Loading...
06/07/2005 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES June 7, 2005 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5" 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 STAFF PRESENT Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir. Noel Miller, Public Works Director Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir. Rob Chave, Planning .Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Darrell Smith, Traffic Engineer Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Cindi Cruz, Executive Assistant Star Campbell, Planner Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder Mayor Haakenson recognized ex- elected officials in the audience including former Mayor Barb Fahey, former Councilmember Dave Earling, former Brier Mayor Wayne Kaske, and former State Representative Mike Cooper. I_\ a 2 tTeLyn W13 W.T" "►117:1 COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: Approval of (A) ROLL CALL s Minus es (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2005. Minut Approval of (C) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY OUTREACH MEETING MINUTES OF sislios MAY 31, 2005. Minutes Approval of (D) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #79808 THROUGH #79906 FOR THE WEEK OF Claim Checks MAY 23, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $585,175.19. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #79969 THROUGH #80054 FOR THE WEEK OF MAY 30, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 7, 2005 Page 1 $407,739.00.* APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #40805 THROUGH #40930 FOR THE PERIOD MAY 16 THROUGH MAY 31, 2005, IN THE AMOUNT OF $855,953.97. Claims for Damages (E) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM JOHN DULIN ($58.06), JOE LEHMAN (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND ANITA KINDER ($115.70). Boat Trailer I AUTHORIZE FLEET MAINTENANCE DIVISION TO GIFT UNIT #501, A 1969 and Sail Boat CALKINS BOAT TRAILER, AND SIX SMALL SAIL BOATS BACK TO THE CITY OF EVERETT. Taste of I (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT WITH THE GREATER Edmonds EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR THE TASTE OF EDMONDS. 4 ' of July (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT WITH THE GREATER Parade and EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR THE FOURTH OF JULY PARADE AND Fireworks FIREWORKS DISPLAY. Hot Autumn 1 (I) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT WITH THE GREATER Kites Auto EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR HOT AUTUMN NITES AUTOMOBILE Show SHOW AND CELEBRATION. 220 St. sw (J) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED MAY 19, 2005 FOR THE 220TH STREET SW Improvements IMPROVEMENTS (NINTH AVENUE SOUTH TO 84TH AVENUE WEST) PROJECT AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO MARSHBANK CONSTRUCTION ($4,322,113.73). Marina Beach (K) APPROPRIATION OF $202,264 ADDITIONAL FUNDS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR Storm Drain MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER FOR FINAL COSTS FOR THE Repair 1 MARINA BEACH 48 -INCH DIAMETER STORM DRAIN EMERGENCY REPAIR PROJECT. Edmonds 13. REPORT ON "AN EDMONDS KIND OF NIGHT OUT," AND POLICE FOUNDATION Night out REQUEST FOR FUNDS Nancy McDonald, President, Edmonds Police Foundation, invited the Council and the public to an Edmonds Kind of Night Out, a family safety event on Thursday, August 4 from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the Frances Anderson Center field. The Edmonds Police Department adopted the National Night Out Program in 1998 whereby neighborhoods met to promote safety and awareness in their neighborhoods and police officers visited each neighborhood. The program was so successful that the Police Department was unable to visit all the neighborhoods and a citywide event was held at City Park and then at Frances Anderson Center fields. She noted this was such an outstanding program that the Police Department won two national awards for presenting National Night Out. In 2004 when the Police Department determined they could no longer sponsor the event due to budget cuts and personnel changes, the Police Foundation decided to stage an event similar to National Night Out. Last year's event drew 1,500 guests and received very good reviews. This year's event will be bigger and better and the Foundation expects 3,000+ guests. Guests to this free event will be treated to a BBQ with chefs from the Police Department, live music and entertainment, tables with safety information as well as materials from other non -profit organizations in the community. She requested the Council's consideration of a $2,000 allocation to support the event. APPROVE "III TOWARD AN EDMONDS 1 OF OUT i COUNCIL CONTINGENCY 1 Councilmember Dawson commented on the importance of this event, including the opportunity for youth to get to know police officers. Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 7, 2005 Page 2 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson recognized State Representative Mary Helen Roberts in the audience. Save Our 4. PRESENTATION BY SAVE OUR COMMUNITIES Communities/ Oppose Greg Hauth, President, Save Our Communities (SOC), explained SOC was a single mission non- Commercial Expansion of profit group opposed to commercial expansion of airline flights at Paine Field. He explained by exploring Airline Flights the possibility of scheduled airline service at Paine Field, Snohomish County was casting aside an at Paine Field agreement they made 27 years ago with residents and property owners. He provided background on the issue, explaining in the 1970's as properties were being developed, communities surrounding Paine Field such as Mukilteo, Edmonds, Lynnwood and Everett sought assurance about the role of the county airport. After much discussion, Snohomish County concluded Paine Field should be used for general aviation meaning light aircraft and for industrial purposes such as the neighboring Boeing plant. Their intentions were identified in the document referred to as the Mediated Role Determination (MRD). The MRD lists activities that existed at Paine Field in the 1970's that were to be strongly discouraged from expanding due to their inconsistency with the airports primary aviation role as well as the unavoidable adverse impacts on the surrounding community. The discouraged activities included supplemental charter air passenger service, large transport crew training, air cargo aviation and military aviation. Since the MRD was adopted, airline service other than small commuter planes has been discouraged. However, the Director of Paine Field recently predicted that commercial air service at Paine Field was likely to occur over the next three, five or ten years. Snohomish County conducted a marketing study recently to determine who might utilize airline services at Paine Field and where they would go. The marketing study showed that Las Vegas was the number one potential destination followed by other vacation spots. He noted this increased airline service at Paine Field would make it easier to export tourism dollars to other destinations, hardly an economic boon for Snohomish County. Mr. Hauth pointed out no airlines have expressed interest in starting air service at Paine Field although that had not stopped proponents from pushing ahead. SOC believed with the construction of a third runway occurring at SeaTac, it is wasteful to pour funds into security and infrastructure improvements that would be necessary at Paine Field. He recalled the Puget Sound Regional Council declared recently that SeaTac was expected to meet the region's commercial air passenger capacity needs until 2030 and perhaps beyond. Before Snohomish County enticed an airline to Paine Field, he encouraged them to consider the consequences to the communities Snohomish County serves. He pointed out no environmental impact studies had been conducted at Paine Field, although other studies were available that had been conducted during the debate over a third runway. One such study that found communities around SeaTac suffered a 10% loss in home values due to their proximity to the airport and its flight paths. He noted a similar 10% devaluation in property values to the communities of Mukilteo, Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, and Lynnwood could equate to as much as $1 billion in lost property tax collections as well as lost property tax revenue collected by cities and school districts. He noted the Highline school district was spending $200 million for noise mitigation measures; of the $200 million, the school district was spending $50 million from a special bond levy. Mr. Hauth cited the FAA's assurance that they would vigorously defend the right of any air carriers to come in on a non - discriminatory basis. Which means once air service was made available and Snohomish County constructed an air terminal, the terminal could not be made available to a select, small commuter airline; it would be available to any airline or air cargo service and curfews could not be imposed. He noted the MRD stated the ability to strongly discourage air passenger service; this means and the FAA has agreed with this interpretation, neither the Snohomish County or the cities were obligated to spend any funds to attract /enhance airline service. Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 7, 2005 Page 3 Mr. Hauth concluded Snohomish County elected officials needed to respect the deal Snohomish County made with its citizens 27 years ago, a deal that encouraged hundreds of millions of dollars in construction of businesses and homes by promising to limit airport use. Nothing has occurred that warrants a change in these plans; he recommended Snohomish County cease risking the quality of life, tax base, and the existence as a thriving community. Council President Marin commented from his new role on the Sound Transit Board, it appeared there were some aspects of Sound Transit's light rail alignment that were tied to Paine Field. In discussions with Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon regarding south county cities' fear of how expansion of air service at Paine Field could negatively impact the community, Executive Reardon assured there was no plan and the work of Paine Field Director Dave Waggoner was only to complete a directive provided by Snohomish County Council several years ago to explore the possibility of expanded air service at Paine Field. The results of Mr. Waggoner's efforts will be presented to the Snohomish County Council during August. Councilmember Dawson recalled proponents of expansion touted that it would be good economically for Snohomish County. She asked whether SOC was aware of any evidence that indicated expansion would be good for the economy. Mr. Hauth stated there had not been any studies that supported that claim. Councilmember Dawson asked whether he had made presentations to Chambers of Commerce in the South Snohomish County area. Mr. Hauth advised he had not spoken to the Edmonds Chamber but had spoken to the Mukilteo Chamber who supported SOC's viewpoint. Several other Chambers such as Marysville listened to Paine Field Director Waggoner's presentation and without hearing from SOC, voted in favor of expansion at Paine Field. Councilmember Dawson pointed out there were numerous members of the Edmonds Chamber in attendance at tonight's meeting and suggested Mr. Hauth schedule a presentation to the Edmonds Chamber. Councilmember Moore inquired who were the proponents of expansion. Mr. Hauth answered the proponents were the Snohomish County Economic Development Council, local Chambers of Commerce and some real estate developers. Although it has been suggested that commercial service at Paine Field would enhance high -tech corporate development, in fact their marketing study failed to make a connection that commercial air service at Paine Field would attract/retain high -tech businesses. Res# 1095 5. PROPOSED RESOLUTION RESTATING OPPOSITION TO COMMERCIAL AIR PASSENGER Opposing SERVICE AT PAINE FIELD Commercial Air Passenger Mayor Haakenson recognized Snohomish County Council President Gary Nelson in the audience. Service at Paine Field Council President Marin reviewed the history of resolutions the Council has passed in opposition to commercial air passenger service at Paine Field, recalling when the resolution was first passed months ago, he felt there was little likelihood that an airline would locate at Paine Field and as a result, the resolution was worded rather mildly. As this issue continued and it appeared citizens' concerns were not being heard, a second resolution was passed that included slightly stronger language. The issue has continued and it was now incumbent upon the Council to make as strong a statement as possible to ensure the Snohomish County Council was aware of Edmonds' stand, thus the proposed resolution that contained even stronger language. Mukilteo, Mountlake Terrace and Woodway have passed resolutions stating their opposition and Lynnwood will likely pass a resolution next week. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1095, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, RESTATING ITS OPPOSITION TO COMMERCIAL AIR PASSENGER SERVICE AT PAINE FIELD. Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 7, 2005 Page 4 Councilmember Moore commented the Council passed a resolution four months ago and now was being asked to pass another resolution when in fact the opponents should focus their efforts on other areas of Snohomish County since Edmonds already passed a resolution. She was unaware of who the proponents were, noting it did not appear to be a very large group. She was unlikely to support the proposed resolution, largely because it was redundant. The facts were not ele ar on either side, and it was unfair to request the Council vote on another resolution without hearing from both sides. She commented the Council had never heard from Paine Field Director Dave Waggoner or from Snohomish County Council President Gary Nelson regarding his position. The issue was actually up to the airlines and most were just trying to stay alive and were unlikely to make a decision to come to a marginal market She questioned why the community wanted to cut off options for future generations to expand air service when the third runway was maxed out in 2030. With regard to property values, Councilmember Moore pointed out if the city continued to insist that property values would decrease, it might be a self - fulfilling prophecy. She was not taking a position for or against expansion at Paine Field, but was pointing out the Council had already passed a resolution and should move on. She expected her property values to soar because this was a fantastic community, especially as the population in South Snohomish County increased. With regard to noise, Councilmember Moore pointed out she currently experienced noise from single engine planes, trains, ferries, buses, trucks, motorcycles, lawnmowers, leaf blowers, edgers, scooters, music festivals and the neighbor's dog, which she found far more annoying than an airplane. If regular passenger air service came to Paine Field, it would fly over Edmonds at 3,000 feet if at all due to varying traffic patterns. She had flown out of Paine Field and had never flown over Edmonds. She commented on changes in the aerospace technology in the past 27 years including massive noise reductions. Councilmember Moore recalled during a recent 3 -hour visit to Des Moines which is nearly adjacent to SeaTac, they were never bothered by airplane noise. Des Moines had settled their lawsuit with SeaTac and property values were soaring and they are touting their community as being convenient to the airport Councilmember Moore commented communities are desperate for economic development due to the 1% annual cap on property tax increases and because citizens apparently did not want an income tax. She commented on the flourishing communities throughout the country that have airports, remarking that if the area wanted to grow into a healthy community, it may be necessary to make a few sacrifices. She emphasized it will be necessary for the region to compete every day forever to attract/retain jobs and businesses. She encouraged opponents to focus their efforts in the north and east portions of Snohomish County as numerous south county cities had already passed resolutions opposing expansion. Councilmember Moore planned to vote against the resolution because a similar resolution had already been passed four months ago. She welcomed information regarding the plans for expanding the airport, potential flight paths, how the planes might sound, and how soon it might happen. Councilmember Dawson spoke in favor of the resolution and urged Councilmember Moore to vote in favor of the resolution to send a strong message on behalf of south county that the community did not want expansion. She explained the citizens of Snohomish County were made a promise 27 years ago and development, particularly in Mukilteo, was premised on expansion not occurring and the residents of south county deserved to be listened to on this matter. Councilmember Dawson recalled she voted in favor of the previous resolution although she found it rather tepid. She was pleased with the stronger language in the proposed resolution, finding it appropriate to take a strong stand in opposition to expansion at Paine Field. She would hate to see the Council look as if it were divided and that the community was not joined on the issue simply to avoid redundancy. Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 7, 2005 Page 5 Councilmember Olson did not find a need for a second airport; the issue was a transportation problem. People complain because they have difficulty getting to SeaTac — not that there isn't an airport in Snohomish County and there are efforts underway to address transportation issues. Having grown up in this area, she was aware of the negative impact that the presence of the airport and the noise of airplanes flying overhead did to communities like Burien, Des Moines and Federal Way. She recalled a meeting in Mukilteo where an option to have Sound Transit light rail on Hwy. 99 to assist with air travel at Paine Field was discussed This behind - the - scenes movement toward expanded air service at Paine Field, similar to Brightwater, emphasized the need for a very strong message opposing expanded air service at Paine Field. She acknowledged it did not appear airlines were interested in providing service; however, another group believed that by having an airport there funded via tax dollars, airlines would come. She commented on the decision to establish a committee to report to the Governor on whether there was a need for another airport, noting there was no representation from Cities and Town on that committee. If Councilmember Moore was opposed to expansion, Councilmember Olson recommended she vote in favor of the resolution to avoid the message that Edmonds was split on the issue. Councilmember Orvis thanked Mr. Hauth for his efforts. He expressed his support for the resolution, recalling when his brother was seeking a low cost apartment in San Diego, they were located at the end of the San Diego International Airport. He did not want his neighborhood or any neighboring community to become like that. Councilmember Moore pointed out tax dollars would not build a terminal; it would have to be constructed by the airlines. She had not heard enough about the issues including Mr. Waggoner's presentation or a presentation by any other proponent. The resolution passed four months ago was also passed without hearing from any of the proponents. She also invited Snohomish County Council President Nelson to speak to the Council. She reported the results of a recent poll at the Senior Center indicated the majority of people wanted the airport, and concluded the Council needed more information. Councilmember Wilson spoke in support of the resolution, recalling he supported the resolution last time. He was not completely satisfied with the language in the proposed resolution due to internal inconsistencies, however until more solid, credible information was available, he found it appropriate to adopt the resolution opposing increased air service at Paine Field. The resolution did not prevent the Council from taking an alternate stand in the future if strong positive information would be provided via economic analysis, etc. Councilmember Wilson commented regarding the issue of adopting multiple resolutions. He recalled the Council adopted resolutions at least annually expressing their support for the Edmonds Crossing project. He encouraged Councilmember Moore to support the resolution to project a united message. He noted this was also a message to the proponents that they needed to convince the Council of their position. Councilmember Moore agreed with Councilmember Wilson's argument, provided that the proponents were invited to make a presentation to the Council. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Haakenson commented the City of Everett, the Snohomish County Economic Development Council and the Everett Chamber of Commerce supported expansion. He noted all the proponents hang their hats on economic development. Snohomish County Executive Aaron. Reardon has appointed a committee of two thus far, Mayors Doran (Mukilteo) and Stephanson (Everett), to study he MRD. Mayor Haakenson recalled Paine Field Director Dave Waggoner has made numerous presentations throughout the area and he offered to provide the Council the information. He recalled the flight paths depicted in Mr. Waggoner's presentation do indeed go over Edmonds. Mukilteo Mayor Doran and he met with a subcommittee including Hank Robinette, a major proponent of expansion, asking for Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 7, 2005 Page 6 information how Snohomish County would benefit from economic development and what would happen to property values. Although the subcommittee promised to do that study, it had not been done in the 7 -8 months since that meeting. He noted the reason so many Chambers of Commerce supported expansion was the assertion that it would lead to economic development. Mayor Haakenson commented if he asked audience members whether they would rather go to Paine Field than SeaTac, likely all would rather go to a closer airport. A survey that only asks whether people would rather fly out of Paine Field than SeaTac, which is what the Chambers of Commerce and Snohomish County Economic Development Council asked, is flawed because it failed to inform respondents that they could only fly to a couple places to transfer to another plane. He assured the information Councilmember Moore requested was available. Contribution 6. RECOGNITION OF CONTRIBUTION OF FUNDS TO THE EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES of Funds to DISTRICT BY SNOHOMISH COUNTY AND STATE OF WASHINGTON Public Facilities District Dave Earling, Public Facilities District (PFD) Board Member, explained the purpose of this presentation was to highlight the efforts and successes people in the community have had in the past several months. He identified PFD Board Members in the audience including Terry Vehrs, Kay Mahaffey and John McGibbon and the Chairs of the Capital Campaign, Barb and Pat Fahey. Mr. Earling advised of a partnership being formed between Edmonds Community College and the Edmonds PFD. Of the two $1 million requests made to the State Legislature, one was successful, a grant to Edmonds Community College for a capital project which the college intends to use for capital construction for the Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA). Mr. Earling explained the Fine Arts Center of Edmonds (FACE) chose to merge with the ECA and they requested the $560,000 grant they received be reallocated to ECA. He expressed his appreciation to Snohomish County Council President Gary Nelson for his efforts associated with the reallocation. Mr. Earling advised the PFD's current fundraising efforts have reached $14.5 million including a recent grant from the Hubbard Foundation, their second contribution to the facility. With regard to the $1 million allocation from the State Capital Construction budget, Mr. Earling recognized Edmonds Community College President Jack Oharah for his tireless efforts. He also recognized Representative Mary Helen Roberts for her efforts as well as Arvilla Ohlde for her assistance with writing grants, Mike Doubleday for his lobbying efforts, Project Manager Kjris Lund, Cultural Resource Manager Francis Chapin, Community Services Director Stephen Clifton and Executive Assistant Cindi Cruz. With regard to the reallocation for the FACE funds, Mr. Earling recognized Snohomish County Council President Gary Nelson for his assistance as well as FACE Board Members who were key to developing the partnership, Ron Clybome and Maria Montalgo. Mr. Earling reported the Cascade Symphony was donating 25% of the net proceeds of their May 23 concert at Benaroya Hall to the ECA. Other recent fundraising events to benefit the ECA include Art of Our Mothers held at the ECA on Mother's Day weekend and the DeMiero Jazz Festival. He advised of the next fundraising event at the facility on June 17 & 18 when the Dan Wilkins Ballet Company will present "Out of the Dust," noting that work would eventually debut in New York City. Maria Montalgo, Co- President, FACE, recalled the second annual Art of Our Mothers held June 6 & 7 attracted 350 people, 100 more than last year. Another fundraising event for the ECA, a sculpture show, is planned for August/September at the Floral Arts Center. Ron Clyborne, Co- President, FACE, expressed his thanks to the FACE Executive Committee, members of FACE, and the ECA for the opportunity for such an incredible alliance and he looked forward to a Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 7, 2005 Page 7 positive and creative partnership. He relayed FACE's pleasure at keeping the grant in Edmonds, commenting the alliance between FACE and ECA was indicative of independent art organizations coming together for the good of the community. Susan Kostick, Vice President, College Relations and Advancement, Edmonds Community College, recalled a few years ago Edmonds Community College announced a new initiative of engagement in civic activities and the arts with the community. The college has made great strides in that direction including building on their strong music and visual arts programs, beginning a lecture series, and in 2003 the college hired a full time theater arts faculty member. She noted the college has had a very active theater program although without a theater. Via the $1 million allocated in the State Construction budget and their partnership with the ECA, the college's dream to provide a full range of cultural and educational opportunities to the community could be realized. Ms. Kostick advised the $1 million provided by the State would allow the college to participate as partners with Edmonds, Snohomish County, FACE and all the other generous contributors to the ECA. Their participation in ECA for performing arts education and programming fits the college's mission and goal. On behalf of Edmonds Community College, she thanked all the partners and donors and particularly the State legislators who provided the $1 million to Edmonds Community College and the opportunity to partner with the community. Gary Nelson, Snohomish County Council President, explained FACE requested the Snohomish County Council reallocate the $560,000 they received as they had an alterative approach to the use of those funds via a partnership with ECA. The Snohomish County Council agreed the funds committed to FACE in 2002 belonged in Edmonds, thus the Council reallocated the hotel /motel tax funds to the ECA. He encouraged the community to contribute to the $440,000 that remained to match the State's $1 million allocation. The Snohomish County Council was very interested in what was occurring in Edmonds; the Edmonds PFD was the only PFD providing a venue for performing arts. The other three PFD s are building the Everett Arena, the Future of Flight facility at Paine Field and the Lynnwood Convention Center which do not provide the kind of balance the County Council was seeking in Snohomish County. He pledged the County Council's support through the completion of the project. Mr. Earling advised the PFD was pleased with the progress they have made and intend to finalize construction negotiations during the next month and anticipate beginning construction in late summer/ early fall. He looked forward to the County Council's continued interest and support for the project. Fwsdllsg for 7. UPDATE OF FUNDING FOR EDMONDS CROSSING Edmonds crossing Community Services Director Stephen Clifton provided an update on the Edmonds Crossing project cost and funding scenario. The total cost of the project in 2004 dollars was $165.3 million. When he arrived at the City in 2000, the City had secured $6+ million for the Edmonds Crossing project; $3.4 million in Transportation Efficiency Act 21 funds and $2.5 million in Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Funds. In 2002, he began applying for federal appropriations and via the generosity of Senators Murray and Cantwell and Congressman Inslee, in 2003 the City received an appropriation of $3.5 million ($3.4 million after administrative costs). In 2004 the City received an appropriation of $2 million ($1.9 million after administrative costs) and a $1 million appropriation in 2005, bringing the total amount of federal funds for the project to $12.3 million. He noted $4.5 million in state and federal funds had been expended to date on the environmental process. Mr. Clifton recalled in 2003, via the efforts of State representatives, the project received a $10 million appropriation. He noted a significant amount of those funds were used to secure the lower Unocal property and the balance will be used as local matching funds toward federal allocations. During the last legislative session, the efforts of the City's delegation resulted in an allocation of $35 million over ten years— $1.5 million in 2005 -2007, $10.295 million in 2011 -2013 and $23.170 million in 2013 -2015. He advised a request had been submitted to the delegation requesting the amount be moved up one biennium Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 7, 2005 Page 8 so that once permitting and design are completed in 2009, construction could commence on some components of the project. Mr. Clifton expressed his thanks to Mayor Haakenson for his tireless efforts on this project He also expressed thanks to Representatives Brian Sullivan, Mary Helen. Roberts, Maralyn Chase, Ruth Kagi, and Darlene Fairley and Senator Paull Shin. He expressed thanks to Snohomish County Council President Gary Nelson and Dave Earling and Mike Cooper for their efforts in securing the 2003 appropriation as well as the federal appropriations. He also expressed his thanks to Mike Doubleday, the City's Governmental Specialist, who has been instrumental in securing these funds. Councilmember Plunkett asked Mr. Clifton to describe how the funds in addition to the $35 million already allocated would be identified. Mr. Clifton explained the City would continue their efforts to request federal appropriations on an annual basis and would submit requests for funds from the State to provide additional funding. He described the Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID), a tri- county effort to develop a list of transportation related projects before the voters, possibly in 2006. To date, the City's Traffic Engineer Darrell Smith and he have positioned the Edmonds Crossing project on the list of projects. If the voters in the tri- county area approved the list, the Edmonds Crossing project would receive $152 million, providing full funding for the project. He concluded that if the RTID vote was successful, construction on the project could begin in 2009. Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council to a 15- minute reception related to Agenda Items 6 and 7. Arts g ANNUAL REPORT OF THE EDMONDS ARTS COMMISSION Commission Annual Mary Monfort, Vice President, Arts Commission, introduced the Art Commissioner Todd Timmcke Report who designed the Commission's 2004 annual review brochure. She explained the Art Commission's primary vision was to ensure arts were integral to quality of life, central image and economic vitality. She described the Commission's support of literary arts, including the 19th annual Write on the Sound event held during October 2004 that included a pre- conference day of writing workshops via a collaboration with Edmonds Community College. She described performing arts including Concerts in the Park and expressed their thanks to Lynnwood Honda and Acura of Lynnwood for sponsoring the concerts. She described Family Concerts during the summer and Winter Performing Arts in February. Ms. Monfort described the Commission's efforts toward education and collaboration including providing technical assistance as well as grants and other monetary aid. She described the Best Book Poster contest at the library and the Commission's involvement in public art, explaining last year was a stellar year that included two installations, "Standing Wave" by Gerry Tsutakawa and "Friendship Tree" by Steve Jensen, Artwork for 9. PUBLIC HEARING AND AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT WITH Exterior Wall ARTIST NICKOLUS MEISEL TO PROVIDE ARTWORK FOR THE SOUTH EXTERIOR WALL of City Hall OF CITY HALL. Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin explained one of her roles was to work with the Edmonds Art Commission to curate the public art collection and facilitate acquisition of new pieces in the art collection. The City currently has approximately 140 pieces of art in the collection of which over 35 are permanently sited. She explained the City funded acquisition of major art works via donations as well as the 1% for Art program established by ordinance in 1975. This agenda item was the final stage in the public art process to seek approval from the Council for the Mayor to sign a contract with the artist selected by the Public Art Selection Jury for a recycled copper project on the south wall of City Hall. Ms. Chapin explained this project developed out of the decommissioning of the old fountain in 1998 after it was severely damaged. At that time, one of the two artists /fabricators of the original fountain which was installed in 1974, Howard Duwell, was on the decommission committee and supported the idea that the copper used in the fountain could be recycled. She described the stages in the public art selection which are adopted by ordinance. First the project is identified including a budget; $10,000 was Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 7, 2005 Page 9 established as the budget for this project. Next, staff and the Art Commission wrote a call for artists which was approved by the Council several months ago. The Art Commission then established the Public Art Selection Jury comprised of jurors who represent the community. The jury for this selection included Mayor Haakenson representing the City, Peggy Pritchard-Olson representing the Council, Pam Harold representing the Arts Commission, Petro Rusu representing the downtown business community, Jim Roberts participating as a citizen at large as well as providing special expertise as an engineering specialist for the City, and Tina Hoggett participating as a consultant providing her knowledge as a member of the artist team for the public art in the Public Safety Complex. The jury then reviewed the 14 submissions and selected three to develop a specific design proposal. In conjunction with this art installation, the City plans to add identification signage to the City Hall building. Although the lettering is depicted in the artist's presentation, Ms. Chapin stated it would be installed via a separate process. The three finalists then presented their designs at an advertised public meeting on April 28. The jury had the option of selecting one or starting the process over. After reviewing the designs and listening to public testimony, the jury unanimously selected the design proposed by Nickolus Meisel. The recommendation of the jury is then forwarded to the Arts Commission who formally approved forwarding it to the City Council. The final step is to present the proposal to the Council, hold a public hearing and request approval of the contract so that Mr. Meisel can begin fabrication. Pam Harold, Arts Commissioner, and member of the Art Selection Jury, described Mr. Meisel's education, experience exhibiting his work in numerous shows and current position teaching sculpture as a visiting assistant professor at WSU in Pullman. The selection jury was impressed initially by Mr. Meisel's creative use of materials and design. He has done a major public art installation at the community center in the International District in Seattle that illustrates his strong design skills and ability to solve problems imposed by the site. The jury found Mr. Meisel's design proposal for City Hall to be thematically strong, incorporating some of Edmonds' history and successfully addressing the challenge of using the recycled copper material to create a design that works on the large concrete block wall as well as a practical and affordable solution for installation. Artist Nickolus Meisel explained when he received the prospectus, he was excited about the opportunity to use recycled materials. As he researched the Edmonds community, he was intrigued by the layers of Edmonds' history. He described his artwork, the combination of old copper with new copper to create paper boat forms that reference the mosquito fleets that were used to deliver messages. These boat forms will be mounted on the building no lower than 15 feet and wrap around to the front entrance as well as extend above the building. He explained combining the old and new copper represented the new families moving into the community and how old and new could flow together like a flock of birds moving as one. He noted over time the new and old copper would age and look very similar. He explained the symbol was constructed of stainless steel and was Gregg shorthand for "you are here," which was based on a feel he got when he visited Edmonds that it was a place where it was easy to stop and slow down. He circulated a sample of the boat forms and displayed photographs illustrating the shadows that would be created throughout the day by the boat forms. Ms. Chapin anticipated Mr. Meisel would fabricate the artwork this summer for a fall installation. Mayor Haakenson opened the public hearing. Chris Guitton, 1012 Viewland Way, Edmonds, suggested "you are here" be changed to "find yourself in Edmonds." Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing and remanded the matter to Council for action. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A CONTRACT WITH NICKOLUS MEISEL TO 19 TIITAIaW1taILIAT01RIIsI lkv 9a sI= Y11111Y :■WIIof19IQRL1:1111KIIwr V11•1: /:1Nx Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 7, 2005 Page 10 Councilmember Wilson thanked Mr. Meisel for the artwork he proposed, remarking it would be a great addition to a building that sorely needed it and would be a great asset to the community. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Reconsider 10. RECONSIDERATION OF THE APRIL l9 2005 CITY COUNCIL DECISION REGARDING THE Variance FOLLOWING MATTER: CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING Request at EXAMINER DECISION TO APPROVE A SETBACK VARIANCE TO REDUCE A REAR 1142 Sierra Pl SETBACK FROM 25 FEET TO 10 FEET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE (V- 2004 -8). THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 1142 SIERRA PLACE AND IS ZONED SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS- 12). (APPELLANTS: MARK DREYER & SHELLEY DREYER GREEN / APPLICANTS: DARRYL & SHARI LEWIS / FILE NO. AP- 05 -40) City Attorney Scott Snyder recalled during Council deliberation on this matter, he advised the Council they were limited in its discussion to the issue raised on appeal. Upon further research, he corrected this, advising the Council was free to apply all variance criteria and determine whether they had been met When informed of that, the Council made a motion to reconsider and the matter was re- advertised. The Council is now back to the deliberation phase and the hearing and record are closed. Mayor Haakenson asked whether any Councilmember had any conflicts or ex parte communications they wished to disclose regarding this matter. There were no disclosures voiced and Mayor Haakenson advised all Councilmembers would participate. Councilmember Orvis recalled he was the lone no vote during the Council's previous consideration of this issue. He explained there were five criteria for a variance and all five must be met to approve the variance. Of the five, the one that concerned him was the variance criteria that the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owners the rights enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity with the same zone. He found the staff report pertained primarily to the "not detrimental criteria" and not the minimum necessary. He questioned whether by granting this variance, was too much of a variance being granted, granting more rights than should be granted. In this instance, the variance was reducing the rear setback from 25 feet to 10 feet, most of which was being used for a second deck. If the variance were not granted or reduced to accommodate only the house, the applicant would still be allowed to build the house, garage, and westward facing deck which he found were all the rights the property owner needed to be granted. Due to his concern that the criteria had not been met, he was unable to approve the variance. Councilmember Dawson agreed with Councilmember Orvis' comments. She referred to page 62 of the Council packet, the Findings, Conclusions and Decision of the Hearing Examiner, specifically the Hearing Examiner's finding, "The applicant and staff have rightfully pointed out the numerous constraints on this property. However, inclusion of the deck on the north side of the proposed house is not strictly necessary to allow reasonable use of this property." She pointed out that fording illustrated the proposed variance did not meet the criteria that it was the minimum necessary. She noted if the matter were remanded to the Hearing Examiner, it may be possible to establish a better record to demonstrate why this was the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the property. Based on the information provided, Councilmember Dawson planned to vote to deny the variance. If the applicant were interested, she would support remanding it to the Hearing Examiner to establish a further record. She asked the applicant whether there was any additional information they wanted to present to the Hearing Examiner to demonstrate why it was necessary to have the deck extend into the setback. Darryl Lewis, applicant, advised the property adjacent had the same 10 -foot setback on that side of their property. Councilmember Dawson restated her question, whether there was any information the applicant did not present at the initial hearing before the Hearing Examiner that they would like to present to establish a better record regarding the economic viability of the project without the deck. Mr. Lewis Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 7, 2005 Page 11 answered if the choice was to eliminate the deck or present additional evidence to the Hearing Examiner, he preferred to return to the Hearing Examiner. He noted this had not been an issue during the Hearing Examiner's review; now that it has become an issue, he was certain he could provide additional evidence. Councilmember Moore asked Mr. Snyder to address the issue raised by Councilmember Orvis with regard to the minimum necessary. Mr. Snyder explained the criterion is whether the variance represents the minimum necessary. He recalled requesting in the past that the Council provide more guidance in the variance criteria, noting the issue was always difficult when there was a design -based variance request — a specific design rather than a building envelope. He found it difficult to provide much assistance to the Council because there was little case law on the subject and there was nothing in the Code to provide guidance. Hearing no further questions for staff, Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSAL WITH CONDITIONS. Councilmember Wilson explained he would vote against the motion, although he voted in favor of the project when the Council reviewed it previously based upon the advice regarding the limited scope of the Council review. He agreed with the argument provided by Councilmembers Orvis and Dawson, noting there had been no finding that the variance to accommodate the deck was necessary to allow reasonable use of the property. He agreed with Mr. Snyder that the lack of guidance in the variance criteria has been a long - standing problem. He preferred to remand the issue to the Hearing Examiner to allow the applicant to build a stronger case regarding that issue and if there was continued disagreement between the parties, the issue could be appealed to the City Council again. Councilmember Dawson clarified she was uncertain whether the record was clear enough to indicate the design met the variance criteria. She noted the Hearing Examiner indicated the deck was not necessary to allow reasonable use of the property; she was uncertain whether even without the deck the standards for a variance would be met. She agreed there was a problem with the code and recommended the Council further define "minimum necessary to make reasonable use" or remove that as a criteria. She found an adequate record had not been established and the variance could not be granted based on this record. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2 -5), COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN AND COUNCILMEMBER OLSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, ORVIS, MOORE, WILSON AND DAWSON OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO REMAND THIS MATTER TO THE HEARING EXAMINER TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO PRESENT MORE EVIDENCE CONCERNING HIS VARIANCE. Councilmember Dawson inquired whether remanding would also allow other parities to make a record. Mr. Snyder answered it would be limited to the existing parties of record. Councilmember Wilson asked for clarification whether the remand was to address issues related to the setback and not critical areas. Councilmember Orvis answered it was to address the setback issue. Councilmember Wilson clarified the remand would be limited to the variance criteria as it related to the setback and was not open to whether the variance complied with other variance criteria. Mr. Snyder suggested the motion incorporate the direction that the scope of the remand be limited to review of the variance criteria as it relates to the rear setback. Councilmember Orvis restated the motion as follows: Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 7, 2005 Page 12 REMAND TO THE HEARING EXAMINER TO REVIEW THE CRITERIA REGARDING THE REAR SETBACK. MOTION CARRIED (5 -2), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, ORVIS, MOORE, WILSON AND DAWSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN AND COUNCILMEMBER OLSON OPPOSED. Mayor Haakenson advised a hearing before the Hearing Examiner would be scheduled and all parties of record would be notified of the hearing date. Councilmember Dawson commented she did not necessarily fault the applicant or the appellant in this matter and urged staff and the Hearing Examiner to ensure all the variance criteria were satisfied regardless of whether there was any testimony objecting to each of the criteria. She felt badly that the applicant was being delayed because nothing was said about that criteria. If something had been said, possibly a record could have been established at the first hearing. Mayor Haakenson reiterated his request that the Council clarify the code with regard to variances so that staff could make better decisions. it. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson referred to his earlier comment that Chambers of Commerce were supportive of Paine Field expansion, clarifying the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce has not yet taken a position on that issue. 4" or July Ron Clyborne, Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, explained the chamber has sponsored the 4th of July program for over 90 years with the City providing Police and Fire services until about five years ago when the Chamber began paying for all City services. The budget for this year's event was $32,000; over the last four years, the Chamber has raised nearly $30,000 each year to put on this incredible community program. He requested the Council consider granting $2,000 to the Chamber to assist with the 4"" of July program. He also asked the television audience for donations for the 4h of July program. With regard to the efforts to expand the viable retail space downtown, Mr. Clybome noted it was clear the Retail space Council had reviewed all the necessary studies from a long list of qualified consultants. He commended Downtown the Council for the thoroughness with which they approached the issue and commended the Planning Board for the time they devoted to developing a vision for Edmonds. The Council has gathered an impressive record of public comment and opinions; now it was time for the Council to act. He relayed the opinion of the Chamber of Commerce that business opportunities in Edmonds would sputter and stall if the Council did not move forward, noting time was of the essence. He urged the Council to review all the information, data, and survey results and move forward with a decision. Steve Bernheim, 216 4th Avenue South, Edmonds, extended his appreciation to Mayor Haakenson for U.S. Mayors' Climate supporting education about global warming by signing the U. S. Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement. Protection He explained that agreement had many purposes including educating the business community about the Agreement production of global warming pollution. With regard to the development regulations, he displayed a drawing (from the perspective looking west from the exit of the Public Safety Complex where the MJMP Development I project was proposed) that illustrated the increased use of the alleyways that would result from adopting a Regulations 30 -foot residential only height limit as proposed by staff instead of the 25 -foot height limit proposed by the architect He pointed out the increased height for that '/z block area would result in 60 new units and suggested the Council consider where those units would exit. Currently they would exit onto 5th Avenue where there were no curb cuts or onto the 16 -foot alley. He concluded it was not appropriate to zone that %2 block for that concentration of development because the infrastructure could not accommodate it. Paine Field Ron Wambolt, 530 Dayton Street, Edmonds, referred to the Council's discussion regarding expansion of air service at Paine Field, commenting he was glad the Council was not a jury in a court of law because they would be ready to find the defendant guilty after the prosecution rested their case. Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 7, 2005 Page 13 Don Kreiman, 24006 95"` Place W, Edmonds, asked what the cities of Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, Issaquah, Bothell, Redmond, Everett, Mercer Island and nearly every city in the Puget Sound area had that Edmonds did not have? He answered money for roads and walkways. He noted other City Councils understood it was their fiduciary responsibility, even though they too lost funds to I -776, to find a way to fund those items. This was not a surprise to Council, recalling staff had been warning the Council, three times in over eight months, on August 24, 2004, at the Council retreat and again on April 5, 2005. He Capital Improvement recalled on April 5 2005 staff presented a Capital Improvement Plan ( CIP ) that the Planning Board had Plan denied approval because finding was inadequate for road and building maintenance. The Planning Board Chair also made an unprecedented appearance at the City Council meeting to explain that the City was unable to meet its Comprehensive Plan objectives. Further, during audience comments, a former State Representative told the Council it was too late this year if they were waiting for help from the State legislature. However, the pleas from staff, the Planning Board, citizens, the Planning Board Chair and the Downtown I former State Representative went unheeded and the Council continued to ignore its responsibilities and Height Limits approved a dysfunctional CIP. He concluded the Council continued to fiddle with design guidelines that the Planning Board returned to them nearly three years ago and may even pass downtown height limits that two consultants, the Planning Board, developers and property owners have stated will stop redevelopment. He questioned whether the Council knew where they were leading the city. sch °ot Roger Hertrieh,1.020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, commented regarding Agenda Item 1.2. He stated parks District were a tradition in Edmonds and it was essential that the City acquire as much park property as possible. Property With regard to hw to finance the acquisition, he noted the Edmonds School District could lease the property to the City as they did the civic center playfields. The neighborhood park designation was retained for the property when it was transferred to the City following annexation; a 3 -acre minimum was required under Snohomish County's regulations. He referred to a Snohomish County funding source for parks that should be considered. He noted the Comprehensive Plan designated the property as a park; any change in the designation required Council approval and any offer on the property was contingent on a Comprehensive Plan change. He urged the Council not to restrict themselves to a 2 -acre piece when they had the ability to acquire all the property. He expressed concern with .Mayor Haakenson's indication that he did not want to expend any more staff time on seeking funds until the Council made a decision. He noted staff should have been seeking funding sources over the past year because they were aware of the school district's plans to sell the property. He concluded grant funds were available via Snohomish County's mitigation fund, the Paul Allen Foundation and/or the Tulalip Tribe. If the Council was unable to obtain information from staff or Mayor Haakenson, he recommended hiring Arvilla Ohlde who is assisting the PFD with grant writing. Councilmember Plunkett commented Edmonds 4h of July was felt by many to be the best 4h of July 4" of July celebration in the State and there was not a person or Councilmember who wanted to sacrifice the event. He expressed interest in the Council considering the Chamber of Commerce's request for $2,000. Old Woodway 12. PRESENTATION ON POSSIBLE ACQUISITION OF ALL OR PART OF OLD WOODWAY Elementary ELEMENTARY SITE Site Mayor Haakenson read the following narrative contained in the Council packet: As you are aware, the Edmonds School District is in the process of selling some parcels of land that they have deemed surplus. The ex- Woodway Elementary School is one such property. The District has received offers on the property. They are now coming to the City in order to give us the opportunity to possibly purchase all or part of'the site. As you know, City staff'has been working with the District for several months in an effort to secure all or part of the site for a park. The District has been very accommodating and helpAl in these discussions. The District is not permitted by state law to donate property to the City. They also have a responsibility to all taxpayers in the District to use properties for the benefit of all students. Giving property away, even if they could, would not be a fiscally responsible action. Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 7, 2005 Page 14 Tonight, I am asking you to give staff direction on how to proceed. It is my desire and I believe yours, to at a minimum, create a neighborhood park at that location. A neighborhood park, as staff envisions it, is about two acres in size, has a baseball field /soccer field, a children's play area with climbing structures, some benches, and some lawn area. This would be almost identical to the Pin e Street Playfield. There is no question that a park such as this or more is needed in this Edmonds neighborhood. In your packet you have copies of the Parks and Open Space Comprehensive Plan that speak to neighborhood parks, community parks, and regional parks as well as a map of the city showing where our park needs are. Also included is an aerial photo of the neighborhood and school site. The policy question before you is not how to come up with the money to purchase the site. The question that you need to answer is, "What do you want to happen there ?" Do you want housing; do you want a completely wooded, unimproved site; do you want a sports complex; do you want a park and, if'so, what size? What does the zoning call for? Once you have determined your policy for that location, then it will be up to staff to give you information on costs to implement your policy. Here are a few thoughts to guide you after you have determined your policy. While the price of the parcel and any negotiating terms we would consider should be the subject of an executive session, I will share with you that the District has received many offers for the parcel around the value placed on the property by their consultant, which as I recall, was around $7 million. All of those making offers are aware that a park needs to be accommodated on the site along with any housing. We currently have $1.3 million in our park acquisition fund. I have reported to you previously on staff attempts to find grant funding, and the only option available to us is an IAC matching grant up to $500, 000 for which we cannot apply until next spring and which, if we won the grant, would be awarded in .Tune of 2006. At the Council's request, I have spoken to the representative of the Cascade Land Conservancy and they are not interested in the entire parcel. They only are willing to meet with the developers to ensure that a small park is retained on the site. They are able to negotiate with a potential developer, however, with less leverage than th e City has, so it is unlikely they will be of any help. There has been some talk that the County has money to help in this endeavor; but according to park staff they do not have money to use for acquisition, so they are unable to help as well. Since that time, as Mr. Hertrich indicated, the County Council has advised there is $2 million in a fund dedicated for south county and there is a possibly the City could tap into some of those funds. There have been other suggestions of possible donors, none of which have a history of purchasing land for parks and frankly I am unwilling to expend any more staff time pursuing grants until the Council gives us direction on whether they are interested in a neighborhood park, a regional park, or no park at that location. In addition to land costs, we could also incur development costs for a neighborhood park in the area of $250, 000 per acre. If you are concerned about the usefulness of playfields, keep in mind that the school district is spending $9.5 million from bond proceeds upgrading the drainage and irrigation and improving the turf at 15 school fields, which will increase the ability of those fields to be used in inclement weather. Finally, while I am still working on the details, I am working on a major partnership to upgrade the fields at the old Edmonds- Woodway High School which will add to the inventory offields in the area. As I have also mentioned to you previously, Marina Beach Park was purchased by the City for approximately $4 million and that is the only major parkland purchased by the City in 20 years. Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh explained he had not been at liberty until late last week to discuss the partnership to upgrade the fields at the old Edmonds- Woodway High School. He iccalled there were two major needs in this neighborhood reflected in the Comprehensive Plan, a neighborhood Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 7, 2005 Page 15 park and a community park. The old Edmonds - Woodway High School site had been proposed as a community park that would include a 4-plex — two baseball/softball fields and two soccer fields — as well as trails and other amenities. The two existing ballfields at that site were nearly unplayable. The five partners were planning to meet again on June 23 when the District would provide conceptual plans and costs. The fields were envisioned to be field turf. He noted the old Edmonds- Woodway High School site was adjacent to the old Woodway Elementary which had the potential to be a terrific neighborhood park. He encouraged the Council to consider the big picture in that neighborhood — a community park and a neighborhood park. The City had traditionally sought IAC grants which were available for acquisition or development. He anticipated using any IAC grant funds to offset the purchase price of all or part of the old Woodway Elementary School site. With regard to the old Edmonds - Woodway High School site, he noted the partners included user groups with available funds. He commented on the ability to generate revenue via the complex for ongoing maintenance and operation of the fields. Councilmember Plunkett commented Mayor Haakenson's memo indicated the District was giving the City the opportunity to purchase all or part of the site. He inquired about the timeframe of this "opportunity." Mayor Haakenson answered next month. Councilmember Plunkett questioned whether the City actually had considerably more time insofar as a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be required. Development Services Director Duane Bowman answered the District could enter into a real estate contract with a potential buyer; the District has docketed a Comprehensive Plan amendment for the old Woodway Elementary School site. He assumed a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be one of the contingencies in a Purchase and Sale Agreement. Mayor Haakenson explained the District was giving the City an opportunity to purchase all or part of the site. Councilmember Plunkett clarified the District was giving the City the opportunity to purchase the property within 30 days, after that time, the City would need to deal with a developer. Councilmember Plunkett referred to an email the Council received from a member of the community on May 31. He asked whether the Council had participated in any executive session in regard to the purchase of this property to which Council :President Marin replied no. Council President Marin also answered no to Councilmember Plunkett's question whether the Council had rejected the District's offer to sell the property to the City. Councilmember Plunkett inquired whether the partnership Mayor Haakenson referred to in his memo would involve money. Mayor Haakenson answered it would involve money from all partners which would include the City although he would prefer the City's contribution be via field maintenance and field scheduling. The groups he was working with were willing to provide the necessary funding. With regard to the Cascade Land Conservancy, Councilmember Plunkett questioned since the entire parcel was not wooded, would the Conservancy consider providing a grant to retain the property as is. Mayor Haakenson answered the most recent information indicates they are not interested in the entire parcel; they were only willing to meet with a developer to ensure a small park was retained on the site. Councilmember Plunkett recalled reference was made at one time that the City might need homes in this area to meet GMA requirements. He asked for confirmation from staff that the City was meeting GMA requirements now and that homes in this area were not necessary. Mr. Bowman answered the City was meeting GMA targets, however, any additional population would assist with meeting those goals. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether it would be beneficial to hire Arvilla Ohlde during the next 30 days to assist with identifying funding opportunities. Mayor Haakenson answered staff would do whatever the Council directed; if the Council wanted to hire Ms. Ohlde and provid the funds, staff would hire her. Mr. Bowman agreed Ms. Ohlde was knowledgeable about parks and recreation grants and there potentially could be some benefit in hiring her as a consultant should the Council make that decision. Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 7, 2005 Page 16 Councilmember Plunkett expressed interest in how a purchase of the entire site could be financed, not why the City could not do it. He asked whether the Finance Department could identify options and scenarios for financing a purchase of 11 acres, 47 acres, or less than that. He noted the options would need to address the budget consequences. Assistant Administrative Services Manager Kathleen Junglov answered staff could provide that information. Councilmember Wilson asked whether there had been any discussion with the District regarding the price and whether it would be the same as the price for a private developer. Mr. McIntosh answered the District had not really discussed price at all; as an intergovernmental agency, the District could sell the property to the City for 10% less. Councilmember Wilson asked which of the two sites would be more conducive to field development, taking into consideration access, roads, infrastructure to support the use, etc. Mr. McIntosh stated the old Edmonds - Woodway High School was more appropriate for a regional athletic facility because of the 16 acre size which could accommodate a 4 -plex, parking was already available and the 50 -foot buffer around the perimeter on three sides of the site would shield any lighting that may be installed in the future. Councilmember Wilson inquired about the short and long term budgetary impacts of developing both sites. Mr. McIntosh anticipated the old Edmonds- Woodway High School site would generate enough revenue to cover field maintenance and operations and a fund for replacement of the turf. The level of maintenance on the 11 acre old Woodway Elementary School site would depend on how it was developed. He explained a 2 -acre neighborhood park required approximately 200 man hours per year or approximately $6,000 — 7,000 plus materials, perhaps a total of $10,000. He reported a very minimal study of the 7 -acre park in Esperance estimated maintenance costs of $60,000 per year. He commented the acquisition of any large property that required field mowing would require the purchase of equipment as the department was currently maxed out on its mowing capabilities with the existing equipment. Councilmember Wilson commented the city was meeting its growth targets based on existing population targets and asked whether those targets could change. Mr. Bowman acknowledged the growth targets were reviewed and changed periodically, however, the City was fairly safe in its existing growth targets. Councilmember Moore thanked Mayor Haakenson for his efforts associated with the old Edmonds - Woodway High School site, commenting that was an exciting concept. She explained she had done a great deal of work on the issue of acquiring the old Woodway Elementary School site during the past five days. She recalled when citizens commented in the past on the upcoming availability of the site, the Council was told the City could not afford to purchase the property and the issue was never presented to the Council formally. She questioned why the City would allow 11 acres to be sold without trying to acquire it. Councilmember Moore reported she contacted Congressman Inslee who was supportive and although the budget cycle for this year was complete, was interested in assisting. She then contacted Snohomish County and learned there was $1.2 million available to purchase land in the Edmonds - Lynnwood park district. Edmonds may also be able to acquire funds previously allocated to Lynnwood that Lynnwood can no longer use. She then contacted Representative Brian Sullivan who contacted Senator Shin and Representative Roberts. She noted Representative Sullivan chairs the igislative committee on the National Resources, Ecology and Parks and was interested in securing funds for acquisition of this property. She noted Representative Sullivan was able to secure $4.5 million for Mukilteo. Councilmember Moore then called the Edmonds School District to discuss the timeline. Although Mayor Haakenson is correct about the approximately 30 day window, she was told that because the City was the priority buyer, all the City had to do was provide a Purchase Agreement and down payment. She suggested the down payment could be provided using the Snohomish County funds to hold the property. Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 7, 2005 Page 17 Councilmember Moore commented on the ability to leverage REET funds into a bond and asked staff to look into that possibility. With regard to playfields, she recalled the Comprehensive Plan identified the importance of playfields. Councilmember Moore recalled a comment by Lynnwood Parks & Recreation that once playfields were in a neighborhood, issues arise over lighting and traffic but they were manageable. In view of Mayor Haakenson's efforts to establish four fields on the old Edmonds - Woodway High School site and the Edmonds School District's plans to upgrade 15 school fields and if Esperance were annexed and those two fields were upgraded, she recommended acquiring the old Woodway Elementary School site and leave it the way it is for now. She reported the Edmonds School District indicated the timing of the money from the sale of the property was not critical as it was not being used to purchase land elsewhere, etc. and they were willing to work with the City. She noted there was the possibility that the City could buy time, up to five years, to put the funding together which would provide ample time to seek funding from state and federal sources. Councilmember Moore relayed Representative Sullivan's indicating that the National Resources, Ecology and Parks budget included dedicated funds for ballfields. Representative Sullivan's committee also oversees the IAC and would ensure that a retroactive request would go through the proper process. Councilmember Moore disagreed with Mayor Haakenson on the order of decision-making; rather than deciding what to do with the land first and then find funding, she preferred to purchase the 11 acres first and then decide what to do with it. If the City could not afford to develop the land, she suggested grass with a bench in the middle or an off -leash dog park around the perimeter and grass and trees in the center, noting the possibility that the City's one official off -leash dog park could be lost with the construction of Edmonds Crossing. Her discussions with the Seattle Parks Department indicate maintenance of their off - leash dog parks was done by volunteers. She advised Snohomish County Parks Department indicated neighborhoods felt ownership over their neighborhood parks and were often willing to volunteer in the park. Another possibility was having maintenance provided by high school students who are required to complete community service in order to graduate or by church groups. Councilmember Moore pointed out although police and fire were not profitable, the City did not hesitate to spend money on police vehicles and fire apparatus. She noted there were many Edmonds residents who did not have the need for police and fire services and the City needed to provide services to them such as libraries, sidewalks and parks. Further, as the City created density in the community, it was obligated to create a lifestyle for the residents which included parks. Councilmember Moore summarized Edmonds was about parks, the arts and water. She read from the Council mission, vision and value statement regarding high quality of life for residents, a legacy for future generations, protecting natural resources, friendly /safe atmosphere, small town ambiance, family friendly community, natural resources and providing a healthy community. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO SNOHOMISH COUNTY FOR THE $1.2 MILLION MITIGATION FUNDS PLUS WHATEVER IS NOT BEING USED BY ANOTHER JURISDICTION IN THE DISTRICT AND AT THE SAME TIME SUBMIT A PURCHASE AGREEMENT TO THE EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE ENTIRE 11 ACRE PARCEL. ALSO DIRECT STAFF TO SUBMIT A FIVE -YEAR WORK PLAN FOR RECOVERY, BOND FINANCING AND SECURING GRANT FUNDS TO COMPLETE THE PURCHASE OF THE ENTIRE 11 ACRES WITH DIRECTION TO NEGOTIATE A TERM WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT ALLOWED THE CITY AT LEAST A YEAR OR TWO OR MAYBE FIVE TO SECURE THE BALANCE OF THE FUNDS. Council President Marin advised he has long been of the opinion that the City needed a park in this area. When Mayor Haakenson recently queried the Council, he again expressed that opinion but he envisioned Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 7, 2005 Page 18 a developed park like Seaview or Sierra. If it were possible to acquire a larger parcel and the City could afford it, he would not be opposed to that He pointed out the needs at the old Edmonds - Woodway High School site also warranted consideration. He was apprehensive about expending all the City's funds to leverage a purchase of property where there was only some value and a lot of relatively unusable wooded area and not being able to develop the fields at the old Edmonds -Woodway High School site. He pointed out the importance of considering not only acquisition costs but also development costs and operation and maintenance costs. Although he appreciated Councilmember Moore's enthusiasm and the research she conducted and while he was not opposed to acquiring the entire site, he was hesitant to obligate the funds without considering both sites and how the old Woodway Elementary School site would be developed. He suggested directing staff to consider the big picture including how to develop both. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Plunkett commented Councilmember Moore was proceeding in the direction he was interested in although she had gone slightly farther. He requested staff analyze the financial impact of scenarios such as purchasing 2 -4 acres, 5 -7 acres, or 8 -11 acres as well as the consequences of that action. He expressed support for the motion, suggesting Councilmember Moore consider returning the matter to the Council in 2 -3 weeks for further deliberation. Mayor Haakenson asked Councilmember Plunkett to clarify what financial aspects he wanted staff to analyze. Councilmember Plunkett recalled several issues were raised including the leveraging of available funds, the possibilities Councilmember Moore identified, the long term ramifications of spending $4 million versus $7 million, as well as Councilmember Wilson's comments regarding maintenance costs. Mayor Haakenson asked Councilmember Moore what financial scenarios were included in her motion so that staff could provide appropriate information. Councilmember Moore responded her motion only requested staff submit a five -year work plan. The Finance Department informed her that the City Hall building would be paid off in approximately five years. Councilmember Moore reiterated in order to hold the property, all that was needed was a down payment aid a Purchase Agreement. She suggested providing those and think about maintenance and how the land would be developed later. She noted the City may end up deciding they wanted a 3 -acre park on the site and could sell the remainder of the land. Councilmember Moore clarified the scenarios she wanted investigated were recovery, bond financing and securing grant funds for the entire 11 acres. Mayor Haakenson pointed out the existing building on the site contains asbestos and would need to be demolished should the City purchase the site. Councilmember Moore answered the District has left that building in place for decades and it could remain for another few years. Mayor Haakenson noted there have been numerous arson calls at this site. Councilmember Moore reiterated the importance of retaining this land in public hands and addressing issues later. She emphasized there was plenty of grant money available and plenty of legislators who were willing to help. Councilmember Dawson asked whether the motion included making an offer to the School District. She suggested a friendly amendment expressing the City's intent to go forward with negotiating with the School District to acquire the 1 I acres, noting it may not be necessary to acquire the property as it may be possible to enter into a long term lease. Councilmember Dawson indicated she and likely other Councihmembers were interested in considering acquisition of the entire 11 acres but she was not Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 7, 2005 Page 19 comfortable with making a purchase offer tonight. Councilmember Moore advised the School District would accept a letter of intent. Councilmember Moore and Councilmember Olson accepted Councilmember Dawson's friendly amendment expressing the City's intent to go forward with negotiating with the school district to acquire the 11 acres. Councilmember Plunkett expressed frustration that the Council was being asked to act as the City's Chief Financial Officer when the City had financial staff with the expertise to advise the Council how the purchase could be accomplished, what the drawbacks and consequences were and not just why the purchase wasn't possible. Councilmember Wilson agreed with Councilmember Dawson's suggestion to submit a letter of intent which would allow for an appropriate due diligence period to do a full financial investigation including cost of acquisition, sources of funding, impact of bonding on the City's long term needs, costs associated with demolishing a building that contains asbestos, operation and maintenance requirements, staffing, etc. He noted it was great to have a list of wonderful things to do but without the funds to do them, the City should not set itself up for failure. He agreed the City should acquire property when possible but the Council also needed to be fiscally responsible and ensure the appropriate due diligence was conducted He agreed with Mayor Haakenson regarding the need to demolish the hazardous structure on the site. He disagreed with Councilmember Moore's comment that the City could purchase the entire 11 acres and sell a portion in the future. Councilmember Orvis expressed his support for the motion, commenting he agreed with providing a letter of intent and moving forward with a down payment if that would provide the City time to work through the issues. His only concern with leveraging funds was what else was currently being funded. He requested staff provide information regarding the impact of acquisition on the long range purchasing plan. in Fund 126 with varying levels of grant funding. Councilmember Moore restated her motion as follows: SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO SNOHOMISH COUNTY FOR THE $1.2 MILLION MITIGATION FUNDS PLUS WHATEVER IS NOT BEING USED BY ANOTHER JURISDICTION IN THE DISTRICT AND AT THE SAME TIME SUBMIT A LETTER OF INTENT TO THE EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE ENTIRE 11 ACRE PARCEL. ALSO DIRECT STAFF TO SUBMIT A FIVE -YEAR WORK PLAN FOR RECOVERY, BOND FINANCING AND SECURING GRANT FUNDS TO COMPLETE THE PURCHASE OF THE ENTIRE 11 ACRES WITH DIRECTION TO NEGOTIATE A TERM WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT ALLOWED THE CITY AT LEAST A YEAR OR TWO OR WHATEVER WAS NEEDED TO SECURE THE FUNDS. Mayor Haakenson asked for clarification regarding the five year recovery plan. Councilmember Moore answered if the school district allowed five years, a plan that would identify how the City could recover the acquisition costs during that period Councilmember Dawson clarified staff would draft a letter of intent for Council approval. Mayor Haakenson advised real estate transactions must be handled in executive session. Councilmember Wilson suggested Councilmember Moore include in her motion direction to research development and maintenance costs, emphasizing the cost to the City was more than just acquisition. Councilmember Moore preferred to put that off until later and focus on acquiring the land. Councilmember Wilson found it difficult to vote for the motion if he was not informed about future costs. Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 7, 2005 Page 20 Councilmember Olson commented in order to provide that information, the Council would need to decide now how the property would be developed. She agreed it was important to acquire the property first and figure out the rest later. Councilmember Dawson suggested staff run some numbers of possible scenarios such as leaving the property vacant, developing the property with ballfields, etc. She noted that information would not necessarily need to be provided within the next two weeks. Mayor Haakenson expressed concern with the Council's vague request for scenarios, noting the possibilities were endless. He emphasized the need for specific guidelines of what the Council wanted staff to provide. Councilmember Plunkett noted the motion was for the Council to state their intent which would be followed by a great deal of due diligence before that intent could manifest itself. Councilmember Moore noted when a developer submitted an offer, he /she conducted much of their due diligence after the offer was submitted. Mayor Haakenson reminded that a developer would be building houses on the land; what the Council intended to do was unknown. Councilmember Moore suggested staff return with a bare minimum scenario that included demolition of the building and planting grass. Council President Marin reiterated caution about not using all the money on acquisition and missing the opportunity to develop fields at Edmonds - Woodway High School site, an endeavor that would provide revenue to support the complex. He recommended due diligence include looking at the big picture. Councilmember Orvis agreed the Council needed to consider the park acquisition plan and the impact acquisition of this property would have before making a lot of decisions. He was supportive of taking action to tie up the property now. He noted Fund 125 was used for park improvements and he recalled there were funds currently available for park development. Councilmember Moore advised Snohomish. County's new ordinance had funds for maintenance and operation. Councilmember Wilson indicated he would support the letter of intent to tie up the property to allow the Council to do due diligence. As part of the staff report provided with the draft letter of intent, he requested an update regarding efforts associated with the fields at the old Edmonds - Woodway High School to ensure there were no conflicts /competition for the same funding sources. In response to Council President Marin's comment about the fields at Edmonds- Woodway High School providing revenue, Councilmember Moore emphasized City services did not have to generate revenue, pointing out neither roads, nor police cars nor the library generated revenue. She implored the Council not to make revenue generation a criterion for acquiring property for a park. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Sound Transit 13. PRESENTATION ON SOUND TRANSIT DRAFT LONG RANGE PLAN — PHASE TWO AND Draft Long REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL POSITION ON LIGHT RAIL ALIGNMENT IN SNOHOMISH Range Plan — Phase Two COUNTY. Community Services Director Stephen Clifton explained on January 25, 2005, Sound Transit representative Matt Sheldon provided the Council an update on Sound Transit activities. During his presentation, he highlighted the ongoing effort of Sound Transit to set priorities for Sound Transit 2, the next set of investments for the overall Sound Transit regional mass transit system. He also discussed a process of updating the existing Sound Transit long range plan. As part of the process, the Sound Transit Board held and will be holding public meetings in May and June to discuss the region's increased demand Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 7, 2005 Page 21 for transit services in the decades ahead and to solicit comments on a draft long range plan that reflects the actions taken by the Sound Transit Board on April 28, 2005 Mr. Clifton displayed a map depicting the amendments proposed by the Sound Transit Board. He explained the draft plan was intended to update the long range plan originally adopted in 1996. The draft plan identifies proposed transit service technologies in major corridors throughout the region and is the focus of the public meetings. The draft long range plan, once amended and approved by the Sound Transit Board, will serve as a guide for future phases of voter - approved transit projects. Highlights of the draft long range plan include proposed light rail operating between Everett and Tacoma and proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system operating along SR 99 from Seattle to Everett. During the May 6, 2005 Sound Transit Snohomish County Technical Core Meeting, Sound Transit provided information related to the proposed draft long range plan. The Technical Core group consists of staff from each city within Snohomish County Sound Transit district. Following a Sound Transit presentation to the Technical Core group, three significant issues were debated at length, 1) whether to definitively delineate a specific north/south alignment, 2) a proposed amendment to have the light rail alignment divert from 1-5 near Ash Way to serve Paine Field and then continue north along SR 99 to Everett, and 3) a so- called "Golden Spike" amendment which proposes to start light rail operations at the north end between Everett and Paine Field, eventually connecting light rail to King County as funding becomes available. During a follow -up Core Technical group meeting on May 19, 2005, staff from the cities of Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, Mukilteo and Lynnwood expressed general support for an all 1-5 alignment north of the Snohomish-King County boundary but did not support the "Golden Spike" proposal. The City of Everett and Snohomish County supported diverting light rail from 1-5 near Ash Way to serve Paine Field and continue north along SR 99 to Everett and the "Golden Spike" proposal. On May 17, 2005, Edmonds staff met with Edmonds City Councilmembers who have been attending Sound Transit Phase 2 electeds meetings to collectively discuss issues raised by the Technical Core group, many of which are contained in the 1 -5 vs. SR 99 comparison table and proposed resolution. At the conclusion of the meeting, the group agreed to forward the Edmonds City Council a draft resolution expressing, 1) support for an all I -5 alignment, 2) opposition to a proposed amendment that would divert the light rail alignment from I5 near Ash Way to serve Paine Field and then continue up SR 99 to Everett, and 3) opposition to options such as the "Golden Spike" because it was both cost prohibitive and would cause substantial delays in connecting to the light rail system within King County. According to Sound Transit staff, the Board is scheduled to vote on June 23, 2005 whether to adopt the draft long range plan; however, Council President Mann has indicated that decision may be deferred. The Board will be reviewing proposed amendments prior to this date and has asked for individuals, agencies cities and counties to provide comments or positions on the plan by June 9, 2005; City staff believes it is in the interests of Edmonds to have the Council express an opinion or position on the plan. Mr. Clifton highlighted reasons staff recommended an I -5 light rail alignment: ? Cost efficiency — the most cost efficient and effective routing to establish a backbone of regional high capacity ? Cost projections — initial cost projections by Sound Transit show that building light rail along the I -5 corridor would cost about 40% less than building along the SR 99 corridor. ? Ridership — no significant decrease, less likely to pull ridership from Sounder North ? Travel time — no difference between I -5 and SR 99 alignments ? Number of stations — no difference between I -5 and SR 99 alignments ? Access — more easily accessible for residents living on either side of 15, equitable service for residents living north of Sno /King boundary, Park & Ride lots already exist along the corridor, Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 7, 2005 Page 22 results in three major north/south transit corridors: Sounder North along Puget Sound, Bus Rapid Transit along SR 99, and light rail along I -5. ? Maintenance - $90 million/year for I -5 versus $94 million/year for SR 99 Mr. Clifton provided a comparison of capital costs for I -5 and SR 99 alignments: I -5 Alignment at Grade /Aerial ? $3.3 billion versus $4.2 billion. ? No significant mitigation of businesses fronting I -5 ? More available right -of -way ? Overhead utilities a minor issue ? Existing expandable Park & Ride lots ? Traffic impacts likely minor SR -99 Alignment — Aerial /Tunnel ? $4.7 billion - $6 billion for SR 99 ? Grade - separated guideways and stations are more expensive ? Heavily developed right -of -way, particularly at station locations ? Numerous overhead utilities along the corridor ? Land would have to be acquired for new Park & Ride lots ? Significant traffic impacts With regard to the opposition to diversion of light rail to Paine Field, Mr. Clifton explained a route deviation to Paine Field would cost, by Sound Transit's estimate, an additional $760 million (in current dollars), the same amount as extending Figh Capacity Transit (HCT) service from Northgate to the Snohomish/King County line. Given the severe limitations on Sound Transit funding, this diversion is not in keeping with the mission of Sound Transit to provide optimal and cost effective light rail service. The overall Snohomish County transportation system would be more benefited if the taxpayer dollars needed to construct light rail along the proposed Paine Field SR 99 route were instead used to fund many of the projects currently contained in the Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID) Snohomish County project list. With regard to opposition to the north/south construction ("Golden Spike "), Mr. Clifton explained this option was both cost prohibitive and would cause substantial delays in connecting light rail in Snohomish County to the rest of the system in King County until the last phase was built. Delayed connection of the most productive segments to the rest of the rail network would not be an effective way to advance the system or mission of Sound Transit to provide regional service in high demand corridors. Construction of light rail into and through Snohomish County should proceed from the south at the Snohomish/King County line along the I -5 corridor and northward to Everett as originally planned. The original long range vision will provide critical HCT service to more citizens in the most productive corridor at the earliest opportunity. With regard to BRT on SR 99, staff finds that SR 99 has the local service characteristics that can best be served by BRT. BRT may also be provided at a significantly reduced cost than light rail transit. Mr. Clifton requested the Council's support for the resolution contained in the Council packet that incorporated these expressed opinions. Mayor Haakenson pointed out the importance of this resolution Es it stated what staff believes should occur on the I -5 corridor. This was an opportunity for the Council to give staff direction, via approval of the resolution, to continue attending meetings and promote the I -5 corridor alignment. Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 7, 2005 Page 23 Council President Marin suggested tabling the resolution based on his discussions during the past week. Following meetings with Executive Reardon, Everett Councilmember Olson and Everett Mayor Stephanson, he found there was solid support for an I -5 light rail alignment. He explained Everett would like a free- standing starter line built within Everett as part of subarea equity and they were willing to forego the line between Ash Way and the Everett station for what they recognized will be a long period of time. Further, Everett's Mayor Stephanson did not see a connection between Paine Field development and the alignment of the light rail and they viewed Paine Field as their major employment area and that was their interest, not the development of Paine Field as an airport. He recalled Mayor Stephanson's indication that the expense to divert light rail to Paine Field on SR 99 did not pass the financial test and as far as he and Everett were concerned, the diversion to Paine Field was off the table. Mayor Stephanson pointed out there were some areas on I -5 closer to Everett where an I -5 alignment may not be the best, it may need to be on Broadway or another access to the city where more people can be served and the topography is more appropriate. Council President Marin advised the May 9 Sound Transit meeting would include discussion of the proposed amendments and he was confident the issues of the diversion to Paine Field and "Golden Spike" were off the table. The Sound Transit meeting scheduled for June 23 has been postponed to July 7. He summarized most of the points in the resolution were based on information provided weeks ago and a significant amount has changed since that time. He suggested a one week delay and if things changed, the Council could again consider the resolution. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the resolution was so time sensitive it could not be delayed 1 -2 weeks. Mr. Clifton explained Sound Transit requested comments be submitted by June 9when the meeting was scheduled for June 23. However, if the meeting has been postponed until July 7, the resolution could be reconsidered at the Council's June 21 meeting if discussions at Sound Transit did not go well. His only concern was with text in the plan about the north/south corridor alignment being generalized in nature and that the specifics would be worked out later. Staff preferred there be some specificity in the plan regarding the alignment to provide certainty to voters. Councilmember Dawson inquired whether staff had received notice that comments could be provided later than June 9. Mr. Clifton answered they had not received any notice from Sound Transit directly but they had from Council President Marin. Councilmember Dawson pointed out the deadline for input was still June 9 as far as the city had been informed. She noted there was nothing in the resolution that identified the final alignment when it reached downtown Everett, only that the Council preferred the I -5 alignment. Mr. Clifton agreed. He noted staff would not oppose light rail between their downtown core and the Everett station, it was only the Paine Field segment that staff objected to. Councilmember Olson advised Sound Transit staff indicated today at the SeaShore forum that the meeting had been postponed. She was supportive of delaying consideration of the resolution for two weeks. Councilmember Wilson commented there was nothing that precluded the Council from adopting the resolution, if anything it provided Council President Marin ammunition at the meeting. Once the final alignment was agreed to, the Council could adopt an alternative resolution and submit it to Sound Transit. Councilmember Moore commented Council President Marin did not appear to need ammunition, he only wanted time to discuss the issues. Mayor Haakenson commented it was not a question of what Council President Marin needed, it was whether the Council trusted the other people involved in this decision. Council President Marin commented at a recent Community Transit meeting, he made I1 of the 12 motions and lead the charge with regard to the 1-5 alignment. A frequent bus rider, he was aware that transportation problems are strangling the region. Although the Edmonds City Council and the Sound Edmonds City Council ApprovedMinutes June 7, 2005 Page 24 Transit Board would vote on the alignment, ultimately the citizenry would vote whether to tax themselves,therefore,the alignment must be perceived as beneficial for all. COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO TABLE THE RESOLUTION. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT MARIN, AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, ORVIS, OLSON, MOORE IN FAVOR;AND COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND DAWSON OPPOSED. 14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. 15. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Marin announced there would be a June 21 public hearing on a FTA/UMTA grant opportunity that the City needed to take action on swiftly. Also on June 21, the Chamber of Commerce would be asked to provide a brief presentation/request for funds for the 4th of July event. Councilmember Moore referred to the letter the Council received from a business that complimented second floor staff including Rob Chave, Star Campbell and Jennifer Gerend for their help in getting their permits processed. Councilmember Dawson referred to the agenda item regarding variances, pointing out it was incumbent on the Council to take the issue of variances seriously because if the Council perceived staff and/or the Hearing Examiner were not interpreting the Code in the manner the Council wanted, it was likely because the Code was not clear enough. She suggested the Council agree to schedule this issue on a future Council agenda and in the interim Councilmember Orvis and she could work with City Attorney Scott Snyder regarding how to clarify the code with regard to variances. Councilmember Dawson pointed out by her calculation, items on the June 21 agenda would last four hours. She suggested moving items that were not time sensitive to the June 28 meeting such as discussion regarding the Esperance annexation. Mayor Haakenson suggested moving some other agenda item as notice of the meeting had been mailed to the residents of Esperance. Councilmember Olson reported on a new business that opened recently, Glazed and Amazed, and encouraged the public to visit the business to paint and glaze pottery, a great activity for kids and adults. At Council President Mann's request, Councilmembers advised it was acceptable to move some items from the June 21 meeting to the June 28 work meeting. Work Session 16. CONTINUED WORK SESSION ON CODE REVISIONS TO SUPPORT THE COMPREHENSIVE on Code Revisions PLAN Continued to June 14 Due to the late hour,it was agreed to postpone this item until after Committee meetings on June 14. With no further business,the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:07 p.m. 411 ZIAtel , t oA.v G• `Y H• ;� ENSON,MAYOR SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 7,2005 Page 25 illik AGENDA Ia EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL I_ Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. JUNE 7, 2005 7:00 p.m. - Call to Order/Flag Salute 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Consent Agenda Items (A) Roll Call (B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of May 24, 2005. (C) Approval of City Council Community Outreach Meeting Minutes of May 31, 2005. (D) Approval of claim checks #79808 through #79906 for the week of May 23, 2005, in the amount of $585,175.19. Approval of claim checks #79969 through #80054 for the week of May 30, 2005, in the amount of $407,739.00.*Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #40805 through #40930 for the period May 16 through May 31, 2005, in the amount of$855,953.97. *Information regarding claim checks maybe viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us (E) Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from John Dulin ($58.06), Joe Lehman (amount undetermined), and Anita Kinder ($115.70). (F) Authorize Fleet Maintenance Division to gift Unit #501, a 1969 Calkins Boat Trailer, and six small sail boats back to the City of Everett. (G) Authorization for Mayor to sign contract with the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce for the Taste of Edmonds. (H) Authorization for Mayor to sign contract with the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce for the Fourth of July Parade and Fireworks Display. (I) Authorization for Mayor to sign contract with the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce for Hot Autumn Nites Automobile Show and Celebration. (J) Report on bids opened May 19, 2005 for the 22e Street SW Improvements (Ninth Avenue South to 84th Avenue West) Project and award of contract to Marshbank Construction ($4,322,113.73). (K) Appropriation of $202,264 additional funds and authorization for Mayor to sign contract change order for final costs for the Marina Beach 48-inch diameter storm drain emergency repair project. Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA June 7, 2005 3. ( 5 Min.) Report on "An Edmonds Kind of Night Out," and Police Foundation request for funds. 4. (10 Min.) Presentation by Save Our Communities. 5. ( 5 Min.) Proposed Resolution restating opposition to commercial air passenger service at Paine Field. 6. (15 Min.) Recognition of contribution of funds to the Edmonds Public Facilities District by Snohomish County and State of Washington.* 7. ( 5 Min.) Update of funding for Edmonds Crossing.* *15 minute public reception relating to Agenda Items 6 and 7. 8. ( 5 Min.) Annual Report of the Edmonds Arts Commission 9. (25 Min.) Public Hearing and authorization for Mayor to sign contract with artist Nickolus Meisel to provide artwork for the south exterior wall of City Hall. 10. (15 Min.) Reconsideration of the April 19, 2005 City Council decision regarding the following matter: Closed Record Review of an appeal of the Hearing Examiner decision to approve a setback variance to reduce a rear setback from 25 feet to 10 feet for the construction of a new single-family residence (V-2004-8). The site is located at 1142 Sierra Place and is zoned Single-Family Residential (RS-12). (Appellants: Mark Dreyer and Shelley Dreyer Green / Applicants: Darryl and Shari Lewis / File No. AP-05-40) 11. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)* *Regarding matters not listed as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 12. (30 Min.) Presentation on possible acquisition of all or part of old Woodway Elementary site. 13. (15 Min.) Presentation on Sound Transit Draft Long Range Plan - Phase Two and request for City Council position on light rail alignment in Snohomish County. 14. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 15. (15 Min.) Council Comments 16. (60 Min.) Continued Work Session on Code revisions to support the Comprehensive Plan. 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