Loading...
07/19/2011 City Council1. 2. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES July 19, 2011 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council Chambers, 250 5`" Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Cooper, Mayor Lora Petso, Council President Pro Tem Steve Bernheim, Councilmember D. J. Wilson, Councilmember (arrived 7:07 p.m.) Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley- Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Strom Peterson, Council President ALSO PRESENT Peter Gibson, Student Representative APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services /Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Jim Tarte, Interim Finance Director Carl Nelson, CIO Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Rob English, City Engineer Kernen Lien, Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM PETSO, TO REMOVE ITEM 2E FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PLACE IT ON THE AGENDA AS ITEM 3B. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Wilson was not present for the vote.) COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Wilson was not present for the vote.) CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Wilson was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 5, 2011. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #126403 THROUGH #126538 DATED JULY 7, 2011 FOR $292,102.32, AND CLAIM CHECKS #126539 THROUGH #126708 DATED JULY 14, 2011 FOR $1,959,465.50. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #50540 THROUGH #50598 FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 16, 2011 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2011 IN THE AMOUNT OF $757,298.91. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 1 D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES SUBMITTED BY SCOTT PHILIPS (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED). F. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO TRAINING INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. G. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM NO. 5 WITH BHC CONSULTANTS, LLC FOR LIFT STATION 2 REHABILITATION PROJECT. H. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A STORMWATER UTILITY EASEMENT FOR THE 12TH AVE N STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. I. REPORT ON SMALL WORKS ROSTER SOLICITATION FOR THE 12TH AVE N STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND AWARD CONTRACT TO TRENCHLESS CONSTRUCTION SERVICES L.L.C. IN THE AMOUNT OF $59,935. J. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JULY 6, 2011 FOR THE 2011 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, AWARD CONTRACT TO KAR -VEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,799,052.54 AND APPROPRIATE AN ADDITIONAL $300,000 TO THE 412- 100 WATER UTILITY FUND TO CONSTRUCT THE PROJECT. K. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JULY 12, 2011 FOR THE LIFT STATION 2 REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND AWARD CONTRACT TO TRICO CONTRACTING INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $668,979.30. L. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JUNE 29, 2011 FOR THE SHELL VALLEY EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $309,302.96 TO KAMINS CONSTRUCTION. M. EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER ROOF REPAIRS PROJECT ACCEPTANCE. 3A. STATE LEGISLATIVE REPORT FROM MIKE DOUBLEDAY. Mike Doubleday reviewed the 2011 State Legislative Session Wrap -Up: • Washington State Ferries There were no efforts to expand the Edmonds ferry terminal and no efforts to reassign the MukilteolClinton ferry route to Edmonds • Protect State- shared and State - committed revenues • State shared liquor profits and taxes and the municipal criminal justice account were cut to cities by 3.4% in the 2011 -13 operating budget • The Public Works Board adopted list was fully funded at $325 million in the 2011 -13 operating budget • WWRP was reduced to $42 million in the 2011 -13 operating budget Local Government Fiscal Flexibility (ESHB 1478) • GMA and Shoreline Master Plan updates moved to every 8 years from every 7 years. • NPDES (stormwater) permits issued in 2007 are extended for 1 year; new permits issued July 1, 2012, effective August 1, 2013. • Extends the date for cities to meet 100% electric or biofuel fleet requirement from 2015 . to 2018. • Extends the number of years for impact fee use from 6 to 10 years. • Allows cities to skip reporting pavement rating criteria to TIB until the 2013 -15 biennium. Real Estate Excise Tax Flexibility (HB 1953) HB 1953 passed in 2011 after cities, counties and the Realtors agreed to the bill. The bill: o Allows cities (and counties) to use the first and second quarter REET for operations and maintenance purposes for all eligible categories in statute; cities and counties may use the greater of $100,000 or 35% of available funds but not to exceed $1 million per year. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 2 • Allows the second quarter to be used for debt services. • Sunsets December 31, 2016. • Public Records Requests • The cost recovery bill and the "meet and confer" bills did not pass. An interim effort to find common ground with stakeholders is expected. • SHB 1899 allows the court discretion to charge no per day penalty for violation of the Public Records Act; therefore, the new penalty range is $0 up to a maximum of $100 /day. • Medical Marijuana E2SSB 5073 was passed and largely vetoed by the Governor. • Collective arg dens: qualifying patients and their designated providers may form collective gardens to produce cannabis for medical use. Collective gardens are limited to ten qualifying patients and a total of 45 plants and 72 ounces of useable cannabis. • Designated providers: may only serve one patient at a time, and if no longer serving a patient, they must wait 15 days before serving another patient. • Patient protections: qualifying patients may assert an affirmative defense if the patient possesses no more than a permissible level of cannabis and the investigating officer does not possess evidence of an illegal cannabis operation or frequent visits consistent with commercial activity. • Local Governments: cities and counties may adopt zoning requirements, business licensing requirements, health and safety requirements, and business taxes pertaining to the production, processing, or dispensing of cannabis or cannabis producers within their jurisdictions. • Other Issues • Phase II Storm Water Funding: $30 million provided in grants to local government to construct or retrofit: 25% match required. • Transit Agency Revenue Authority: King County Metro provided $20 vehicle license fee with a public vote or by 2/3's vote of County Council; two years duration. Community Transit not included in the bill. • Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Fund: $15 million for the 2011 -13 biennium • Intrastate Mutual Aid S. sue: provides mutual assistance in an emergency among political subdivisions that choose to participate in the system. • Shell Valley Emergency Road Project: re- appropriated at $250,000 • Complete Streets: Adopted but not funded. • PERS I Contribution Rates: rates reduced for local governments effective July 1, 2011; fiscal note lists $389 million in savings to local governments in 2011 -13. • Main Street Project: Did not get funding for this project. Councilmember Wilson asked for clarification regarding the changes to pension contributions and impacts to cities. Mayor Cooper asked whether the PERS I contribution rates were reduced via a bill, which would be permanent, or a budget proviso which would only apply to this biennium. Mr. Doubleday answered it was via a reduction in the COLA. Mayor Cooper clarified COLA for retirees were canceled. He noted the City was already notified by the State that an increase in the PERS rate will raise the City's contribution by $180,000 in 2012. He assured the changes made by the legislature did not save the City any money. Mr. Doubleday reported further information was available in the report regarding: • A mandated 12 -hour impound hold on motor vehicles used by persons arrested for DUI if the driver is the registered owner. Under current law there is no legal requirement for police to impound a vehicle driven by a person arrested for DUI. • Local Infrastructure Study by the Public Works Board to reform the State system for local government. • Authorizing the use of Hearing Examiner for street vacation hearings. • Tax Increment Financing bill brought by Cascade Land Conservancy related to transfer of development rights (TDR). Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 3 • Underground Utilities ( "Dig Law ") Mr. Doubleday reported on initiatives that have been submitted to the Secretary of State but not yet certified: • Liquor Privatization (1 -1183) • Retail stores must have 10,000 square feet of space in a single structure to sell liquor • Liquor tax would remain, profits to state end • Requires retailers to pay 17% of gross revenues to state • Tolling (I -1125) • Prohibits use of gas tax and vehicle toll revenue for non - transportation purposes • Shifts responsibility of setting toll rates from Transportation Commission to Legislature • Requires tolls to be dedicated to the project they're paying for, ending such tolls when the project is completed • Gas - tax - funded or toll - revenue- funded lanes on state highways cannot be transferred or used for non - highway purposes Councilmember Wilson recalled I -722 was found unconstitutional because it included more than one issue and the Supreme Court repealed it because an initiative can only address one issue. He asked if there was a similar issue with I -1125. Mayor Cooper advised an initiative cannot be challenged on its constitutional merit until it is approved by voters and enacted. Council President Pro Tern Petso inquired about the bill to extend PFD legislation and asked whether the City was working with Spokane and/or had a strategy mapped out. Mr. Doubleday answered the City was working with Spokane. The Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, Representative Hunter (Medina), does not like special purpose districts. There is a good coalition supporting the bill and there will be an effort to broaden the coalition. Mayor Cooper inquired about bills regarding the Regional Fire Authority (RFA). Mr. Doubleday recalled both bills passed. He offered to research and report to Mayor Cooper. 3B. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BECKWITH CONSULTING GROUP FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING CONSULTING SERVICES (previously Consent Agenda Item 2E). Community Services /Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained he requested this item be removed from the Consent Agenda to, 1) introduce Tom Beckwith, Beckwith Consulting Group, and 2) describe a proposed change in the schedule for the Strategic Plan, Exhibit A.I. After discussing the original schedule with Council President Peterson, the Finance Committee, Department Directors and Mayor Cooper, it was agreed it would be preferable to shift the timeline to begin after Labor Day to avoid conflicts with vacations. Mr. Beckwith agreed with the reasoning and prepared a revised Exhibit A.1. Tom Beckwith, Beckwith Consulting Group, introduced himself and explained he established Beckwith Consulting in 1983 after working for 12 years working for firms across the United States. He has assembled a team with a great deal of experience in strategic planning and economic development. They view the Edmonds project as very important, interesting and fun. Councilmember Buckshnis explained Beckwith Consulting Group proposes to put in 852 hours which is approximately $117 /hour. They plan six monthly meetings with the Economic Development Commission (EDC), Planning Board and City Council. The process will be citizen driven with surveys, etc. She was very pleased with the selection of Beckwith Consulting Group. Councilmember Wilson commented one of the primary liabilities is a disconnect between the Council's actions and level of stakeholder buy -in. He feared no matter the outcome of the feedback tools, the Council Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 4 was likely to have different opinions. Although he appreciated the retreats with the EDC, Planning Board and City Council, he encouraged Mr. Beckwith to engage the City Council separately. Mr. Beckwith advised the retreats with the EDC, Planning Board and City Council are scheduled to occur before and after key events in the process. The intent of the retreat before is to gather information and guidance before engaging the public on certain issues and the retreat after is to share what they learned from the public. Although there are six program sessions, he assured they would do whatever is necessary throughout the process to ensure good communication with the Council and the public. Councilmember Wilson commented the level of buy -in is critical. For generations the Council has done a phenomenal job of having studies produced that have not been implemented. He implored Mr. Beckwith to help ensure this is not an effort that does not go anywhere. Mr. Beckwith responded they are not interested in doing a study; they want to do an action plan. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas commented after spending many hours reviewing proposals and interviewing consultants, Beckwith Consulting Group was always her first choice. She appreciated Beckwith Consulting Group's civic engagement with citizens and focus groups and keeping the Council engaged. She was confident this process would help Edmonds move forward in a very positive manner. Councilmember Bernheim inquired about the timeline and the date of the first retreat. Mr. Beckwith advised in the revised Exhibit A.1 the first retreat is scheduled on September 14. The timeline anticipates the plan would be adopted on April 24, 2012. He agreed with the proposal to begin the process after the school year begins. Mr. Clifton referred to Councilmember Wilson's comment about engaging the City Council, advising Task 1, retreat with the City Council, Planning Board and EDC, will be an opportunity to refine the schedule, work on strategies and identify participants. He suggested if there was interest in a meeting between Beckwith Consulting Group and the City Council, that would be the time to insert it into the schedule. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BECKWITH CONSULTING GROUP FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING CONSULTING SERVICES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2012- 2017). Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss provided an introduction to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP): • Revised Code of Washington (RCW) requires that each city update their TIP prior to adoption of the budget. • Document must contain all regionally significant transportation projects that a city plans to undertake in the next six years. • Data is then used to create a statewide TIP Database. • City of Edmonds policy: TIP is financially constrained in the first three years. • Cities are not eligible for state or federal grant funding unless a project is identified on the TIP. • Federal and state grants as well as local funds are programmed as revenue source for TIP projects. Mr. Hauss reviewed projects under construction: • Interurban Trail: July 2011 to April 2012, could be completed by October 2011 • Shell Valley (emergency access from Main Street): August 2011 to December 2011 • 226`" Street SW Walkway (200 foot sidewalk from SR104 to 105`h Place W): August 2011 to October 2011 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 5 Mr. Hauss reviewed projects in design: Five Corners Intersection Improvements / Roundabout Currently 5 -way stop controlled intersection • Project Description - installation of a single lane roundabout • Intersection delay improvement from F to B (during PM peak hours) • non - motorized transportation safety • Status / Schedule • Approve consultant contract (Design and ROW): July ' 11 • Design / ROW: July 'I I — March '13 • Construction: 2015 (pending additional grant) o Funding • Federal grant secured ($290,000 for Design and $173,000 for ROW) • Estimated Total Project Cost: $2,536,000 • Design: $ 336,000 • ROW: $ 200,000 • Construction: $2,000,000 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements o Project Description • Critical east -west connection — Restrict unsafe southbound left turn (from Hwy. 99 onto 76th Avenue W) — Install traffic signal at Hwy. 99 @ 228th Street SW Provide safe left turn for the southbound movement from Hwy. 99 to 76th Avenue W Create additional safe pedestrian crossing on Hwy. 99 between 238th and 224`" • Recommended as ##1 project in Hwy. 99 Traffic Safety and Circulation Study • Status • 15% design completed in 2009 • Approve consultant contract (Design and ROW): July /August 2011 • Design / ROW: July / August 2011 — April 2013 • Construction: 2015 (pending additional grant) • Funding • Federal grant secured ($307,000 for design and $229,000 for ROW) • Estimated Total Project Cost: $4,010,000 • Design: $350,000 • ROW: $260,000 • Construction: $3,400,000 Main St. Improvements (5t'' Avenue to 6th Avenue) o Project Description • New 12 -foot sidewalk on both sides of Main Street • Landscaping — Remove European Hornbeam trees and plant Crimson Maple trees — Install benches and bike racks • 11 LED pedestrian lights • 2 -inch overlay • Charging station • New watermain (funded via Water Fund) • Optional elements — Mid -block crossing — Expanded LID features — Conversion of overhead utilities Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 6 • Status • Design: April 2011— June 2012 • Construction: 2012 • Funding • Federal grant secured ($129,000 for design and $596,000 for construction) • Fund 412: $129,000 • Estimated Total project cost: $854,000 • Design: $129,000 • Construction: $725,000 76th Avenue W @ 212th Street SW Intersection Improvements Design phase originally programmed for 2014, high likelihood will secure grant • Project Description • Add left turn lane for both approaches of 761' Avenue W and right turn lane for westbound movement of 212`h Street SW • Improve LOS (in 2015) from F to D • Tentative schedule • Design / ROW: October 2011 — December 2013 • Construction: 2014 (pending additional grant) o Funding • Federal Grant secured ($294,000 for design and $646,000 for right -of -way) • Estimated Total project cost: $2,385,000 • Design: $ 340,000 • ROW: $ 745,000 • Construction: $1,300,000 Mr. Hauss highlighted transportation grants secured over the last 12 months: Project Name Grant T e Design Phase ROW Phase Construction Phase Total Main Street Improvements Federal $ 129,000 $596,000 $ 725,000 Five Corners /Roundabout Federal $ 290,000 $ 173,000 $ 463,000 2281' Street SW Corridor Improvements Federal $ 307,000 $ 229,000 $ 536,000 212 1h Street SW @ 76d` Ave Federal $ 294,000 $ 646,000 $ 940,000 Total $1,020,000 $1,048,000 $596,000 $2,664,000 Mr. Hauss continued his review of the TIP: • Other proiects o From 2012 -2014 • 1001h @ 238`h signal upgrade (Interim solution) • 4`" Avenue N Corridor Enhancement • Hwy. 99 Enhancement • Transportation Plan Update • 9d' Avenue S from Main Street to Walnut Street (interim solution) o From 2015 -2017 • Annual Street Overlay ($1,500,000 /year) • Intersection Improvements: — 196`" Street SW @ 881h Avenue W — 76 1h Avenue W @ 220d` Street SW Signal Upgrades — Main Street @ 3rd Avenue Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 7 — Puget Drive @ Olympic View Drive — 100th @ 238`'' Signal Upgrades Mr. Hauss reviewed non - motorized transportation projects: • Sunset Avenue proiect from Bell Street to Caspers Street • Project Description • Install sidewalkibike path on west side of Sunset Avenue from Bell Street to Caspers Street to provide more scenic non - motorized transportation route • Parking stalls may need to be reconfigured • Status • Preliminary concepts /survey: on -going • Design phase: 2014 • Construction phase: 2015 • Funding • Total planning level project cost: $867,000 • Pending grant funding for design and construction phases • Nine walkway proiects (stretches identified in 2009 Transportation Plan) • ADA Curb Ramp Improvements • Bicycle route signing (3 bike loops / identified in 2009 Transportation Plan) • Traffic Calming Program Mr. Hauss relayed staff's recommendation that the City Council approve the TIP. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the policy that the TIP be financially constrained during the first three years. Public Works Director Phil Williams responded all jurisdictions typically approach the TIP in the same manner, financially constrained in the first three years and include projects for which funding is available or there is a reasonable expectation that funding will be available. Projects without an identified funding source are typically not in the first three years of the TIP. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to funding for preservation and maintenance projects that increases from $5,000 in the 2012 to $2 million in 2015. She asked what happened if the Council approved the TIP and then voters approved a levy to fund some of the projects in the later years on the TIP. Mr. Williams answered the TIP can be revised. Since the City does not currently have any funds dedicated to preservation paving, the TIP does not reflect any funding for that project in the first three years. He pointed out there is $1.5 million for preservation paving in the last three years of the TIP in hopes that a funding source will be identified by then. If funding becomes available sooner, the TIP can be revised. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the cost of TIP projects increases to $20 million by 2015. The City needs to begin planning to identify those funds such as a specified levy, or other funding mechanism. Mr. Williams agreed, pointing out the TIP is a plan and in order to qualify for grant funds, projects must be included on the TIP. Therefore all desirable projects are included on the TIP even if funding is not identified in the event grant funds become available. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if all walkway projects near schools were included in the TIP. Mr. Williams answered yes. Councilmember Wilson inquired about the phrase, federal grants unsecured. Mr. Williams explained that phrase is used if the project is a good candidate for federal funding and meets the criteria of one or more programs, but the grant has not yet been applied for. Councilmember Wilson complimented staff for the $2.7 million they had secured in federal grants versus City expenditures of $428,000, pointing out federal grants are 7 times what the City is spending. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 8 Councilmember Wilson referred to the Main Street Improvement project and asked how many parking spaces will be lost. Mr. Hauss answered with the mid -block crossing two parking spaces will be eliminated. Councilmember Wilson commented that is not too high a cost for this project. He viewed the Main Street Improvement project as an economic development project as it will create more foot traffic and a better retail experience. He inquired about the trees that will be removed as part of that project. Mr. Hauss responded all the trees will be removed. Mr. Williams explained the installation of a 12 -foot sidewalk will require removal of the existing curb, gutter and sidewalk. It would be very inefficient to not also replace the trees at the same time. In addition, the European Hornbeam is not a good choice for a street tree and they have reached a high degree of maturity. The trees will be replaced with Crimson Century Maple species which is more modest in height, columnar to avoid blocking views of the retail storefronts, and is an attractive reddish color. The plan is to accent the Crimson Century Maples with a larger green maple tree at the intersection of 61t , similar to the design at 5`t' & Main. Councilmember Wilson commented it was a shame the trees would be removed but he understood the logic. He asked how these tree choices compared with the previous tree choices, recalling the Council was told the trees at 5`" & Dayton and along Dayton between 5th and 4"' were poor street trees. Staff at that time referred the Council to the trees on Main as examples of good street trees. Mr. Williams answered the trees on Dayton between 41t and 5`h, particularly on the north, are not a good street tree; they are old, they are a flowering fruit species that gets very brittle, and they do not grow in a good pattern. He agreed those trees could be removed and replaced with a more suitable street tree. He referred to the streetscape plan for downtown and the Tree Board's, staff's, and the Council's desire to revisit that plan. The streetscape plan identifies a variety of street trees, many of which are flowering fruit trees that are attractive for a few weeks a year when they bloom but they are temperamental, are not robust, and get very large and brittle. He commented on the importance of an end of life strategy rather than waiting for the trees to fall over or break because replacing the trees one -by- one results in a disparate looking streetscape. Mr. Williams explained the Main Street project will likely kill most of the trees. Saving the trees and working around them would result in significantly increased costs. He recommended replacing the trees as part of the project. Councilmember Wilson relayed concern with the lack of a policy regarding street trees. Mr. Williams agreed it was time to revisit the street tree species portion of the streetscape plan. Councilmember Wilson described an amendment he planned to propose to the TIP with regard to $50,000 in local funds in 2012 for the 4 1 Avenue Corridor Enhancement Walkway project. He viewed the 4"' Avenue Corridor project as nice -to -have but it did not address a major shortfall. Conversely traffic calming has been a Council and citizen priority and last year the Council budgeted $50,000 for that project. He noted there is no funding for the Sunset Avenue project in the first three years and it only needs $11,000 in local funds in 2015. He suggested moving $11,000 from the $50,000 allocated to the 4`" Avenue Corridor project and add it to the Sunset Avenue project. Council President Pro Tern Petso asked how traffic volumes at the intersection of SR 104 & 76`" are addressed if not in the TIP, noting that intersection is often completely jammed on a Saturday. Mr. Hauss answered that is a Shoreline intersection. That intersection is identified in the Edmonds' Transportation Plan but not in the TIP. Council President Pro Tern Petso asked if not including the project in the TIP would prevent the City from obtaining funding. Mr. Hauss reiterated it is identified in the City's Transportation Plan. The projects on the TIP are priority projects. Council President Pro Tem Petso clarified as long as a project is in the Transportation Plan, the City can still get grant funds. Mr. Hauss agreed. Council President Pro Tern Petso asked whether those projects could be evaluated in connection with the Pt. Wells development. Mr. Hauss answered yes. Council President Pro Tern Petso referred to the roundabout project and asked the dollar amount for the design work that is funded by the federal grant versus local funds. Mr. Hauss answered the grant requires a 13.5% local match, $46,000 for the design and $27,000 for the right -of -way. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 9 Council President Pro Tern Petso asked if the City would be required to repay the grant for design and right - of -way acquisition if a decision was made not to proceed with construction. Mr. Williams answered there is little worry about repaying a grant as long as the City acts in good faith. If it could be established the City accepted funds for design and then totally opted not to proceed or not redesign a different project, it is arguable the state or federal could ask that the grant be repaid. He had only seen that occur a couple times. Council President Pro Tem Petso observed tonight's decision was not with regard to a yes or no on the roundabout. Mr. Williams answered the first commitment of City funds is the design contract for the Five Corners roundabout, agenda item 9. Council President Pro Tem Petso asked whether a public hearing had been held regarding the roundabout. Mr. Williams answered there has not been a public hearing where the roundabout was the only topic. The roundabout has been included in the TIP for several years and a public hearing is held on the TIP each year. With regard to Mr. Hauss' answer regarding the TIP versus the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the TIP and Transportation Element must be consistent but the TIP can be viewed as a subset of the Transportation Element. Everything in the TIP is in the Transportation Element but not everything in the Transportation Element is in the TIP. The TIP is typically the highest priority, current projects. A project that is not on the TIP is deemed a lower priority. For Council President Pro Tem Petso, Mr. Hauss referred to map with Level of Services (LOS) for all signalized intersections throughout the City; the priority intersections are not on state routes. For example the intersections of Highway 99 @ 220`x' and Highway 99 @ 212`'' are LOS E. The LOS service standard on Highway 99 is different than the City's LOS. As a highway of statewide significance, SR 104 is not subject to local LOS standards. The LOS in 2015 based on modeling for the intersection of SRI 04 & 76`" is LOS E and SR 104 & 1001" is LOS D. Mayor Cooper asked Mr. Hauss to comment on intersections that can be considered for possible mitigation in the permitting process for Pt. Wells. Mr. Hauss answered signalized intersections that are anticipated to be impacted by development at Pt. Wells include Highway 99 @ 244`", SR 104 @ 100`h, and SR 104 @ 226`n Mayor Cooper advised those intersections were identified in the City's comments to Snohomish County on the EIS and permitting process for the Pt. Wells project. Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, complimented Council President Pro Tem Petso for her observations regarding problem intersections in the City. He referred to a traffic backup he experienced today at eastbound SR 104 & 100`", a delay of three traffic signal cycles. He anticipated drivers would not frequent the businesses in that area because entrances are blocked by traffic. He pointed out the reduced setbacks that the Council recently approved limit the ability to widen the roadway to add a right -turn only lane to improve traffic flow. He was concerned that the Council's approval of the contract with David Evans and Associates committed the City to spending over $60,000 on the design as well as possible condemnation and/or taking of private property. He anticipated the acquisition of right -of -way would result in the closure of some businesses and because the Council has not held a public hearing, some property owners may be unaware of that possibility. He summarized the roundabout was an anti - business project for the sake of saving a few seconds of vehicle idling. He recommended the Council have a public hearing on the design before proceeding with right -of- way acquisition. Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, commented Edmonds' greatest asset is the stunning location of the bowl; the bowl defines Edmonds. The bowl has become increasingly blighted visually by power poles and overhead wiring. She encouraged the Council to consider undergrounding the wiring as part of the Main Street project. It was her understanding that opening the trench was the largest expense; in the case of the Main Street Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 10 project, the street will already be torn up. Unlike other capital projects that create maintenance issues, once the wires are underground, PUD continues to maintain the wires. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented on businesses moving to the Ballinger/SR 104 area that will increase traffic volumes. He was surprised the TIP did not include improvements to the Highway 99 @ 2201h intersection because a number of accidents have occurred at that intersection. He was supportive of the TIP but feared the federal funds the plan anticipated would not be available. He recommended the City identify other sources of funding or make budget cuts to provide funding for the projects on the TIP. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. In response to Ms. Shippen's suggestion, Mr. Williams advised undergrounding of the wiring on the south side of the street is included in the scope for the Main Street project. The cost to underground the wires may be prohibitive; another option is to move the aerial wires to the alley where they will be less visible. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas referred to comments regarding the intersections of SR 104 & 76'h which is in her neighborhood and SR104 & 100`h, pointing out ferry traffic is a major deterrent to citizens' ability to move around the City, particularly on SR 104. She recalled traffic in the area increased when Costco and other stores located at Aurora Village. She recognized the City did not have much control since SR 104 is a state route. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the TBD funds were reflected in the TIP. Mr. Williams answered TBD funds are used for maintenance and therefore not included as funding for capital projects. If the TBD ballot measure had been successful, those funds would have been used for capital projects. Councilmember Buckshnis asked the source of local traffic impact fees. Mr. Williams answered a development is charged a traffic impact fee based on their level of impact. Those funds can then be used as a match for state and federal grants to complete capital projects. Councilmember Buckshnis was concerned with the need for a substantial amount of money in the last three years of the TIP. She suggested discussions begin regarding a specialized levy to fund capital projects as some citizens may want projects done sooner. Mr. Williams explained there are certain funding sources the City can apply for and each has specific criteria. Staff tries to determine which projects will score well for each of those funding sources. There are no funding sources for some of the City's biggest needs. He agreed it would be preferable to address the highest priorities first but that is not how the money flows. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the strategic planning process may be helpful in that regard. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1254, APPROVING THE 2012 -201.7 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) AND DIRECTING FILING OF THE ADOPTED PROGRAM WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. Councilmember Bernheim recognized there were gaps in funding but viewed the TIP as a list of projects for which a need has been identified and it was not intended to be an action plan. Councilmember Wilson agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis, noting he voted against the CIP last year because of the lack of funding. He asked whether Fund 125 (REET 2) can be used for park acquisition and maintenance and street maintenance per Council policy. Mr. Williams answered yes, up to certain limits. Councilmember Wilson inquired about the legislature's action with regard to REST. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained by Council policy, REET revenue up to $700,000 is used for parks; REST revenue in excess of $700,000 is allocated to streets. The $50,000 in the 2011 budget for the 4h Avenue Corridor is REET money. The legislature's action regarding REET would not impact the City. If the Council Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 11 chose to change the REST policy, the funds could be used for M &O for parks up to $100,000 or 35% of the current allocation. Councilmember Wilson asked whether REST could also be used for street M &O. Ms. Hite answered she believed so. Councilmember Wilson commented if the Council's priority is to address an under - utilized asset, the Sunset Avenue project likely is a higher priority than the 4`h Avenue Corridor project. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO MOVE $50,000 IN 2012 ALLOCATED TO THE 4TH AVENUE CORRIDOR ENHANCEMENT WALKWAY TO THE SUNSET AVENUE FROM BELL STREET TO CASPERS STREET PROJECT. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked staff whether the 4`h Avenue Corridor project was a priority and why and how moving the funds would impact the 4`h Avenue Corridor and the Sunset Avenue projects. Ms. Hite clarified the 4`" Avenue Corridor is currently in REET as a parks project, not Public Works. If the Council moved the funds from REET in 2012 to the Sunset Avenue project, the funds would be used for that project and not the 4th Avenue Corridor project. The City received a Preserve America grant, approximately $24,000 of the $50,000 is grant money. Without a local match, that grant funding will be lost. Councilmember Plunkett commented his intent in seconding the motion was not to eliminate the 4`h Avenue Corridor project. He asked if the 4"' Avenue Corridor project would be dead if the money were moved to the Sunset Avenue project. Ms. Hite answered she would not consider it dead. Via the budget process, staff would prepare an updated CIP for REET park improvement projects. The Council could then prioritize the projects. The 4`h Avenue Corridor project would be weighed with many other CIP projects. She explained there are projects adopted in the 2011 REET; some of those projects will be delayed and funding reauthorized for 2012 such as the Dayton Street Plaza and part of the 4"' Avenue Corridor. The 2012 budget would include the Sunset Avenue project, 4th Avenue Corridor, Dayton Street Plaza as well as a few additional projects to leverage grant funds. Councilmember Plunkett summarized the 4`h Avenue Corridor projects could stay in the plan. Ms. Hite agreed, noting the prioritization process occurs during the budget process. Councilmember Plunkett expressed support for the motion. He did not agree with Councilmember Buckshnis that the projects were not prioritized; Council action over the years is what created the list. To a large extent, the projects on the TIP are staff and the Council's priorities. Providing funds for the Sunset Avenue project creates flexibility for that project that does not currently exist. Because Sunset is located on the water, there may be funding sources for that project that would not be available for the 4 1 Avenue Corridor project. He noted the 4th Avenue Corridor project had been around quite a while with very little progress. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas observed the $50,000 for the 4`h Avenue Corridor is funded via REET. She asked if money for that project could be moved out of REET to the Sunset Avenue project. Mr. Taraday responded Council action on the TIP prioritizes transportation projects over the next six years. The Council can make a policy decision to prioritize Sunset Avenue project higher than 4`" Avenue Corridor and reflect that in the TIP. The numbers in the TIP are incorporated into the budget during the budget process; the act of reprioritizing projects tonight does not actually move money but gives staff policy direction regarding the priority of transportation projects in the TIP. Ms. Hite explained the Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan calls for pedestrian and bike connection. There are several projects identified in REET park improvement projects that are coordinated with the Transportation Department including the Sunset Avenue and 4`h Avenue Corridor projects. The funds will remain in REET because both are park projects and satisfy the Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan because they improve pedestrian and bicycle connections. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas observed the Sunset Avenue project will provide a sidewalk on the water side from Bell Street to Caspers Street. Currently there is a sidewalk on the east side of Sunset all the way up Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 12 the road. She asked whether a bike path would be added along with the sidewalk on the west side of Sunset. Mr. Williams explained the Sunset Avenue project includes a 12.5 foot wide sidewalk and an adjacent 5 -foot wide bicycle facility; the existing sidewalk on the east side is 4 -5 feet wide. Non - motorized uses will be given priority in the Sunset Avenue right -of -way to take advantage of the views. He commented on the amazing amount of use the area currently gets with very little improvement. The angle and parallel parking is heavily used by people eating their lunch and people without the mobility to leave their car. Maintaining as much parking as possible and mimicking what currently exists is an important aspect of the project. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out part of the property on the west side of Sunset is owned by BNSF. Mr. Williams explained a small contract will be issued this week with a surveyor to determine right -of -way owned by BNSF. He pointed out there is some space waterward of the walkway on Sunset that is currently maintained by Parks which can be used for additional benches, picnic tables, etc. as well as utility property on the north where amenities can be added. For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Williams advised $50,000 would not be enough to completely design the Sunset Avenue project. It would be enough for the environmental phase and discussions with BNSF. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether construction would be moved up to 2013 if the Council moved funds to the Sunset Avenue project. Mr. Williams answered there are no funds available to construct the Sunset Avenue project. He anticipated it was the type of project that could attract grant dollars from a variety of funding sources. He noted some traffic calming funds can be used for the Sunset Avenue project as it will also provide some traffic calming benefits. Councilmember Wilson commented there had been a lot of staff work done on the Sunset Avenue project. Councilmember Bernheim, Councilmember Plunkett and he have talked with Public Works regarding the project and citizens have been asking for the project. He agreed the 4`h Avenue Corridor is a good project but has yet to take off. He recognized both Sunset and 4`" Avenue Corridor were assets but Sunset was unique in many ways and once design is complete, will be a very compelling project for grant funds. He encouraged the Council to support increasing the priority of the Sunset Avenue project. Council President Pro Tern Petso did not support the amendment, primarily because there was no lead time and she did not want to tell Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin what the Council had done without telling her and that the grant would be lost. She agreed with increasing the priority of the Sunset Avenue project and would support it during the budget process after she had an opportunity to discuss the implications with Ms. Chapin. Student Representative Gibson asked whether the project was funded via a grant. Mr. Williams answered grant funding was anticipated in the future to complete the design, any right -of -way acquisition and construction. Most projects require some initial start-up funds before staff can apply for grants. UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FAILED (2 -3 -1), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND WILSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, FRALEY- MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO, AND COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM ABSTAINED. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas asked how the priority of projects would be changed. Mayor Cooper answered the Council could provide funding for the Sunset Avenue project during the budget process. Mr. Taraday agreed and pointed out the statute regarding the TIP states the program may be revised by a majority of the legislative body at any time after a public hearing. Given the discussion tonight regarding support for the Sunset Avenue project, Mayor Cooper commented another option would be for staff and him to provide funding for the Sunset Avenue project as part of the 2012 budget. VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 13 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Al Rutledge, Edmonds, reported Woodway's Mayor and Councilmember left the meeting when they learned the City's police contract with Woodway was not on tonight's agenda. Next he reported the revisions to legislative district boundaries will be complete by October. He also reported Robert Novak, a longtime resident of Edmonds who ran for mayor in the past, passed away recently. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commended the Council for their dialogue regarding the TIP before it was approved. He asked whether Ogden Murphy Wallace was the City of Monroe's attorney, noting Monroe was suing its citizens regarding red light cameras. He thanked the Council for replacing Ogden Murphy Wallace as the City's attorney. He recalled while Ogden Murphy Wallace was the City Attorney, Edmonds sued a group of citizens who filed an initiative regarding the transport fee. He complimented the current City Council for the things they have accomplished. 6. JULY BUDGET AMENDMENT - ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3831 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS. Interim Finance Director Jim Tarte referred to the 2011 budget amendment in the Council packet, advising another budget amendment would be presented in September. The budget amendment is comprised of four parts. The first part of the budget amendment adjusts the 2011 beginning budget amounts to the 2010 actual ending modified working capital balance for all the funds. The second part of the budget amendment includes items that were approved by Council in 2010 but expenditures were delayed till 2011. The third part of the amendment includes expenditure increases that are offset by grant revenue. The fourth part of the amendment includes new items. The budget amendment was presented to the Finance Committee last week. Councilmember Buckshnis commented this is the most comprehensive budget amendment the Council has seen in the past 1� /z -2 years. The beginning balances were previously titled as beginning cash and are now titled beginning modified working capital because it is not actually a cash figure. The members of the Finance Committee, Council President Pro Tem Petso and she, support the amendment because the "train is on the right track." Councilmember Wilson asked six weeks ago under the prior reporting methodology, how many times a year the General Fund goes into the red on a cash flow basis. Mr. Tarte answered twice a year; at the end of April awaiting receipt of the first half of property taxes and again at the end of October awaiting the second half of property taxes. Councilmember Wilson summarized twice a year the General Fund is in the red and must borrow from other funds to cover the shortfall. Councilmember Wilson asked how many times a year the General Fund goes into the red with this new accounting methodology. Mr. Tarte answered there is not a new accounting method; the method is the same one the City has always used. The General Fund still goes into the red twice a year. Councilmember Wilson summarized regardless of the reporting structure, the General Fund goes into the red twice a year. The City's financial situation and the importance of a levy are unchanged by the reports; the City is still in financial dire straits and needs to pass a levy. He agreed transparency was important but should not be a reason for not placing a levy on the ballot. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether other cities' General Funds went into the red in April and October. Mr. Tarte agreed they did, relaying Redmond Finance Director's comment that they borrow from other funds for a short period of time until property tax collections are received. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the reports have not changed; only the verbiage changed and there is still $1.3 million in the Public Safety Reserve and $1.927 in the Emergency Reserve and $2 million in operating. Council President Pro Tem Petso commented there are alternative accounting methods and she thought the budget amendment provided an excellent opportunity to change to a new accounting method. One of the other accounting methods would show the ending cash balance /working capital not at $2.7 million but close Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 14 to $5 million. Because staff needs to have the amendment approved to move forward with developing the 2012 budget, she agreed to vote in favor of the amendment knowing that discussions regarding the accounting methodology will continue in the future. She noted cash flow is not a problem because there is $4 million in the Equipment Rental /B Fund that is available to meet cash flow needs twice a year and the beginning General Fund cash balance was at least $5.761 million. Receivables were $2.2 million and payables were $1.1 million. That does not include the $1.3 million in the Public Safety Reserve. Because two Councilmembers have had an opportunity to discuss this with staff but the remaining members have not, she suggested scheduling a short presentation to the Council regarding the balance sheet prior to next week's levy discussion. Councilmember Plunkett expressed support for a presentation as part of the levy discussion. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3487, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3831 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. UPDATE ON OLD MILLTOWN COURTYARD DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained several Councilmembers mentioned the need to move this project forward and citizens have expressed their concern with the process and the design. She formed a 20- member ad hoc committee with representatives from the Economic Development Commission (EDC), downtown businesses, Floretum Garden Club, Edmonds in Bloom, Chamber of Commerce, and two horticulturists from the Parks Department. The committee went through a design process and developed a final design. During a design vision process, several members expressed a desire for Old Milltown to be a gateway to downtown, a gathering place and connect to the City's identity. Committee members recognized as a gateway, the Old Milltown courtyard would be an economic driver for the City. She displayed photographs of Old Milltown's history, relaying the committee's desire to connect to some of the history in the design. Old Milltown was previously a mill, an auto corporation, and a motor company. The building fagade was added in 1973. She displayed an aerial map, identifying the downtown retail corridor and gateways into downtown including Old Milltown. She displayed a Google SketchUp model of the existing Old Milltown courtyard and photographs of existing courtyard elements. She pointed out the northern end of the courtyard is still owned by the bank. The bank wants to retain that area to allow it to be used as a courtyard/seating /eating area for a possible restaurant lease in the future. The City worked with the bank to obtain a quit claim deed on the top 10 inches of soil to be able to pull utilities and do foundation work for the courtyard. The committee also worked with the bank to create a contiguous design into their property. Old Milltown courtyard will include the bank property until the bank sells or leases the property. The final design does not include any infrastructure in that portion of the property, only furnishings to create a seating area. Ms. Hite displayed the original design created by the Floretum Garden Club that utilizes the original infrastructure, adds a gazebo and bandstand, and retains the trees and some plantings. That design did not include anything in the bank -owned portion of the property. Some of the concerns with this original design were with utilities, drainage, connection to Old Milltown, historic features of Old Milltown, artistic elements and that the design did not consider elements identified in the Streetscape Plan and Cultural Plan. She displayed site analysis drawings that identify AM and PM sun angles, street to storefront sightlines, pedestrian circulation, gathering places, etc. She provided a summary of the input from the first public meeting that expressed a desire for a garden feel, public art, a water feature so that the garden could be Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 15 certified as a backyard wildlife habitat, multi - functional uses, and performance stage. From that input, the landscape architect worked with staff and a subcommittee to create three designs. She reviewed the committee's input regarding the three options: Option l: the committee liked the flow but felt it did not have enough garden space Option 2: too formal, no one on the committee liked this design Option 3: liked the circular traffic flow but still not enough gardens Ms. Hite displayed a drawing of the preferred alternative, identifying seating areas at the north and on the bank owned property, additional garden elements, boardwalk to tie into Old Milltown, water feature in the middle, and raised bed gardens with seating areas surrounding the gardens. The preferred alternative includes a street tree and umbrellas on the north to provide shading, a drinking fountain, artistic elements via the hardscape structure, artistic railing on the south to frame the park, sculpture in the center with trickling water, and artistic or living south wall to frame the stage area. Ms. Hite explained Parks horticulturists and arborist evaluated the existing trees in the Old Milltown courtyard; the north tree is infested nearly 90% with beetle, the roots area is infested with bamboo and it will die soon. The south tree has the same problems, although it is not in as poor condition and has approximately a 3 -5 year life. The committee recommends removing the trees and starting with a blank slate. The trees cannot be rehabbed and designing around the south tree only to remove it in 3 -5 years would leave a hole in the design. The committee wanted to save the Red Maple and some of the existing plantings; the horticulturists will uproot and clean the roots. The committee is working with the Floretum Garden Club on plant selection. The Garden Club and the committee want to create an educational garden with interpretive signs, etc. The Floretum Garden Club and Edmonds in Bloom committed funds to the project and there are funds in the REST fund. Applications will also be submitted to the Hubbard Foundation and the Hazel Miller Foundation for this project. She explained some details such as the artistic pieces, the living wall, fountain in the center, inlay, metal railing, etc. have yet to be completed. The committee also wants to incorporate elements of history in the design; some old parts in the Parks Maintenance shed that came from Old Milltown that may be included. If funds are not secured from the Hubbard Foundation and the Hazel Miller Foundation, a simpler design will be considered to stay on budget. Construction is anticipated to occur this fall. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed that the Floretum Garden Club likes the design even though it does not include a gazebo. She inquired about the amount the Garden Club plans to contribute. Ms. Hite answered the Floretum Garden Club will contributed $10,000 and Edmonds in Bloom has committed to providing $4,000. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the budget for the project. Ms. Hite provided a rough budget: Demolition: $15,000 - $20,000 Hardscape (including cement and pour of raised bed gardens): $50,000 Irrigation, planting, restoration: $8,000 - $10,000 Utilities (electrical and water): (staff labor) parts: $20,000 Furnishings /art/fountain: $20,000 Total preliminary budget: $120,000 Secured Funds: $ 60,000 Councilmember Buckshnis suggested Ms. Hite contact the Edmonds Art Foundation and the Edmonds Art Festival who have artists that may be able to provide ironwork at a more reasonable rate. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about shade. Ms. Hite answered five umbrellas will be put out seasonally. The committee recognized there is an overhang on Old Milltown and benches under the overhang. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about public restrooms. Ms. Hite answered restrooms were not included in the design and would add significantly to the cost. Public restrooms could be included in plans for future development on Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 16 the site. There are restrooms in Old Milltown that are in poor condition and are designed to be used by the businesses. Councilmember Wilson asked if there were any parents with young children on the ad hoc committee. Ms. Hite advised there were parents on the committee. The committee discussed including a fun element in the courtyard. One of the designs included a sand pit and it was agreed it would be too difficult to maintain. There are large boulders in the design that provide an opportunity for children to climb and explore. The space is too small to include any traditional playground equipment. Councilmember Wilson asked when gardens became paramount for the committee. Ms. Hite answered it was her understanding that garden space was the original intent of the courtyard when it was purchased by the City. Councilmember Wilson recalled that was the Floretum Garden Club's hope but the Council's purpose, after making the decision to purchase the property under some criticism, was a meeting space with vegetation for the downtown community, not a garden space. He liked the idea of a sandbox and doubted that sand would be harder to maintain than umbrellas. He anticipated the sand would be protected like the sand at Anthony's and Hamburger Harry's. He could not support a garden space downtown at the expense of meeting space. Part of the vibrancy of the community is young families visiting downtown businesses and space that is open to children adds energy. He agreed a playground would not be appropriate but he would support a sandbox. He suggested moving the stage to the opposite end where the acoustics may be better. He recalled the Council was also not interested in providing outdoor seating that spilled out from the adjacent restaurants. Ms. Hite explained the preferred alternative has a great deal more hardscape and seating area than the design developed by the Floretum Garden Club which was all gardens and a gazebo. The committee felt demonstration /educational gardens for children, hardscape, seating areas and a performance platform was a happy medium. The performance platform is located at the south end because the north end of the courtyard is owned by the bank. The committee was not supportive of the sandbox because, 1) there is already one in the community, and 2) maintenance issues. She pointed out maintenance is not just sweeping the sand back into the box; public health standards require contaminated sand be replaced every few months. Councilmember Wilson suggested the City care enough about the sandbox and give it as much attention as the Flower Program; the two full -time Flower Program employees could clean the sandbox when needed. Councilmember Wilson pointed out of the 1.7 members of the EDC, only one has children at home. He was not surprised those groups would suggest big boulders as toys but he did not find it adequate. He suggested the water feature be interactive such as the water features at the Seattle Center or University Village. Ms. Hite advised the committee also included representatives from a few downtown businesses, the Arts Commission, the Chamber of Commerce, the Floretum Garden Club, Edmonds in Bloom. Councilmember Wilson noted none of the Chamber Board Members or Edmonds in Bloom Board Members have children. Council President Pro Tern Petso suggested making the water feature an attraction for children without being hazardous. She suggested children could also climb on a historical element that was cleaned up and polished. She agreed it would be nice to sit in the courtyard with children. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas pointed out sandboxes attract cats. Within a mile there are three waterfront parks, City Park and the Frances Anderson Center that all have child - related activities. Not every park needs to be child- related and it may be nice to have an area that is not focused toward children. She would like to be able to sit, drink a cup of coffee and read a book in an area where there may not be children running around. She disagreed that this needed to be a children's play area. Councilmember Bernheim commented the design was well put together. He agreed with Councilmember Fraley - Monillas that there were a number of parks nearby with child - related activities. Ms. Hite advised when the electrical is pulled, consideration can be given to allowing for an electric car plug. Councilmember Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 17 Bernheim found it admirable how the community was pulled together on the design although it is becoming a larger, more complex project than the Council originally intended. Whatever can be done to accommodate different users will increase support for the design. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether there were plans to have a public hearing related to the adoption of the design. Ms. Hite answered that was not planned. The Council authorized the property purchase and funds allocated in the budget for redevelopment. The purpose of the committee was to provide a public process. Councilmember Plunkett stated someday people will wonder why the Council's decision to purchase the courtyard was so controversial and how the project was constructed for this amount. The intent of purchasing the property was to provide open space /meeting space and he felt that was provided by this design. Councilmember Wilson inquired about the next steps. Ms. Hite responded applications for funding will be submitted, a financial package assembled, a subcommittee will work on the plan details and consider comments made by the Council with regard to the water feature and other interactive features. If grant funding is provided she would like to proceed with building the park. She can return to the Council again but was confident that the committee could find a happy medium and design a nice park in Old Milltown. If funding is not provided by the Hubbard and /or Hazel Miller Foundations, staff would return to Council with a minimized design or the Council could allocate additional funds for the project. Councilmember Wilson responded that approach circumvents the Council's authority to approve the design. He was uncomfortable with the committee making changes to the plan without Council approval and applying for funds for a design that had not yet been approved by the Council. He suggested 10 -20% of the park have features that could be enjoyed by children and he offered to work with Ms. Hite. Councilmember Bernheim did not want to delay construction of the park but agreed the Council typically approved park design. He asked how staff could proceed consistent with past practice. Ms. Hite responded the Council approved construction of Old Milltown courtyard and she was not aware that the Council wanted to approve the final design. The deadline to apply for Hazel Miller Foundation funds is Friday, July 22. She suggested proceeding with a preliminary design and return to Council for final approval. The committee can consider Councilmember Wilson's and Council President Pro Tern Petso's comments to incorporate a play feature in the design and return to the Council in August. The cost of the project does not require a bid process; a contractor for the hardscape will be selected from the Small Works Roster and much of the work will be done in- house. Councilmember Bernheim expressed support for the preferred alternative with the addition of sculpture features or other unbreakable features that children can crawl on or an interactive water feature. He envisioned the space as suitable for all ages. Council President Pro Tern Petso asked if the Council would like to hold a public hearing on the design and whether August 15 was an acceptable date. Observing there are strict notice requirements for a public hearing, Mayor Cooper asked if the Council wanted to hold a public hearing or take public comment prior to approving the final design. Council President Pro Tern Petso responded the goal was public participation. She suggested scheduling approval of the park design and that public comment will be taken. Councilmember Wilson asked that the Council only take public comment if they are willing to make changes to the design as a result of public comment. Recognizing the deadline to apply for grant funds, he pointed out funds from the Hazel Miller Foundation can be applied for in the future. Because this will be such a central, definitional place for Edmonds, it should not be rushed. Councilmember Bernheim encouraged the public to submit comments prior to the August 15 Council meeting. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 18 Councilmember Fraley - Monillas suggested seeking input from the committee members regarding their selections. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. DISCUSSION REGARDING BUSINESS IN PARKS Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained this was first discussed at the CS /DS Committee who directed it be presented to the full Council for exploration. Business in parks was discussed by the Planning Board last week; the Board was very supportive of some of the ideas. Business in parks is a priority in the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. Her counterparts in the National Recreation and Parks Association and Washington Recreation and Parks Association are having similar discussions because of budget difficulties. Parks are not mandated services and there is an effort to continue service levels to citizens without new taxes. She highlighted ideas outlined in her memo and invited the Council to provide feedback with regard to their interest in further exploration: Non - resident fees for recreation programs — the City currently charges the same rate for residents and non - residents. 20 -25% of program participants are not residents of Edmonds. Non - resident fees are very common. The goal is to recover the cost of recreation programs but there are some subsidies which are funded via the General Fund, thus a justification for differential pricing for non - residents who participate in programs. A common differential is 20 %, either via a discount of resident fees or increase in non - resident fees. Given current registration rates for 2010, the additional revenue from a 20% additional fee is estimated to be $90,000 - $100,000 /year or $70,000 - $75,000 /year with attrition. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas commented on how amazing Ms. Hite and her department are and she appreciated their suggestions for increased revenue. Councilmember Buckshnis commented all the ideas in Ms. Hite's memo were great, innovative and outside the box. She commended Ms. Hite for providing ways to enhance the revenue stream. She suggested if a parking fee were implemented, citizens be allowed to purchase a less expensive yearly pass. She noted during the Waterfront Festival, dog park users paid $10 to park and use the dog park. Council President Pro Tem Petso was not as excited about many of the revenue enhancing ideas as some other Councilmembers. She asked if neighboring jurisdictions charged a non - resident fee. Ms. Hite answered they do but Edmonds currently does not. Council President Pro Tern Petso was more receptive to the non- resident fee than some of the other ideas. She suggested food vendors be restricted to community parks and not allowed in neighborhood parks. She was not interested in citizens paying for parks and then being asked to pay for parking. She suggested charging non - residents and providing residents a free parking pass. She encouraged staff to allow for a great deal of public input on the concepts and not invest a lot of staff time until they received feedback from the Council and the Planning Board. She was also not interested in raising field rental fees beyond what it costs to maintain and provide the fields. She did not want to sacrifice participation for revenue. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas advised the CS /DS Committee considered all the ideas. She anticipated food vendors, particularly in Yost Park and City Park, would attract tourism and encouraged people to visit Edmonds and stay all day. She cited her experience with training people with disabilities to vend food at Juanita Beach and Matthews Beach during the summer. Vendors would either have their own facility or possibly if it was successful enough, the City could provide space. There was no intent to have food vending in the smaller parks in the City. With regard to the dive permits, she pointed out Edmonds's Dive Park, the only saltwater dive park on Puget Sound, attracts a lot of divers from out of town and is a great potential Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 19 source of revenue. She was uncertain whether a fee for parking is feasible and it needs further discussion and public input. If a levy does not pass and the choice is fencing parks, a parking fee may be the only choice. Councilmember Bernheim did not support a parking fee. A dive permit or dive park parking is an opportunity to make a lot of money. The dive park attracts people from out of town and is a unique experience. He was also interested in food venders in places such as the dog park and Marina Beach that are located far from restaurants and other services. With regard to a dive permit, Ms. Hite explained there are some inherent risks with charging an entrance fee or permit for diving. The City has immunity when providing parks for recreation without charging a fee. There are other ways to institute a fee such as a parking permit. She explained staff would like to consider not only food concessions but also recreation concessions; an individual recently approached the City about renting standing paddleboards at Marina Beach Park. The existing code allows concessions in a park with the posting of three public notices at the entrance of the park and a public hearing. She suggested staff return to Council with code amendments that make concessions in parks a less staff intensive process. Councilmembers indicated their interest in staff providing code amendments. Planner Kernen Lien explained every year there are inquiries from mobile food vendors interested in locating in the City. There is one mobile food vender operating in the City now but there is conflicting language in the code. ECC 4.12 provides a framework for licensing peddlers and solicitors. Mobile food vendors fit those definitions somewhat in that they are a solicitor and can move around. ECC 4.12 also provides a framework for street vendors. There is a definition for a mobile vending unit but that is pushed and not motorized. Mr. Lien explained there are conflicts in the zoning code. Several of the business zones have operating restrictions such as all uses shall be carried out entirely within a completely enclosed building. The definition of building does not include vehicles. Therefore a mobile food vendor could obtain a solicitors license but due to the operating restrictions, they could only operate in residential, public and planned business zones. He invited the Council to provide feedback regarding their interest in clarifying the code. Questions the Council would need to consider include what zones mobile food vendors should be allowed in, whether they should be required to park in a parking lot or would be allowed in the right -of -way, etc. Councilmember Buckshnis commented mobile food vendors are a great idea; anything that attracts people to Edmonds is a good thing. She asked whether the City collected any money from mobile food vendors. Mr. Lien answered they would be required to pay for a solicitors license which City Clerk Sandy Chase indicated is a modest cost. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about mobile food vendors in other cities, recalling Portland has parking lots with several street food vendors. Mr. Lien was uncertain about Portland's licensing requirements. Regulations vary by city; some do not allow mobile food venders in the right -of -way and require they be located on private property. Seattle recently passed regulations regarding distance from a restaurant. Mayor Cooper relayed in the past Seattle required mobile food vendors be located on private property and have the permission of the property owner. The Seattle City Council passed a new ordinance yesterday that allows food vendors to park on the street and pay the same parking fee a vehicle pays. Mobile food vendors cannot be located within 50 feet of a restaurant in a building. Council President Pro Tern Petso commented staff will need to look into the issue regardless of Council direction due to the discrepancies in the code and existing food vendors. She commented on a person in her area selling produce from a vehicle who locates on both private property and the right -of -way. Councilmember Plunkett referred to questions posed in Mr. Lien's memo such as whether permits should be required for temporary structures. He asked whether the mobile unit would be considered a temporary Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 20 structure. Mr. Lien answered when this issue was discussed last year, then -City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested considering them temporary structures because they may park overnight in a parking lot. Councilmember Plunkett provided responses to other questions in Mr. Lien's memo: • What zones are appropriate for this type of use? Business zones • Should access to restrooms be required? No • Allowed to park overnight? No • Should the site where the vendor is parked be verified for compliance with the required number of parking stalls? Yes • Temporary structure? Does not apply • Design review required? No. Ms. Hite advised staff will bring information back to the Council including code changes. She would like to implement the concessions by next summer. She will also provide the Council a proposal for non - resident fees. She encouraged the Council to provide other park - related revenue ideas for staff to explore. Councilmember Plunkett encouraged staff to return with code language. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the suggestion regarding business partnerships in Ms. Hite's memo. He asked if that was naming rights. Ms. Hite answered it could include naming rights, sponsorships, etc.; it is a policy that allows public- private partnerships within the City that does not involve a gift of public funds. Councilmember Plunkett referred to parks and fields in Medford, Oregon, that are all named after large companies. Mayor Cooper advised the Council could expect some of the revenue options to be reflected in his budget message for consideration in the 2012 . budget. 9. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN LOCAL AGENCY STANDARD CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC. Public Works Director Phil Williams explained this agenda item is a proposed consulting contract with David Evans and Associates to complete the design for the Five Corners roundabout. The contract is for $310,000 and staff requests the Council also authorize a $15,000 management reserve for unanticipated issues in the design. He provided information on the Five Corners roundabout project: • Existing conditions o All -way stop controlled intersection • Creates driver confusion • Existing level of service (LOS) F with 110 second intersection delay and 204 second delay in 2025 (during PM peak hours) • Pedestrian /bicycle transportation safety concerns Proposed Improvements • Modern landscaped roundabout • LOS B with 12 second intersection delay and 14 seconds in 2025 (during PM peak hours) Additional Benefits o Non - motorized transportation • Pedestrians — Refuge island — High pedestrian activity Proximity of two schools and commercial area • Cyclists — Bike lanes Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 21 — Average speed in roundabout 15 mph • Air quality benefits • Fuel consumption reduction • $460,000 federal grant provided as a result of calculated air quality benefits • Stormwater improvements /sustainability/Low Impact Design (LID) elements • Aesthetic improvements in conjunction with Five Corners Redevelopment • Roundabout compared to traffic signal • 75% fewer injury accidents • Accidents much less severe (low speeds) • LOS B vs LOS D • No traffic signal maintenance or electrical costs Schedule • Design/Right-of-way phases: July 2011 — March 2013 • Consultant: David Evans & Associates • Construction phase: 2015 (pending additional grant funding) Funding • Estimated total cost: $2,536,000 Design: $ 336,000 ROW: $ 200,000 Construction: $ 2,000,000 • Federal grant secured: Design Phase: $ 290,000 ROW Phases: $ 173,000 With a 13.5% local match Council President Pro Tern Petso asked if the City would be required to provide $300,000 as a local match for the $2,000,000 construction cost. Mr. Williams answered the local match is 13.5% of the cost. That match could be provided over several years. Council President Pro Tern Petso summarized the roundabout is not free; the cost of the roundabout to the City is approximately $400,000 over the project life. Mr. Williams agreed it is not free; the City would provide a match of 13.5 %. Council President Pro Tern Petso asked whether the project would be delayed if federal grant funds are not obtained. Mr. Williams agreed the project would wait until those funds were available. Council President Pro Tern Petso asked if there were any concurrency issues for development if federal grant funds are not available and the LOS remains F. Mr. Williams answered it is a huge step to get through the design and right - of-way phase. It was very encouraging that a federal grant had been provided for design and right -of -way, anticipating the project would be very competitive for construction funds. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether a roundabout would enhance local businesses and livability. Mr. Williams answered he did. He anticipated after this project is constructed, people would wonder why it was controversial during the development phase. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled when she was on the Seashore Transportation Forum, Woodinville raved about their roundabouts. She grew up in Portland where there are roundabouts and is very supportive of roundabouts. She summarized roundabouts enhance livability, reduce carbon emissions, and result in increased bicycle and pedestrian traffic. She expressed her support for the roundabout project. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the roundabout has stop signs. Mr. Williams answered a roundabout does not have stop signs. Councilmember Plunkett questioned how a pedestrian would cross the roundabout if there were no stop signs. Mr. Williams explained the space to cross is very modest and traffic comes from only one direction. Pedestrians look, consider whether there is time to cross, cross to the refuge and then make another decision to cross again. Without stop signs, Councilmember Plunkett anticipated a pedestrian Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 22 trying to cross the roundabout at 4:00 p.m. would have difficulty finding an opening to cross. Mr. Williams agreed during the PM peak the opportunities for pedestrians to cross will be fewer but they will exist. Councilmember Plunkett commented the roundabouts he was familiar with that did not have stop signs were not in residential areas. There are also plans to increase density in this neighborhood. He questioned how a pedestrian could cross the roundabout when the high school got out or during the AM or PM peak. Mr. Williams stated the existing intersection has significant delays and the distance to cross is substantial. When a pedestrian crosses today, all drivers must wait for the pedestrian to cross. With the roundabout, vehicles will stop as necessary to allow a pedestrian to cross. The wait time is less because the crossing distance is less. He agreed during the busiest times of the day, a pedestrian will have more decisions to make and possibly more delay but it will not be as bad as the current situation. Councilmember Plunkett commented most pedestrians were present during the busiest drive times. He asked if by approving this contract the roundabout will be designed without stop signs or could the Council approve it with stop signs. Mr. Williams answered a roundabout does not have stop signs. He explained pedestrians cross prior to where cars enter the roundabout. The pedestrian has the right -of -way; as the vehicle approaches, they slow to make the turning movement and are required to stop and give the pedestrian the right to cross. Councilmember Plunkett expressed disappointment in himself that he was only now realizing the roundabout would not have stop signs. Councilmember Wilson observed some people will have difficulty driving in the roundabout. When he was growing up in Bend, Oregon, his father was the City Engineer and the architect of the roundabouts in Bend. The first roundabout became a galvanizing issue for Council elections; everyone who supported it was voted out of office the next year. The roundabout was funded and after it was constructed, anyone who opposed the roundabout lost reelection. Once the roundabout was constructed, people liked it and roundabouts were constructed throughout Bend. He agreed it will take pedestrians some time to learn how to cross the roundabout. In Dupont Circle in Washington DC there are lighted crosswalks that help stop traffic. He suggested the design team be asked to ensure there are ample safeguards for pedestrians. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Bernheim expressed support for the contract, observing vehicles move at slower speeds, there are crosswalks in the roundabout, the pedestrian only has to look in one direction to cross one lane of traffic at a time and there are short crossing distances. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE CONTRACT WITH DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES. Councilmember Bernheim was torn about the roundabout because he felt the intersection worked adequately under the current configuration. He was unsure whether something more valuable could be done with the money that would be spent on the roundabout. His concern was lessened because most of the funding was via federal grants but he was still reluctant to spend it. He anticipated the roundabout will improve safety and contribute to attractive development in that area. Council President Pro Tem Petso expressed concern that a project of this magnitude was imbedded in the Transportation Plan without ever having a public hearing. She would have preferred the project be included in the TIP where citizens could provide comment during the TIP public hearing as well as hold a separate public hearing on the Five Corners roundabout. She was not aware there was strong public support for the project. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 23 In talking to 20 -30 people this weekend Councilmember Wilson relayed 70% were opposed to the roundabout because they felt it was generally not a high enough priority. When he informed them that most of the funding was from grants, 90% supported the roundabout. He anticipated citizens would look back on the roundabout as a good decision and it incentivizes smart economic development. 1_9sI&?Lell_Y_5OWN1 1Old IC1]►[a1 \.7.71 D1Ilil► y.11161110UIIIR" 10. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF JULY 12.2011. Community Services/Development Services Committee Councilmember Fraley - Monillas reported all the items discussed by the committee were approved on the Consent Agenda with the exception of authorizing the Mayor to sign the contract with David Evans and Associates which the Council just approved. Public Works plans to provide the Council a quarterly Public Works project report. Public Safetv and Human Resources Committee Councilmember Bernheim reported the only item the committee discussed was an amendment to the police training Interlocal Agreement with the City of Everett. Finance Committee Council President Pro Tern Petso reported in addition to the items approved on the Consent Agenda, the committee discussed the police contract with Woodway and requested it be presented to the full Council for discussion in the near future. The committee was provided a General Fund update; revenue receipts are as expected, expenditures are slightly less than 50 %. The committee is seeking the assistance of the Finance Department in developing an appropriate reserve policy which will be presented to the Council in the next couple months. If �\I awe] RCKIL13►11 \% 101011111. Mayor Cooper reported a new advertisement for a Finance Director was placed on July 15. The previous process did not result in an acceptable candidate. He was pleased with the quality of the early applications. Mayor Cooper reported he sent a letter to Fire District 1 asking them to assume ownership of Marine 16, the fire rescue /police boat. FDl would still need to operate the boat in a manner that met all the provisions of the federal Homeland Security grant used to purchase the boat. Approximately 90% of the boat's operation is fire related and only 10% police related, yet Edmonds owns the vessel and is responsible for all maintenance. The proposal is on the Fire Commission's agenda tonight. If an agreement cannot be reached, the Police Chief and he will likely recommend taking the boat out of service for financial reasons. He may also ask the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office to take over operation of the boat because the Homeland Security grant used to purchase the boat was provided to Edmonds via Snohomish County. Mayor Cooper reported Evergreen Speedway is sponsoring a Mayor's NASCAR race on July 30. He will be racing other Snohomish County mayors in Hornet Class cars. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Fraley - Monillas reported she had an opportunity to lead a 31/2 mile walk sponsored by Brighton Court, the City's Parks & Recreation and the Edmonds Senior Center. She commended Francine Cohen who they saw picking up garbage in the City. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the reason the City has some good applicants for Finance Director may be because the City's financial train is on the right track. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 24 Councilmember Wilson reported the Regional Fire Authority Level of Service Committee will not be providing a recommended plan by November which was the original timeline. The staff supporting that committee is very limited; no written materials were provided for the last meeting. Councilmember Bernheim commented the confidence in the City's finances may lead the Council to decide a levy is not needed yet or at all. He supported allowing the public an opportunity to vote on levies. With the restrictions on tax increases, it is the duty of the voters to put tax increases in place when they are warranted. There is nothing wrong with offering the voters an opportunity to vote on a tax increase and the Council can learn a great deal from the results of a vote. Next week during the levy discussion he plans to propose a roads levy, a General Fund levy, a maintenance /capital improvement levy, and a parks upgrade levy that range in cost from $15 — $80 /year each. Even if a Councilmember did not support the levy or thinks citizens will not support them, the votes provide valuable information. Council President Pro Tern Petso reported her longtime volunteer activity at Sherwood Elementary conflicts with participating on the Parking Committee. She asked if another Councilmember would volunteer to serve on the Parking Committee. Councilmember Bernheim volunteered. Councilmember Wilson reported he had been appointed to the EDC but had a conflict with their Wednesday meeting. He asked if another Councilmember would volunteer. Councilmember Buckshnis answered it was not necessary; Council President Peterson attends occasionally. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:1.9 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 19, 2011 Page 25