the building or doing any development immediately. Having just read the Park Comprehensive Plan, she did not find acquiring the l l acres to be inconsistent with the Park Comprehensive Plan. She expressed support for the City providing a Right of First Refusal to the Edmonds School District and using BEET funds to finance the purchase. In the event another opportunity arose in the future, she cautioned the Council may need to make another difficult decision such as considering the sale of a portion of the site. Councilmember Dawson expressed her support for providing a Right of First Refusal to the Edmonds School District She did not support demolishing the buildings at this time as there may be some use of the buildings that may lead to other grant opportunities. She asked whether the Right of First Refusal would be a 90% offer to the school district which they can offer to the City. She was inclined to submit a Right of First Refusal for 90% of the purchase price, pointing out a developer would not be able to complete the purchase for years due to the number of processes and contingencies that would be necessary. The school district may find that having the money n hand from the City may be more valuable than having the funds from a developer in 2+ years. She also recommended residents in the area encourage the school district to sell the property to the City so it could be retained as open space. Councilmember Olson agreed with submitting a Right of First Refusal for 90% of the purchase price. If the City did not purchase the property and it was sold for development, it would be lost forever. Council President Marin and Councilmember Orvis agreed. If the Council wanted to pursue purchasing the property, Mr. Clements suggested an appraisal be done. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL FOR SUBMITTAL TO THE EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT WITH THE FIRST BLANK, AMOUNT OF PAYMENT, COMPLETED WITH $1,000; THE SECOND BLANK, PERCENTAGE OF THE PRICE, COMPLETED WITH 90 %, AND THE THIRD BLANK, DATE OF EXPIRATION, COMPLETED WITH OCTOBER 1, 2005, AND DIRECT STAFF TO BEGIN THE PROCESS OF OBTAINING AN APPRAISAL ON THE SITE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. Design 10. WORK SESSION ON DESIGN GUIDELINES Guidelines Planning Manager Rob Chave explained staff used the 2001 Design Guidelines draft that contained a process section, a site design and two sections regarding buildings — building form and building facade — and a landscape section. He relayed Mr. Hinshaw's suggestion to retain the site design, landscaping and process as code sections and have the two sections on buildings in the design guidelines. Mr. Chave referred to Exhibit 1 in the packet that were code sections, explaining the site design section was divided Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 28, 2005 Page 12 into two chapters, 1) site considerations for downtown only, and 2) general site considerations for other areas of the City. The landscape chapter was essentially the same as the 2001 draft. Mr. Chave referred to Exhibit 2 in the packet, guidelines that address building design issues. He explained the design guidelines were divided into two sections, 1) for downtown (essentially Mr. Hinshaw's recommendations) and 2) for other areas of the City. He noted the code process was essentially the same as the 2001 draft with one recommendation from City Attorney Scott Snyder regarding the relationship of the design guidelines to the Comprehensive Plan. Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerend explained the addition of awning and sign guidelines would allow staff to make more administrative decisions which saved businesses time and assisted them in understanding the City's expectations. Guidelines were also a tool for the City to encourage signage and awnings that would add to the overall atmosphere of downtown. She explained many downtown revitalization programs have facade improvement programs; in the absence of a formal program in Edmonds, the guidelines provide a way to incentivize what the City would like to see downtown. She explained the awnings and signage related to the 12 -foot "living room" that Mr. Hinshaw referred to as one walked down a retail street. She reviewed several photographs that illustrated how awning and signage related to the goals of the design guidelines. The goals of awning and signage were to reduce clutter, allow for maximum visibility along a retail corridor with multiple signage and awning elements, add to the overall aesthetics and retail identity of the downtown, provide guidance while allowing for creative possibilities. She reviewed photographs of awning and signage that provide corner appeal, first floor color, hanging shingle signs with lighting, and differentiating the first floor from upper floors. Ms. Gerend displayed photographs of wall graphics, explaining this was a way to break up a blank wall. She described what to avoid, multiple awnings with side valances that block each other and other possible forms of signage, hindering pedestrian view from the sidewalk. She commented on considerations for awnings including shape, open sided, front valance, fixed or retractable, height, relationship to building elements, multiple storefronts in one building. She commented on awning materials, explaining some historic shopping areas opt for canvas awnings; shiny, high -gloss materials may not be appropriate. The limitation on materials was not currently addressed in the draft design guidelines. She displayed photographs of decorative blade signs, recalling the Community Services/Development Services Committee discussed incentivizing decorative blade signs; one option would be for the design guidelines to consider them a ground level detail. Councilmember Moore asked what additional elements needed to be added to the design guidelines. Ms. Gerend answered materials and artistic wall graphics. She described a box awning, marquee awning and convex awning and recommended the City encourage simple awnings. Councilmember Moore noted some pages appeared to be redundant. Mr. Chave replied that this was necessary as some sections applied to downtown and others applied to other areas of the City. Mr. Chave commented reference to the rmdulation requirement had been deleted from the old design guidelines . Some of the more significant differences between the old design guidelines and the revised design guidelines were the areas outside of downtown (multi family and commercial) have a massing and articulation section which was required due to the character /size of buildings in those areas. Councilmember Moore referred to verbiage regarding awning materials, "a process to consider alternative creative designs" and asked what process would be created to consider creative designs. Ms. Gerend answered the goal was to provide guidance to allow more awnings to be approved administratively. Councilmember Moore recommended in addition to the photographs of good design, the design guidelines also contain example of awnings /signs that would not be allowed. Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 28, 2005 Page 13 Responding to Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Chave statedd with the exception of the two pages on awning and signs, the downtown section was essentially as Mr. Hinshaw recommended. Councilmember Orvis referred to the massing and articulation section on page 3 of the design guidelines, questioning whether this would preclude development of the Tully's building. Mr. Chave pointed out the building might be designed slightly differently because it has a uniform exterior character but the courtyard would be in keeping with the design guidelines. Councilmember Moore referred to a difference in the guidelines between downtown and other areas of the city, 75% transparency at the street level and 30% in other zones. She asked if the greater percentage of transparency would be desirable in any retail area. Mr. Chave stated retail buildings in areas outside of downtown were usually not as close to the sidewalk for example in Five Corners or Westgate. Councilmember Moore referred to a phrase in the Treating of Blank Walls section, "there shall be no blank wall within 25 feet of a residential building." Mr. Chave stated that language was from the 2001 design guidelines, it may be appropriate to have language describing a distance from the property line. Councilmember Moore asked whether the code defined banners and pennants. Mr. Chave did not recall a specific definition other than there could not be movement or lighting. Councilmember Moore referred to the landscaping chapter, commenting the guidelines seemed very complex. Mr. Chave answered a great deal of this was currently addressed via the Architectural Design Board If the goal was to have as much of the design guidelines be as predicable as possible, there needed to be clearly defined standards. Councilmember Dawson expressed concern with the lack of direction in the design guidelines for residential on the ground floor in downtown. She preferred there be more detail regarding what it should look like and how it was incorporated with the rest of downtown. Councilmember Dawson questioned whether transparency was a good idea for ground floor residential The Ground Level Details section addressed ground-floor, street facing facades of commercial and mixed use buildings but did not address purely residential buildings other than ground floor residential space and entries may be elevated above the street to provide enhanced privacy for residents. Councilmember Dawson referred to the issue of "consistency with the Comprehensive Plan," recalling criteria in the code previously that required consistency with the Comprehensive Plan for approval of a design, which the City Attorney recommended be removed. The City Attorney preferred direction in the Comprehensive Plan be incorporated into the design guidelines instead of requiring consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Wilson suggested Juidscaping for parking lots adjacent to residential also require landscaping /shrubs to minimize glare from headlights onto adjacent residential properties. He referred to a statement regarding trees and shrubs in parking lots to reduce build up of heat from pavement, suggesting a graphic representation of such a layout. Councilmember Wilson objected to the use of "minimally" in the awning and sign section of the design guidelines for downtown, finding it too subjective. He recommended the use of vague terms be avoided in the design guidelines. Councilmember Wilson pointed out the design guidelines did not address rooftop mechanical equipment or screening rooftop equipment. He recommended the intent be to minimize the public's view of the rooftop mechanical equipment. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 28, 2005 Page 14 Councilmember Plunkett requested the ADB be provided a copy of the code and design guidelines. Mr. Chave advised next Wednesday, staff was providing the ADB copies of the current draft and any modifications the Council recommended for review and discussion. Councilmember Moore referred to the Ground Level Details section and the guideline that ground floor residential space could be elevated, questioning why elevated was preferable to sunken. She recalled Mr. Hinshaw commented the sunken first floor of an existing building would be appropriate for housing as it provided some privacy. Mr. Chave answered it was preferable to have residential areas elevated above the sidewalks as it allowed more light and air to enter the unit. He noted a below street level unit was not as desirable for residential use and must depend on artificial light. Councilmember Wilson recommended the design guidelines address the possibility of residential above structured parking at the street level Mr. Chave advised there was some reference to that in the landscape and site design sections but it could be increased in the design guidelines. Council President Marin expressed his appreciation to staff for their work on the draft design guidelines. He advised the City Council would hold a public hearing on the design guidelines on July 19. Councilmember Wilson was not able to attend that meeting, however, he would submit questions and review the tape of the public hearing and deliberations would begin at the July 26 meeting. 11. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF JUNE 14 2005 Finance Finance Committee - Councilmember Plunkett reported the Committee reviewed the Treatment Plant committee I Reorganization which the Council passed as a Consent Agenda Item. The Committee then discussed the Esperance Island annexation which the Council also addressed at last week's meeting. Next, staff provided an update on energy saving projects that would provide for a variety of HVAC and energy efficiency improvements at the Library, Public Safety Building and City Hall. Committee members reviewed the costs associated with various improvements and staff was directed to bring this item back to the Committee with a funding plan as part of the mid -year budget amendment process. Public safety Public Safety Committee - Councilmember Dawson reported the Committee discussed the purchase of a committee fire- rescue boat via a State Homeland Security grant; the Council approved advertising for bids for the boat on last week's Consent Agenda. The Committee also discussed the Esperance Island annexation . which the Council addressed at last week's meeting. csiDs Community Services/Development Services Committee - Councilmember Moore reported the Committee committee discussed the Six Year Transportation Improvement Program which the Council considered at a public hearing on June 21. The Committee then discussed awnings, signs and small tenant improvements which the Council discussed tonight. Next the Committee discussed the Esperance Island annexation which was discussed by the full Council at last week's meeting. 12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. 13. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE /BOARD MEETINGS Auianceof Council President Marin reported 6-8 weeks ago he and Councilmember Moore discussed the concept of Neignborin working more closely with neighboring cities. He explained there may be times when the position of the cities cities would carry more weight if the cities of Edmonds, Lynnwood, Woodway, Brier, and Mountlake Terrace were united. He has since broached the idea with neighboring cities and received a very good response. He advised a committee /alliance would be developed in the near future with one Councilmember from each of the five Councils who would meet periodically to discuss issues and to identify areas of common interest. Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 28, 2005 Page 15 Councilmember Dawson reported during last year's budget process, the Snohomish County Council SnoCom included a budget note requesting the County Executive consider the feasibility of consolidating communication centers in the county which the County Executive is currently doing. She met with the past chairs of SnoCom who agreed this issue was the same as discussed 30 years ago and it still was not a good idea to consolidate the communication centers. A report has been prepared indicating why the cities of South Snohomish County feel having their own communication center is the best option. At the last SnoCom meeting, it was the consensus of the membership to have Councils reaffirm this position. She planned to present a resolution to the Council reiterating South Snohomish County's preference for local control over their communication center and having a voice on the board. Most entities were not represented on the board of the other large communication center in Snohomish County. Conversely, at SnoCom, all cities in South Snohomish County are represented on the board which allows them to have a vote in the operations as well as how funds are spent. She advised the cities of Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Mukilteo, Woodway, and Mill Creek would be considering similar resolutions to express to Snohomish County Council their preference to retain their own communication center. Lodging Tax Councilmember Olson reported the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee was accepting applications for Advisory lodging tax funds for projects that bring people to Edmonds. Committee Port of Councilmember Orvis reported the Port discussed proposed Department of Ecology standards for their Edmonds boatyard which the Port felt would be quite restrictive. One of the standards would require boat owners to pull their boat from the water before washing and another could require the boatyard to treat its stormwater. The Port will be encouraging the Department of Ecology not to consider those standards and instead consider other standards. The Port Commission was also provided an update on the waterfront project, a cooperative project between the Port and the City. When the City completes the replacement/repair of the treatment plant and storm drain outfalls in August, the Port will proceed with their portion of the bulkhead replacement/repairs which will be completed in November. The Port also finalized their Master Plan. Alliance of Councilmember Moore commented on the alliance between South Snohomish County cities, explaining Cities this was modeled after transportation subarea groups and Edmonds Community College. She explained these groups get together prior to the legislative session, discuss their needs and priorities and prepare a prioritized list to be presented to the legislature. She acknowledged it may be difficult for South Snohomish County cities to agree but to counter the power of Everett and Seattle, it may be helpful to jointly identify some items to be presented to the legislature. Seashore Councilmember Moore reported the SeaShore Forum that Councilmember Olson and she attended Forum included discussion on prioritization of funding that has become available via the gas tax. Their top priority is concrete preservation. Councilmember Moore asked Mayor Haakenson to report on the Kyoto Accord that he signed recently. She commended Rick and Aim Steves for their remarkable contribution to affordable and transitional housing for homeless women and children. Further, she questioned why Edmonds did not have a Park Board versus the Planning Board doubling as the Park Board. Councilmember Wilson referred to the resolution the Council passed a few weeks ago regarding Paine Field,remarking that action was very appropriate given the news in the last week that Southwest Airlines and Alaska Airlines were interested in leaving SeaTac and were looking for space elsewhere. 4th of July Activities Mayor Haakenson reminded the public of the 4th of July parade and fireworks display on Monday. With no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. iI• ENSON,MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 28,2005 Page 16 OAGENDA P. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL ��� Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5t" Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. JUNE 28, 2005 6:30 p.m. - Executive Session Regarding a Real Estate Matter I i 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent Agenda Items (A) Roll Call (B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of June 21, 2005. (C) Approval of claim checks #80402 through #80622 for the week of June 20, 2005, in the amount of $606,610.84. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #40934 through #41023 for the period June 1 through June 15, 2005, in the amount of$849,067.74.* *Information regarding claim checks may be viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us (D) Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Carol A. Tornroos (amount undetermined), and Rose L. Lamey (amount undetermined). (E) Authorization to call for bids for the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery Columbarium Project. (F) Authorization for Mayor to sign an Agreement with the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce regarding funding for "An Edmonds Kind of Fourth" Fireworks Display. (G) Approval of a request for a loan guarantee related to the Edmonds Public Facilities District Performing Arts Center construction. 3. (10 Min.) Presentation by Community Transit. 4. (15 Min.) Report on the Edmonds Highlands affordable housing project. 5. (20 Min.) Report on affordable housing as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan. 6. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA JUNE 28, 2005 7. (10 Min.) Update on work plan for the Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 8. (15 Mina Discussion regarding government relations in Washington DC. 9. (30 Min.) Discussion on the possible acquisition of all or part of the old Woodway Elementary site. 10. (45 Mina Work Session on Design Guidelines. 11. (15 Min.) Report on City Council Committee Meetings of June 14, 2005. 12. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 13. (15 Min.) Individual Council reports on outside committee/board meetings. ADJOURN Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk at(425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. A delayed telecast of the meeting appears on cable television-Government Access Channel 21. Page 2 of 2