2010-06-22 TBD MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT BOARD
APPROVED MINUTES
June 22, 2010
The Edmonds Transportation Benefit District meeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m. by Board President
Steve Bernheim in the Council Chambers, 250 51" Avenue North, Edmonds.
OFFICIALS PRESENT
Steve Bernheim, Board President
Strom Peterson, Board Vice President
D. J. Wilson, Board Member (arrived 6:06 p.m.)
Michael Plunkett, Board Member
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Board Member
Diane Buckshnis, Board Member
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
BOARD MEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. (Board Member Wilson was not present for the vote.)
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
BOARD MEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED (4-0-1), BOARD
VICE PRESIDENT PETERSON ABSTAINED. (Board Member Wilson was not present for the vote.
Board Vice President Peterson explained he was not present for the 05-04-10 TBD Meeting and
therefore abstained from voting on the approval of the minutes.) The agenda items approved are as
follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT BOARD MEETING
MINUTES OF MAY 4, 2010.
3. PUT POSSIBLE $70 INCREASE IN TBD LICENSE FEES TO A PUBLIC VOTE DURING THE
NOVEMBER 2010 GENERAL ELECTION
Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss reviewed the list of priority projects presented at the May 4 TBD
Meeting. Mr. Hauss explained with a $20 TBD fee, the TBD is collecting approximately $500,000 per
year or approximately $5 million over the next 10 years.
Edmonds TBD Approved Minutes
June 22, 2010
Page 1
Rank I Project Name Project Type
Projects funded via a $20 License Fee Option - collect $500,000 per year or $5
million over 10 ears;
1 I Street Overlay/Resurfacing ($500,000/year) Overla
Projects funded via a $40 License Fee Option — collect $1 million per year or $10
million over 10 ears:
2
Main Street 3 Signal Upgrade
Safety
3
212' 84' / Five Corners Intersection Improvements
Concuffency 2009
4
234` Street SW / 236` Street SW (#1 long walkway)
Walkway
5
Bicycle Loo si ing.
Bicycle
6
Main Street 90 Avenue W Signal Installation
Concurrency 2009
7
2° Avenue S (#1 short walkway)
Walkway
8
Citywide Traffic Calming Program
Maintenance
9 Dayton Street #2 short walkway)__Walkwa
Projects funded via a $60 License Fee Option — collect $1.5 million per year or
$15 million over 10 ears:
10
212"' @ 76` W Intersection Improvements
Concurrency 2015
11
100` 238Upgrades
Maintenance
12
Ma le Street #3 short walkway)
Walkway
13
Maplewood Drive (#2 long walkway)
Walkway
14
Walnut Street #4 short walkway)
Walkway
15
220`' Street SW P, 767Intersection Improvements
Concurrent 2015
16
Walnut Street @ 9' Avenue W Intersection Improvement
Concurrency 2009
17
Meadowdale Beach Road (#4 long walkway)
Walkway
Projects funded via a $80 License Fee Option — collect $2 million per year or $20
million over 10 years:
18
228` Street SW Corridor Improvements / Hwy. 99 @ 70 Intersection
Improvements
Safety
19
801Avenue W / 180'' Street SW Walkway (#7 lon walkway)
Walkwa
Additionalprojects:
20
Olympic View Drive @ 761Avenue W Intersection Improvements
Concurrency 2015
21
Walnut Street #5 short walkway)
Walkway
22
Cas ers @ 9" Avenue W
Concurrency 2015
23
238' Street SW walkway (#9 long walkway)
Walkwa
24
$4' Avenue W (212' Street SW to 238` Street SW)
Safety/Walkway
Mr. Hauss explained if the City acquired grant funding over the next 10 years for some projects, the funds
collected via the license fee would be used to fund the additional projects on the list. He identified 2009
and 2015 concurrency projects, explaining to be identified as a concurrency project the location has a
level of service below the City's accepted level of service standard of D. For example 21211' @ 84"' /Five
Corners. intersection is currently at a LOS F, Main Street @ 9"' Avenue W is at a LOS F, and 212`h @ 76"'
Avenue W is a LOS D but projected to be LOS F by 2015.
Mr. Hauss explained for the intersection improvements at Main @ 91h and Walnut @ 9'h an interim
solution to a signal was identified at a cost of approximately $900,000 per intersection or $1.8 million for
both. The interim solution would be to restripe the intersection to provide two lanes north and southbound
and eliminate parking on both sides (currently there is one lane north and southbound with parking on
Edmonds TBD Approved Minutes
June 22, 2010
Page 2
both sides). The cost of restriping is approximately $30,000 and would improve the LOS at one
intersection to D and LOS C at the other.
Mr. Hauss reviewed Board President Bernheim's suggested project list that would reprioritize projects 6,
10, 16, 22 and 24. He provided the current level of service for those projects:
Project #
Project
Current LOS
2015 LOS
6
Main Street @ 94"' Avenue W Signal Installation
F
F
10
212` 76` W Intersection Improvements
D
F
16
Walnut Street 9` Avenue W Intersection Improvement
F
F
22
Cas ers @ 9` Avenue W
C
E
24
84` Avenue W (212` Street SW to 238t Street SW) —will
add sidewalks on both sides as well as center left turn lane
Mr. Hauss explained the possible consequence of not doing a concurrency project is the State may stop
development in the vicinity of the project. For example, not doing the 212`h @ 761h Avenue W intersection
improvement could impact development at Five Corners and potentially Stevens Hospital. Not
completing concurrency projects could also impact the City's ability to obtain grants.
Mr. Hauss explained Board President Bernheim's suggested list recommends a $70 license fee in addition
to the current $20 license fee.
Neal Tibbett, Vice Chair, Citizens Transportation Committee, explained he has been involved as a
volunteer in the development of the Transportation Plan six years ago as well as the current
Transportation Plan. He explained the development of the Transportation Plan included review of traffic
studies, level of service designations, as well as different types of transportation such as automobile,
bicycle and walking. Several open houses were held to gather citizens input regarding safety concerns and
citizens' vision which was followed by a planning/approval process where the Transportation
Committee's recommendations were submitted to the Planning Board, further revised by the Committee
and approved by the Planning Board and forwarded to the City Council for approval.
Mr. Tibbett explained projects are prioritized using the LOS rankings, traffic trends, solicitation of
information from other cities, citizens' input regarding safety concerns around schools and in
neighborhoods and potential for grant funding. He noted the City could lower its LOS standards.
However, one of the unintended consequences of lowering level of service and increasing wait times at
intersections is vehicles are pushed off main arterials into neighborhoods which creates safety concerns
on residential streets not intended for those traffic speeds/volumes. He cited the Interurban Trail as an
example of a project that was funded via federal, state and local funds.
Mr. Tibbett relayed the Citizens Transportation Committee's recommendations:
1. Consider no more than a $40 license fee. This amount would provide the highest potential
approval rate. The Committee feels a case can be made to citizens for a $40 license fee. If
progress can be shown on those projects, a higher license fee could be recommended in 2015.
2. Focus on improving LOS particularly concurrency projects that are already at LOS D or F.
3. Look for and complete highly visible projects in the City that demonstrate attentiveness by the
Committee and City Council to provide for the safe transit of citizens.
Jeff Daggett, Citizens Transportation Committee, relayed his background in engineering as President
and CEO of a large regional firm involved in transportation, aviation and land development projects. He
emphasized the importance of a Transportation Plan and Capital Improvement Plan because agencies
Edmonds TBD Approved Minutes
June 22, 2010
Page 3
such as the Puget Sound Regional Council allocate funding via those plans. He pointed out now was an
excellent time to begin projects because construction costs are low due to the down economy. The
availability of contractors also allows projects to be completed in a timelier manner.
Fred Gouge, representing the Port of Edmonds on the Citizens Transportation Committee,
explained the Committee worked very hard to develop a plan. He stressed the need to keep concurrency
projects on the priority list to ensure funding could be obtained for those projects. The Committee
recommended a license fee of $40 because they believe the citizens will support the projects that amount
will fund.
Board President Bernheim asked when the Committee recommended a $40 license fee. Mr. Gouge
answered it had been discussed in the past 2-3 meetings. He relayed the Committee's intent to actively
support a $40 license fee. Mr. Hauss answered the list was presented to the Committee in May 2010 as
well as last week; both times they recommended a $40 license fee.
Board Member Fraley-Monillas explained three former members of the Transportation Committee are
now on the Board, including herself, and they thoroughly understand the City's transportation issues. She
explained in addition to information provided by the consultant, Committee members walked and biked
the City to identify issues.
Board Member Fraley-Monillas asked whether staff was recommending a $40 license fee. Mr. Hauss
answered staff was providing the priority list, not a specific amount. Community Services/Economic
Development Director Stephen Clifton explained staff is recommending a set of projects tied to each
funding level. Board Member Fraley-Monillas observed the Committee's recommendation was a $40
license fee in addition to the existing $20 license fee.
Board Member Plunkett asked whether the Committee's three goals were incorporated into the ranking.
Mr. Tibbett agreed they were. Board Member Plunkett referred to Mr. Tibbett's comment that the City
could lower its LOS standard, asking whether that would impact the City's ability to obtain grants. Mr.
Hauss answered with a LOS F, several of the projects would not be identified as concurrency projects and
would not impact the City's ability to acquire grants. However, the delay at those intersections would be
significantly increased.
Board Member Plunkett observed the level of service at the intersection of 9`h & Main was F. He
explained there may be times there are 3-5 cars at the intersection, sometimes more or less, however, as a
layperson he would not rank that intersection as F. Mr. Hauss explained Jones & Stokes conducted
modeling of the entire City which included machine and manual traffic counts during PM peak hours. He
agreed the intersection of Main & 91h may not be a LOS F during the entire day, however, during the PM
peak of 4:00 — 6:00, the average delay at the intersection was over 55 seconds, a LOS F.
Board Member Plunkett commented the proposed project would improve a 55 second delay during the
PM peak at the cost of $900,000. Mr. Hauss explained the intersection improvements were identified as a
2009 concurrency project in the Transportation Plan. Board Member Plunkett questioned whether
improving a 55 second delay was worth a $900,000 expenditure. Mr. Hauss noted the Transportation Plan
also identified a lower cost, interim solution to restripe the lanes on 9`h Avenue between Main and Walnut
which would improve the LOS. This interim solution would replace projects 6 and 16.
Board Member Fraley-Monillas asked whether the intersection improvements at Main & 91h impacted the
LOS at other intersections. Mr. Hauss answered Walnut & 91h and Main & 9`h were within '/4 mile of each
other and Caspers & 9th is 2015 concurrency project that is also impacted.
Edmonds TBD Approved Minutes
June 22, 2010
Page 4
Board Member Buckshnis pointed out the cost of the three projects on 9'h was approximately $2.5 million.
She preferred to construct sidewalk projects and suggested the projects on 9' be moved to 2015 and
projects such as #23 (238`i' Street SW walkway) and #19 (80`' Avenue W / 180'h Street SW Walkway) be
moved up. The input she has received from citizens is that sidewalks are needed and most people
attending the open houses indicated a signal was not needed at 9th & Walnut.
Board Member Buckshnis relayed an announcement at the Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) meeting
regarding the availability of $19.8 million from Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) specifically for
beautification enhancement projects. Mr. Hauss advised the City was applying for pedestrian/lighting
grants for Main Street between 5t1i and 91h as well as the Hwy. 99 International District expansion. Board
Member Buckshnis asked whether staff ever sought a recommendation from SCT for those projects,
noting several jurisdictions such as Marysville, Bothell, and Snohomish have made presentations to SCT.
Mr. Hauss responded the City planned to obtain letters of support from several organizations within the
city because Main Street is not a regional project. Public Works Director Noel Miller explained staff also
works with the Snohomish County Infrastructure Coordinating Committee, a group of Snohomish County
cities, who coordinate projects for funding via PSRC.
Board Member Buckshnis asked whether the 2009 concurrency projects could be moved to 2015 and
moved back up if a grant were received. Mr. Hauss answered the projects could be moved around. Board
Member Buckshnis reiterated her preference for sidewalk projects, noting $2.5 million for signals on 91h
Avenue to improve a 55 second delay was inappropriate. Mr. Hauss suggested the Council indicate
whether staff should pursue the interim solution identified for the intersections on 9'h Avenue.
Board Member Plunkett asked whether the $2 million roundabout project at Five Corners was predicated
on redevelopment of that area. Mr. Hauss answered that cost was a rough estimate prepared a few years
ago; the cost estimate includes acquiring a significant amount of right-of-way. He explained the LOS at
that intersection is currently an F and that is the reason it is identified as a concurrency project. Board
Member Plunkett expressed surprise that that intersection was a LOS F.
Board President Bernheim reminded August 10 is the deadline to submit information to the auditor to
place a license fee on the ballot. He anticipated additional TBD Board meetings would be scheduled
before that deadline.
Board Member Wilson explained SCT is typically a group attended by Councilmembers. He expressed
his appreciation for Board Member Buckshnis' attendance at those meetings, pointing out Edmonds has
not participated in that group for a number of years. He has been attending PSRC meetings.
Board Member Wilson inquired about the replacement cycle via the proposed $500,000/year overlay
project. Mr. Hauss answered it was approximately a 37 year cycle; the City's current overlay cycle is
approximately 80 years and the industry standard is 20 years. Board Member Wilson asked whether
consideration was given to providing $900,000/year for overlays which would increase the overlay cycle.
Mr. Hauss answered $900,000/year for overlays would significantly delay the other projects. The goal
was to fund overlays as well as walkway and concurrency projects.
Board Member Wilson observed the prioritized list provided by staff was a 10 year list; some projects
will be completed in less than 10 years. He asked whether a license fee approved by the voters would
sunset. Mr. Clifton answered according to TBD legislation, the TBD must cease collecting the additional
license fee upon completion of the project list funded with that license fee. The $20 license fee for street
operations previously adopted by the TBD Board expires in 2026.
Edmonds TBD Approved Minutes
June 22, 2010
Page 5
Board Member Wilson referred to the intent to complete projects to demonstrate a return on investment,
and asked whether an $80 license fee rather than a $40 license fee was considered to reduce the 10 year
period for project completion. Mr. Tibbett responded some projects may receive grant funding and will be
completed sooner. The priority of the projects was not based on date of completion. The Committee did
discuss increasing the priority of some of the lower cost walkway projects to demonstrate return on
investment to citizens.
For Board Member Wilson, Mr. Hauss advised each $20 license fee increment generates $500,000/year or
$5 million over 10 years.
Board Member Fraley-Monillas commented the project at Five Corners had nothing to do with
development in that area. The problem is the level of service produced by five lanes of traffic at the
intersection.
Board Member Fraley-Monillas clarified the Committee is recommending a $40 license fee. If the voters
approved a $40 license fee, only projects l — 9 could be funded. Mr. Hauss agreed, noting additional
projects could be funded if grants were obtained for any of the 1 — 9 projects.
Board Member Fraley-Monillas asked whether staff would return to the Board for approval of the projects
beyond 9 if the City obtained grant funds. Mr. Hauss answered staff would proceed with projects in the
order of priority unless the Board provided additional guidance with regard to reprioritization of projects.
Board Member Buckshnis noted the City of Seattle did a 2009 Street levy. She asked whether staff had
considered requesting funds for street and/or walkway projects as part of a levy. Mr. Miller answered that
was an approach that could be considered. The TBD license fee is an opportunity to generate funds that
are dedicated to transportation. Board Member Buckshnis indicated her support for a $40 license fee and
suggested staff consider whether to include funding for street and/or walkway projects as part of a levy.
Mr. Miller advised staff would consider that.
Board President Bernheim recommended Board Members withhold further comments until a future
meeting.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, suggested organizing separate groups of citizens to educate voters regarding a
TBD license fee and with regard to a City levy. He anticipated the voters would support a license fee if
they were informed of the improvements in their area.
5. BOARD COMMENTS
Board Member Wilson commented State law prohibits starting a regular or special meeting before the
appointed hour but does not prohibit extending beyond the estimated conclusion time.
Board Member Wilson observed a voter -approved $40 license fee that generates $l million/year would
provide $500,000 to street overlay and the remaining $500,000/year could be used to fund projects on the
list. He asked whether funds would then need to be accrued over 4 years to fund projects 2 and 3. Due to
the late hour, Board President Bernheim requested staff respond to Board Member Wilson's question in
writing.
6. ADJOURN
With no further business, the TBD Board meeting was adjourned at 7:03 p.m.
Edmonds TBD Approved Minutes
June 22, 2010
Page 6