No preview available
02/11/1992 City CouncilTHESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO FEBRUARY 18 APPROVAL EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 11,1992 The meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Laura M. Hall at the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street. All present joined in the flag salute. PRESENT Laura M. Hall, Mayor Jeff Palmer, Council President Steve Dwyer, Councilmember Dave Earling, Councilmember Michael W. Hall, Councilmember Bill Kasper, Councilmember John Nordquist, Councilmember Tom Petruzzi, Councilmember Brett Shirley, Student Representative CONSENT AGENDA STAFF Art Housler, Admin. Serv. Dir. Peter Hahn, Comm. Serv. Dir. Rob Chave, Planning Manager Dan Prinz, Police Chief Buzz Buzalsky, Fire Chief Jim Walker, Asst. City Engineer Noel Miller, Public Works Supt. Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor Rhonda March, City Clerk Scott Snyder, City Attorney Barb Mehlert, Recorder COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO REMOVE ITEM (C) FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA IN ORDER TO CORRECT A TECHNICAL MATTER. MOTION CARRIED. Council President Palmer noted this item will appear on a Consent Agenda in the near future. Items (B) and (E) were removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER EARLING, TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA WHICH CONSISTS OF (A) ROLL CALL. MOTION CARRIED. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 4. 1992 (Item (B) on the Consent Agenda Councilmember Kasper stated the first line on page 12 should be corrected to read "Councilmember Kasper said his recommendation to Community Services Director Peter Hahn.. was to emphasize a little more in their report.". The minutes currently reflect "Councilmember Kasper said his recommendation to "Reid -Middleton...." was to emphasize a little more in their report...." COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 4 WITH THE AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE CITY CLERK IN HER MEMO OF FEBRUARY 10, 1992, AND WITH THE AMENDMENT SET FORTH BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER. MOTION CARRIED. The corrections are as follows: On Page 13, under MAYOR portion, the minutes should reflect the position number and expiration date of the newly appointed board and commission members: Arts Commission J • Position 1: Suzetta Glen, term expiration date of 12/31/95 ^ Position 7: Larry Gordon, term expiration date of 12/31/95 Library Board Position 3: Mary Kaiser, term expiration date of 12/31/96 On Page 14, 5th paragraph, the last sentence should read, "Mayor Hall also noted a former City Clerk has stated she is willing to help out in the City Clerk's office in order to keep up with the workload". The reference to Jackie Parrett should be deleted. On Page 14, last paragraph, the last sentence should be replaced with the following for clarity: "Mr. Housler said that when Jackie Parrett retired, she took eight years of experience with her:" CORRECTION TO JANUARY 28, 1992 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 28, 1992 WITH THE AMENDMENTS SET FORTH IN THE CITY CLERK'S MEMO OF FEBRUARY 11, 1992. MOTION CARRIED. d1 The memo requested the minutes of January 28, 1992 reflect the position number and expiration date of the ' newly appointed Planning Board members: Position 4: Ken Mattson, Term expiration date of 12/31/95, and Jerry Capretta, Term Expiration date of 12/31/92. AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH NEGOTIATION OF CITY SPACE NEEDS CONSULTANT CONTRACT AND APPROPRIATION OF $40.000 (Item (E) on the Consent Agenda.) COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO PLACE THIS ITEM ON A WORK MEETING AGENDA IN MARCH 1992, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE COUNCIL TIME TO REVIEW THE FIRST QUARTER REVENUES. MOTION CARRIED with Council President Palmer voting no. APPOINTMENT TO FILL COUNCIL VACANCY Council President Palmer noted the Council has performed a thorough process of reviewing the resumes of the seventeen applicants who applied for the Councilmember vacancy. Council President Palmer noted the Council interviewed all seventeen applicants and noted the capabilities and leadership qualities of the applicants. Council President Palmer read into the record, the rules which the Council adopted: NOMINATIONS: Each Councilmember may nominate one candidate from the list of the seventeen applicants; Nominations will be made on the form printed for that purpose, by placing an "X" in the box adjacent to the name of the applicant of their choice; Councilmembers will initial their ballot, so that a permanent vote record is maintained; The City Clerk will record all votes, and announce the results of each balloting. ELECTION: Each Councilmember may vote for one candidate from the list of those nominated; Votes will be accomplished on the form printed for that purpose, by placing an "X" in the box adjacent to the name of the nominee of their choice; Councilmembers will initial their ballot, so that a permanent vote record is maintained; the City Clerk will record all votes, and announce the result of each balloting. DEADLOCK: In the event the City Council should deadlock, then all nominations are declared null and void and the Council may return to the list of seventeen applicants and start over. A deadlock is where every Councilmember votes exactly the same way on five consecutive ballots. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO ACCEPT THE RULES AS OUTLINED. MOTION CARRIED. The City Clerk distributed the nomination ballots to the Councilmembers. For the benefit of the audience, Council President Palmer read into the record, the names of the applicants: Harve Harrison, Dick Van Hollebeke, Sharon Claussen, Thomas J. Petruzzi, Donn J. Wells, Roger L. Meyers, Barbara S. Fahey, Richard W. Smith, Alvin A. Rutledge, Jr., Mel Coplin, Fred O. Bell, Kathy Thorsen, David J. Moore, Darrol K. Haug, Tim Raetzloff, Jack Bevan, and Sidney F. Locke. The City Clerk collected the completed nomination forms from the Councilmembers and read the results: 3 votes for Thomas J. Petruzzi emanating from Council President Palmer, Councilmember Hall, and Councilmember Earling. 1 vote for Dick Van Hollebeke from Councilmember Dwyer; and 1 vote for Donn J. Wells by Councilmember Kasper and 1 vote for Kathy Thorsen by Councilmember Nordquist. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2 February 11, 1992 The City Clerk then distributed Ballot No. 1 to the Councilmembers. After completing the ballots, the City Clerk collected the ballots and read the results into the record: 5 votes for Thomas J. Petruzzi, emanating from Councilmember Hall, Councilmember Dwyer, Council President • Palmer, Councilmember Kasper, Councilmember Earling, and 1 vote for Kathy Thorsen from Councilmember Nordquist. The City Council and Mayor welcomed Thomas J. Petruzzi as Councilmember. ' Mayor Hall noted City Attorney Scott Snyder would administer the Oath of Office to Thomas J. Petruzzi at the conclusion of the meeting. DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL TOUR OF NORMADISCUSSION OF COUNCIL TOUR OF NORMA BEACH/PICNIC POINT ANNEXATION STUDY AREA ANNEXATION STUDY AREA AND ANNEXATION STUDY WORKSHOP. �V Rob Chave, Planning Manager, noted a typographical error in Page 16 of the Agenda Packet. Mr. Chave noted the Six -year Total should read $7,158,287, instead of $17,485,720 as listed. Mr. Chave said this does not alter the Q totals as it is strictly a typographical error. Mr. Chave reviewed the Agenda Packet material with the Council, and noted some of the information included in the packet was prepared by residents in the proposed annexation area. Mr. Chave said the figures submitted by the residents and the figures submitted by City Staff are basically in agreement. Mr. Chave noted Art Housler, Administrative Services Supervisor, also reviewed the figures derived from the residents, and found the methodology to be sound. Mr. Chave said there are a few significant differences in the earlier figures Staff had prepared, which reflect the true data Staff has been able to assemble. Mr. Chave said this especially holds true for sales tax. Mr. Chave said Staff had initially relied on information provided by County Planning to come up with the assessed value; however, when the City attained the Metroscan System, it allowed Staff to better sort the information in the area, thus calculating more accurate figures. Mr. Chave said he pointed this difference out to the County, and they suggested the City go by the figures obtained from the Metroscan. Mr. Chave said the County derived the information largely by quarter sections, which is a fairly gross measure. Mr. Chave said the City of Edmonds was also able to look at it in quarter sections, but then go into more detailed areas for refinement. Mr. Chave explained the first year transition period and stated if the annexation is assumed to be finalized by March 1, 1993, then the City would first receive property tax revenues in 1994. Mr. Chave said sales tax revenues would be received for 1993 and the other per capita based revenues indicated. In addition, Mr. Chave stated the City would receive the 1993 county road tax revenues, based again on assessed valuation in the area. Mr. Chave noted these assumptions are reflected in the "Norma Beach Revenue/Cost Summary" of Exhibit 2 and in the residents' calculations in Exhibit 3. Mr. Chave also stated fire costs are not included for that transition year. Councilmember Dwyer clarified that property taxes would not be collected during the transitionary year, although County road tax would be collected. Mr. Chave replied affirmatively and proceeded to review those revenues. Councilmember Dwyer asked for a clarification on not including fire costs in the transition year. Mr. Chave said the basic reason is that the County is going to be collecting its fire money, and logically would either have to provide that service or turn over the resources to the City of Edmonds; so either way, the levy is being collected which is for that purpose. Mr. Chave said that should balance against the costs that are incurred which should net out. Councilmember Dwyer asked if this includes Medic 7 costs, and Mr. Chave replied affirmatively. Councilmember Dwyer asked if this assumes using District 1 apparatus that the City would take over or does it assume using Edmonds apparatus. Mr. Chave replied this would assume using all the apparatus, facilities, and so forth that are currently part of Fire District 1 operation. Councilmember Dwyer asked if it covers any costs which may be needed in making the City of Edmonds apparatus compatible with District 1 apparatus. Mr. Chave stated it is assumed that area would be served just as it is now. With regards to Councilmember Dwyer's comment on the compatibility of fire apparatus, Fire Chief Buzalsky noted Edmonds' apparatus is presently compatible with Fire District 1 apparatus. Chief Buzalsky referenced Mr. Chave's statement that the costs are a "wash" no matter who provides the service; and if District 1 is bringing in EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 February 11,1992 the revenue and the City of Edmonds took it over, he would assume that cost would shift which would make it a balance. Chief Buzalsky said included in the costs is the revenue they have taken in from dispatching plus the costs from running the four or five stations. Chief Buzalsky stated if the City would take over one of those stations, technically speaking 25% of the costs, less the administrative costs, it should be convertible. Councilmember Dwyer asked if the current staff at District 1 would remain if the annexation took place. Chief Buzalsky replied the City wouldn't have to keep that staff, however, there would be certain benefits to keeping them. Councilmember Dwyer asked if it is envisioned that people working there would be people presently employed by District 1. Chief Buzalsky said because of consolidation procedures currently going on, those people could become employees of the City of Lynnwood in the near future. City Attorney Scott Snyder said the statutory answer is the City would absorb those persons employed by the District who were displaced by virtue of the annexation. Councilmember Dwyer asked if there would be any additional administrative costs for supervising or accounting for those people, and inquired if those costs were budgeted in the figures before the Council. Chief Buzalsky replied negatively, as he does not feel the increase of one fire station would necessitate additional administration, at least, until the City reviews the workload depending on the Highway 99 inspections. Chief Buzalsky said he does not recommend an increase in administration until the City gets to four stations. Councilmember Dwyer clarified that if the City increased the number of stations by 50%, that would not increase the cost of administering the stations. Chief Buzalsky stated, in his opinion, the City can operate three stations with the same administrative staff until review of Highway 99 can become completed. Councilmember Dwyer asked if there are any structures existing in the proposed annexation area which require the use of fire fighting apparatus the City does not presently own. Chief Buzalsky replied he did not believe there are any existing structures that would require any other apparatus. Council President Palmer said when the City Council took the van tours of the proposed annexation area, a list of questions were developed relating to boundaries, ownership of certain facilities, etc.; and inquired if Staff has answers to any of those questions. Community Services Director Peter Hahn, stated a few of the questions have been answered; however, it is his feeling the emphasis on this analysis was to verify the financial data. Council President Palmer referenced an earlier packet providing a breakdown by each department, the costs and materials involved in serving the area, and inquired if any of the departments have been able to revise that information. Rob Chave, Planning Manager, said the departments were asked to review them, and no revisions have been brought to light. Councilmember Earling expressed his concern over 52nd West, and asked if there was any intent to widen that street in the future. It was noted later on in the meeting, that citizen Gwen Baugh, 6427 136th Pl. S.W., talked with the County's Engineering Department, and Ms. Baugh was told that the County has applied for funding to widen 52nd, and the funding is supposed to be coming from the State as well as the Transportation Mitigation Fund, which amounts to an approximately $7 million dollar project, as it runs from Lynnwood to Everett. Ms. Baugh said at this point, funds have been applied for, but not funded. Councilmember Kasper said he requested to be provided with data from Lynnwood and inquired if that information has been received. Mr. Chave said the City has seen only the environmental study. Councilmember Dwyer referenced the information on storm drainage systems listed on page 9 of the Agenda Memo. Councilmember Dwyer asked if the City has made any estimates based on what the City has done, starting with Chase Lake and moving through the City, or has the City estimated projects in the proposed annexation area and are they reflected in the budget figures before the Council. Jim Walker, Assistant City Engineer, replied they are not reflected in the budget figures. Mr. Walker said it is estimated to be between $2-10 million, however, it depends on what the City finds in a thorough review. Mr. Walker said if the City ends up doing something similar as the City did at Shell Creek on two of the existing basins, and no improvements on the third, the City would be well up into the $10 million range. Councilmember Dwyer inquired if it has been identified that there are three basins. Mr. Walker replied there are three marked basins, along with smaller areas similar to Meadowdale where there is some seepage. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4 February 11, 1992 Councilmember Dwyer asked if it is envisioned that any studies would take place like the City studied Shell Creek before receiving money for the project. Mr. Walker indicated the County performed one study on Lund's Gulch which only identified the main channel of the gulch. Councilmember Dwyer asked if the City has budgeted three times $150,000 to $250,000 for these studies. Mr. Walker said he is not sure if those figures are included. Mr. Walker said it would probably be the recommendation of Staff, that if the City did annex the area, the City would consider having a storm water utility for the area. Mr. Walker said it is Engineering's recommendation to separate the area out with one area having a storm water utilities tax imposed, and other storm drainage improvement areas being paid for out of the general water and sewer utility funds. Councilmember Dwyer asked what the basis of that assumption was. Mr. Walker said he feels that would be the most fair way to deal with the situation. Councilmember Dwyer asked even if the City chose to treat different areas of town differently, what would be the source of funds for the $450,000 to $750,000 to perform the studies. Mr. Walker said it was his feeling the State would pay 75% and the City would pay 25% which could be taken out of utility funds. Councilmember Hall asked if each study would be $150,000 to $250,000 or does this account for all of the studies, and Mr. Walker replied this would be for three basins. Councilmember Dwyer asked how many basins exist in Edmonds, and Mr. Walker replied there are nine basins, and the last three that were studied was at a cost of $160,000. Councilmember Kasper said the proposed area is only 50% built out and noted there are trenching and washouts all the way up the creeks, which is where the costs started to mount in Shell Creek. Mr. Walker stated the streams, at a quick observation, look worse than what Edmonds has in general as the streams are steeper. Mr. Walker said he didn't see anything that looked as bad as Perrinville, but it hasn't been investigated thoroughly. Council President Palmer asked what costs have been estimated, as far as administration of a larger city for both the Mayor's Office and City Council Office. Rob Chave, Planning Manager, said no costs have been estimated for the Mayor's Office or City Council Office, as the study assumed no changes in those areas. Councilmember Dwyer asked if Staff has been able to identify how large an area, if any, there would be that the City would have building restrictions along the lines of what exists in the Meadowdale area if the area was to be annexed into the City. Mr. Chave said it is difficult to tell at this time as it is fairly substantial. Rick Jennes, 13620 68th Ave. West, said he had involvement in the financial data provided to the Council on behalf of the residents in the proposed annexation area. Mr. Jennes referred to this information on page 21 of the Agenda Packet which illustrates Norma Beach & Picnic Point Revenue & Cost Summary, and Page 22 which illustrate the "Per Capita Revenue Sources". Mr. Jennes said he has reviewed the numbers that Art Housler, Administrative Services Director, put together and noted the difference in figures is in two different methods of calculation of population. Mr. Jennes said the method used by the Finance Department involved using a figure which is the number of housing units multiplied by an average population base. Mr. Jennes said the number the citizens used came from County Planning which were a derivative of the 1990 census. Mr. Jennes said he believes the State would use the numbers provided by the citizens. Gwen Baugh, 6427 136th Pl. S.W, said she talked with demographic staff from Snohomish County and reiterated Mr. Jennes's statement that their population figures are from the 1990 census which was officially adopted by the County on July 15, 1991. Jerry Capretta, 938 Glen Street, said he would welcome the proposed annexation into Edmonds. Mr. Capretta said, however, the costs of maintaining roads and schools are very high costs, and noted that the Paine Field expansion, should that become a reality, can greatly affect land and home values in the annexation area. Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, feels the City would increase revenues if the area was annexed to Edmonds. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5 February 11, 1992 Councilmember Dwyer inquired if it is correct to say that the citizens do not have any major disagreement with the information that City staff provided the Mayor and Council, and Mr. Jennes replied the expenditures numbers from parties are identical. Mr. Jennes said the basis for the property tax revenues is the same, and the only difference the citizens have with the staff is the Per Capita Based Revenue Sources, as outlined on Page 22 of the Agenda Memo. Mr. Jennes said the only difference in those numbers is what was the population number used against the multiplying rate, which results in an approximate 1100 person difference which equates to the $400,000 over the six year difference. Councilmember Dwyer asked if there is an accepted formula that is used in 1997, when the City is seven years away from a census and three years before the next one, that would indicate the real number for how much money the City would receive regardless of how many people really live in the area. Art Housler, Administrative Services Director said the City receives an official population every April 1 from the State Office of Financial Management. Councilmember Dwyer asked what the formula is that they use, and Mr. Housler replied he didn't know what formula they used. Mr. Housler said he used the figures on page 24, which Jo Pendergast, Senior Planner for Snohomish County, derived. Councilmember Dwyer inquired why her figures were different from the figures that Rick Jennes received, since they are both County figures. Councilmember Dwyer asked why Mr. Housler's and Mr. Jennes's population figures differ, and Mr. Jennes referred to page 19 of the Agenda Packet, referencing the Equalization revenues. Mr. Jennes said if you take the top half of the schedule which lists sales tax equalization revenue without annexation, and take the population without annexation which is listed as 30,850, and then compare it to the bottom half which lists population with annexation which is listed at 42,798, you will realize the population base used for that calculation was only 11,000 people, which is the 1991 figure. Mr. Jennes said the figure the citizens used is the 1993 figure which has escalated starting from the 11,000 figure up to 1993. Mayor Hall closed the audience portion of the hearing. It was noted because of the accurate figures submitted by Rick Jennes, it indicated the City might have $400,000 in additional revenues projected. Council President Palmer said, however, there still is the outstanding question on what formula the State uses. Mayor Hall noted the Agenda would change slightly, and Oath of Office to Thomas J. Petruzzi would take place at this time. City Attorney Scott Snyder administered the Oath of Office to Thomas J. Petruzzi. The Mayor and Council, as well as the audience, welcomed Mr. Petruzzi as the City's new Councilmember. Council President Palmer noted he would like to hold a brief Executive Session, and the Council recessed at 8:25 p.m. for the Executive Session and reconvened the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Mayor Hall noted the Paine Field Expansion is scheduled for 9:00 p.m., which is approximately 15 minutes away, therefore, Mayor Hall noted the meeting would proceed with the Mayor and Council portion at this time since the schedule allowed. MAYOR ES Mayor Hall referenced the latest copy of the EMS levy, which consists of the question and answer sheet. Mayor , Hall asked the Council to let their Council Assistant know, or the Mayor's secretary know if they require any changes to this. Mayor Hall also noted she recently attended the AWC meeting in Olympia and noted Snohomish County is up to speed on the Growth Management Act. Mayor Hall noted the first big deadline is July 1, when all counties and /( cities must get together and produce their documents. Mayor Hall also noted the $950 million budget shortfall the State is involved in at present. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6 February 11, 1992 COUNCIL 5 Council President Palmer referenced the information regarding the EMS levy and brought up the fact that there is a_ requirement that the voter has to pay for the postage to return their ballot, and asked the City Clerk if she had any additional information. City Clerk Rhonda March said she researched this issue, and was told by Bob Terwilliger of the County Auditor's Office that the City could not pre -pay for the postage, as it would be in violation of a combination of the RCW and WAC. Council President Palmer welcomed Councilmember Petruzzi and invited him to the Council Retreat February 14 and 15. Councilmember Dwyer addressed the issue of the written opinions that the Staff occasionally gives interpreting the Code. Councilmember Dwyer said he would like to be made aware of these interpretations in every instance. • Councilmember Dwyer said the interpretations are starting to take on the legal equivalent of a Council revision of the Code, and if that is the case, Council needs to be made aware, as the content of the Code is the Council's .161) _�nurview. cr I- " Councilmember Petruzzi thanked the Council for their vote of confidence. ' Student Representative Brett Shirley inquired on the Adult Entertainment issue that is scheduled on the Extended Agenda for March 17. Mr. Shirley asked if a decision would be rendered at that meeting. Mayor Hall said it could be both. Council President Palmer noted there is no plan of action before the Council of any kind, which means there isn't anything the public will be specifically reviewing. Councilmember Dwyer said it was his understanding that the Council was to receive the Mayor's proposal which would be the substance of the hearing. Mayor Hall said the proposal of the Mayor is the Ordinance that is currently on the books. Councilmember Dwyer said he wanted to know what the Mayor is proposing, and Mayor Hall again referenced the Ordinance. Councilmember Kasper asked if this Ordinance is the Mayor's recommendation, and Mayor Hall replied affirmatively. Councilmember Dwyer asked if it would be correct to anticipate that the Mayor's recommendation is to do nothing, and Mayor Hall said to wait until the hearing. HEARING ON PAINE FIELD EXPANSION Peter Beaulieu, Co -Project Manager from Puget Sound Regional Council, thanked the Mayor and Council for the opportunity to speak on this issue. Mr. Beaulieu said in 1989, the Port of Seattle and the Puget Sound Regional } Council, which was then called the Puget Sound Regional Council of Governments, noticed the capacity of SeaTac would be reached within 5 or 10 years, and that the ability of this region to handle it's own air traffic out into the future would be jeopardized unless something was done somewhere in the State of Washington about air traffic coming out of the metropolitan area. Mr. Beaulieu said the Board recognized that the answer to the problem might not be confined only to King County, so an interagency agreement was reached to set up an advisory group made up of many different parties to look at the problems surrounding the increasing air traffic and to develop some alternatives, and then to finally make a recommendation that may or may not be acted upon by the two sponsoring agencies. Mr. Beaulieu stated the advisory group is the Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee, and it is their draft recommendation that is out for review at the present time. Mr. Beaulieu said the members of that committee included the Federal Aviation Administration, the Governor's Office, members of the Legislature, local governmental officials, business people, Washington Environmental Council, various airlines, and the Port of Seattle, along with other groups for a total of 39 which covered a five county area. Mr. Beaulieu stated the Committee divided their work into three parts, which in part looked at the forecast about future air travel (Mr. Beaulieu stated the Committee saw an increase of passenger travel from 16 million in 1990 to perhaps 45 million in 2020.) Mr. Beaulieu said the Committee also noted larger planes would be utilized in the EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7 February 11, 1992 future, so as the patronage of air travel might increase by 150%, the number of operations is forecast to increase by 50% at the most. Mr. Beaulieu stated this is more than SeaTac can handle without experiencing severe delays. Mr. Beaulieu stated the Committee concluded that three runways need to exist within this region to handle the increase in air travel. Mr. Beaulieu said, at present there is one runway available during bad weather, and two available during good weather. Mr. Beaulieu said the Committee looked at a number of potential sites and a number of alternatives. Their recommendation was to add a runway at Seatac and at the same time, begin phasing in some service in Snohomish County, most probably Paine Field; and later in the year 2010, a runway could be added to McChord Air Force Base or Fort Lewis property or property surrounding Fort Lewis, if needed, or possibly in Thurston County if all else failed. Mr. Beaulieu stated the Committee decided to wait several months before making final recommendations to allow hearings to be held. Mr. Beaulieu said eight hearings have taken place so far, with testimony from literally thousands of citizens. Mr. Beaulieu referenced some of the comments that have made at the hearings regarding this subject. Mr. Beaulieu said Bremerton was supportive of the Draft Report, although, Mr. Beaulieu pointed out, none of the proposed runway sites exist in Kitsap County. In Tacoma, Mr. Beaulieu stated thousands of citizens testified, therefore, it is very difficult to summarize their comments. However, Mr. Beaulieu referenced one citizen's comments in particular, that there were perhaps two kinds of capacity of airports; 1) operational capacity which technical analysts look at it; and 2) community capacity which might be something less than that. Mr. Beaulieu said many of the comments made by citizens fit into these two categories. Mr. Beaulieu stated because of the extent of testimony received to date, the deadline for public comment has been extended 30 days for comments, to March 23, 1992. Mr. Beaulieu stated approximately 500 citizens have testified in Everett, and noted that the Mukilteo School District has made some very good comments, as they have invested $200 million dollars in schools and noted ten of the schools would be located within 3000 feet of the airport. Mr. Beaulieu also mentioned other concerns brought forth by citizens; such as, The Boeing Company might find the added congestion severe enough that they would relocate to Wichita; decrease in home and land values; and the depletion of wetlands. Mr. Beaulieu referenced the Draft Report and stated issues such as EIS and Economic consequences of building or not building were included in the Report. Mr. Beaulieu noted this region has not saved the amounts of acreage that other regions have saved since 1940, and gave Vancouver as an example. Mr. Beaulieu noted Vancouver is presently proceeding with a second major runway offset by 6000 feet from the existing runway. Mr. Beaulieu noted SeaTac is only 24 acres, and the largest offset that could be obtained is 700 feet, which puts the airport right up to the fence line. Mr. Beaulieu stated the Puget Sound Regional Council does not have a position on this Draft Proposal, as they are looking at the public hearings for input as part of that decision process. Council President Palmer referenced the 39 member Puget Sound Air Transportation Committee, and said it was his understanding six of the members were from Snohomish County, and five out of that six voted against the recommendation. John Thoresen, President of the Economic Development Council, clarified for Council President Palmer, that there were five Snohomish County votes, with the vote being 3-2 in favor of the recommendation. Mr. Thoresen stated the two dissenting votes were from a citizen, and Liz McLaughlin, County Councilmember and the three affirmative votes were from Senator Vognel, Mayor Larson of Stanwood, and Frank Hark, citizen. Mr. Thoresen stated he wanted to communicate the position of the Economic Development Council and members of the corporate community, and also address some of the facts and myths regarding Paine Field, the Deeds, the mitigated agreement, and what would occur if Paine Field was given limited commercial operation. Mr. Thoresen stated the Economic Development Council and leading employers in the area, evaluated the economic, environmental, social and transportation issues surrounding the air transportation needs of the Puget Sound Region, and it is their position to support the Draft Report, but with some added comments. Mr. Thoresen said the EDC and leading employers agree that the third runway should be built at SeaTac, however, market forces should dictate when and if Paine Field should come on line, not simultaneous as the Draft Report EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 8 February 11,1992 suggests. Mr. Thoresen also stated it is their recommendation that Paine Field must be developed as part of an overall transportation plan that includes serving the Paine Field area with mass transit, including light rail, and that operational guidelines need to be established, such as hours of operations, load limits and types of aircraft allowed. Mr. Thoresen stated the role definition for Paine Field in the mediated agreement came from the Paine Field Community Plan which was adopted first in 1976 and then the role definition in 1978, and finally the mediated agreement shortly thereafter. Mr. Thoresen proceeded to show view foils which illustrated noise contours that were established for 1995 based on the role definition that everyone agreed to in 1978. Mr. Thoresen referenced a view foil which showed the existing conditions regarding noise contours at Paine Field which exist presently. Mr. Thoresen stated this information was derived from the Environmental Impact Statement from TRAMCO that was conducted in 1991. Mr. Thoresen pointed out the noise contours that were projected in 1978 and the information derived from TRAMCO in 1991 are virtually the same. Mr. Thoresen then showed TRAMCO's proposed action, which included an increase in flights at Paine Field, and noted the noise contours would still be about the same. It was noted the noise contour, 55 LDN, (Average Level Day or Night) remained in approximately the same position, which was illustrated on the map as 148th Street. Mr. Thoresen said the Draft Report describes the increase of aircraft at Paine Field to fall into the following categories: 24% commuter; 50% small jets; 16% medium jet; 10% large jets, and no jumbo jets whatsoever. Mr. Thoresen feels the mediated agreement that was agreed to in 1978 didn't really have a perception as to what aircraft was going to be like in 1995 and beyond. and Mr. Thoresen feels the aircraft now is much quieter than what they may have perceived. Mr. Thoresen presented a view foil which showed a flight plan, based on the Draft Report recommendation. Mr. Thoresen noted the LDN would go below 148th, however, Mr. Thoresen said the flight path would consist of a straight north -south pattern, and would not involve a "scatter pattern" which has been used in the past. Mr. Thoresen explained a scatter pattern involves aircraft that can go in various directions, be it turning out after taking off to or making a turn to land. Mr. Thoresen said the flight plan as described by the Draft Report consists of a straight north -south pattern with no turnouts whatsoever. Mr. Thoresen proceeded to illustrate "scatter patterns" for the various aircraft. Council President Palmer referenced a Paine Field flight pattern which extended to Browns Bay. Mr. Thoresen said there are planes on occasion that would go down through Browns Bay, however, Mr. Thoresen said by that time, those planes would be at 4,000 or 5,000 feet. Mr. Thoresen said, however, the real noise is illustrated by the LDN's; and what the Draft Report is saying is that the 55 LDN would not go south of 148th, which was agreed to in 1978. Mr. Thoresen said he has a copy of the Deed from the airport, as well as a copy of the mediated agreement. Mr. Thoresen distributed this information to the City Clerk for later distribution to the Council and Mayor. Mr. Thoresen proceeded to read from the mediated agreement. Brian Sullivan, Mayor, City of Mukilteo, shared some information with the City of Edmonds regarding this subject, on behalf of the City of Mukilteo and Mukilteo City Council. Mayor Sullivan referenced the 1978- role definition and the mediated agreement. He said basically the agreement states that back in 1978 and 1979, the Board of Commissioners went through two processes which included the involvement of the University of Washington Department of Environmental Studies to mediate the role of the airport with the surrounding communities and neighborhoods, the role of the airport. Mayor Sullivan said through that process, they came upon this agreement. Mayor Sullivan said that because of that agreement, to mitigate Paine Field as a general aviation airport, Snohomish County allowed various communities to be developed around the Paine Field area, with the notion that the agreement would be held valid. Mayor Sullivan referenced the Harbor Point area, which consists of approximately 3.4 square miles, with well over 4,000 homes built in that area at the present time. The City Clerk distributed copies of a Resolution recently adopted by the City of Mill Creek opposing the expansion, on behalf of Mayor Sullivan. Mayor Sullivan read the Statement of Policy contained within that Resolution which included the statement that the City of Mill Creek believes that the change in the role of Paine Field is in direct conflict with established County and City land use designations. Mayor Sullivan asked the City to consider that the Mukilteo School District has made a statement on record, opposing the expansion of Paine Field. Mayor Sullivan noted the School District will be spending approximately EDMONDS C= COUNCIL MINUTES Page 9 February 11,1992 $100 million dollars to $200 million dollars in schools in Mukilteo, and Mayor Sullivan noted if the Paine Field Airport is allowed to expand, those schools will greatly be affected. Mayor Sullivan also referenced a neighborhood approximately two years old called Mukilteo Estates. Mayor Sullivan said this neighborhood is identified in the plan as long term parking for the expansion of the airport. Mayor Sullivan said the expansion would make property and home values in the area decline. Mayor Sullivan stated this expansion will greatly affect the entire Snohomish County. Mayor Sullivan referenced the scatter pattern and the north -south flight pattern that Mr. Thoresen previously talked about. Mayor Sullivan said basically, the FAA is the one who will tell the planes what flight pattern to take, and how low or high to climb. Mayor Sullivan also stated that not all businesses are in favor of expansion of the area and proceeded to give examples. Mayor Sullivan asked the City Council to look deeply into the fact that fellow communities will be directly affected, as well as Edmonds. Mayor Sullivan noted the City of Lynnwood has recently passed a Resolution unanimously opposing the expansion. Councilmember Dwyer asked Mayor Sullivan and Mr. Thoresen for their recommendation on what documents the City of Edmonds should review in order to render an informed and reasonable opinion. Mr. Thoresen replied the recommendation by the Committee should be looked at, as well as the role definition, which is included in the mediated agreement. Mayor Sullivan said he believes the Council should study the mediated agreement in order to make an informed decision. Councilmember Hall referenced the flight patterns on the view foils, and inquired if these flight patterns reflect empty airplanes or full airplanes. Mr. Thoresen replied it was his belief they reflect empty airplanes. Councilmember Hall noted a loaded airplane would have a greater impact to the communities, as has been shown via the view foil. Councilmember Petruzzi asked what the number of flights per day exist presently at Paine Field, and what the number would be per day at capacity. Peter Beaulieu, Co -Project Manager from the Puget Sound Regional Council, replied presently there are 10 major aircraft flights a day, with a recommendation by the Advisory Committee to raise that to 50 flights per day in the year 2000. Mr. Beaulieu said the projections that were done for the EIS for TRAMCO is 248,900 takeoffs or landings at Paine Field by 1997, which breaks down to approximately 657 take offs or landings per day. Mayor Hall noted eleven people called the City of Edmonds on the present day to register their opposition for the expansion plan. Mayor Hall opened up the audience portion of the hearing. Jerry Capretta, 938 Glen Street, voiced his opposition to the expansion. Mr. Capretta said there were no notices sent to the approximate 100,000 residents of South County that who would be greatly affected by this expansion. Mr. Capretta feels the information sent out by various organizations was nothing more than propaganda to gain support for the expansion. Bill Allen, 17131 Sealawn Drive, Edmonds, expressed his support for the expansion. Mr. Allen feels it is time to face reality that the entire Puget Sound area is growing, and said Paine Field represents one of the best facilities north of Tacoma. Mr. Allen said the noise will be a problem, however, it is his experience living near airports in the past, that after a certain amount of time the residents will not even notice it. Rich Allen, referenced a hearing on this subject held in Everett. Mr. Allen feels certain items were inadequately addressed through information distributed to the citizens. Mr. Allen said the issue of technology was not even discussed as a viable option on where an airport could be sited. Mr. Allen said the issue of high speed trains were dismissed, which could have allowed an airport to be considered outside the major urban areas such as Moses Lake, etc. Mr. Allen referenced airports that exist in Europe and Japan who utilize this technology. Mr. Allen feels Snohomish County is growing at an alarming rate and doesn't need this expansion Mr. Allen asked the Council and Mayor to carefully consider the information producedd by the Superintendent of the Mukilteo School District. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 10 February 11, 1992 Bill Angdahl, City Councilmember of Mukilteo, said as a public servant, Councilmembers are dedicated to listen to the Citizens and to respond to what they say or write. Councilmember Angdahl proceeded to read a newspaper article that recently appeared in the Everett Herald. The article addressed the possibility of Highway 99 or Mukilteo Speedway becoming another SeaTac strip if the expansion was allowed to proceed. Councilmember Angdahl asked the Council to join the City of Mukilteo in opposing to the Paine Field expansion. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER, TO EXTEND THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Rick Jennes, 13620 68th Ave. W., addressed the flight pattern map that Mr. Thoresen previously presented to the Mayor and Council. Mr. Jennes noted he is a light aircraft pilot and flies out of Paine Field. Mr. Jennes pointed out the heavier the aircraft, therefore the louder aircraft, the further south that is going to be before that aircraft makes its turn to the west. Mr. Jennes said the heavier louder aircraft are going to be the ones flying over the Edmonds Bowl. Mr. Jennes said one of the best comments the City of Edmonds could make is that the proposal needs additional study, as Mr. Jennes feels there are numerous technical flaws that need to be addressed. Gerry Jennings, 15205 63rd Ave. W., addressed the fact that people in the area are going to end up paying for the expansion. Ms. Jennings also stated the Paine Field alternative has more wetlands that have to be overcome than any other alternative, and that wildlife will be greatly affected, which is not accounted for in the Draft Report. Ms. Jennings also stated the noise would greatly affect school children's hearing, especially if they were outside for any reason. Ms. Jennings further stated that teachers would have difficulty teaching if they had to stop their teaching every time an aircraft flew overhead. Ms. Jennings also expressed her concern over the dumping of fuel into Puget Sound. Gwen Baugh, 6427 136th Pl. S.W., opposes the expansion, and stated she has two young children who will attend one of the schools that lies within property where the noise level will be approximately 80 decibels. Ms. Baugh referenced a recent elementary newsletter regarding noise levels, which stated that experts state that sounds measuring more than 85 decibels can harm ears. Ms. Baugh also expressed her concern over possible aircraft accidents, as the areas surrounding Paine Field is predominantly residential. Bob Stahl, 13712 65th P1.W, asked the City Council to consider the spirit in which the mediated agreement was reached years ago. Mr. Stahl said that mediated agreement is what caused him to move to Snohomish County in the first place, and asked the Mayor and City Council to take the stand in opposition to this expansion. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, said cities in South Snohomish County have a history of working together on interlocal agreements, and expressed his feeling that the City of Edmonds should support the surrounding communities, and the original agreement, and oppose any further expansion of Paine Field. Mayor Hall closed the audience portion of the hearing. Council President Palmer clarified that the deadline for comment has been extended to March 23. Council President Palmer stated Paine Field is an excellent facility, however, he feels there are other alternatives such as increased use of McChord and a potential option of Arlington. Council President Palmer stated the original agreement was reached after much public input and it is his opinion that the window of opportunity for expansion of Paine Field closed when the mediated agreement was formed, thus allowing zoning to be changed in the area allowing for construction of homes. Council President Palmer feels the path of least resistance can affect the City of Edmonds, meaning if the City of Edmonds does not formally oppose the expansion, this will lead the Federal Government to believe there is no opposition in Edmonds, thus designating the bulk of the flights to go over Edmonds. Council President Palmer feels a Resolution should be passed opposing the expansion, as well as comment on the EIS before that window of opportunity closes. Mayor Hall referenced the many problems surrounding airports such as Burbank, and expressed her concern that this type of situation could evolve at Paine Field if expansion was allowed. Mayor Hall stated she is opposed to expansion of Paine Field. It was suggested that the Mayor and Council attend some of the future hearings on this subject. Council President Palmer set this issue for Council deliberation on the March 17 Council Agenda. EDMONDS C= COUNCIL MINUTES Page 11 February 11, 1992 Mayor Brian Sullivan from Mukilteo noted the Edmonds City Council will be receiving a letter in the near future inviting them to attend an upcoming meeting on February 27 regarding this subject. With no further business, Mayor Hall adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. THESE MINUTES ARE SUBJECT TO FEBRUARY 18, 1992 APPROVAL THE OFFICIAL SIGNED COPY OF THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. 4R nda March,��tyClerk 1 / �i 4 a i ir��� e I • EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 12 February 11, 1992 AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL PLAZA MEETING ROOM - LIBRARY BUILDING 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. FEBRUARY 11, 1992 COMMITTEE MEETINGS REGULARLY SCHEDULED FOR THIS MEETING ARE DEFERRED TO THE SECOND MEETING IN MARCH IN ORDER TO CONDUCT THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS: CALL TO ORDER FLAG SALUTE 1. CONSENT AGENDA (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 4, 1992 (C) APPROVAL OF REVISED CONTRACT FOR COUNCIL RESOURCE PERSON (D) CONFIRMATION OF SISTER CITY COMMISSION APPOINTEE (E) AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH NEGOTIATION OF CITY SPACE NEEDS CONSULTANT CONTRACT AND APPROPRIATION OF $40,000. 2. APPOINTMENT TO FILL COUNCIL VACANCY 3. DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL TOUR OF NORMA BEACH/PICNIC POINT ANNEXATION STUDY AREA AND ANNEXATION STUDY WORKSHOP 9:00 P.M. 4. HEARING ON PAINE FIELD EXPANSION PLAN 5. MAYOR 6. ' COUNCIL THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE (30 MINUTES)