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.