04/28/2015 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
April 28, 2015
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Noushyal Eslami, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir.
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Mike Clugston, Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
SPECIAL MEETING
1. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present.
2. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2015
BUDGET
Council President Fraley-Monillas recalled last week this item was moved tonight's study session;
however, this agenda item states discussion and potential action.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
MOVE ITEM 2 TO ITEM 6A. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS
VOTING NO.
3. CONTINUED CLOSED -RECORD REVIEW OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S
RECOMMENDATION ON PROPOSED FIELD IMPROVEMENTS AT THE FORMER
WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL
Mayor Earling observed neither the Edmonds School District's (ESD) attorney nor anyone representing
the opposition was present. He asked City Attorney Jeff Taraday whether it was appropriate to proceed.
Mr. Taraday agreed it was curious so few people were present. Although a delay would be a great
inconvenience to the Council, he was leery about proceeding without an understanding of why the parties
were not present.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 1
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked how the parties were made aware of the meeting time change.
City Clerk Scott Passey advised a special meeting notice was posted on the City's website and locations
throughout the City as well as the agenda was posted on the City's website Friday afternoon. Council
President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the Council could begin the meeting with the study session and
return to this item. Mr. Taraday explained under the Open Public Meetings Act, at a special meeting the
Council is limited to conducting the business identified in the special meeting notice which was Item 2
that was moved to Item 6A and this item, Continuance of the Closed Record Review which is
mysteriously poorly attended. Mayor Earling observed the ESD's attorney was now present.
Councilmember Bloom asked if the Council could take a break until 6:15 p.m., the time on the agenda
when this item was estimated to begin. Mr. Taraday said the Council could wait as long they wished. He
was concerned there could be a claimed lack of notice. For example, if the Council proceeds with
Appearance of Fairness Doctrine (AFD) disclosures, there would be no one from the opponent group
present to make an objection. That concerned him because he did not want on appeal to defend the AFD
compliance when the people who could have objected were not present to object. He acknowledged it was
potentially bending over backward to wait for the parties to show up, but looking ahead, he was
concerned about moving forward.
Councilmember Mesaros said if the meeting was noticed for this time, the Council should proceed.
Although he shared Mr. Taraday's concerns, notice was given and people had anticipated this agenda
item. He recommended the Council move forward.
Councilmember Petso suggested recessing until 7:00 p.m. but would do whatever Mr. Taraday
recommended. Mr. Taraday explained this is a Council decision. There are obvious risks and benefits; if
the Council proceeds, the benefit is the meeting stays on schedule. The downside is if this matter ends up
in litigation, and he acknowledged he had no idea whether it would or not but there was at least some
chance based on the way the parties are currently postured, this would be one more issue that someone
could raise. He clarified he was not commenting on the merits of that issue; by every indication proper
notice was given of the special meeting. He summarized he was suggesting there was an excuse not to be
here but that was another issue that someone could raise that would potentially need to defended.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she could understand if there were even a few people in the
audience representing the opposition but the fact that no one was present led her to believe there had been
a misunderstanding. She did not want to risk further litigation by proceeding even if the meeting was
properly noticed. She concluded it was probably better for the City and both sides to recess until 7:00
p.m.
Councilmember Bloom agreed with Council President Fraley-Monillas and Councilmember Petso that the
Council should recess until 7:00 p.m. She found it highly unusually that no one was here given the
amount of passion in the room last week.
Councilmember Nelson also agreed with recessing until 7:00 p.m.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO RECESS THE MEETING UNTIL 7:00 P.M.
Councilmember Johnson asked whether the Council could return to the item originally scheduled as
Agenda Item 2, the 2015 budget amendment.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 2
UPON ROLL CALL VOTE, MOTION FAILED (2-5) COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND
PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND
COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, JOHNSON, MESAROS AND NELSON VOTING NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BLOOM, TO TAKE UP THE CLOSED RECORD REVIEW AT 7:00 P.M.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding of a study session/work session that this item could
not be moved to study session/work session. Mr. Taraday said the Council can conduct any business they
want at the regular meeting after 7:00 p.m. Before 7:00 p.m. the agenda items are limited to the items that
were noticed for the special meeting.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO MOVE STUDY SESSION ITEM 6A BACK TO THE SPECIAL MEETING ITEM
2. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2015
BUDGET
Finance Director Scott James provided an overview of the first quarter budget amendment:
• 14 decision packages
0 2 decision packages have previously been discussed by Council
0 12 new decision packages
• $248,645 in new revenues to pay toward $766,701 in new expenditures.
He displayed and reviewed the Change in Fund Balance Summary, advising the net change in ending
fund balance was a decrease of $518,000. He displayed Exhibit E: Specific Accounts Amended for
Decision Packages.
He reviewed decision packages previously discussed by Council:
• Reprinting of informational brochures for the Historical Preservation Commission - $4,000
o Originally budgeted in 2014, not expended in 2014
• Council approved $1.2 million for the Street Preservation Program in 2014 and staff withheld
$260,000 to provide a local match on a federal grant to overlay 220th Street in 2015. This budget
amendment will add the $260,000 that was removed during the 2015 budget preparation process.
Funding will be provided by the 126 REET 1: Special Capital Project Fund.
o REET 1 funds may be spent on any capital purpose identified in a capital improvement plan
for the purposes of planning, acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, replacement,
rehabilitation or improvement.
o REET 2 may be spent on items that include street projects and park projects (with the
exclusion of the acquisition of land). In 2011 the Washington State Legislature temporarily
changed the laws governing the use of REET 2 funds by allowing funds to be used for street
and park maintenance expenditures.
0 2014 actual REET 1 revenues were approximately $690,000 higher than anticipated
Mr. James reviewed new decision packages:
• Edmonds 125th Anniversary Celebration festivities - $5,000.
o Total anticipated cost is $7,500; staff anticipates $2,500 will come from sponsors/fundraising
• Increase of $4,000 in compensation for state lobbyist from $36,300 to $40,300
• Merchant fee charges paid by Development Services for each credit card transaction - $10,450
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 3
• Additional assistance with Comprehensive Plan update - $14,200
o Offset in part by $6,000 grant
• Printing Wildlife of Edmonds Poster - $2,527
o Self-funded via grant from the Hubbard Family Foundation
• Health & Fitness Expo Supplies - $4,000
o Self-funded via sponsorship
• Update Council Chambers/Court audio and video equipment - $195,000
o If budget amendment is approved, RFP process will follow
o Cost would be paid out of the Franchise Education Fee revenues ($89,000) and from the
annual Washington State Judicial contribution ($20,000) with the balance from a 2 -year
General Fund loan paid by the end of 2017 with future Education Fees.
• Hazel Miller Concerts - $8,500
o Self-funded via grant from Hazel Miller Foundation
• Donation for 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Interim Art Project from Edmonds Arts Festival
Foundation - $10,000
• Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study - $4,000
o Original $1,000 budget not adequate to finish reports and respond to DOE comments
• Replace fleet van and convert to Bi -Fuel propane - $37,718
o Offset by $16,518 in insurance for van totaled in an accident
• Replacement of Police Radios - $12,306
Mr. James displayed Exhibit A: Summary of beginning fund balance, revenue, expenses and ending fund
balance; Exhibit B: Revenues; and Exhibit C: Expenditures. He summarized:
• Revenues increased $248,645
• Expenditures increased $766,701
• Ending fund balance decreased $518,056
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the $110,000 interfund loan from the General Fund for the audio
upgrade and asked why it was split into two years. Mr. James answered through March there is
approximately $109,000; $20,000 from the annual Washington state Judicial contribution and $89,000
from the Comcast fee. There will not be enough collected this year or in 2016 to cover the cost, therefore,
a few months of revenue from 2017 will be necessary. The rate for the interfund loan is the State Pool rate
of .11-.12%. Mr. James advised details are included in the PowerPoint emailed to Councilmembers.
Councilmember Bloom referred to the decision package regarding $1.2 million for the Street Preservation
Program in 2014 and staff withheld $260,000 to provide a local match on a federal grant to overlay 220th
Street in 2015. She relayed her understanding the budget amendments total $518,000. Mr. James clarified
the ending fund balance is decreased by $518,000. Councilmember Bloom asked whether that included
the decision packages that were self-funded. Mr. James answered that amount is the net of all revenues
and expenses.
Councilmember Bloom read from the PowerPoint that this budget amendment will add the $260,000 that
was removed during the 2015 budget preparation process. She referred to a summary of the Council's
discussion of this item during the budget process which indicated this amount was removed so the funds
could be used for purchase of property as designated in REET. She asked the rationale for restoring those
funds now when they were removed during the budget process. Mr. James explained for five years the
City did not fund its Street Preservation Program so it is behind by a number of years. The Mayors budget
message states his priority to catch up on street preservation and these funds help accomplish that. When
the funds were removed from the budget, they were not allocated to a specific property purchase but
banked for future acquisition. The City has a current need to fund streets. He suggested the City adopt a
policy to maintain what currently exists.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 4
Councilmember Bloom said she understood that and said that was Mr. James' opinion. Councilmember
Bloom questioned why the $260,000 was being added as a budget amendment when it was removed
during the budget process. She understood street preservation but did not understand why funds that were
allocated in the 2015 budget process were being pulled from property acquisition. Mr. James explained
during that process, the budget was reduced and the funds placed in fund balance; the funds were not
budgeted for property acquisition. The budget amendment reallocates those funds to street preservation.
Councilmember Bloom pointed out there would then not be $260,000 to potentially purchase property if
property becomes available. Mr. James explained when the funds were rebalanced, he discovered there
was $689,000 more in revenue than was anticipated so there is additional revenue to cover it.
Councilmember Bloom reiterated if the $260,000 is allocated to street preservation program it will not be
available for purchase of property. Mr. James explained when the budget was adjusted to remove that
amount, it was not reallocated for property acquisition, it was moved into fund balance. The budget
amendment requests the $260,000 be allocated for street preservation. The Council could still chose to
allocate funds for property acquisition.
Councilmember Buckshnis clarified the budget amendment to allocate $260,000 for street preservation is
similar to balancing your checkbook and discovering you have additional funds available. The discovery
of additional BEET revenue allows the $260,000 to be allocated for the 220th Street match. She expressed
support for the decision package.
Councilmember Petso did not support that decision package, recalling she made the motion during the
budget process to not allocate property acquisition funds to paving roads. She referred to the decision
package regarding upgrading Council Chambers/Court audio and video equipment and asked how much
of the total project cost of $195,000 was available from Comcast fees. Mr. James answered as of today
there is approximately $109,000 available, $89,000 in Comcast fees and $20,000 from the Judicial
contribution. Councilmember Petso asked whether the Comcast fees are in the 001 Fund in the budget.
Mr. James answered yes. Councilmember Petso observed the remaining amount was $85,000 which Mr.
James said is the amount of the interfund loan.
Councilmember Johnson referred to the decision package regarding merchant fee charges, and asked why
the merchant fee was passed along when it was her understanding development fees should pay for
themselves. The description of the decision package indicates staff is developing a plan for compensating
for these charges. She questioned why the amendment proposes allocating funds for all of 2015 if staff is
in process of changing it. Mr. James said the City is charged a processing fee for credit cards, there is no
fee in the permit process for that. Staff is looking at either outsourcing collection of credit cards to a
vender who would pass on the fee or the City charging the fee itself. He did not have an estimated
timetable for when a decision would be made regarding those options. The City is currently being
assessed a fee and that amount was not budgeted. Councilmember Johnson said charging the fee would be
in keeping with the overall policy and she favored pursuing that.
Councilmember Petso agreed with the intent of Councilmember Johnson's comment and asked whether
Council action was required to stop accepting credit cards for large fees and force people to provide a
check or if that could be done administratively. Mr. James answered either the Council could make that a
policy or the Mayor could provide that direction to staff. Councilmember Petso asked if the City was
legally allowed to say if a credit card charge is more than $500, a check is required. Mr. James said if the
City leverages a fee, it needs to be the same for everyone.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the City could decline to accept credit cards for fees in excess of
$500. Mr. James was not certain, the City's soft policy is $5,000 but people get around that by using
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 5
multiple credit cards. Councilmember Petso asked whether the City was legally allowed to have a policy,
whether by Council or administrative action, not to accept credit cards for fees in excess $500. Mr.
Taraday said he would need to research that.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked the fee on $5,000 charge. Mr. James answered the fee is 3%.
Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to the budget amendment related to the Street Preservation
Program and asked Mr. James to describe again the additional $600,000 in revenue. Mr. James referred to
Budget Book page 170, advising Exhibit A updates that information to reflect the revised fund balance.
When the budget was prepared, the estimated fund balance was $470,000; the actual is $1.1 million.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked what fund the money is in. Mr. James answered REET 1 Fund
126.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to the merchant fees, observing the budgeted amount of $10,450
represents approximately $350,000 in charges with a 3% fee. He said the $10,450 is the cost of doing
business in today's world where people tend to do business with plastic rather than checkbooks. He
recommended approval of that amendment but was open to recommendations to mitigate those costs.
Councilmember Nelson referred to the Street Preservation Program amendment, and asked, where the
funds would come from if the $260,000 was not restored. Mr. James said options are limited; the City
already does a good job of maximize street preservation funds. In the past funds were transferred from the
General Fund but the substantial bill from Fire District 1 last fall of $1.6 million and future higher bills
eliminates that source in the future. Other options include REET; the 126 Fund has money that could be
utilized for that purpose.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the 126 Fund can be used for parks acquisition. Mr.
James answered yes, REET 1 (126 Fund) can be used for property acquisition; REET 2 cannot.
Council President Fraley-Monillas how much money is in REET 2. Mr. James answered the budget
projected $400,000; the actual will be less than that amount. He did not have the updated amounts
available tonight.
Councilmember Petso said even if the $260,000 is not counted toward roads, the 2015 budget still
includes $550,000 from the General Fund and $750,000 from REET 2 for a total of $1.3 million. Mr.
James referred to estimated amounts on page 174 of the budget book. Public Works Director Phil
Williams said Councilmember Petso's figures were likely correct. When it was realized there was an
approximately $100,000 shortfall in REET funds, he agreed not to draw $50,000 into the Street
Preservation Fund and Ms. Hite agreed not to spend $50,000 on park projects.
Councilmember Petso observed that would reduce the Street Preservation Fund to $1.25 million not
counting the $260,000 for the 220th project. Mr. Williams said there would be $1.25 million in new
revenue. The $260,000 in the 2014 budget was moved into 2015 to match the federal grant for 220th. The
$260,000 was subsequently taken out of the 2015 budget. Therefore the only option is to reduce the work
planned in 2015 by an equal amount. He assumed the Council did not want to return the federal grant and
not pave 220th. If that amount is removed from the $1.25 million, other work that was planned will not be
done.
Councilmember Petso said if the $260,000 decision package is not reinstated, those funds would be taken
from the $1.25 million to match the 220th grant leaving close to $1 million for other paving projects. Mr.
Williams agreed with that calculation.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 6
Councilmember Bloom questioned the $4,000 for the lobbyist, relaying her understanding Mr. Doubleday
was "passing the wand to someone else." Economic Development & Community Services Director
Patrick Doherty said lobbyist services this year have been provided by Mr. Doubleday and Jennifer
Ziegler. At the end of the session, the post session follow-up and preparation for next year will be done by
Ms. Ziegler. Councilmember Bloom asked when the $4,000 amount would start. Mr. Doherty explained
the annual contract is $36,300. The monthly cost is higher during the session when more work occurs and
lower for the remainder of the year. The additional $4,000 increases the contract total to $40,300 and will
be proportionally added to the remaining months of this year. Councilmember Bloom asked if the $4,000
additional cost would continue in the future. Mr. Doherty said the City has not received a proposal for
next year's services; the baseline would be $40,300. Councilmember Bloom asked why this was not
included in the 2015 budget. Mr. Doherty said Mr. Doubleday recognized the City's recessionary years
and did not ask for an increase for several years. When he submitted the request, the budget had already
been prepared and he agreed to wait for a budget amendment.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE FIRST QUARTER
BUDGET AMENDMENT.
Councilmember Bloom raised a point of order, stating approving the budget amendment tonight would be
contrary to the decision at the last meeting to move it to a study session as well as the decision at the
beginning of the meeting to move it to the study session. She did not feel the motion for approval was
appropriate when only four minutes remained and there was no time to discuss potential amendments.
MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Mayor Earling advised this item will be scheduled for action on a future agenda. He declared a brief
recess.
STUDY SESSION
3. CONTINUED CLOSED -RECORD REVIEW OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S
RECOMMENDATION ON PROPOSED FIELD IMPROVEMENTS AT THE FORMER
WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL (CON'T)
Mayor Earling relayed Mr. Taraday's indication that some of the people who it was thought would be
here tonight were a school board meeting. He assumed the opposition would have been here tonight had
they intended to listen to the outcome of the Council's discussion but it was up to the Council to decide
whether to move forward.
Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested proceeding. No Councilmembers voiced opposition to
proceeding.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether the Approval of the Agenda and Consent Agenda and Audience
Comments would occur before the Closed Record Review. Mr. Taraday said the Closed Record Review
was originally scheduled for approximately 6:15 p.m. and the Council can reorder the agenda as it wishes
at a regular meeting.
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA, APPROVE THE AGENDA AND HAVE AUDIENCE
COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE CLOSED RECORD REVIEW. MOTION CARRIED (6-1),
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS VOTING NO.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 7
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Johnson requested Item C be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON,
TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. APPROVAL OF DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 21, 2015
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #213891 THROUGH #213992 DATED APRIL 23, 2015
FOR $854,676.51 (REISSUED CHECKS #213916 $25.48 & #213958 $9.85). APPROVAL OF
PAYROLL CHECK #61589 FOR $166.66 FOR THE PAY PERIOD APRIL 1, 2015
THROUGH APRIL 15, 2015
ITEM C. CITY PARK AWARD OF BID FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SPRAY PAD AND
GRANTING OF UTILITY EASEMENT
Councilmember Johnson said she pulled this so it could be voted on separately.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ITEM C. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER
JOHNSON VOTING NO.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Doug Schwartz, Edmonds, recalled he spoke to the Council last week about the Council considering the
purchase of the Edmonds Conference Center. He provided rationale for investigating the purchase, stating
a smart city plans for its future. The Conference Center is a prime piece of real estate, located close to
existing City offices, is perfect for future expansion and there are few other opportunities for expansion
nearby. The building would make an excellent entrepreneurial development center; by hosting a business
technology incubator, the City could generate significant revenue and promote high tech job creation. As
a member of the Economic Development Commission, he has heard the City's goal of attracting younger
families which high tech jobs would do. Although there is water damage in the building, the $1 million
estimate appears to be high; the repair portion of the estimate is only $438,000. The estimate from North
Sound Church's independent investigation was significant less than $500,000. Further, the State is willing
to consider offsets for job creation, future revenue generation and the estimated repair costs. He
summarized there has to be some price at which purchasing the building makes overwhelming sense. He
encouraged the City to express interest, do its investigation into the price and investigate with the State
whether a deal can be made. He had no personal interest in the building but felt allowing it to be
purchased by a private party without investigation was short sighted and a mistake.
Jenny Anttila, Edmonds, explained during a call to the Washington State Surplus Department, it was
confirmed the City of Edmonds had not been notified via email on March 4, 2015 regarding the sale of
the Edmonds Conference Center. There was an acknowledgement that the City Council had had a lack of
notification and the date was extended to June 1, 2015. This gives the Council time to consider the
possible use and future needs. The current City Hall was purchased 16-18 years ago recognizing the
City's growth needs. The Edmonds Conference Center could be used to accommodate future growth, as a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 8
conference center, for group meetings, rentals, weddings, events and perhaps Rick Steves who currently
uses the building three days a year. The building is in a prime location and has not been marketed to its
full potential. She concluded some visionaries can see the future even though they won't be here; the
ongoing community ultimately benefits.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds (verbatim): Hi, Ken Reidy of Edmonds. I hold in my hand a temporary
construction easement document from tonight's Council agenda packet. Temporary construction
easements must be granted to the City when the City has a true public need to use another's property.
That requirement is what this grant document is all about. It is a common basic document. The granting of
an easement also comes into play during the City's vacation of a street easement that is not needed for
public ingress or egress. For example, the City may need to maintain a utility pipe under the easement
area being vacated. In these situations, the City Council can pass a resolution of intent to vacate the street
easement as long as the property owner grants a different easement to the City in exchange for the street
easement being vacated. Per the code, this condition must be met within 90 days. So please, after you
review agenda item 10 tonight, please take a moment and appreciate that wow, incredibly, the City chose
to violate the City's own code related to my property. There is no resolution of intent to vacate; our code
requires such. There also is no grant document like this related to what the City did to me. Our code
requires a grant. As you know, the illegal easement caused great harm for years and years that lives on
and on. Please look at Edmonds City Code 2.01.010 which documents the duties of the Mayor. The
Mayor shall see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced. The word is shall which is
mandatory. The City's code does not state that once the City has chosen to commit an illegal act, the
Mayor is suddenly relieved of his duty to see that all laws and ordinances are followed. Such would be
crazy and would lead to great injustices. Why would any of you act as if once the City has chosen to
break a law, the burden to see that the related City laws is followed is shifted to others. The code is clear.
This not the citizen's burden, the Mayor shall see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced.
This is simple and basic. There was no grant. That should have been the end of story, case closed. Instead
this City acted as if it had a grant and used the illegal temporary construction easement to attack my
private property via permanent code enforcement. Permanent code enforcement related to a temporary
easement. Okay, Council may have been fooled before they voted on that illegal easement but all have
had years of opportunities to address what took place. Why the refusal to do so? How can you ask people
to trust the City when the City refuses to correct its own violations of the code? Thank you.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, said one thing outweighs all the reasons in support of purchasing the Edmonds
Conference Center - the City does not have the money and evaluating the opportunity is a waste of the
Mayor's, Councilmembers' and staff's time. Washington cities must provide four mandatory services,
public safety, streets, utilities and administration of those three services. The City needs additional police
resources particularly for traffic enforcement as well as a massive amount of street work and sidewalks.
The City clearly does not have sufficient funds for those two mandatory services so time should not be
wasted considering what the State classifies as discretionary services. He provided an analogy, a
homeowner who did not have the money to replace their roof would not evaluate the purchase of a
vacation home. He urged the Council to bring any study of the purchase of the Edmonds Conference
Center to an immediate conclusion and not waste time like was wasted on the Skippers property a few
years ago.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, spoke regarding the Edmonds Conference Center, relaying there are water
problems, there is no parking, expenses are greater than the income and the idea of marketing it is not
feasible because the Edmonds Center for the Arts is not fully utilized and the City loses money on it.
Next, he referred to the right-of-way discussions, expressing concern that taking property from Dairy
Queen will affect their business and few vehicles make the right turn lane from 76`h Avenue to eastbound
212`h. With regard to the Streetscape Plan, he referred to page 157 where it states some interest was
expressed regarding additional language and a note about views could be added in a later version. He
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 9
suggested adding language about views now. He suggested adding on page 86 view blockage and a
maximum height for trees. With regard to a note that where feasible street trees should improve the
pedestrian experience; he said blocking views was not a good experience. He also recalled a suggestion to
include pictures of the trees.
3. CONTINUED CLOSED-RECORD REVIEW OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S
RECOMMENDATION ON PROPOSED FIELD IMPROVEMENTS AT THE FORMER
WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL (CON'T)
Mayor Earling explained this is a continuation of the closed record hearing from April 21, 2015 in which
the City Council was tasked with considering the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner related to the
following applications of the Edmonds School District:
• PLN20140065 (design review)
• PLN20140066 (height variance for ball control fencing in the RS-8 zone)
• The portion of PLN20140067 relating to a Conditional Use Permit for bleachers and ball control
fencing height in the OS zone.
The hearing was continued from April 21, 2015 for 2 reasons, 1) the Council packet for April 21, 2015
did not contain the 10-page Hearing Examiner summary of testimony so it was determined the Council
should have an opportunity to ask questions about the summary of testimony after having had an
opportunity to review it, and 2) because it was difficult to determine in real time whether oral argument
during the hearing was properly confined to the record before the examiner or whether new evidence was
introduced, it was determined objections to the scope of argument offered on April 21, 2015 would be
allowed to be introduced on April 28, 2015. After the City Council dispenses with the very limited scope
of activity this evening, it will be able to proceed with its deliberations.
In accordance with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, Mayor Earling asked whether any member of
the decision-making body has engaged in any oral or written communication with opponents or
proponents of the project outside the presence of the other party.
Councilmember Nelson said he had not had any contact with any of the parties outside the presence of the
other parties.
Councilmember Johnson disclosed she received some emails and read two. Subsequently the City
Attorney told the Council to disregard them and inform him which emails they had read. She would need
to ask the IT Department to discover them because she deleted them. The comments she read were related
to the crumb rubber turf which was outside the scope of the Hearing Examiner's decision.
Councilmember Bloom said she had not had any conversations or email communications with anyone
related to this topic.
Councilmember Petso reported she had had no contacts this week.
Councilmember Mesaros said he had not have any contacts this week.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she received a number emails and read two before the Council was told
not to read emails. The emails she read were outside the scope of the Hearing Examiner's decision. She
deleted all other emails she received.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she has not received anything since the last week. She submitted
to Mr. Taraday notes that were attached to the plants provided to her and Mayor Earling last week. She
did not read the notes but knew they were from interested parties.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 10
Mayor Earling said he has had no contact with outside parties. He did not have an opportunity to read the
note attached to his plant.
To supplement the record from last week's disclosures regarding ex -parte communications, Mr. Taraday
recalled Councilmember Petso asked that he or the City Clerk locate emails she received prior to his
instruction not to read emails. He was able to locate what he believed to be most of those, particularly
those that did not involve staff. He clarified staff was not generally considered to be opponents or
proponents of the project. He shared copies of the emails with counsel for School District at
approximately 6:15 p.m. tonight and she has had an opportunity to review them. He tried to share copies
of the emails with someone from the opposition but had not yet seen anyone here tonight. He referenced
the date and time of the emails and added hardcopies into the record:
• From Valerie Stewart to Lora Petso, March 21, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.
• From Lora Petso to Valerie Stewart, March 21, 2015 at 10:26 a.m.
• From Carrie Hite copying Mayor Earling, Renee McRae and Valarie Stewart, and blind copying
the Council, March 23, 2015 at 9:25 a.m.
• From Denise Wechsler to Lora Petso, March 24, 2015 at 11:44 a.m.
• From Lora Petso to Denise Wechsler, March 24, 2015 at 1:34 p.m.
He asked whether any substance of the communication that occurred outside the record needed to be
rebutted by parties to the proceedings, either the School District or the opponents. Kristine Wilson,
counsel for Edmonds School District, said she reviewed the communications that were disclosed at the
April 21, 2015 meeting. The District does not object to the participation of Councilmembers who may
have read the emails. The District trusts the Councilmembers' ability to set aside irrelevant information
on matters beyond the scope of the record or issues present. The District objects to the extent the
substance is outside the record if there are findings that rely upon that information. Otherwise, the District
has no further objections to note.
Mayor Earling asked whether any member of Council had a conflict of interest and believed he/she could
not hear and consider the application in a fair and objective manner.
Council President Fraley-Monillas and Councilmembers Buckshnis, Mesaros, Petso, Bloom, Johnson and
Nelson and Mayor Earling said they had no conflicts and could hear the matter in a fair and impartial
manner.
Mayor Earling asked if any audience member objected to his or any Councilmember's participation as a
decision -maker in the hearing. There were no objections voiced.
Mayor Earling asked whether Councilmembers had any questions as result of reading the summary of
testimony that was not included in last week's packet.
Councilmember Bloom said she had a lot of questions, primarily regarding the Determination of Non -
Significance (DNS) which was brought up in testimony. Mr. Taraday suggested she ask the questions but
clarified the reason the hearing was continued was because the Council did not have a fair opportunity to
read and review the 10 -page summary.
Councilmember Bloom said she carefully reviewed the citizen comments. One of the comments was
related to the SEPA DNS, specifically Mark Walls said the SEPA DNS should be overturned because
there is information that environmental impacts will occur and the School District misrepresented the
situation. She asked what a DNS was. Mr. Taraday explained under SEPA the agency that is doing the
SEPA review does an environmental checklist to get a sense of the scope of adverse environmental
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 11
impacts that a project might cause. A project that is likely to have significant adverse environmental
impacts gets a Determination of Significance which leads to the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). A project that does not appear likely to create significant adverse environmental impacts
gets a Determination of Non -Significance which more or less ends the environmental review and no EIS
follows.
Mr. Taraday explained the School District was the lead SEPA agency for this proposal and because their
SEPA analysis was done for the same proposal for which the City was processing applications, SEPA
requires the City use that environmental document unchanged. There was no mechanism for the City to
provide a SEPA appeal and no mechanism for the City to supplement the SEPA. He did not think the City
analyzed whether the SEPA needed to be supplemented because staff knew it could not be supplemented.
The entire environmental review under SEPA for this project is in the hands of the School District. The
opponents have alleged there are problems with the SEPA review that was done; to the extent that those
are legitimate problems, that will be the School District's battle in another forum and not one the Council
can take up here tonight.
Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding of Mr. Taraday's explanation that there was no appeal
process for the DNS by the School District. Mr. Taraday said when the City is the lead agency there is an
appeal process; the City was not the lead agency in this case. There is a significant difference between a
DNS prepared by the City and a DNS prepared by the School District from procedural standpoint.
Councilmember Bloom said she has numerous questions about the DNS. Mr. Taraday said he cannot
comment on the content of the DNS because it is outside the City's procedure; the City did not draft the
document and the City was not able to supplement or appeal it.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether Councilmembers in this quasi-judicial hearing could say they
objected to the DNS. Mr. Taraday said no, because the City is not the SEPA lead agency. The School
District does not have an administrative appeal process; to the extent someone wants to take issue with
the SEPA analysis that was done, that is for another forum. Councilmember Bloom asked what forum,
noting she had a number of very important question related to this project. Mr. Taraday said he has not
analyzed how the DNS could be appealed. He assumed some type of judicial appeal could be brought or
could have been brought; he was uncertain whether the time period had expired. When there is not an
administrative appeal; there should at least be a judicial one.
Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding of Mr. Taraday's explanation that the Council cannot
require SEPA evaluations be done such as regarding the wildlife preserve, traffic mitigation, air quality,
etc. in advance of any project. Mr. Taraday agreed that was what he was saying. The Council's discretion
in analyzing this quasi-judicial matter is looking at the decision criteria that relate to the permits that are
before the Council for consideration; SEPA is not one of those.
Councilmember Bloom asked if she could still ask questions regarding air quality, traffic, parking, the
wildlife preserve, etc. because it was in the packet that she was expected to review. Mr. Taraday said
there was a lot of information in the packet and in testimony that in his opinion was not relevant to the
decision criteria that Councilmembers can consider. Councilmembers can ask questions but when the
Council deliberates, they will have tie facts in record to the decision criteria that relate to the permits that
are before the Council for consideration. For example he had not considered how air quality might relate
to any of the decision criteria that are before the Council and whether there was enough evidence in the
record to analyze that in light of the criteria; that was the type of analysis Councilmembers would need to
do.
Councilmember Petso relayed the public has claimed the SEPA was inadequate and should have been
withdrawn and cited the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) provision. She asked for confirmation
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 12
that Mr. Taraday's legal advice was that even if City Council agreed with that claim, they could not and
should not deny the requested permits on that basis. Mr. Taraday answered that is correct. He was
uncertain how the Council would be in a position to have an opinion on that claim because they did not
have a fully developed record to allow them to have an opinion on that claim. He was not certain how
much of the SEPA materials were in the packet. His advice was for the Council to base its decision on the
code criteria that relate to the permits that are before the Council and not on any SEPA criteria or SEPA
analysis. To the implication it would be wrong for the Council to approve permits on an inadequate
SEPA, Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding that was before the Council. Mr. Taraday
reiterated the City was not the lead agency and SEPA was not within the Council's purview.
Councilmember Petso recalled "back in the olden days" rather than the Council decision being the actual
Findings and Conclusions, occasionally the Council would make motions to clarify for the City Attorney
the Council's intent and the City Attorney would draft Findings and Conclusions for subsequent approval.
She asked if that was what Mr. Taraday expected to occur tonight. Mr. Taraday said as the Council
deliberates and votes, he will take copious notes to get a sense of what should be in the Findings and
Conclusions. He likely will start with the Hearing Examiner's Findings and Conclusions except to the
extent the Council directs him to do otherwise. To the extent the Council wanted him to draft findings that
differed from the Hearing Examiner's, he requested evidence in the record and what the Finding and
Conclusion should say. He will provide Findings and Conclusions for Council review at next week's
meeting.
Councilmember Petso recalled asking last week if it was permissible for the Council to impose conditions
related to the permits as the Architectural Design Board (ADB) and Hearing Examiner did. Mr. Taraday
answered yes, as long as they were based on evidence in record and decision criteria that are relevant to
the permits.
To the extent comments or representations are made in record such as the City will be scheduling the
playfields or the gate at 102nd will remain shut and used only for emergency access, Councilmember Petso
asked whether it was within the Council's authority to make those conditions of permit approval as long
as there was review criteria that related to those items. Mr. Taraday said it would need to tie to the
decision criterial. He assume if there was a representation of how the project would be utilized in the
future, they were doing so because they felt it was relevant to decision criteria and the Council could
convert a representation into a condition.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if all the Council was voting on tonight was the bleachers and the
height of the fence. Mr. Taraday answered more or less, the Council was being asked to approve various
permits: a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), design review, variances and the permits related to the
bleachers and fence height.
Councilmember Buckshnis applauded Mayor Earling for allowing everyone to speak at last week's
meeting. The Council subsequently received a letter from Ms. Wilson indicating certain individuals did
not address the bleachers and/or fencing. She asked whether Councilmembers should disregard all the
additional information that was provided regarding things that were not related to the bleachers or
fencing. Mr. Taraday said it is for each Councilmember to decide what they feel is relevant or irrelevant.
Mr. Taraday referred to written objections submitted by the School District that were included in the
Council packet. He asked whether anyone present objected to evidence outside the record introduced at
last week's hearing other than what the School District stated in its letter. There were no objections
voiced.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 13
Mayor Earling asked whether Councilmembers had any questions of staff or wished to have additional
oral argument on one or more of the issues or did they wish to move into deliberations.
Councilmember Petso observed the Comprehensive Plan adopted February 2014 says the community will
be involved in design development. As the Council must find this application is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, she asked staff to describe how the community has been involved in the design of
the project since February 2014. Mr. Taraday provided a partial answer, reminding the Council one of the
permits is a design review permit. He did not know whether the Comprehensive Plan language
contemplated that design review permit, but that argument could be made. Planner Mike Clugston agreed
with Mr. Taraday; he was not aware of any other meetings or design workshops since February 2014 in
the record other than the design review meeting by the ADB.
Councilmember Bloom asked how review by the ADB could be represented as community involvement.
Mr. Taraday answered it is a public process that relates to design. Councilmember Bloom pointed out that
occurred after the School District presented the design. Mr. Taraday was not certain what the
Comprehensive Plan language intended but there was a public process related to design, the meeting
before the ADB, a recommendation from the ADB to the Hearing Examiner, an open public record
hearing before the Hearing Examiner on the design review permit and then this process.
Councilmember Bloom asked if was typical to postpone the traffic mitigation study to after approval of
the project. Mr. Clugston answered it depends, in many cases when like for like features are substituted;
there are two existing fields on the site now as well as in the proposal, the engineering division commonly
considers that as like for like replacement and if there were any mitigation fees, they are assessed with the
building permit.
Councilmember Bloom commented the location does not seem appropriate due to one road in and out,
adding events but keeping the same amount of parking and with no way to monitor it. She recalled
comments in the record related to traffic flow and a determination that there would sufficient parking for
phase 1. She did not see this big of a project being located there with only one road in and out. She could
see it at Civic Field where there are many ways in and out. She asked how it was reasonable to delay the
traffic study. Mr. Clugston answered two grass fields currently exist and two fields with another surface
will exist in the future. If additional fields are added in the future, there may be a need for additional
traffic study. He acknowledged field use will probably be increased because the fields will be better but
there is more than adequate parking for the school and athletic field uses and there is a signalized
intersection at 100th
Councilmember Bloom observed the record states scheduling will be done by Parks and the Edmonds
School District. She observed there are significant weekly musical theater performances at the school. She
asked how evening and weekend sports events will occur at the same time as musical theater events and
whether that was taken into account in the determination that 300 parking spaces was enough. Mr.
Clugston answered the 307 existing parking spaces meet the requirements. He read from page 12 of the
staff decision, using the assembly area 137 stalls would be required based on an estimate of where
spectators would most likely congregate around the fields. The addition of 102 stalls for school use equals
239 stalls, 68 less than the 307 that currently exist. He concluded there is ample parking on the site for the
proposed project.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether the City and School District envisioned sports and musical theater
events would occur at the same time. Ms. Hite reiterated her comment in the record that in working with
the School District, the City will mitigate the concerns of the neighbor, be a good neighbor and listen to
the neighbors' concerns. The idea would be to schedule the fields during non -peak use times when the
school is using the parking lot to avoid concerns with parking and traffic. Councilmember Bloom said
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 14
Edmonds Heights has a musical theater program that has evening and weekend performances throughout
the year that fill the lot. She asked whether the intent was not to schedule concurrent events. Ms. Hite said
in discussion with the School District, the City will seek to learn about high peak uses and to schedule
around it. The City is committed to working with the school regarding scheduling use around their high
peak use times so that there is enough parking.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether games are currently held on both fields. Mr. Clugston
answered the record states the fields are used now; he did not know the scope and extent of that use.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked whether the parking is used for other events such as the Taste of
Edmonds or the Arts Festival. Mr. Clugston said that was not in the record and he did not know.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the staff report for design review permit PLN20140065 which
includes bleachers and lighting. She asked whether the Council is to disregard the information regarding
light poles even though it is in design review permit. Mr. Taraday answered the School District withdrew
its lighting applications. The Findings and Conclusions the Council ultimately adopts should be consistent
with the School District's withdrawal of its lighting application. Councilmember Buckshnis said if the
Council upholds the Hearing Examiner's decision on the design review permit, it will have remove the
lighting and poles. Mr. Taraday agreed.
Councilmember Petso observed there is currently a soccer field on the subject property in the outfield of
an existing baseball field. Her understanding was the proposal was for 2 soccer and 2 baseball fields in
phase 1. Mr. Clugston displayed a drawing from Exhibit 2 that illustrates 2 side-by-side soccer fields and
lined elements over the top of those fields for use of the same fields for softball or baseball but not for
both sports at the same time. He clarified there were two fields that could be used for baseball, soccer,
lacrosse or other purposes.
Councilmember Bloom asked if the current fields were used as regularly as they would be used in the
future. Mr. Clugston answered he did not know the intensity of the current use.
Council indicated they were prepared to move into deliberation.
Councilmember Petso recalled Mr. Taraday stated Councilmembers should indicate areas of
disagreement. She did not see the proposal as like for like, there are two soccer or baseball fields in the
proposal and there is currently one soccer field in the outfield of a baseball field. She disagreed with the
Hearing Examiner that the installation of bleachers and ball control fencing for two fields did not
represent without the lighting a significant increase in use. She viewed it as going from a single practice
field that would accommodate at most one team at a time to competition fields that could accommodate
up to four teams at the same time. Because the project is creating a change, she requested the Council
consider making the representations made to the Hearing Examiner into conditions.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, THAT
THE TRAFFIC GATE AT 102ND WILL REMAIN CLOSED TO ALL TRAFFIC EXCEPT
EMERGENCY VEHICLES.
Councilmember Petso said the basis for this condition was that it not be detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare as well as a code provision governing CUPS, 16.80.020.E that states traffic impacts of
the proposal are to be considered. A condition that the traffic gate at 102nd remains closed to all traffic
except emergency vehicles will mitigate the traffic for the residents on 102nd
Council President Fraley-Monillas observed the gate was currently closed and only used for emergency
access. Mr. Clugston said there was no indication in the record that it would be opened for use as part of
this project; it would remain locked for emergency use.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 15
Councilmember Mesaros asked why this motion was needed. Mr. Clugston said that is the standard
practice now. There may be some document he was not aware of that the School District uses to gauge the
use of the gate. The gate was originally put in to keep traffic from going from the school into that
neighborhood and for emergency use.
Councilmember Petso said this condition would better assure the proposal meets the criteria of the CUP.
It also provides guidance to the School District and the City in operating the facility. If it was deemed
advisable to open the gate in the future, rather than simply unlocking it, the CUP would need to be
modified to allow the gate to be opened and that process would provide opportunity for public input.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she could not think of a reason not to pass the motion. She asked
staff if there were any potential downfalls. Mr. Clugston answered there was nothing in the record to
indicate one way or another. There may be multiple phases of the project with additional traffic, parking
and access needs. With this phase there was no indication anything would happen with that access.
Council President Fraley-Monillas agreed that is a small downhill road in a residential area and is not
appropriate for additional traffic.
Councilmember Johnson referred to Councilmember Petso's postulation regarding the number of practice
and playing fields. She asked whether that was in the record or her personal conclusion. Mr. Clugston
answered the information in the record is a proposal for two soccer/multiuse fields.
Council President Fraley-Monillas observed the current configuration has two fields, one above and one
below. Mr. Clugston referred to the aerial photo, identifying the phase 1 area where 2 fields are proposed
at the southwest corner of the site. More fields could be proposed in subsequent phases; the current
proposal is for two fields to replace the existing fields.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
IMPOSE A CONDITION THAT NO PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEMS OR OTHER NOISE
AMPLIFICATION BE PERMITTED.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how noise could be part of design review. Mr. Taraday advised there
are three permits before the Council. He suggested Councilmember Petso speak to which decision this
criterion relates to and whether it ties to a representation made by the School District. Councilmember
Petso said to the best of her knowledge the representation was previously made by the School District.
The review criterion is 16.80.020.D regarding noise and her concern is where there are bleachers there is
the potential for PA announcements.
Councilmember Bloom said the DNS under environmental health states related to noise, in the long term
noise levels would be consistent with existing levels. She wanted to ensure noise levels were consistent
with existing levels.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked where this was in the Hearing Examiner decision and
subsequently found it in Item C.
To Councilmember Bloom's desire to keep noise at the existing level, Councilmember Mesaros asked
what evidence exists regarding the existing levels. Councilmember Bloom suggested asking the School
District due to their claim in the DNS that noise levels will be consistent with current levels.
Councilmember Mesaros observed the current levels could include the use of a PA system.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 16
Councilmember Bloom said they are not currently using PA systems. Mr. Clugston said there is no
indication in the record that PA systems are being used.
Council President Fraley-Monillas asked why Councilmember Petso wanted to further restrict noise when
the School District has agreed to have an acceptable level of noise. Councilmember Petso answered by
making it a condition, it is enforceable.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, JOHNSON,
NELSON AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS AND
COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND MESAROS VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
INCLUDE A CONDITION THAT PLAYFIELD LIGHTS ARE NOT PERMITTED PER THE
HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S WITHDRAW OF THE
REQUEST FOR LIGHTS AND SECTION 16.80.020.A AND B. MOTION CARRIED (6-1)
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO MODIFY HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION #1 WHICH ALLOWS BALL
CONTROL FENCING TO A MAXIMUM OF 30 FEET PER SOME DIAGRAM; MODIFY TO
ALLOW BALL CONTROL FENCING AND NETTING TO A MAXIMUM OF 30 FEET WITH
FENCING AND NETTING THE MINIMUM NECESSARY FOR SAFETY. REFERENCE
16.80.020.A AND VARIANCE CRITERIA THAT STATES THE GRANT OF A VARIANCE MUST
BE THE MINIMUM NECESSARY.
Councilmember Mesaros asked the impact of the motion on the proposal. Mr. Clugston was unsure what
the difference would be as the motion would allow ball control fencing to be a maximum of 30 feet high
as indicated on the two plan sheets in the Hearing Examiner's condition. Councilmember Petso explained
to be consistent with the variance criteria, she wanted the fencing to be the minimum necessary for safety.
Field fencing varies greatly, all fields will have significant fencing and netting behind home plate on
baseball field but some fields will have a lower outfield fence or netting. Because the Council was
allowed to consider aesthetics of the project under the review criteria and because the variance can be
required to be the minimum, she hoped the fencing will not be 30 feet high all the way around and by
making this modification to the criteria, it will encourage the fencing not to be 30 feet high all the way
around unless it is absolutely necessary for safety.
Councilmember Mesaros asked what areas are identified in the schematic for 30 -foot fencing. Mr.
Clugston answered roughly the area around the back stop would have higher fencing; the lower fencing,
varies from 8 to 16 feet around the rest of the site. Sheets F2.5 and F2.6 of Attachment 3 do not show 30 -
foot fencing all around. Approving the Hearing Examiner's condition as written locks in the fence heights
shown on those sheets.
Councilmember Mesaros observed if the School District found they could save money with lower fences,
they would not be restricted to that height, they just could not go higher. Mr. Clugston agreed.
Councilmember Bloom referred to language that states the Woodway project is intended to create adult
soccer and multiuse turf fields for year-round recreation options. She asked whether adult sports require
higher fences. Mr. Clugston said he was not able to answer that and was unsure it was in the record. He
referred to Attachment 17, a letter from the School District about fence heights, that states there is no
standard for fence heights but the heights indicated are the usual heights. Councilmember Bloom
expressed support for the motion, pointing out Council Chambers are approximately 20 feet tall. Mayor
Earling advised that information was not in the record.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 17
Given her stated intent to have improved aesthetics, minimize fencing and netting, and grant the
minimum variance necessary for safety, Councilmember Petso asked whether the Hearing Examiner's
condition as written would do that better than her proposed modification. Mr. Clugston said the ADB
reviewed the fencing height and found it acceptable. The Hearing Examiner likewise approved the
fencing design. Councilmember Petso said she did not see any informative discussion in the record by
either. She asked in his opinion which would produce the minimum variance and the preferred aesthetics.
Mr. Clugston said that was not in record; it was for the Council to determine.
Councilmember Nelson asked the purpose of the fencing. Mr. Clugston referred to Attachment 17 which
indicates the purpose is safety. Councilmember Nelson expressed support for the maximum fencing and
netting necessary for safety to avoid being hit by an errant ball.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, JOHNSON, MESAROS AND NELSON VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
MODIFY CONDITION 2 OR ADD A NEW CONDITION TO SAY THAT FIELD USE SHALL BE
SCHEDULED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS. REFERENCE 16.80.020.D AND E AND THE
MATERIALS IN THE PACKET DATED MARCH 5, 2015 FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT
STATING THE FIELDS WOULD BE SCHEDULED BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
Council President Fraley-Monillas did not support the motion, noting the School District will also use the
fields and they should not be required to contact the City to use the fields for recess. She was confident
the City and the School District could work together to schedule the fields.
Councilmember Petso said the representation was made by the School District that the fields would be
scheduled by the City. She found that a superior protection for citizens because that's the way other fields
and parks are scheduled. If the City schedules the fields, neighbors will speak with staff who represents
City of Edmonds voters; the School District and Verdant represent residents of Edmonds, Mountlake
Terrace, Woodway, and other cities. This condition will better meet the requirement in 16.80.020D and E.
With the one exception she identified, the record states the School District agreed to let the City schedule
the fields.
Councilmember Johnson pointed out Condition 2, fields shall not be scheduled for non -school activities
during regular school hours.
Councilmember Bloom relayed concern that the musical theater performances do not occur during regular
school hours; they occur on weekends and evenings. She questions how there would be no overlap if the
City scheduled the fields without the participation of the School District. Councilmember Petso said she
will address that in a subsequent proposed condition.
Councilmember Mesaros said the Council should not restrict the management of an asset. The Council's
job is to set policy and allow the people who understand recreation to deal with the management of the
property. He noted all the School District would need to do is say they wanted certain blocks of time for
programs and they could then schedule them as them wished. Whether this condition exists or not, that
conversation was likely to occur.
Councilmember Bloom asked if there was anything in the record about how scheduling will be
coordinated by the City and the School District. Mr. Clugston referred to page 11 of the staff report to the
Hearing Examiner (Exhibit 1) which includes the hours of operation under the CUP criteria and states the
City of Edmonds Parks & Recreation will be responsible for scheduling use of the playing fields for non -
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 18
school activities and that the fields will not be used for non -school activities during the school day. A
condition to this affect is proposed. Councilmember Bloom observed there was nothing about the use by
school for performances. Mr. Clugston responded although there was discussion regarding performances,
he did not think there was anything in the record that quantified it.
Councilmember Petso said the intent is to memorialize what had already been agreed to, that the City will
schedule the fields.
MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BLOOM VOTING YES.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
RETAIN HEARING EXAMINER CONDITIONS 3 AND 4.
Councilmember Petso said Condition 3 is applicant will give serious consideration to location of double
gate to avoid need to relocate it and Condition 4 is applicant will obtain all necessary permits.
Councilmember Mesaros asked why this was necessary if the conditions were in the Hearing Examiner's
decision. Councilmember Petso said #3 was added during design review and retained by the Hearing
Examiner and #4 was added by the Hearing Examiner and she did not see a need to change it.
MOTION FAILED (2-4-1), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING YES AND
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON ABSTAINING.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM TO
RETAIN HEARING EXAMINER CONDITION #5, THE PERMIT IS PERSONAL TO THE
EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT AND NOT TRANSFERABLE.
Councilmember Mesaros asked why this was necessary when it was already in the record. Mr. Taraday
said he will bring back Finding and Conclusions next week for Council's final action that effectively
mirror the relevant parts of the Hearing Examiner except where the Council instructs him otherwise. He
did not interpret the last vote that he should not include Conditions 3 and 4 but that there was question
why the motion was being made. Unless a motion is approved to delete conditions 3 and 4, he will
include those in the Findings and Conclusions.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE
SECONDER.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY BLOOM, TO ADD A CONDITION
THAT FIELDS MUST BE SCHEDULED TO CONCLUDE REGULAR PLAY BY 8:30 P.M. USE
IS NOT PERMITTED AFTER 9 P.M.
Councilmember Petso explained the purpose of the motion was to modify the Hearing Examiner
condition that pertained to lighting, that lights would be turned off at 10:15 p.m. Since the School District
withdrew the permit for lighting, a condition should be included pertaining to the hours of operation and
the noise standard. The relevant criteria is 16.80.020.D.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said without lighting during the winter, play would be concluded by
5:00 p.m. During the summer, it would be logical to use the fields for soccer and baseball games in
evening through dusk. She was uncertain why 8:30 p.m. was selected.
Councilmember Petso said the criteria for decision includes among other things hours of use, noise and
traffic. To ensure those standards are met as well as not detrimental to public health, safety and welfare,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 19
field scheduling that contemplates play would end at 8:30 p.m. and terminates field use at 9:00 p.m.
would allow for noise for nearby residents to terminate at a reasonable hour.
Council President Fraley-Monillas referred to comments that the parking lot is fully utilized during
musical theater performances and asked if those uses would also need to be concluded by 8:30 p.m. She
assumed they extended beyond 8:30 p.m. Councilmember Petso said that was not in the record.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the noise ordinance allowed residents to complain about noise
after 10 p.m. Mr. Taraday said he was not intimately familiar with the noise ordinance but believed these
fields were exempt. Mr. Clugston referred to ECC Chapter 5.30 that states sounds originating from
officially sanctioned parades and other events to which the general public is solicited to attend without
charge and sounds originating from league or school sponsored athletic events are exempt from the
provisions of the noise abatement chapter at all times.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that meant field users could be as noisy as they wanted at midnight.
Mr. Clugston answered yes. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with arbitrarily selecting 9
p.m.
Councilmember Bloom said the motion makes perfect sense to her based on Councilmember Petso's
description because it allows time for overtime and emptying the parking lot. She did not want to put
residents in the surrounding area in the position of complaining.
Councilmember Mesaros said this is another example of the Council interfering with the professionalism
of the recreation leadership at the School District and the City who he was sure did not want to run
recreation programs that made the neighbors angry. He observed it was for a short time of the year
because there are no lights on the fields. The very professional staff understands recreation much better
than the Council.
Councilmember Johnson observed this is an area where personal knowledge is being substituted for what
is in record. She did not see anything in the record about the termination time and did not support the
Council making a judgment on that. Councilmember Petso referred to page 11 of 21 of the staff report
and the Hearing Examiner's decision that addresses noise. It is an issue before the Council and scheduled
field play is completely exempt from the noise ordinance.
Council President Fraley-Monillas commented it was interesting there was no time limit on scheduled
field play on any other fields in Edmonds; that may be something the Council wants to look at. She found
8:30 p.m. too restrictive and preferred 10:00 p.m.
Councilmember Petso said the neighbors, particularly those with small children, would prefer 8:30 p.m.
MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING YES.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETSO, THAT PLAY ON THE FIELDS CONCLUDE BY 10 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (5-2),
COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND BLOOM VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
ENSURE ADEQUATE ONSITE PARKING, FIELDS WILL NOT SCHEDULED FOR USE
DURING OTHER AREA EVENTS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SCHOOL
PERFORMANCES OR SWIM MEETS. CONDITION IS APPROPRIATE UNDER 16.80.020.E.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 20
Councilmember Petso said there is evidence in the record that the School District sometimes uses the
facility for performances which fill the parking lot. There is also evidence in the record that Klahaya
occasionally holds swim meets in the area that cause parking issues.
Councilmember Mesaros said scheduling of activities needs to be in the hands of professionals who have
access to all calendars. If Klahaya is included, there may be other activities such as in Hickman Park or
other sites. He summarized the Council is getting into the details of the management of an asset.
Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested that be addressed by the School District and the City. There
is the potential for one field to be used by an adult soccer team which does not have the same number of
spectators compared to a little league game and activities at the school may vary in size. She suggested
this was something the School District and the City would work out.
Councilmember Bloom reiterated there is one road in and out and what that means for parking and traffic.
Councilmember Petso's amendment is intended to address that. She anticipated this will be nightmare of
coordination. She suggested not including Klahaya and Hickman Park.
Councilmember Petso commented this is not so much a function of "willy-nilly what do we like and what
do we not like," the City is required to evaluate the ability of the proposal to provide adequate onsite
parking. In her evaluation, it cannot provide adequate onsite parking in the event the lot is full for a show
at the same time a game is scheduled on the field.
MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING YES.
Mayor Earling asked if Mr. Taraday was interested in a motion for final passage. Mr. Taraday said that
was not necessary; his intent with or without an ultimate vote would be to bring back Findings and
Conclusions for Council adoption that reflect the motions that were made and adopted and unless
expressly directed otherwise by the Council or unless inconsistent with the School District's withdrawal
of lighting, he will more or less use the Hearing Examiner decision recommending approval as a starting
point.
Mayor Earling asked if that would be ready in a week. Mr. Taraday answered he will be at a conference
Wednesday through Friday but he will try. Mayor Earling advised final action will be scheduled next
week.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess and asked staff to indicate what agenda items could be delayed.
Upon reconvening the meeting, Mayor Earling advised Item 7, 8 and 16 will be postponed to a future
meeting.
7. DRAFT STREETSCAPE/STREET TREES ELEMENT FOR 2015 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
UPDATE
This item was postponed to a future meeting.
8. PROGRESS UPDATE ON DEVELOPMENT AND CRITICAL AREA CODES
This item was postponed to a future meeting.
9. REVENUE BOND FINANCING PRESENTATION
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 21
Finance Director Scott James advised the last time this was presented to Council, staff recommended a
bond issuance of $14million. There was a discussion about increasing that to include 2017 needs. There
was also discussion regarding a 20 year term or other length. He sought Council direction regarding the
amount and the term. He advised Scott Bauer A. Dashen and Associates and Alice Ostdiek, Foster
Pepper, were present to answer questions.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented rates eventually go up. She preferred to bundle the two, noting
bond counsel is also expensive. She also preferred a 25 year term, with the larger amount, the longer term
was appropriate. With a lower payment, funds can be utilized in other ways.
Councilmember Mesaros asked if there was an early payoff penalty. Scott Bauer, A. Dashen and
Associates, said these bonds, like other bond issuances, will have a 10 year call; the bonds can be
refinanced after 10 years without penalty.
Councilmember Petso recalled the bonds were initially going to be bundled for the cost savings then it
was decided to recommend unbundling due to uncertainty about the second bond issuance. Public Works
Director Phil Williams said that has not changed; the spreadsheet would suggest a $3.5 million bond issue
in 3 years but it was difficult to predict the size of the bond issue that would be needed. The
recommendation was $14 million for 20 years; if the Council prefers, it could be $17.5 million and
certainly the utilities would use that money in productive ways to replace infrastructure.
Councilmember Mesaros agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis; interest rates are at historic lows, the
future was unknown and interest rates certainly would not get lower. He preferred to use this opportunity
to maximize the potential to use the City's resources at the best economic time.
If the City found in next 6 months a desire to bond an additional couple million for a special purpose,
Councilmember Johnson asked if that should be done now, increasing the amount by $2 million. Mr.
James said this is a revenue bond specifically for utilities. The other bond Councilmember Johnson was
referring to would be a general obligation bond and they cannot be mixed.
Councilmember Petso asked what other bond the City was considering. Mr. James said the City has a
grant request at the State to purchase property and may need to issue debt for the purchase.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week's Consent Agenda as recommended by
Councilmember Buckshnis and Mesaros.
10. PRESENTATION OF EASEMENT DOCUMENTS FROM THE 7500 BUILDING & DAIRY
QUEEN FOR THE 76TH AVE/212TH STREET INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
City Planner Rob English said the City has reached agreements with two property owners for right of way
and easements necessary for the 76th Ave and 212th Street Intersection Improvements project:
1. The owners of the 7500 Building have agreed to 272 square feet of right of way acquisition and
739 square feet of temporary construction easement during construction of the 76th Ave and
212th Street Intersection Improvements. The total compensation provided to the property owner
is $13,500.
2. The owners of Dairy Queen have agreed to 1,635 square feet of right of way acquisition and
1,261 square feet of temporary construction easement during construction of the 76th Ave and
212th Street Intersection Improvements. The total compensation provided to the property owner
is $55,000. The original offer was $42,500 with a temporary construction easement of $3,300.
Via negotiations via Universal Field Service and the property owner hiring an appraisal, the
amount was increased to $55,000. Funds were also paid at the time of remodel to facilitate
moving a door, drive-through and landscaping that would have been incurred during construction.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 22
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the comment during Audience Comment that there would be
adverse impacts to Dairy Queen. Mr. Williams said the City worked extremely well with the owners; the
design was adjusted to help them and they were happy with the settlement.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week's Consent Agenda.
11. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY NEGOTIATION OR
CONDEMNATION OF REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS FOR THE 76TH AVE/212TH STREET
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
City Engineer Rob English reported right of way is needed from eight property owners to construct the
766 Ave and 212th Street Intersection Improvements. As described in the previous agenda item,
agreement has been reached with 2 parcels, the 7500 building and Dairy Queen on the southeast corner.
The City's right-of-way consult continues to work with the owners of the remaining six parcels. The
proposed ordinance is required prior to initiating condemnation. Negotiations in good faith will continue
with property owners as well as the School District. The property owners on the northwest and northeast
corners are very similar in ownership. The School District is securing an appraisal. The ordinance
requires a public hearing which is scheduled next week.
Councilmember Petso asked whether an offer has been made to the property owners and declined and
they understand staff is seeking authorization to initiate condemnation. Mr. English said the owners
understand there is a need for the project; offers have been made, property owners are questioning the
values the City's appraiser presented and are doing their own due diligence to determine the value. He
assured negotiations are continuing. Mr. Williams said although property owners have not declined the
City's offer, they also have not agreed. This is an effort to control the schedule, upon approval of the
ordinance, negotiations will continue in good faith. If that does not result in a deal, the project is not
delayed while the ordinance is adopted. He recalled this approach was taken on the 228th and Five
Corners projects. He assured it is not a hostile action but a way to control the project schedule.
Mr. English advised the RCW requires property owners be notified; written notification has been
provided and the City's right-of-way consultant has talked with them.
Councilmember Petso recalled she previously asked for the project design and was told the design was
not complete. Mr. English said the design is currently at 60-70%.
Councilmember Bloom observed the School District was one of parties the City may initiate
condemnation against. Mr. English explained the Council is considering approval of the ordinance, which
does not mean condemnation action will be initiated against the three parcels. It gives staff authorization
to possibly pursue that in the future depending on negotiations. Councilmember Bloom asked if there was
reason to believe this could not be resolved in timely manner. Mr. Williams responded property
acquisition is difficult to predict. The City is working well with the School District including options to
solve their queuing problems; the School District is getting an appraisal. That is moving in a positive
direction and he did not anticipate the parties would not be able to agree. The other two parcels, Burger
King and Grease Monkey, are privately owned and may have a different pace. The right-of-way
consultant has worked with them and although he did not anticipate a problem, the ordinance allows a
legal process. The ordinance requires every effort be made to reach a settlement.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to the map, observing the gray areas around the corners were what the
City would be acquiring. Mr. Williams answered yes. Councilmember Mesaros asked whether the lines
were the existing structures. For example on the School District property on the southwest corner, is he
asked whether the solid black line was an existing wall. Mr. English advised that is the new curb radius
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 23
and two pedestrian ramps. Councilmember Mesaros observed not much area was lost. Mr. Williams said
most of the discussions with School District have not been about the corner, they acknowledge that is
necessary for project, discussions have been about the queuing issue on 76th and what might be necessary
there. The School District is obtaining an appraisal but they agree the City needs to acquire that land for
the project. The hatched area on the map inside the solid gray area is the temporary construction
easement.
Councilmember Petso said it was her impression the City could not do condemnation against a public
agency. Mr. Taraday answered there are instances it could be done, it depends on whether it becomes a
battle of uses or if it is surplus property. Councilmernber Petso said it was safe to assume Edmonds-
Woodway High School was not surplus and suggest the City figure that out before the Council authorizes
condemnation against the School District. Mr. Taraday assured he will work closely with staff on that
issue before anything is filed.
Mr. English said the City received an approximately $4 million grant for this project through PSRC. The
spending requirements are such that the grant needs to obligated in a timely fashion in accordance with a
deadline. If that schedule is not met, there is potential to lose nearly $4 million in grant funds for the
project.
It was the consensus for the Council to schedule a public hearing next week.
12. PRESENTATION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH TETRA TECH FOR
THE LIFT STATION #1 BASIN AND FLOW STUDY
City Engineer Rob English explained this project is in the CIP for 2015, a study of Lift Station 1 located
on Sunset Avenue south of Caspers. This large station serves nearly 25% of City's service area. The City
hired Tetra Tech to analyze the existing drainage area and identify potential locations where some of the
upstream flows can be diverted to different service areas in the City's sewer system to relieve flow
volumes. The scope of work is included in the packet. The fee estimate is $173,000; $100,000 was
budgeted in 2015. The $100,000 will be adequate for this year and additional funds will be included in the
2016 budget from the sewer main replacement program.
Mr. Williams explained this lift station is underground. With regard to the interest in reducing flows, he
explained there is a very shallow wet well, limited storage capacity, and flows rise rapidly in a rainstorm
or snow melt and the station has comes close a few times to exceeding the capacity. Some improvements
have been made in the past six months to a year to improve reliability such as alternative power but it
would be good to reduce flows during peak storm events to improve reaction time.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why this analysis was necessary when improvements were made 13
years ago. Williams answered neither he nor Mr. English were employed by the City when that project
was done but he assumed the net result was a compromise. There is nothing wrong with the current
design but he would like to move some of the flow to avoid problems because the obvious relief valve is
Puget Sound.
Councilmember Petso asked whether smoke testing would be done in an effort to identify residents whose
storm drains are inappropriately connected to the sewer system. Mr. Williams answered that is not the
direction of this project. The intent is to identify an area in the collection system where a line could be
connected to a gravity pipe that goes to the treatment plant, bypassing Lift Station 1. The study will
identify the benefits and costs. Identifying storm drains that are connected to the sewer system is a very
costly endeavor and most agencies have not been satisfied with the results of that process.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 24
Councilmember Bloom asked about the location of Lift Station 1. Mr. Williams said it is below grade on
the west side of Sunset where the yellow hatch marks are in street between Caspers and Edmonds. The lift
station was rebuilt 10-13 years ago. Councilmember Bloom asked whether the station was located in the
City right-of-way. Mr. Williams answered some of it is on City property and some in on railroad property
for which the City has an easement.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week's Consent Agenda.
13. PRESENTATION FOR AWARD OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE 2015
SANITARY SEWER REPLACEMENT PROJECT
City Engineer Rob English distributes a map with the location of the 2015 sewer line replacement project.
He advised bids were opened on Thursday. The engineer's estimate is $1.4 million; the construction
budget is $1.7 million. If the bids come in within budget and reference checks on the low bidder are
satisfactory, the project will be presented to Council for award of bid at the May 5 Council meeting.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week's Consent Agenda.
14. PUBLIC WORKS QUARTERLY PROJECT REPORT
City Engineer Rob English advised the packet contains the 151 quarter 2015 report. He asked for Council
questions.
Councilmember Petso asked Mr. English to clarify the rain garden question she asked previously. She
recalled there was a drainage project in South Edmonds that included rain gardens but because of the
public outcry, staff abandoned the rain gardens. This report again shows rain gardens and she asked if
they were in a different location. Mr. Williams yes, explaining the original project was to address ponding
and flooding on 238th. Because there is no storm drain system in 238th the intent was to install a collection
system that took drainage toward Hickman Park where there a fairly robust infiltration system was
installed with the Park. The original plan was to include a rain garden on 104th near the cemetery. After
concern was expressed at a public meeting about pedestrians walking on the west side of 104th and the
loss of parking, that concept was abandoned.
Mr. Williams explained the City then received a Safe Routes to School grant for a sidewalk on 238th and
the project was postponed for 18 months to design the sidewalk and drainage improvements. That is the
project that will be built this year. When the work was done at Hickman Park's infiltration system it was
apparent at least a couple acres of impervious surface in that basin were not accounted for in the design
which made it imperative the impervious surface from 238th be offset with some infiltration. That is the
reason for rain gardens on 238th at a number of key corners and at the end. The project designer, KPG,
and the project manager, Ryan Haug, have done a good job working with the property owners on 238th to
ensure they understand what the rain gardens will look like. So far there has been a lot of enthusiasm for
the rain gardens. There will still be parking on the south side between the rain gardens.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether anyone has expressed interest in the residential neighborhood
traffic calming. Mr. English advised as a result of an announcement earlier this year requesting traffic
calming projects, the City received eight new citizen requests. There are now 17 projects under
consideration. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how they will be prioritized. Mr. English answered
criteria are used to evaluate and score each request. Staff is beginning speed counts to determine the 85th
percentile speeds and the ADTs which is one of the criteria.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed the SRI 04 study is 70% complete; she asked whether it will be done
by June. Mr. English answered yes.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 25
Councilmember Bloom asked whether any traffic calming requests were eliminated because they did not
meet the criteria. Mr. Williams answered the initial list that began in 2009 included some non -local streets
that scored very highly and would be good candidates for traffic calming. In keeping with a strict reading
of the Transportation Plan, those projects would not be eligible for funding. When the Council reviews
the Transportation Plan, there will be a suggestion to make some non -local streets eligible for traffic
calming. Councilmember Bloom asked what was defined as a non -local street. Mr. Williams answered a
collector or arterial street.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week's Consent Agenda.
15. DISCUSSION ON THE PROJECT FUNDING AND AWARD OF THE 228TH ST. SW CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
City Engineer Rob English distributed a new budget sheet for the 228th Corridor Improvement Project.
Staff provided the Council an update on the project in March. This is actually two projects that were bid
together, the 228th Corridor Improvements that will construct the missing section of 228th between Hwy
99 and 76th as well as add signals at the intersections of Hwy 99 & 228th and 76th & 228th. Other
improvements include bike lanes and safety modifications. The City received federal and state grants for
that project. The second project is the Hwy 99 Lighting Phase 3 that will install 19 street lights for
vehicles and pedestrians. The City received 5 bids on March 26; the low bidder was Doherty Construction
with a bid of $5.2 million. He reviewed the cost breakout in the bid:
Staff's recommendation is to award the project at the May 5 Council meeting.
If the management reserve was not necessary, Councilmember Mesaros asked whether it will be returned
to the REET fund. Mr. English answered yes.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week's Consent Agenda.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 26
Construction Budget
Funding
Description
th
228
Improvements
SR99 Lighting
Total Project
Contract Award
$4,687,440
$517,600
$5,205.040
Construction Mgmt & Testing
$703,116
$73,27
$776,386
Management Reserve
$468,744
$30,000
$498,744
Total
$5,859,300
$620,870
$6,480,170
Staff's recommendation is to award the project at the May 5 Council meeting.
If the management reserve was not necessary, Councilmember Mesaros asked whether it will be returned
to the REET fund. Mr. English answered yes.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week's Consent Agenda.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 26
Construction Fundin
Funding
th
Improvements SR99 Lighting
Total Project
Federal Grant 2281 Improvements
$3,647,372
$3,647,372
Federal Grant SR99 Lighting
$590,870
$590,870
Washington State TIB
$1,441,188
$1,441,188
Water Fund
$106,730
$106,730
Sewer Fund
$177,254
$177,254
Stormwater Fund
$68,500
$68,500
Edmonds 125 REET 2 Fund
$30,000
$30,000
Mountlake Terrace
$418,256
$418,256
Total
$5,859,300 $620,870
$6,480,170
Staff's recommendation is to award the project at the May 5 Council meeting.
If the management reserve was not necessary, Councilmember Mesaros asked whether it will be returned
to the REET fund. Mr. English answered yes.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on next week's Consent Agenda.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 26
16. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL INTEREST IN ACQUIRING THE EDMONDS CONFERENCE
CENTER
This item was postponed to a future meeting.
17. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling announced PSRC's Annual meeting at the Seattle Convention Center on Thursday at
11:30 a.m.
Mayor Earling reported the Sound Transit Board approved the final alignment of the Lynnwood Link; it
will include provisional stations at 220th, the Lynnwood station and the county line.
18. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Student Representative Eslami expressed interest in the outcome of the Woodway fields.
Councilmember Johnson announced the second Marina Beach Master Plan meeting on May 6 from 6:00 —
7:30 p.m. in the Edmonds Plaza Room.
Councilmember Bloom reiterated her request that Council President Fraley-Monillas schedule a
discussion of the committee format on the agenda as soon as possible. She noted the entire last part of
tonight's meeting with the exception of the bond financing presentation was related to Public Works and
could have been expedited in committee. An inordinate of staff time is spent presenting to Council when
the items could have been present in committee meetings. She urgently requested Council President
Fraley-Monillas schedule a discussion soon as possible.
Councilmember Mesaros agreed with Councilmember Bloom's suggestion. He found committees a much
more efficient way to review items and make recommendations. Tonight was a good example of how
committees could have expedited a number of agenda items.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported the WRIA 8 meeting held at the Department at DOE included a tour.
WRIA 8 reviewed its budget and 3 -year work plan and heard about a great success story, NOAA's green
infrastructure and shoreline restoration at the Sand Point campus.
Council President Fraley-Monillas relayed a discussion of committees is on the extended agenda.
With regard to committees, Mayor Earling said experience has shown items are often discussed at a
committee and then again at Council. While there are inefficiencies in the study session format, there are
also inefficiencies in the committee structure.
19. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
20. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
21. ADJOURN
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 27
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
9--D-'n -el
SCOTT PASSE , Cl` 'RK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 28, 2015
Page 28
AGENDA AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers — Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
SPECIAL MEETING.
APRIL 28, 2015
6:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER / FLAG SALUTE
1. Roll Call
2. (15 Minutes) Discussion and Potential Action on an Ordinance Amending the 2015 Budget
AM -7666
3. (30 Minutes) Continued closed -record review of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation on
AM -7661 proposed field improvements at the Former Woodway High School.
STUDY SESSION
APRIL 28, 2015
7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
4. (5 Minutes) Approval of Agenda
5. (5 Minutes) Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A. AM -7662 Approval of draft City Council Meeting Minutes of April 21, 2015.
B. AM -7660 Approval of claim checks #213891 through #213992 dated April 23, 2015 for
$854,676.51 (reissued checks #213916 $25.48 & #213958 $9.85).
Approval of payroll check #61589 for $166.66 for the pay period April 1, 2015 through
April 15, 2015. -
C. AM -7664 City Park Award of Bid for construction of Spray Pad and granting of utility easement.
6. Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings
7. (20 Minutes) Draft Streetscape/Street Trees Element for 2015 Comprehensive Plan Update
AM -7659
8. (30 Minutes) Progress Update on Development and Critical Area Codes
AM -7663
9. (15 Minutes) Revenue bond financing presentation.
AM -7665
10. (10 Minutes) Presentation of easement documents from the 7500 Building & Dairy Queen for the
AM -7657 76th Ave/212th Street Intersection Improvements Project
11. (10 Minutes) Proposed Ordinance authorizing the acquisition by negotiation or condemnation of real
AM -7656 property interests for the 76th Ave/212th Street Intersection Improvements project.
12. (10 Minutes) Presentation of Professional Services Agreement with Tetra Tech for the Lift Station #1
AM -7668 Basin and Flow Study
13. (10 Minutes) Presentation for award of the construction contract for the 2015 Sanitary Sewer
AM -7654 Replacement Project
14. (10 Minutes) Public Works Quarterly Project Report
AM -7655
15. (15 Minutes) Discussion on the Project Funding and Award of the 228th St. SW Corridor
AM -7653 Improvements Project
16. (15 Minutes) Discussion of Potential Interest in Acquiring the Edmonds Conference Center
AM -7670
17. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments
18. (15 Minutes) Council Comments
19. Convene in executive session regarding pending or potential litigation per RCW
42.30.110(1)(i).
20. Reconvene in open session. Potential action as a result of meeting in executive session.
ADJOURN
J