Loading...
06/25/2002 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES June 25, 2002 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gary Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5" Avenue North, Edmonds, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Dave Earling, Council President Jeff Wilson, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Richard Marin, Councilmember Deanna Dawson, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT David Stern, Chief of Police Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager Dave Gebert, City Engineer Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer Brian McIntosh, Cultural/Recreation Supervisor Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: Approve (A) ROLL CALL 6/18/02 Minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 18, 2002 (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #56249 THROUGH #56433 FOR THE WEEK OF pprove ,LUNE 17, 2002, IN THE AMOUNT OF $479,840.36. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT laim Checks DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #32934 THROUGH #33132 FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 1 THROUGH JUNE 15, 2002, IN THE AMOUNT OF $970,893.20 Claims for (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM PETER AND FAITH amages HINES ($7,000.00) AND JO C. ALLEN ($125,000.00) Ftsof July (E) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A CONTRACT WITH THE GREATER EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR THE FOURTH OF JULY PARADE AND FIREWORKS DISPLAY Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2002 Page I Summer I arket (F) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A CONTRACT WITH EDMONDS-SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY FOR THE EDMONDS SUMMER MARKET 20 St. sw (G) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A CONSULTANT CONTRACT FOR Improvements DESIGN OF THE 220TH STREET SW IMPROVEMENTS (NINTH AVENUE SOUTH TO 84TH AVENUE WEST) Stormwater (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Outfall Design WITH THE PORT OF EDMONDS FOR STORMWATER OUTFALL DESIGN, PERMITTING AND CONSTRUCTION Hire a Veteran- (I) PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF HIRE -A -VETERAN MONTH, JUNE 2002 Month es# 1027 (J) RESOLUTION NO. 1027 ADOPTING A SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION 6 -year TIP IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND DIRECTING THE SAME TO BE FILED WITH THE STATE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BOARD 3. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED INCREASES TO UTILITY RATES Proposed • CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE RATE STRUCTURE Increases to Utility Rates FOR WATER, SEWER AND STORMWATER UTILITIES Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler described the process for developing the proposed utility rate increases. She recalled on February 5, 2002, Public Works Director/Combined Utility Fund Manager Noel Miller made a presentation to the Council regarding the status of the City's water, sewer and stormwater utilities, recommending the development of a five-year plan to address the funding needs of each component of the utility. In March 2002, a presentation was made to the Finance Committee regarding staff's recommended approach to this plan which included the assumption that the study would be performed in-house with representatives from Public Works, Engineering, and Finance. Staff presented the results of the study and the recommended rate increases to the Finance Committee meeting in June. The Finance Committee directed staff to schedule a presentation and public hearing on the proposed increases. Ms. Hetzler provided a PowerPoint presentation that addressed the assumptions in the plan and financing strategies that were considered in developing the rates. She explained the Edmonds Combined Utility provides water, sewer and stormwater services to approximately 12,000 customers. In the past, the City followed a series of informal polices that made assumptions regarding financing such as that all capital projects were funded through rate revenues, debt issuance was limited to large capital projects such as plant expansion, capital projects focused on special needs -limited planning for ongoing infrastructure maintenance and replacement, rate increases were implemented on an infrequent basis, and utility components were examined individually rather than from a utility -wide perspective. In the development of the proposed business plan, staff made a decision to take an approach that would provide the City with a roadmap for the management of the utility for the next five years. The plan was designed to provide a strategy to accomplish three objectives including reinvestment in infrastructure, maintaining adequate cash reserves, and providing for future rate stability. The overriding goal of the plan was to establish affordable rates and to preserve the community's investment in its underground infrastructure. Water Utility Ms. Hetzler explained the last rate increase adopted by the City for water rates occurred in 1994. Costs to the City have increased significantly during that eight year period, costs that have not been passed on Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 2 to rate payers. For example, water purchases have increased in excess of 100% and will increase again by 7.4% in 2003, power costs have increased by more than 35% in the last two years alone, and contributions to the capital fund for waterline replacement and other capital projects have averaged only $355,000 per year since 1994, a funding level far below the level required to maintain 130 miles of underground pipe. Ms. Hetzler displayed a graph illustrating water purchases that the City has absorbed from Alderwood Water District from 1992 to the present, noting the trend was steeply increasing. Ms. Hetzler explained in each component of the combined utility, certain assumptions were made regarding how capital projects would be financed and three scenarios were considered for each utility to identify the best match between rate affordability and reinvestment of capital. Scenario 1 prepared for the water utility assumed the previous practice of paying as you go for capital projects (via rate revenues), that staffing and service levels remain status quo, and implementation of Engineering's recommendation of a 100 year replacement cycle for water lines. This scenario produced rate increases of 25% for 2003, 16.5% for 2004, and 3.5% for 2005 — 2007. This scenario did not fulfill one of the primary objectives of the plan of rate affordability. Scenario 2 had basically the same assumptions as Scenario 1 but with capital projects funded 50% through rate revenues and 50% through the State low interest loan program. This scenario resulted in rate increases of 9.7% for 2003, 9.75% for 2004, and 3.5% for 2005-2007. However, this scenario did not fulfill the objective of reinvestment in infrastructure. Further, the State low interest loan programs are highly competitive and the City's projects rank low in the scoring of programs. The City has submitted four applications totaling $2.6 million to the state loan program; the City received a memo yesterday from the State Department of Health indicating that although the City's projects were significant, there was a high likelihood they would not be funded. The memo also pointed out the State's Public Works Trust Fund Loan (PWTFL) program has been cut substantially and recommended the City consider other financing options for the necessary infrastructure improvements. Scenario 3 had basically the same assumptions as Scenario 1 but with capital projects funded 50% through rates and 50% through issuance of revenue bonds. This scenario resulted in required rate increases of 11.75% for 2003, 11.750/. for 2004, and 3.5% for 2005-2007. The monthly impact on an average residential customer would be $2.59 for 2003, $2.89 for 2004, $0.98 for 2005, $1.02 for 2006, and $1.05 for 2007. This scenario fulfills the objectives of the plan by providing infrastructure investment and rate affordability. She noted the difference in rates between Scenario 3 and Scenario 2 was only $0.39 per month. Ms. Hetzler explained the City's current water rate structure was a uniform volume rate with a bimonthly fixed base rate. Staff recommends the rate increase be applied equally to the base rate and volume rate. Ms. Hetzler displayed the current base ($12.57) and volume rate ($1.30) and the proposed basic rate ($14.02) and volume rate ($1.45 in 2003). An issue that arose at the Finance Committee was rate equity and whether a greater percentage of the increase should be placed on the base rate. She noted although most of the study was done in-house, the City contracted with a rate utility firm, Integrated Utilities Group, to do a limited scope review of the rate structure. Based on their opinion, the City's base rates are in line with other water utilities who typically charge between $8.00 to $16.00 on a bimonthly basis. Integrated Utilities Group's position was that shifting more costs to the base rate may result in an inequitable rate structure, could cause a low water user to contribute more to the maintenance of the system and subsidize a higher water user. Questions were also raised by the Finance Committee regarding rate stability. Ms. Hetzler explained the current split between base and volume rate has provided relatively constant revenue streams over the past five years which staff believed would continue. Ms. Hetzler displayed a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 3 comparison of 1994-2008 water rates with inflation to the 1994 water rate with proposed increases, noting the water rate increase would be below the rate of annual inflation. Sewer Utility Ms. Hetzler explained the City had a cost of service study performed by Financial Consulting Solutions Group in 2000. This study outlined a series of rate increases of 4.2% for 2000 through 2004, and a 3.7% increase in 2005. The study assumed 50% of the capital projects would be funded through rates and 50% through the low interest loan program. The City was successfully awarded $1.3 million in loans from the PWTFL program in 2001. She explained the impact on the average residential user would be $1.00 in 2003, $1.05 in 2004, $0.95 in 2005, $0.95 in 2006, and $0.97 in 2007. Staff recommends continuation of the FCSG rate proposal and, if the City was unsuccessful in the low interest loan program in the future, the rate structure would allow issuance of revenue bonds to maintain the proposed capital improvement plan. Although the low interest loan programs were highly competitive and the City had not received much encouragement regarding success, staff planned to aggressively pursue low interest loans. Ms. Hetzler displayed a graph comparing the 1994 sewer rate with inflation through year 2008 and the 1994 rates with the proposed increases, noting the proposed increase slightly outpaced the rate of inflation, due primarily to capital projects to rehabilitate/replace sewer lines. Additionally, the City was absorbing increased costs through its participation in the Lynnwood treatment plant. Stormwater Utility Ms. Hetzler explained stormwater rates were established in 1998 and there have been no increases since initial adoption. The stormwater revenues have been inadequate to address regulatory requirements specifically related to the Endangered Species Act, unanticipated drainage projects in the Meadowdale area, large capital projects needed to improve drainage citywide, and operations and maintenance costs. Due to the extreme inadequacy of the stormwater revenue, staff recommends a mid -year rate increase to be effective in July 2002 and applied to all July bills. Ms. Hetzler explained the same assumptions were made for the stormwater utility as were made for the water utility regarding how capital projects would be financed, pay as you go, low interest loan, and revenue bonds. Scenario 1 (fund capital projects through rate revenues) which had rate increases of 43.3% in July 2002, 27.5% in 2003, 27.5% in 2004, and 3.5% in 2005-2007, did not fulfill the objective of rate affordability. Scenario 2 (fund capital projects 50% through rates and 50% through State low interest loans) requires a rate increase of 43.3% in July 2002, 17.5% in 2003, and 5% in 2004 — 2007. Scenario 2 does not fulfill the objective of infrastructure reinvestment due to the unpredictability of receiving the low interest loans. Scenario 3 (fund capital projects 50% through rates and 50% through revenue bonds) requires a rate increase of 43.3% in July 2002, 21% in 2003, and 5% 2004 — 2007. The monthly impact on the average residential user was $1.60 in 2002, $1.10 in 2003, and less than $0.40 in 2004-2007. She displayed a graph comparing the 1998 — 2008 stormwater rate with inflation to the 1998 stormwater rate with the proposed increases, noting the stormwater increases did not track with inflation because the rate adopted in 1998 was an estimate and was not adequate to cover basic O&M costs and regulatory requirements do not equate to inflation. Ms. Hetzler explained the impact on the average residential user if the Council chose to adopt the recommended rate increases for water, sewer, and stormwater would be $1.60 in 2002, $4.71 in 2003, $4.25 in 2004, $2.27 in 2005, $2.32 in 2006, and $2.40 in 2007. For this level of investment, the City Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 4 would be able to fully fund O&M costs of the combined utility, reinvest in the utility infrastructure, maintain adequate cash reserves, and provide for future rate stability. She displayed a graph comparing the proposed rate increase for the combined utility with the 1994-2008 combined utility with inflation, noting the proposed increase was slightly more than inflation. Ms. Hetzler displayed a comparison of Edmonds' monthly utility bills to neighboring jurisdictions, explaining the City's combined monthly bill for the average user was $50.90 versus the current average of the group of cities of $58.07. She noted after the proposed rate increase, the City would still be below the current average. She commented the 13 cities in the comparison were contacted and 11 were planning rate increases during the year. Statewide, Edmonds' water and sewer rates are 15% below the statewide average and the City's stormwater rate is approximately 30% below the statewide average. Councilmember Petso questioned whether low interest loans could be pursued for stormwater improvements. Ms. Hetzler answered staff's goal was to aggressively pursue every low interest loan and every grant available but would not rely on that funding. If staff was unsuccessful, the approach would be to return to the Council to seek approval for the issuance of revenue bonds. Acknowledging that staff was not confident the City would receive low interest loans for water and sewer projects, Councilmember Petso asked whether receipt of the low interest loan could reduce the scheduled rate increases. Ms. Hetzler answered that would be reevaluated each year before the ordinance was presented to Council. Councilmember Petso pointed out the average base rate of other Utilities was $17.83; however, even with Edmonds' rate increase, the Edmonds base rate would increase only to $14.02 which was not consistent with neighboring utilities. Ms. Hetzler was uncertain why neighboring Utilities had such a high base rate. She noted typical cost of service studies indicate the base rate should cover the cost of issuing bills, and reading and replacing meters and was not typically designed to cover large portions of O&M expenses. The City's base rate covers in excess of the cost of billing and represents approximately 1/3 of the average monthly bill. Staff believes the current base rate is equitable and if increased, it would be difficult to say the rates were equitably distributed between the base rate and the volume rate. She clarified the danger of increasing the base rate would be the possibility of very low water users subsidizing higher volume users. The current split between the base and volume provides some degree of rate stability, one of the goals of a base rate. There has not been anything in the study that would justify an increase in the base rate. She noted the rate currently provides rate equity and revenue stability. Councilmember Petso noted staff had been unable to locate the rate study from 1992 that showed why the split was established in this manner. Councilmember Petso referred to the minutes from 1992 when the original split was established noting the minutes indicate that whatever the study found, both Council and the Mayor ignored it. She said this results in there being no cost of service study in the past ten years and no basis for the current split, only evidence that it was inconsistent with neighboring utilities. Councilmember Petso asked how often a municipality would be expected to conduct a cost of service rate study to distinguish between the base rate and volume but also to determine whether there were any subsidies occurring. Paul Matthews, Integrated Utilities Group, Inc., answered it varied based on the need of the utility. Utilities with wholesale customers may do it more often. For a City with primarily residential and a small amount of commercial, conducting a cost of service rate study every 5-10 years would not be atypical. Councilmember Petso noted the rate consultant identified issues with the stormwater ordinance such as using an assumption of 3,000 square feet of impervious surface whereas the typical was 2,400-2,600 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 5 square feet. The rate consultant indicated that the effect of this assumption was to charge residential customers more for a stormwater drainage fee than if a more industry standard number was used. She asked whether this had been considered. Ms. Hetzler answered the consultant's memo stated the structure was within recognized industry standards although the impervious surface was slightly high. It was her understanding that establishing a higher impervious surface for residential was the Council's policy at the time the rate was established. Mr. Matthews answered the amount of impervious surface was within the broad range of industry standard although it was on the high side. If this were reexamined, that would be an area he recommended to reconsidered. He noted this could be accomplished via aerial photography and actual measurements or other methods. Councilmember Petso questioned whether replacing 3,000 square feet of impervious surface in the ordinance with 2,600 square feet would lead to challenges of being random in the rate setting. Mr. Matthews cautioned against taking that action without a basis for doing so such as some analysis. He pointed out this would also impact the billing system as non-residential customer's equivalent residential units (ERU) was established by dividing impervious surface by 3,000 square feet. He recommended going through a process before making such a change. Councilmember Petso asked whether documentation to support that number would require a rate study or only a letter from a consultant. Mr. Matthews answered neither, suggesting GIS analysis or survey to develop that information. Staff indicated the City had little ability to do aerial mapping. Councilmember Petso questioned if the 3,000 square feet impervious surface amount remained, were single family residents subsidizing properties with more impervious surface. Mr. Matthews said their analysis indicated 3,000 square feet was high but not that 3,000 was inappropriate for Edmonds or that there was a subsidy. If further analysis was done, he recommended that issue be considered. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing Stacy Hearst, 21032 81" Place W, Edmonds, a member of the Edmonds Long Range Task Force, explained the Task Force was recently provided a presentation by Public Works Director Noel Miller and Ms. Hetzler that outlined past, present and future plans. She noted a component of the plan was contingent on increased funding which requires a rate increase. She noted stormwater rates had not increased since being implemented in 1998 and water rates had not increased in nearly ten years, yet expenses have steadily increased and government mandates with no accompanying revenue have been implemented. She expressed concern that the current funding levels did not plan for the replacement of pipes. Even with the increase, the replacement rate was 1 % per year. She summarized revenues had not kept up with expenses and the only way to rectify this was to raise rates. If rates were not increased, how would the City address mandates to save salmon and the Pacific way of life, how could a plan be implemented to replace the aging infrastructure, and what would be cut in the Public Works Department to cover the increase in expenses. Although she preferred to avoid raising rates, she realized the City could not afford to. Ray Martin, 189704 94"' Avenue W, Edmonds, noted in this area, the Council's predecessors left them in good shape. He expected all that needed to be done was minor tweaking, perhaps a modest increase in rates. He cautioned the Council not to make any radical changes, using the PRD ordinance as an example of problems created via radical changes. John Quast, 15714 75"' Place W, Edmonds, commented the City needed to fund the increasing infrastructure and O&M costs as the quality of life depended on a dependable system. Commenting that Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 6 in his experience deferred upgrades and deferred maintenance were generally the most expensive, he supported the proposed rate increase Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, suggested solving the leakage problem would save money. He suggested the City have a stronger base rate such as other cities have, noting this provided for a more stable system. After recalculating the base rate, he suggested consideration be given to consumption charges. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Dawson referred to the three ordinances in the packet, and asked which ordinance staff recommended and why. Ms. Hetzler answered the City's practice has been to adopt multi-year rate increases. In 1992, when the last water study was done, the Council adopted increases for 1992-1994. The sewer study outlined a five year rate increase and the Council adopted a two year increase. She recommended the Council adopt the mid -year increase for 2002 and the 2003 and 2004 rate schedules. If the City planned to issue revenue bonds, it would be to the City's advantage to demonstrate the commitment to increasing the rates. She noted revenue bonds were not backed by the taxing authority of the City; the revenues of the system were the only pledge that bond holders had that the debt service would be paid. Demonstrating to rating agencies that the City had a commitment to the plan would result in a more favorable rating and bond insurers would also look for such a commitment, particularly with the past record of adopting a rate increase in 1994 and not having another increase until 2002. Councilmember Dawson asked the danger of implementing only a one year increase. She observed that the difficulty some may have with a multi-year increase was that the second year increase may not be necessary if the City was successful in obtaining low interest loans. She asked whether there was a possibility that a higher increase would be necessary in 2004 if the low interest loan was not obtained. Ms. Hetzler answered no, the multi-year increase was to demonstrate commitment to the rate increase. She noted if the proposed increase was found to be unnecessary in 2004, the rates could be adjusted accordingly. Council President Earling asked why the City's projects rated low for grant requests. Ms. Hetzler answered the City's projects were considered routine repair and maintenance and not a system expansion. Further, the City was not under a compliance order. She noted if a municipality mismanaged its system, they were guaranteed to receive low interest loans; since the City did not mismanage its system, its projects were ranked low. Mayor Haakenson remanded the matter to Council. Councilmember Petso did not disagree that rate increases were needed but was surprised a 43% stormwater rate increase was necessary. She noted that staff has assured such an increase is necessary and she felt compelled to pursue a rate increase due to stormwater projects that needed to be addressed in the City. She was concerned with water rate increases, noting the rate increases were not scheduled for 2003, the City had not had a cost of service rate study since 1992 and the minutes from 1992 indicate the previous cost of service rate study was ignored. Although the consultant recommended a cost of service rate study be done every 5-10 years, implementing 2003 rates would be done without a study in the past 10 years. She supported no water rate increase at this time but studying the issue via a cost of service rate study before year end and implementing a rate increase at that time. She commented that if an inequity or subsidy in the rates was identified, the time to address it was during a rate increase. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 7 Similarly, the rate consultant indicated 3,000 square feet of impervious surface per residential unit was high which the consultant indicated may result in residential customers subsidizing commercial customers. She questioned that 3,000 square feet of impervious surface was the average, particularly with the amount of large lot residential in the north end of the City. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO ADOPT THE IMMEDIATE 43.3% STORMWATER INCREASE. Councilmember Plunkett commended staff for demonstrating the need for a rate increase. He noted there were differences in opinion on the Council, not in the need but perhaps in the ways and means. He indicated he would support the motion to allow additional time to investigate, review, and discuss the differences in the ways and means. Councilmember Orvis agreed staff had demonstrated the need for a rate increase but philosophically believed a rate increase should be reviewed by the Council each year rather than adopting a multi-year increase. He noted adopting the immediate stormwater increase would allow the Council time to review the proposed increases to ensure they were as low as possible. Councilmember Marin indicated he would not support the motion as he preferred staff s recommendation to increase rates for the three components of the combined utility at one time. He noted he had recently returned from overseas and was appreciative of running water and paved, safe streets, commenting this was the price one paid for civilization. He noted the infrastructure was valuable and needed to be preserved. Councilmember Dawson agreed with Councilmember Marin as well as with the need to review rates on an annual basis. She noted this was the time to consider a 2003 rate increase and staff had done an excellent job demonstrating why a rate increase was necessary. She pointed out the rate increase had also been reviewed by the Long Range Task Force and the Finance Committee. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION SUBJECT TO FINANCE COMMITTEE REVIEW OF THE RATE STRUCTURE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. Following a brief discussion whether Ms. Dawson's motion was appropriate based on the motion on the floor, COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Councilmember Wilson concurred with Councilmember Dawson's analysis. Adopting multi-year rates would demonstrate stability in the rate structure but would not preclude from further analyzing the rate structure to ensure it was adequate and equitable. Mayor Haakenson restated the motion as follows: ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3400, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE ECC 7.50.050 TO ESTABLISH RATE INCREASES FOR THE STORMWATER UTILITY, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BEFOME EFFECTIVE. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4) WITH COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, PLUNKETT, AND ORVIS IN FAVOR, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING AND COUNCILMEMBERS DAWSON, WILSON AND MARIN OPPOSED. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 8 Councilmember Petso commented the opportunity to correct the rate structure without causing rate shock would be lost if 2'/z years of rate increases were adopted. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3400, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 7.30.030(A) WATER RATES IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH RATE INCREASES, ECC 7.30.040(A) UTILITY CHARGES — SANITARY SEWER TO ESTABLISH RATE INCREASES, 7.50.050 RATES AND CHARGES RELATING TO THE STORMWATER UTILITY TO ESTABLISH RATE INCREASES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3) WITH COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, PLUNKETT, ORVIS AND WILSON IN FAVOR, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING AND COUNCILMEMBERS DAWSON AND MARIN OPPOSED. 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Diane Azar, 8202 Talbot Road, Edmonds, requested the Council initiate a process to make urgently Pito needed amendments to the new PRD ordinance. She requested this issue be referred to the Planning rdinance Board or other appropriate public hearing venue as soon as possible where the public's participation was welcome. She explained their neighbors recently spent a great deal of time and money opposing an inappropriate PRD in their neighborhood. The new PRD ordinance allowed even more inappropriate PRDs. She indicated she was representing herself and hundreds of neighbors in an effort to preserve all unique neighborhoods in Edmonds through a better PRD ordinance. She invited members of the audience she represented to stand. Ms. Azar noted residents could not wait until neighborhoods were severely impacted, similarly residents would not wait to oppose Brightwater until after it was built. She explained parts of the PRD ordinance had consequences that were previously unanticipated including making the pre -application meeting an option rather than a requirement and changing the requirement for the applicant to notify the public in the pre -application stage to only a recommendation. She concluded the first opportunity for public comment was now before the Hearing Examiner which was unnecessarily costly and burdensome and unacceptable for neighbors. She recommended the PRD ordinance be amended so that PRDs meet the following requirements, 1) the PRD must be visually separated from surrounding large lot residential RS 12 and RS20 development by distance and natural features such as steep slopes or woodlands, and 2) traffic from a PRD of three or more units must directly access a collector or arterial street. She urged the Council to take immediate action to revise the language of the PRD ordinance. Tom Sullivan, 1704 Talbot Road, Edmonds, supported the comments of Ms. Azar and the group she rdinance represented. He represented himself and 40 families in the north Talbot Park neighborhood who were currently suffering substantial and emotional distress as a result of the first developer's application under the new PRD ordinance. He requested the Council give Edmonds citizens the opportunity and platform to express their concerns, suggestions, and ideas. He recognized the City spent over two years developing the PRD ordinance, commenting residents had no idea the effect this ordinance would have on them. He and his neighbors spent time and money in an effort to oppose an inappropriate PRD application in their neighborhood which was reviewed at the Hearing Examiner hearing on June 6, 2002. He urged the Council to read the pending appeal. City Attorney Scott Snyder objected, noting he was unaware that matter had been appealed; however, it was inappropriate for the Council to accept information outside the record. He recommended Mr. Sullivan provide his information without providing detail on the pending case. Mr. Sullivan urged the Council, at the appropriate time, to read the entire appeal. Mr. Sullivan noted the new PRD ordinance Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 9 would allow for more inappropriate PRDs in neighborhoods. His effort was to preserve all unique neighborhoods in the City via a better, improved, less ambiguous PRD ordinance. He and his group attended the June 12 Community Services/Development Services Committee meeting where they erroneously believed their comments would be heard. He urged the Council to schedule an exclusive meeting to discuss and carefully consider their concerns. Karen Biermanski, 8129 Frederick Place, Edmonds, appealed to the Council to place Councilmember dnance Petso's amendments to the PRD ordinance on the agenda immediately. She was particularly concerned with properties zoned RS 12 and RS20. She noted Edmonds had a reputation of an attractive and special ambiance, which some residents believe is being destroyed and increased density will destroy further. She noted if apartments were "given free reign" to develop, many intersections would look like 1966,/44 th in Lynnwood. She noted many residents chose to live in Edmonds because of the lower density and accompanying atmosphere of quiet and slower pace of life which she would like to retain. She requested amendments to the new PRD ordinance be placed on the Council's July schedule. Ray Martin, 18704 94th Avenue W, Edmonds, recalled he warned the Council when the PRD ordinance rdinance was being discussed and approved. He suggested the Council hold a public hearing to give the public an opportunity to voice their "disgust" with the current PRD ordinance. He objected to provisions in the PRD ordinance that allowed "long finger-like appendages on lots in the Talbot area" and not allowing garages in front. Carla Levy, 8401 Frederick Place, Edmonds, urged the Council to consider the changes Ms. Azar suggested. She noted everyone understood density would happen but preferred it be planned for. rdinance Although not opposed to PRDs, she said the new PRD ordinance as written stripped the residents of neighborhoods of their ability to provide input and removes any protection for the community. She noted Edmonds' natural beauty, balance, and character was at stake. By making changes to the PRD ordinance, the Council would enhance Edmonds' unique communities with more charm and not just maximize the number of units. She urged the Council not to turn the community into a numbers game without concern for safeguards that made Edmonds a desirable place to live, work and raise a family. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, recalled he attended many of the Planning Board rdinance meetings, noting the Planning Board began reviewing the PRD ordinance in September 2000 and finally held a public hearing in June 2001. He noted there was no one at the public hearing to provide .comment. The Talbot Park residents now realize that changes need to be made to the PRD ordinance. He urged the Council to review the PRD ordinance for amendment. Next, Mr. Hertrich referred to Council approval of Consultant Item G on the Consent Agenda, a consultant contract for $50,000 on a $4 million project. He noted there Contract Selection was no Council participation in consultant selection, only staff. Of the list of five people on the Process consultant selection committee, he noted only two reviewed the $50,000 consultant contract. He concluded he was not confident that two staff members could make the decision for five and recommended consideration be given to another review of the consultants. Councilmember Marin responded to comments regarding the Community Services/Development Services rdinance Committee meeting, recalling the Talbot Park group was allowed to provide comment, which was not the norm during committee meetings. He noted there was a letter in the Council packet characterizing that meeting as the Councilmembers refused to consider Ms. Petso's amendment; Councilmember Marin noted this was not true. Mid -way through the meeting was the first time he was provided the proposed amendments, which was inadequate time to thoroughly consider the issue. This item has been scheduled for consideration at the July Community Services/Development Services meeting where it will likely be Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 10 referred to the Planning Board. Although the ordinance makes input from the neighborhood optional, Development Services Director Duane Bowman made that mandatory. Councilmember Dawson suggested the Community Services/Development Services Committee consider bringing amendments to the full Council in view of the Planning Board extensive recent review. She supported language regarding arterial streets, buffers, consistency with the community, etc. She wanted to avoid a yearlong process to review the ordinance. Council President Earling noted Councilmember Marin advised him that public input would be accepted at the July Community Services/Development Services meeting. In response to the suggestion for a public hearing, the appropriate place for that process was at the Planning Board. He preferred the Community Services/Development Services committee forward the matter to the Planning Board for consideration, public hearing, and recommendation to the Council. Observing the intent of the committee was to forward the matter to the Planning Board, Councilmember Petso preferred it be forwarded directly to the Planning Board. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO FORWARD THE PRD ORDINANCE TO THE PLANNING BOARD. Councilmember Wilson explained the reason for returning the matter to the Community Services/Development Services Committee was the residents' request at the June 12 committee meeting to return to the committee to describe their concerns with the ordinance. This would allow the committee to provide direction to the Planning Board, identify problems, and define their scope of review. He identified problems with the proposed amendments including sacrificing other single family neighborhood to avoid PRDs in the RS 12 and RS20 zones and only allowing PRDs on arterials or collectors in the RS12 and RS20 zones but not RS6 or RS8 zones where there was already more density and thus more traffic. He supported giving amendments to the PRD ordinance thoughtful consideration, making appropriate amendments that provided equal protection throughout the City and clarifying the intent and purpose. Councilmember Petso clarified her intent was for the Planning Board to conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the PRD ordinance and, in the event there were changes and/or additional amendments proposed, consider those as well. Mayor Haakenson restated the motion as follows: RD FORWARD THE PRD ORDINANCE TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND FOR THE PLANNING rdinance BOARD TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PRD ORDINANCE AND, IN THE EVENT THERE WERE CHANGES AND/OR ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS PROPOSED, CONSIDER THOSE AS WELL. UPON ROLL CALL MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND ORVIS IN FAVOR, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING AND COUNCILMEMBERS MARIN, WILSON, PLUNKETT AND DAWSON OPPOSED. Council President Earling suggested the following process: forward the matter to the Community Services/Development Services Committee and accept public comment; the committee shape the request to the Planning Board, and the Planning Board consider the issue and hold a public hearing so that there would be an official record for Council review. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 11 Consultant At Mayor Haakenson's request, City Engineer Dave Gebert addressed Mr. Hertrich's comments Contract regarding Consent Agenda Item G, the award of a consultant contract for the design of the 220'b Street Selection Process Improvement Project. He explained the Council packet included a memorandum describing the selection process. Mr. Hertrich apparently was referring to a comment in the memorandum that states, "Don Fiene and Amir Ahmadi were only able to participate in the interviews." Mr. Gebert clarified Requests for Qualifications were advertised in the newspaper and, in this instance, the City received 19 Statements of Qualifications. Staff then reviews the written Statements of Qualification and selects a short list of firms for interview. The statement in the memorandum indicates Mr. Fiene and Mr. Ahmadi were not available to participate in the review of the written Statements of Qualification but all five panel members participated in the interviews. At Mayor Haakenson's request, Mr. Gebert described the process for obtaining grants for the 220'h Street Grants for the project. Mr. Gebert explained last year's CIP anticipated this $4 million project would be done in 2004 20 Street Project and 2005. This is an important project that has been on the City's CIP for many years but funding has not been available. In September 2001, staff submitted a grant application to the Transportation Improvement Board who requested this project be accelerated to design in 2002 for construction in 2003 and 2004. The City received a $2.4 million grant in January 2002 and has received tentative approval of $500,000 - $600,000 in federal grant funds. The remainder will be funded via City funds with small contributions from the Edmonds School District and Community Transit. Staff continues their efforts to identify additional grant funds or low interest loans to fund the City's portion of the project. He explained this project would widen 220`" to three lanes including a 2 -way left turn lane from 9"'/100th to 846' with sidewalks on both sides, and a bike lane. He noted this would be a significant vehicle and pedestrian safety improvement. 5. CONSIDERATION OF ENDORSEMENT OF REFERENDUM BILL 51: Referendum THE LEGISLATURE HAS PASSED HOUSE BILL NO. 2969, FINANCING TRANSPORTATION 1 — Trans- IMPROVEMENTS THROUGH TRANSPORTATION FEES AND TAXES. THIS BILL WOULD ortation INCREASE HIGHWAY CAPACITY, PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, PASSENGER AND FREIGHT AND TRANSPORTATION FINANCING ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGH INCREASED FUEL EXCISE TAXES SALES TAXES ON VEHICLES AND WEIGHT FEES ON TRUCKS AND LARGE VEHICLES. Council President Earling explained the November 2002 ballot would include a $7.8 billion statewide transportation improvement project. He noted this was very important as the region continued to struggle with transportation problems. He requested Community Services Director Stephen Clifton provide an overview of the projects in Snohomish County and requested the Council consider supporting Resolution No. 1028. Mr. Clifton reviewed the projects in Snohomish County: . 1-5 196' Street SW UC Collector/Distributor(Phase C) I-5 SR 526 to US 2 HOV, Auxiliary lanes & 41" UC I-5 SR 531 (172°a Street NE) Interchange SR 9 176`" Sound Transit SE to SR 92 SR 9 SR522 to 176'" Street SE(Phases 1B, 2 & 3 SR 96 128/132 SE Exit: Seattle Hill Road to SR 9 SR 104 Edmonds Multimodal Terminal SR522 Paradise Lake Road to Snohomish River SR 522 SR 9 to Paradise Lake Road UC Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 12 SR 524 196th Street SW: 24d' Avenue W to SR 527 SR 525 Mukilteo Multimodal Terminal SR 527 112 Street SE to 132r'd Street SE SR 531 172nd Street NE: 43rd Avenue NE to 67"' Avenue NE Mr. Clifton noted Referendum 51 contained $2.2 million for the Edmonds Crossing project. These funds would be used as matching funds for $11 million in federal grants the City has obtained since 1993. He noted the Edmonds Crossing project would have a positive impact on Edmonds, Snohomish County, the Puget Sound area and the state. The project has been identified as a regionally significant project in numerous Puget Sound area planning documents including the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and Snohomish County Comprehensive Plan. He described benefits of the Edmonds Crossing project such as grade separation that would allow ferry users and pedestrians to cross the railroad tracks which would benefit rail users such as Amtrak, Sounder, and freight haulers; SR 104 has become one of the state's primary freight mobility routes; the Edmonds/Kingston route is one of the fastest growing routes in the State; the project has been designed to address projected demand many years into the future; bring together modes of transportation including transit, pedestrians, bicycle, ferry users, Amtrak, and Sounder; and would give residents and the public the ability to connect at one location to various modes of transportation. Councilmember Petso inquired why Mukilteo's multimodal project would receive $107 million and Edmonds multimodal project would receive only $2.2 million. Mr. Clifton responded Mukilteo's multimodal project has been on the Washington State Department of Transportation project list for many years and has a higher priority ranking. He noted King, Snohomish and Pierce County Executives have included $124 million for the Edmonds Crossing project in the regional package. Council President Earling pointed out Referendum 51 specifically provides street money to each city for road maintenance. Edmonds' share is $1.3 million over 10 years. Council President Earling read Resolution No. 1028: WHEREAS, in the past 20 years, two million more vehicles have been added to our roads and the amount of freight and goods traveling throughout the state has doubled; and WHEREAS, there has been no real increase in investment to improve our transportation infrastructure; and WHEREAS, 950 bridges are unsafe and await retrofits to meet earthquake protection standards and hundreds of our other bridges and overpasses have structural, design or safety problems; and WHEREAS, some of our roads are so unsafe that they have become known as "killer highways; " and WHEREAS cities and counties lack the funds to help fix dangerous intersections and to adequately maintain, preserve and improve city and county streets; and WHEREAS, R51 will guarantee money for every city and county to help fix potholes, repair dangerous road conditions and improve the safety of children walking or biking to school; and WHEREAS, R51 makes additional funds available to improve local public transit services and increase operations for paratransit services for the elderly and disabled; and WHEREAS, R51 will also help cities and counties by funding large-scale transportation projects that will help relieve congestion and enhance economic development; and WHEREAS, R51 will mandate that quarterly audits be conducted to ensure all R51 revenues are spent properly and projects delivered on time and on -budget; and WHEREAS, R51 will require public reporting that will detail how every penny was spent; and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 13 WHEREAS, RSI will help make our roads, highways and bridges safer; reduce traffic congestion; improve our public transportation, rail and ferry systems; and enhance safety around our schools; NOW, THEREFORE BE it RESOLVED that the Mayor and Edmonds City Council Supports Referendum 51. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of this item. Mr. Bodal, 16905 Talbot Road, urged the Council to support Referendum 51. He supported improving highways and offering more modes of transportation between Edmonds and Seattle. He supported a multimodal transportation hub in Edmonds as the region needed an integrated transportation system. Public Works Director Noel Miller emphasized there would be funds provided to the City for general O&M from the fuel tax. He noted operations were dependent on the fuel taxes and over the years there had not been an increase in the revenue received from fuel taxes due to the method of apportionment. He noted the City would receive at least $100,000 more per year for general operations which would reduce the General Fund subsidy to the street fund. Res# 1028 COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, Endorsing FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1028, A RESOLUTION ENDORSING REFERENDUM Referendum 1 51. Councilmember Petso advised she would abstain from taking a position on this item as it would be presented to the voters. Councilmember Dawson indicated she would support the Resolution. Although she agreed with Councilmember Petso, supporting the Referendum was not telling the public how to vote and she urged the public to make a decision whether it was important to them to have better roads, have the Edmonds multimodal, etc. She urged the public to consider the impact the transportation package may have on jobs, recalling Governor Locke indicated at a recent conference that every state project would stop if Referendum 51 did not pass. She concluded the transportation package was good for the region and good for the economy. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO ABSTAINED. Council President Earling advised he had forms available if Councilmembers were willing to indicate their support as individuals of Referendum 51. He assured the forms were not generated with City tax dollars but were provided by Referendum 51. He invited Councilmembers to sign a support letter following the meeting. 6. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF JUNE 11 AND 12.2002 (Continued from June 18, 2002) o—unity Community Services/Development Services Committee services) Councilmember Marin reported the Committee received an update regarding disabled ADA parking Development p p g g (ADA) p g Services available in the downtown area. The Committee directed staff to contact the Chamber and Downtown ommittee Merchants groups for their input regarding disabled parking spaces and return to the Committee with their comments. Next, the Committee had audience participation from Talbot Road residents. The Committee also reviewed the 2002 Community Services/Development Services Extended Agenda, the Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the Sewer Pretreatment Ordinance. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 14 rce Finance Committee Councilmember Orvis reported the Committee reviewed utility rates which were presented to the Council tonight. Public Safety Public Safety Committee Committee Councilmember Plunkett reported the Committee reviewed the towing services contract which was approved on the June 18 Consent Agenda. 7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS emorial Gift Mayor Haakenson recalled several months ago he mentioned the passing of Dick Slye, a former Received by Councilmember and volunteer firefighter. Mayor Haakenson read a letter from Fire Chief Tom Tomberg Fire Department advising the City recently received a $10,000 gift to the Edmonds Fire Department Aid Car Fund from the estate of Richard Slye. Chief Tomberg expressed his appreciation for the contribution, noting many members of the Fire Department remembered Mr. Slye and his dedication as a volunteer firefighter. Mr. Slye's desire to serve his community would endure through an additional $10,000 contribution to the Edmonds Fire Safety Foundation. Both gifts would be used solely to enhance emergency services to the people Mr. Slye served. Chief Tomberg noted that thanks to the donations from public spirited individuals such as Mr. Slye, firefighters were able to acquire the tools and training necessary to provide a superior level of service to their customers. 8. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS fd ity Council President Earling reported Community Transit recently amended several routes; further information regarding changes to Edmonds routes was available via the Council office. He noted Sound ansit Transit route changes would also be made in the next few weeks, changes that would result in significant capacity enhancements. Councilmember Plunkett reported the Historical Commission held its first meeting and discussed Historical procedures. The Commission's next meeting is Jul 11 at 3:30 in Ci Hall. He reported the Council ommission p g Y City p was provided a quarterly report from the Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development, noting the report was also available to the public at the Alliance office. On July 30 from 1:00 — 5:00 p.m. at the Alliance for Floral Arts Center, the Alliance will hold its retreat which is open to the public. At the retreat, the Economic Development Alliance will develop its plan for the coming Year. Following the retreat, the Alliance will have a new, revised, or reaffirmed work plan which will be presented to the Council in August/September. ort of I Councilmember Wilson reported on the Port of Edmonds meeting, advising the Port submitted comments Edmonds 1to King County regarding the Brightwater scoping notice. Their comments addressed the need for adequate protections and that King County address the issue of the multimodal facility on the Unocal property. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE RATE INCREASE PASSED UNDER AGENDA ITEM #3, ORDINANCE NO. 3400, ORDINANCE VERSION #2. Councilmember Wilson advised that after reviewing the information further, he found the ordinance that was adopted was not consistent with his goal of providing stability in the rate structure. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 15 UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON, DAWSON, AND MARIN IN FAVOR, AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, PETSO, AND ORVIS OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3400, ORDINANCE VERSION #3, ADOPTING THE 2002, 2003, AND 2004 RATE SCHEDULES FOR ALL UTILITIES. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO SEND THE RATE INCREASE TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. Councilmember Petso indicated although she supported the amendment to review the rate on an annual basis and hoped staff would review the rates sooner, she reminded Council that the proposed rates were essentially baseless and not backed by a cost of service study. She fully expected the City to be sued if they implemented the rate increase because the rates were indefensible. She urged the Council to oppose the amendment and the motion and adopt the half-year increase. AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND ORVIS OPPOSED. Councilmember Petso commented that in addition to being sued for "known to be inequitable water and stormwater rates," if the Council approved the motion, there was also the problem that even with annual review it would be difficult to change the rates. If a rate study was done that found there was a subsidy, it would be difficult to make any changes if a multi-year rate increase was already in place. Councilmember Dawson advised that she and Councilmember Orvis, members of the Finance Committee, intended to take a good, hard look at the rates each year. Adopting multi-year rates would provide stability and assist with the issuance of revenue bonds but did not mean the rates would not be carefully reviewed. She characterized Councilmember Petso's comments regarding the City being sued with regard to the rates as disingenuous when Councilmember Petso supported adopting the rates for one year. Councilmember Wilson supported providing rate stability and assisting with the issuance of revenue bonds. He pointed out the importance of evaluating the City's rate structure to ensure they were consistent with costs. He noted if changes to the rate structure were necessary in the future, those changes could be made via an annual review. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON, DAWSON, AND MARIN IN FAVOR, AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, ORVIS, AND PETSO OPPOSED. The ordinance adopted is as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 3400 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC 7.30.030(A) WATER RATES Ord #3400 Utility RIN ORDER TO ESTABLISH RATE INCREASES, ECC 7.30.040(A) UTILITY CHARGES — Adopting Rate SANITARY SEWER TO ESTABLISH RATE INCREASE, 7.50.050 RATES AND CHARGES Increases RELATING TO THE STORMWATER UTILITY TO ESTABLISH RATE INCREASE, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Councilmember Marin reported for the past two months he has been in the Philippines, involved in the War on Terrorism. After spending time overseas in a developing country, he was amazed by how wonderful the Edmonds community was, the order, peace and serenity that were the result of the work of City staff, citizens involved on commissions and boards, and the City Council past and present. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 16 tce 1 COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER MARIN FROM THE COUNCIL MEETINGS OF APRIL 16 THROUGH JUNE 4. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. 'SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes June 25, 2002 Page 17 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 2505 1h Avenue North 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. JUNE 259 2002 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 June 18, 2002 (C) Approval of claim checks #56249 through #56433 for the week of June 17, 2002, in the amount of $479,840.36. Approval of payroll direct deposits and checks #32934 through #33132 for the period June 1 through June 15, 2002, in the amount of $970,893.20. (D) Acknowledge Receipt of Claims for Damages from Peter and Faith Hines ($7,000.00), and Jo C. Allen ($125,000.00) (E) Authorization for the Mayor to Sign a Contract with the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce for the Fourth of July Parade and Fireworks Display (F) Authorization for the Mayor to Sign a Contract with the Edmonds -South Snohomish County Historical Society for the Edmonds Summer Market (G) Authorization for the Mayor to Sign a Consultant Contract for Design of the 220"' Street SW Improvements (Ninth Avenue South to 84t' Avenue West) Project (H) Authorization for the Mayor to Sign an Interlocal Agreement with the Port of Edmonds for Stormwater Outfall Design, Permitting and Construction (1) Proclamation in Honor of Hire -A -Veteran Month, June 2002 (J) Proposed Resolution Adopting a Six -Year Transportation Improvement Program and Directing the Same to be Filed with the State Secretary of Transportation and the Transportation Improvement Board Page 1 of 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA JUNE 25, 2002 Page 2 of 2 3. (60 Min.) Public Hearing on Proposed Increases to Utility Rates • Consideration of a Proposed Ordinance Amending the Rate Structure for Water, Sewer and Stormwater Utilities 4. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person) 5. (15 Min.) Consideration of Endorsement of Referendum Bill 51: The legislature has passed House Bill No. 2969, financing transportation improvements through transportation fees and taxes. This bill would increase highway capacity, public transportation, passenger and freight and transportation financing accountability through increased fuel excise taxes, sales taxes on vehicles, and weight fees on trucks and large vehicles.* *Public comment will be received. 6. (15 Min.) Report on City Council Committee Meetings of June 11 and 12, 2002 (Continued from June 18, 2002) 7. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments 8 (15 Min.) Individual Council Reports on Outside Committee/Board Meetings ADJOURN Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda as well as a delayed telecast of the meeting appears on AT&T Cable, Channel 21.