2010.08.03 Transportation Benefit District Board A
AGENDA
City of Edmonds
Transportation Benefit District Board
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
______________________________________________________________
AUGUST 3, 2010
9:00 P.M.
(Following the City Council Meeting)
Call to Order and Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A. Roll Call
B. AM-3245 Approval of Transportation Benefit District Board Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2010.
C. AM-3244 Approval of Transportation Benefit District Board Meeting Minutes of July 20, 2010.
3. AM-3256
(15 Minutes)
Consideration, public comment, and action on a proposed ordinance of the Edmonds
Transportation Benefit District (ETBD) to adopt ballot title language and instruct the City
Clerk to notify the County Auditor and take all other necessary steps to place before voters
within the ETBD, on the general election ballot in November, an opportunity to approve or
reject a $40 increase in the local user fee for transportation to be used to pursue a specific list
of 37 transportation capital projects.
4.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)
5. (15 Minutes)Board Comments
ADJOURN
Packet Page 1 of 26
AM-3245 2.B.
Approve 07-13-10 TBD Minutes
Transportation Benefit District Board
Date:08/03/2010
Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:
Information
Subject Title
Approval of Transportation Benefit District Board Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2010.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Board approve the minutes with the corrections requested by Board
Member Petso.
Previous TBD Action
At the July 20, 2010 TBD Meeting, Board Member Petso submitted corrections to the minutes.
The City Clerk was asked to review the audio recording along with the requested changes.
Narrative
Attached is a memorandum comparing the corrections requested by Board Member Petso with the
audio recording transcript. It is recommended that the corrections requested by Ms. Petso be
incorporated into the minutes.
If the Board would choose not to incorporate the corrections, please remove this item from the
Consent Agenda in order to take futher action.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Memo re: Corrections
Link: 07-13-10 Draft TBD Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/23/2010 08:19 PM APRV
2 Community Services/Economic Dev. Stephen Clifton 07/28/2010 11:01 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 07/28/2010 11:05 AM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 07/23/2010 08:13
PM
Final Approval Date: 07/28/2010
Packet Page 2 of 26
Date: July 23, 2010
To: Board President Bernheim Boardmembers
From: Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Subject:
July 13, 2010 Transportation Benefit District Board Minutes
At the July 20, 2010 Transportation Benefit District (TBD) Board Meeting, the “Approval of the July 13 TBD Minutes” was removed from the consent agenda because Board Member Petso asked that corrections be made. The Board requested that the City Clerk review the audio recording of the July 13 meeting along with the requested changes. Please refer to the comparison below. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST REQUEST: P. 3, para. 1, after “meandered into the General Fund”
please add “and”.
The sentence in the 7/13/10 Minutes as submitted reads: “She preferred to get back the original $20 that has meandered into the General Fund, to fund transportation projects via the levy or to utilize other revenue options available under the statute.
Verbatim transcript from the audio recording: “So for all of these reasons, I would
prefer we take a different approach, try to get back for these people the original $20
that apparently has kind of meandered into the general fund, and then also look at
our other options, either to put this through with the main levy as paying part of our
transportation needs out of our main levy proposal, or utilize one of the other options
under the statute for raising money.” ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECOND REQUEST: P.4, last para., insert a period after “built” and delete
the remainder of the sentence.
The sentence in the 7/13/10 Minutes as submitted reads: “She anticipated if the concurrency projects were not completed, many citizens would rejoice because nothing could be built and developers would sue the City.”
Verbatim transcript from the audio recording: “But I get the feeling that if we don’t
do the concurrency work, all of the citizen activists around town will be saying, yea,
MEMORANDUM
Packet Page 3 of 26
nothing can be built, and all of the builders around town will be saying, oh, good,
now we get to sue the city.”
THIRD REQUEST: Next to last paragraph, delete “Project 33” and delete
the “be funded.”
The sentence in the 07-13-10 Minutes as submitted reads: “Board Member Petso suggested moving up Project #33, the restriping of the two intersections on 9th
Avenue to temporarily meet concurrency be funded.”
Verbatim transcript from the audio recording: “I guess my hope was that we could
get the two road striping improvements that provide a sort of temporary concurrency
up in to Mr. Wilson’s.”
Packet Page 4 of 26
Edmonds TBD Board Draft Minutes
July 13, 2010
Page 1
CITY OF EDMONDS
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT BOARD
DRAFT MINUTES
July 13, 2010
The Edmonds Transportation Benefit District Board meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Board President
Steve Bernheim in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
OFFICIALS PRESENT
Steve Bernheim, Board President
Strom Peterson, Board Member (arrived 5:02 p.m.)
D. J. Wilson, Board Member (arrived 5:10 p.m.)
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Board Member
Diane Buckshnis, Board Member
Lora Petso, Board Member
OFFICIALS ABSENT
Michael Plunkett, Board Member
STAFF PRESENT
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
BOARD MEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Board Members Wilson and Peterson were not present for the vote.)
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
BOARD MEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS,
TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Board Members
Wilson and Peterson were not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE
22, 2010.
3. CONTINUED DISCUSSION REGARDING POSSIBLE INCREASE TO TBD LICENSE FEES TO BE
PLACED ON THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT IN NOVEMBER 2010.
Public Works Director Phil Williams relayed staff did not have a presentation. This was intended to be a
continued Board discussion in preparation for determining a TBD license fee to place on the General Election
Ballot in November. The Board packet includes written responses to questions Board Members posed at the last
meeting as well as a list of projects that could be funded via various fee amounts. Staff is seeking direction from
the Board regarding the amount of the license fee as well as projects to be funded via the fee and staff will return
Packet Page 5 of 26
Edmonds TBD Board Draft Minutes
July 13, 2010
Page 2
with a detailed proposal for the Board’s review. He advised City Attorney Scott Snyder was prepared to provide
the Board further information regarding the City’s obligations under the GMA with regard to concurrency.
Board Member Buckshnis recalled concurrency at the three intersections on 9th Avenue could be addressed via a
$30,000 restriping project rather than the proposed $874,000 in signal projects. Mr. Williams agreed restriping
would improve conditions at those intersections for a significantly lower cost. Board Member Buckshnis
expressed support for increasing the TBD license fee to $40.
City Engineer Rob English distributed a 10 year and 20 year project priority list with a $20, $40, $60 and $80
additional TBD vehicle license fee.
Mr. Williams explained if the Council identified an amount for the TBD license fee, staff could identify which
projects could be funded via that level TBD license fee.
BOARD MEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS,
TO ACCEPT STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION TO INCREASE THE TBD LICENSE FEE TO $40.
Board Member Buckshnis explained she chose $40 because her husband recently renewed his vehicle tabs for
his 2005 Jeep Rubicon and the cost was $140. She anticipated a TBD license fee greater than $40 would bring
the per vehicle license fee to over $200 which she viewed as too high. She anticipated reviewing the funding of
capital projects as part of the levy. Mr. Williams clarified staff has not made a recommendation regarding a
funding level; that was a policy matter for the Board to consider. Board Member Buckshnis clarified the
Citizens Transportation Committee recommended a $40 license fee. She requested the motion be revised to
reflect that.
Board Member Petso commented in reading the statute the first $20 was protected from the County forming a
TBD; the City would receive a credit toward that amount. However, the statute did not protect a higher voter
approved TBD license fee. Mr. Snyder responded there are maximums which if exceeded could restrict the
amount levied by the City’s. He explained if the County’s assessment reached a certain level, the City and
County would share the amount.
Board Member Buckshnis clarified her intent was a total TBD license fee of $40, not $40 additional. Mr.
Williams explained staff’s assumption was it would be an additional $40 TBD license fee.
BOARD MEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW HER MOTION.
Mr. Williams explained revisions were made on the 10 and 20 year project list to escalate the estimated
construction costs to the year of expenditure to reflect inflationary increases. Mr. English identified other
changes made to the plan:
The 4th Avenue Corridor Enhancement project was added as Project #28 on the 20 year list and Project
#26 on the 10 year list
Note 1 on both the 10 year and 20 year lists identifies the year to which the estimated construction costs
were escalated
Mr. English explained the list provided to the Board previously was the 10 year list; the 20 year list was an
attempt to illustrate projects that could be funded via a 20-year collection.
BOARD MEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS,
TO ACCEPT THE CITIZENS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION TO
INCREASE THE TBD LICENSE FEE AN ADDITIONAL $40.
Packet Page 6 of 26
Edmonds TBD Board Draft Minutes
July 13, 2010
Page 3
Board Member Petso found this a very regressive form of taxation for the following reasons: 1) the number of
cars per household did not equate to wealth or ability to pay the tax, 2) the proposed fee is anti-business and
could be onerous on a business that was heavily vehicle dependent, and 3) the proposed fee was not as
environmentally favorable as some might think. For example, a family that provides a third vehicle for a high
school student has actually reduced their carbon emissions by eliminating the additional trips required for a
parent to drive the student to and from school. In addition she did not accept that all citizens have the option of
transit; some are physically unable to walk the distance to the bus stop and/or the lack of sidewalks may prevent
them from walking to a bus stop. She preferred to get back the original $20 that has “meandered into the
General Fund,” to fund transportation projects via the levy or to utilize other revenue options available under the
statute.
Board Member Fraley-Monillas commented that as a former member of the Citizens Transportation Committee,
she had an enhanced understanding of the projects on the list. She explained the addition of a $20 license fee
would only fund street overlays; it would not fund any other projects. An additional $40 would fund a walkway,
signage for bicycle loops, a badly needed concurrency project at Five Corners, and a signal upgrade at Main &
3rd. She encouraged Board Members to support the $40 TBD license fee and allow voters to determine whether
they supported a $40 TBD license fee.
Board Member Peterson expressed his support for the motion, commenting the work done by the Transportation
Committee and staff educated him regarding the City’s transportation needs. He pointed out projects such as the
Five Corners intersection improvements and the improvements at Main & 9th would reduce the amount of time
cars idled at those intersections, a serious environmental issue. Projects that reduce the amount of time cars idle
at stop signs was a good thing for the environment as are walkways and bicycle signage projects that encourage
people not to drive. If an increased TBD license fee discouraged people from purchasing a third car or to drive
less, he viewed that as a positive outcome. He commented on the number of cars each household has today
compared to 10-15 years ago. He anticipated voters would approve the proposed additional fee when they
learned of the work done by the Transportation Committee and staff and the projects that the fee would fund.
Board Member Wilson asked whether the motion was for a 10 year or 20 year fee. Board Member Buckshnis
answered it was a 10-year fee.
Board Member Wilson asked whether the proposed fee would reduce the expenditure from the General Fund.
Mr. Williams explained the additional $40 would be used entirely for transportation projects, split between
preservation overlays and the projects on the list. He anticipated there would be opportunities to stretch the
funds via developer contributions, grants, etc. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen
Clifton explained in 2009/2010 there were no monies budgeted for street overlays. If a TBD vehicle license fee
above $20 were approved by the voters, those funds would be used in part for street overlays. In response to
Board Member Petso’s comment that the existing $20 had “meandered into the General Fund,” Mr. Clifton
explained when the TBD Board adopted the initial $20 vehicle license fee, it was specifically targeted to fund
street operations. In 2009 and 2010, there is a General Fund subsidy of $700,000+ per year for street operations;
the collection of the existing $20 TBD vehicle license fee frees up $500,000 of current General Fund subsidy for
street operations.
Board Member Wilson recognized that the funds collected from the original $20 vehicle license fee were placed
in a separate line item in the General Fund. He summarized by approving the original $20 vehicle license fee,
the Board reduced the General Fund subsidy by $500,000. Mr. Clifton explained there are currently no funds in
the budget for street overlay. The additional TBD license fee was a new revenue source to fund street overlays.
Board Member Wilson expressed his continued concern that the City would not be completing projects quickly
enough. He referred to the projects on the 10-year list funded via an additional $40 vehicle license fee, noting
they were all worthy and appropriately prioritized from a policy perspective. However, from a political
Packet Page 7 of 26
Edmonds TBD Board Draft Minutes
July 13, 2010
Page 4
perspective, he preferred to demonstrate as much progress to the voters as possible. In his opinion, a delay of 12-
24 months to begin the design process for Project #3 (212th @ 84th/Five Corners Intersection Improvement) was
too long to wait.
BOARD MEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO MOVE
UP PROJECT #11 (100TH @ 238TH UPGRADES) TO BE THE NEW PROJECT #3 AND MOVE ALL
OTHER PROJECTS DOWN ON THE LIST.
Board Member Wilson pointed out Project #11 was not in the Bowl but in the exterior of the community and
was a basic maintenance project that would have immediate impact to the neighborhood. The consequence is the
Bicycle Loop Signage (Project #5) was moved out of the projects funded via a $40 TBD vehicle license fee. His
intent was also to move the 212th @ 84th/Five Corners Intersection Improvement (Project #3) or 234th Street
SW/238th Street SW long walkway (Project #4) to fund several less expensive projects instead.
Board President Bernheim asked the rationale for increasing the priority of Project #3. Board Member Wilson
answered the overriding rationale was following the overlay there was a $160,000 project and a $30,000 project
followed by two $2.2 million projects that essentially eliminate funding for the remaining projects. Because
those two projects are so large, it will take years to accumulate the funds to begin the design process; none of
which will be evident to the voters. His intent was to move at least one of the $2.2 million down on the list and
replace it with several $100,000 to $300,000 projects.
Board President Bernheim asked whether Board Member Wilson’s intent was to eliminate one of the $2.2
million projects or move it down on the list. Board Member Wilson responded by moving projects up, the $2.2
million projects moved down on the list and were not funded via $40 vehicle license fee.
Board Member Buckshnis supported moving the $2.2 million projects down on the list and moving walkway
projects up.
Board President Bernheim asked staff to address the consequences of revising the priority of projects on the list.
Mr. Williams answered the priority was determined based on objective criteria and the most important projects
were toward the top of the list. There is also a difference between the number of projects funded via a 10-year
versus a 20-year collection of the additional $40 vehicle license fee. Further, if the Board were to decide to bond
for the projects, construction could begin within a few months of financing and could be completed in seven
years. He acknowledged there were pros and cons to bonding; pros include historic lows in construction costs,
low interest rates and the ability to accelerate projects and cons include the cost of interest.
Board Member Wilson requested an opportunity to confer with staff to develop a revised project list within the
10-year $40 license fee.
Board Member Buckshnis recommended prioritizing walkways and sidewalks and funding big ticket items via
the bond/levy/capital funding plan. She noted voters in Mill Creek recently approved a bond to fund
transportation projects. She anticipated the Levy Committee would consider bond financing. She preferred to
have the TBD vehicle license fee fund sidewalks and other projects that would be immediately visible to voters.
Board Member Petso suggested as Board Members were reprioritizing walkway and sidewalk projects,
consideration be given to increasing the priority of the 238th walkway project. She explained the addition of
Hickman Park in that neighborhood has significantly increased pedestrian traffic on the unimproved shoulder
area on 238th. She inquired about the risk of not funding concurrency projects. She anticipated if the
concurrency projects were not completed, many citizens would rejoice because nothing could be built and
developers would sue the City. Mr. Snyder commented because the concept of concurrency was new to several
Board Members, he had prepared a PowerPoint presentation regarding concurrency.
Packet Page 8 of 26
Edmonds TBD Board Draft Minutes
July 13, 2010
Page 5
Board President Bernheim questioned how a presentation regarding concurrency related to the Board’s
discussion. Mr. Snyder explained the City Council was sitting as the TBD Board. Concurrency was a concept
that drove the staff’s recommendations and that the City Council needs to consider. The City Council must
identify projects, levels of service and funding in the Comprehensive Plan. The Council sitting as the TBD
Board is not bound by that and may use a different set of priorities to determine projects to fund. The purpose of
the presentation regarding concurrency was to explain why the City has an obligation to maintain established
levels of service and the timing of projects and consequences of not completing projects that maintain those
levels of service. He suggested an understanding of why staff used concurrency as a guide was an important
component of the discussion. He recalled Board Member Plunkett raised a question at the TBD’s previous
meeting regarding building roads for development. He clarified the City was building roads to, 1) meet
established levels of service, and 2) accept required population levels in the future. Board President Bernheim
suggested Mr. Snyder submit a hard copy of the presentation to the Board.
Board Member Petso asked whether projects could be moved up in the future if staff obtains grant. Mr. Williams
answered priorities could be rearranged via future action of the Board without a public vote.
BOARD MEMBER WILSON WITHDREW HIS MOTION.
BOARD MEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND
THE MOTION TO REVISE THE 10 YEAR PROJECT LIST AS FOLLOWS:
PROJECT #1 REMAINS THE SAME
PROJECT #2 REMAINS THE SAME
PLACE THE FOLLOWING PROJECTS BETWEEN PROJECT #2 AND #3:
NEW PROJECT #2.1 – EXISTING PROJECT #5
NEW PROJECT #2.2 – EXISTING PROJECT #7
NEW PROJECT #2.3 – EXISTING PROJECT #8
NEW PROJECT #2.4 – EXISTING PROJECT #9
NEW PROJECT #2.5 – EXISTING PROJECT #11
NEW PROJECT #2.6 – EXISTING PROJECT #12
NEW PROJECT #2.7 – EXISTING PROJECT #14
NEW PROJECT #2.8 – EXISTING PROJECT #15
NEW PROJECT #2.9 – EXISTING PROJECT #22
NEW PROJECT #2.10 – EXISTING PROJECT #33
NEW PROJECT #2.11 – EXISTING PROJECT #13
Board Member Wilson explained his motion retains all first five items in the existing 10-year project list except
one which is moved outside the funding amount and replaces that one item (current Project #4) with 11 other
projects. It also allows the City to begin the Five Corners concurrency project; enough funds would be available
at year six to begin that project rather than year two as proposed in the original 10-year project list.
BOARD MEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO REMOVE
PROJECT #33 AND REPLACE IT WITH PROJECTS #31 AND #32 OR ONE OR THE OTHER IF
THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH FUNDING. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Board Member Petso suggested moving up Project #33, the restriping of the two intersections on 9th Avenue to
temporarily meet concurrency be funded.
Board Member Wilson suggested voting on the amendment first and then making further amendments or tabling
the main motion to allow staff to provide a revised project list to the Board. Board Members could then propose
additional amendments at next week’s TBD meeting. He advised there was sufficient time to make additional
amendments before the Board needed to communicate to the Snohomish County Auditor with regard to placing
Packet Page 9 of 26
Edmonds TBD Board Draft Minutes
July 13, 2010
Page 6
a measure on the ballot. Board President Bernheim preferred the second option and suggested Board Members
identify their project priorities over the next week.
Board Member Peterson understood the desire to increase the priority of walkways as well as to demonstrate
more progress sooner on smaller projects. However, the Council has a history of forming citizen committees and
then ignoring their recommendations. He believed in the TBD vehicle license fee and the project list as
recommended by the Citizens Transportation Committee. Although the Board could revise the project list to
move up projects that were more politically feasible, at some point the Board needed to trust the citizen
committee who held open houses and prioritized the projects in accordance with input from citizens. He was
concerned that continually second guessing citizen volunteers would result in fewer citizens volunteering.
Board Member Buckshnis supported the amendment in addition to the restriping projects on 9th Avenue. She
pointed out when the list was developed by the Transportation Committee, a bond/levy related to capital projects
was not an option. She anticipated that by educating the public, voters would support funding projects via a
capital bond. She summarized walkways were very important to public safety and anticipated that in order for
voters to support an increase in the vehicle license fee from $20 to $60, they would need to see funding for a
walkway in their neighborhood.
Board Member Wilson commented the projects proposed to be funded via a $40 vehicle license fee include only
one concurrency project; the amendment he proposed would fund two concurrency projects. He explained the
reference to political was not intended to be derogatory; the Board was a political body and asked for citizen
input. He viewed political as being representative of the public’s interest and preferred to fund projects
throughout the City rather than to fund only five projects. The one project from the original list of five projects
that he proposed removing was a long walkway; his amendment would replace that project with eleven smaller
projects.
Board Member Fraley-Monillas did not support the amendment, commenting the proposed project list was
political in nature. She helped prepare the project list while a member of the Transportation Committee. The
Committee held numerous open houses where citizens had the opportunity to identify projects they wanted. In
addition, members of Transportation Committee observed the areas where projects are proposed. She expressed
concern that the project list proposed by Board Member Wilson included a signal project when there was
opportunity to provide more walkway projects and restriping projects.
Board Member Petso suggested the Board delay action to allow citizens to contact Board Members with their
input.
Board Member Wilson suggested the Board vote on the amendment and then table the main motion until next
week when staff could provide a revised project list and the Board could gather further input.
Board President Bernheim did not support the amendment. He preferred the list be revised to include the
restriping projects described by staff that could replace the signal projects on 9th Avenue. In general he
supported the list as recommended by the Transportation Committee although he may support an amendment to
move up some of the smaller walkway projects.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-3), BOARD MEMBERS WILSON, BUCKSHNIS AND
PETSO VOTING YES; AND BOARD PRESIDENT BERNHEIM, BOARD MEMBERS PETERSON AND
FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO.
Board Member Wilson suggested each Board Member identify potential amendments.
Packet Page 10 of 26
Edmonds TBD Board Draft Minutes
July 13, 2010
Page 7
Board Member Petso requested staff provide an estimated cost for the restriping solution to the intersections on
9th Avenue and determine whether the priority of the 238th Street walkway needed to be modified in light of
Hickman Park.
Board Member Peterson agreed with having the estimated cost of the restriping of the Main & 9th intersection.
He was satisfied with the 10-year project list as proposed.
Board Member Fraley-Monillas was satisfied with the five projects on the 10-year project list funded via a $40
vehicle license fee. She reiterated the process used to determine the projects and their priorities, acknowledging
some Board Members’ interest in moving the $2.2 million projects down and moving up several smaller
walkways projects.
Board Member Buckshnis preferred to have some of the smaller walkway projects done sooner. She requested
the Board identify 5-6 capital projects that could be funded via a bond. She explained in addition to a General
Fund levy, consideration was being given to a capital bond.
BOARD MEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS, TO
TABLE THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Board President Bernheim suggested if Board Members planned to propose other amendments, they distribute
them to Board Members prior to the next TBD Board meeting.
Mr. Snyder reminded the Board must pass a resolution by August 3, 2010 to meet the deadline for the
November ballot. Staff would need to know the amount of the TBD vehicle license fee at least a week before
that date.
Board President Bernheim observed there would be ample time to prepare and submit a resolution to the
Snohomish County Auditor if the TBD Board made its decision at a meeting next week.
Mr. Clifton suggested Board Members submit their priorities to him by tomorrow and staff would create project
lists based on each Board Member’s priorities for review and discussion at the next TBD Board meeting.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS – NONE
5. BOARD COMMENTS – NONE
6. ADJOURN
With no further business, the TBD Board meeting was adjourned at 6:04 p.m.
Packet Page 11 of 26
AM-3244 2.C.
Approve 07-20-10 TBD Minutes
Transportation Benefit District Board
Date:08/03/2010
Submitted By:Sandy Chase Time:Consent
Department:City Clerk's Office Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of Transportation Benefit District Board Meeting Minutes of July 20, 2010.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Board review and approve the draft minutes.
Previous TBD Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: 07-20-10 Draft TBD Minutes
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 07/23/2010 08:19 PM APRV
2 Community Services/Economic Dev. Stephen Clifton 07/28/2010 11:01 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 07/28/2010 11:05 AM APRV
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 07/23/2010 07:34
PM
Final Approval Date: 07/28/2010
Packet Page 12 of 26
Edmonds TBD Board Draft Minutes
July 20, 2010
Page 1
CITY OF EDMONDS
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT BOARD
DRAFT MINUTES
July 20, 2010
The Edmonds Transportation Benefit District meeting was called to order at 6:07 p.m. by Board President
Steve Bernheim in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
OFFICIALS PRESENT
Steve Bernheim, Board President
Strom Peterson, Board Member
D. J. Wilson, Board Member (arrived 7:19 p.m.)
Michael Plunkett, Board Member
Lora Petso, Board Member
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Board Member
Diane Buckshnis, Board Member
STAFF PRESENT
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Rob English, City Engineer
Scott Snyder, City Engineer
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
BOARD MEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, 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 Petso requested Item B be removed from the Consent Agenda.
BOARD MEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. (Board Member Wilson was not present for the vote.) The agenda items
approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
ITEM B: APPROVAL OF TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT BOARD MEETING
MINUTES OF JULY 13, 2010
Board Member Petso requested the following amendments to the TBD Board minutes of July 13, 2010:
Page 3, paragraph 1: add “and” after “meandered into the General Fund”
Page 4, last paragraph: insert a period after “built” and delete the remainder of the sentence.
Page 5, next to last paragraph, delete “project 33” and delete “to be funded.”
Packet Page 13 of 26
Edmonds TBD Board Draft Minutes
July 20, 2010
Page 2
Board Member Plunkett questioned whether the requested corrections accurately reflected what was said
at the meeting. City Clerk Sandy Chase offered to review the tape of the meeting and schedule approval
of the July 13, 2010 minutes on the agenda of the next TBD Board meeting.
3. CONTINUED DISCUSSION REGARDING POSSIBLE INCREASE TO TBD LICENSE FEES TO
BE PLACED ON THE GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT IN NOVEMBER 2010.
Board President Bernheim referred to the revised project lists that Board Member Wilson and he
submitted.
Board Member Fraley-Monillas requested staff comment on the impacts of the project lists proposed by
Board Member Wilson and Board President Bernheim. Public Works Director Phil Williams offered to
update the Board regarding what staff has done in response to direction from the TBD Board and provide
a recommendation regarding the list. At the last meeting, the TBD Board indicated they would email staff
their ideas regarding restructuring the list to advance the priority of some projects and to move projects
above the estimated funding level. He anticipated the Board would review the lists and reach a consensus
tonight. The Citizens Transportation Committee met yesterday and can provide their input to the Board.
Rather than focus on a specific term such as 10 or 20 years or however long the funds last, Mr. Williams
suggested the Board recognize the declining value of a fixed fee over time as inflation erodes the
purchasing value of the revenue stream and unknowns such as future project costs, future funding
partners, grants, etc. It may not be appropriate to identify a bright line on the project list that indicates
projects that are funded or unfunded at a specific funding level. He suggested the Board consider the
entire list of projects as the work that Edmonds would like to complete. Adjustments in scope are possible
such as replacing signal projects with a less expensive project that would accomplish some of the same
benefits a signal would provide. He emphasized that unless the Board recommended some level of vehicle
license fee for the ballot, the discussion regarding a project list was moot.
Mr. Williams suggested the Board consider the list a holistic list of work the City needs to accomplish
with the additional $40 vehicle license fee as the funding source. Staff would continue to hammer at the
list using every tool available and every funding source until the projects are completed. The length of
time to accomplish all the projects is unknown. He commented although the priority of projects on the list
could be tweaked, it should not be assumed that projects would be implemented in that sequence. Another
unknown was whether the Board would bond for the projects; he did not recommend bonding for
overlays, preferring that overlays be funded from ongoing revenues.
For Board President Bernheim, Mr. Williams suggested providing voters a map of the entire City that
identified the location of the 35 projects. The voters could be asked to support a $40 vehicle license fee
that would attract that list of projects.
Neal Tibbett, Co-Chair, Citizens Transportation Committee, explained the Committee utilized three
priorities to order the list of projects: 1) preservation which is addressed by the overlays, 2) congestion
which is addressed by level of service/concurrency projects, and 3) safety. Once the list was ordered using
those priorities, a second consideration was where in the City they were located. Based on that criteria,
the Transportation Committee provided their recommended list of 33 projects. He noted the top 15-20
projects represent the highest priority although the Committee would like to see all the projects completed
at some point. The Committee recognizes the need to be flexible and agrees with Mr. Williams’
suggestion to adopt the entire list of projects. The Committee advocates flexibility for a number of
reasons including the unknowns with regard to grant funds. The Committee plans to continue meeting;
their next effort will be to educate citizens and work with the school district.
Packet Page 14 of 26
Edmonds TBD Board Draft Minutes
July 20, 2010
Page 3
Moving forward, the Committee is committed to operating under three principles, 1) getting the biggest
bang for the buck which includes partnerships, bond funding, grant funding, etc., 2) identifying a steady,
secure funding stream for these projects such as the $40 vehicle license fee, 3) delegating prioritization of
projects, securing grants, identifying partnerships, etc. to City staff. He recognized staff’s past efforts to
secure grants for the 9th & Caspers walkway, improvements on Meadowdale Beach Road, etc. The
Committee acknowledges the $40 license fee will not be enough to complete all the projects; the Board
will need to identify other ways to fund the projects. The highest priority projects are at the top of the list.
The order of the projects was intended to spread projects throughout the City as well as accomplish
projects that have been neglected for decades.
Board Member Plunkett referred to Board President Bernheim’s recommended project list, noting an
additional $20 vehicle license fee funds only Project 1, overlays. Mr. Williams explained the intent would
be to dedicate $500,000 to overlays in the first year of expenditure. His goal would be to hold that value
over time. If the Board bonds for that project and does a great deal of overlays over a short period of time,
the ravage of inflation would be much less. If $500,000 per year is expended over the next 20 years, the
amount of overlays that could be accomplished each year would decline. He recommended the City
accomplish at least $500,000 of overlays per year, noting the cost of that amount of overlay would be
significantly more in 20 years.
Board Member Plunkett referred to Board President Bernheim’s recommended project list, noting that
funding Projects 1-12 would require an additional $40 vehicle license fee. Mr. Williams reiterated his
suggestion that the funding line on the project list not be considered a bright line as some of the projects
could attract outside funding, allowing projects further down on the list to be funded. Board Member
Plunkett observed a $20 additional vehicle license fee generated approximately $5.5 million and a $40 fee
generated approximately $11.5 million.
Board Member Plunkett pointed out Project 3 on Board President Bernheim’s recommended project list
was $10,000 for restriping at Main Street @ 9th Avenue West rather than a signal. Mr. Williams agreed,
recalling at the last meeting the Board was supportive of a less costly restriping project at that location
that would provide a similar benefit for several years.
Board Member Buckshnis observed staff’s recommendation was for the Board to recommend a $40
vehicle license fee and adopt the entire list. If the Board adopted the entire list, she wanted to ensure it
contained $10,000 for restriping the two intersections on 9th rather than the signals but also retained the
signals on the list in the event funding became available in the future. She pointed out Mill Creek
accomplished 17 transportation projects for $22.2 million. She planned to have the levy committee
consider funding for a variety of things, potentially including capital projects. Mr. Williams commented a
project could be on the TBD project list as well as be identified as a project to be funded via the levy as it
was unknown which measure the voters would ultimately approve. If a project was funded via the levy,
the revenue from the vehicle license fee could be used to fund other projects on the list. Board Member
Buckshnis recognized the current economy was a good time to accomplish projects. She anticipated
voters would support the additional vehicle license fee if they knew what projects the money would fund.
Mr. Williams suggested the Board reach consensus on a project list tonight, recalling the Board indicated
its preference for a $40 vehicle license fee at its last meeting and to place the measure on the November
ballot.
Board Member Petso advised although she did not plan to support placing an increased vehicle license fee
on the ballot for the reasons she identified at the TBD’s last meeting, she expressed her appreciation for
the work done by Board Members and staff over the past week to identify a list of projects. She also
Packet Page 15 of 26
Edmonds TBD Board Draft Minutes
July 20, 2010
Page 4
thanked the Transportation Committee members for their work and for scheduling a meeting with short
notice.
Board Member Peterson referred to the 10 versus a 20 year term, commenting the benefit of 20 year TBD
funding is a set amount of dollars over 20 years, recognizing that those dollars were not worth as much in
future years. He asked whether staff recommended either a 10 or 20 year term, whether a 10 year term
was better so that the $40 would still be worth approximately $40 after 10 years and then the TBD Board
could ask the voters again or was the long term funding a better alternative. Mr. Williams answered
staff’s recommendation was neither a 10 nor 20 year term, their recommendation was for no term and a
finite list of projects. The revenues would be collected until the projects on the list were completed. Once
the projects on the list were completed, by statute the TBD must be dissolved.
City Attorney Scott Snyder explained if the voters approved the additional vehicle license fee, the TBD
would need to be re-formed which will include establishing a time period, considering bonding options,
etc. The TBD was formed to do certain things which does not include the projects on the list. There are a
number of options with regard to the term, it could be 10 years, 20 years, the length of the bond or until
all the projects on the list are completed.
BOARD MEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER PETERSON, TO
PLACE A MEASURE ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT THAT WOULD INCREASE THE
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT VEHICLE LICENSE FEE BY AN ADDITIONAL $40
WITHOUT A DURATION PERIOD PURSUANT TO STAFF’S AND THE CITIZENS
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION, USE THE LIST PROPOSED BY
BOARD PRESIDENT BERNHEIM IN THE AGENDA PACKET AS THE GENERAL PRIORITY
AND INCLUDE ON THE LIST THE TWO SIGNAL PROJECTS ON 9TH AVENUE WEST.
For Board Member Fraley-Monillas, Mr. Williams explained staff’s recommendation was to adopt the
project list as a holistic list of transportation projects to be completed in Edmonds. The project list
proposed by Board President Bernheim included restriping of the two intersections on 9th rather than the
signal projects. He anticipated restriping could attain concurrency for a period of years. The signals would
also be included on the project list so that when concurrency was lost due to increased traffic,
consideration could then be given to a signal.
Board Member Peterson pointed out Board President Bernheim’s list did not include the two signal
projects on 9th; those projects were replaced with two $10,000 restriping projects. Mr. Williams clarified
the projects on the list should have been retitled as restriping when the cost estimate was changed to
$10,000 for each.
Board Member Fraley-Monillas agreed with including the 9th Avenue signals on the project list.
Mr. Snyder advised the results of the Board’s vote would be used to draft a resolution to place a ballot
measure on the November ballot. The Board would have another opportunity to vet the issue at next
week’s meeting.
Board President Bernheim commented a sunset provision on the license fee may make it more palatable
to the voters. The proposal now was a $40 additional fee that would be collected until further notice. He
did not have a preference but was initially attracted to a finite term and a finite list in order to demonstrate
accountability to the voters.
Board Member Wilson explained he would ultimately vote against the measure. With regard to a sunset
date, he explained the fee would sunset when all the projects on the list were completed which he
Packet Page 16 of 26
Edmonds TBD Board Draft Minutes
July 20, 2010
Page 5
estimated would take at least 60 years. He anticipated the TBD would not exist in this form for 60 years.
Mr. Snyder explained the TBD had the ability to terminate its functions or restart at any time. That could
be done for a variety of reasons such as the projects remaining on the list are no longer appropriate or the
funding source has eroded to the point it is no longer productive. He anticipated the TBD would re-form
somewhere in the 10-30 year range.
Recognizing that an expanded list provided additional flexibility with regard to funding projects, Board
Member Wilson commented an expanded list also created the potential that the TBD Board may have
spent some money on projects and not have completed them by the time the TBD was re-formed. Mr.
Snyder assured there would be a process that includes annual reports, a material change policy that
requires review of projects that come in over budget, and review by the City Council as part of the
Transportation Improvement Plan. He summarized the project list as well as each individual project
would be under constant review. For example any project that is over 20% off or delayed in scope or time
would be the subject of a public hearing before the TBD Board. He assured the project list was a work in
progress that would be reviewed by the Board on at least an annual basis.
With regard to Board Member Wilson’s suggestion that a project would be started but not finished, Mr.
Williams assured staff would not spend 20% of the project cost on a design unless they were sure funding
for construction was forthcoming. Staff may do minimal conceptual design to support a grant application
but would not go beyond that until design and construction funding was assured. Board Member Wilson
assured his comment was not intended to be a reflection of staff’s professionalism, it was his expectation
that the political entity at the time may allocate money for design and then a year or two later change its
mind about the project.
Board President Bernheim asked whether the motion could include a rough schedule/priority for the
projects, recognizing that none of the projects relied on grants for funding. Mr. Williams answered scope,
schedule and budget work together, a change in one typically changed the other. It would be difficult to
develop a schedule when answers for the list of unknowns were not available such as the value of the
purchasing dollars collected or funding partners. Mr. Snyder explained the Board had three legal options:
time, until the projects on the list were completed or until the bonds were paid off.
Board Member Wilson commented the time period could be more finite by eliminating some of the
projects. Although that reduces flexibility, it would identify to the voters the projects that would be
completed in a specific period of time for a $40 additional fee.
Board Member Fraley-Monillas commented if projects were removed from the list they would no longer
be prioritized. She preferred to adopt the list as proposed, recognizing this was the list of projects that
were prioritized by the Citizens Transportation Committee and at open houses held by the Committee.
Board Member Wilson explained his vote in opposition was not because he did not think that cars should
pay their fair share and not that he did not recognize the infrastructure challenge and capital deficit, it was
because he did not think the ballot measure would pass. He also did not feel an increase in the vehicle
license fee was the most paramount financial question that should be posed to the voters at this time.
Board President Bernheim indicated he would support the motion. He supported offering the voters the
opportunity to tax their cars to fund transportation-related projects.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), BOARD PRESIDENT BERNHEIM AND BOARD
MEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, PETERSON, AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING YES; AND BOARD
MEMBERS WILSON, PLUNKETT AND PETSO VOTING NO.
Packet Page 17 of 26
Edmonds TBD Board Draft Minutes
July 20, 2010
Page 6
On behalf of staff and the Citizens Transportation Committee, Mr. Williams thanked the Board for their
vote, recognizing it was an important step.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, recommended forming a 20-25 person committee to educate the voters and if the
measure passed, those people continue to serve on a Transportation Committee. He also suggested
$25,000-$30,000 be allocated to projects that arise. He recommended a term of 10 years or less.
Kristiana Johnson, Edmonds, explained the project list was prepared using 2009 dollars and was
intended to identify all the City’s transportation needs through 2025. There was a balanced source of
revenues and a balance in the type of projects. She recognized the project list would be reconsidered in
the future and some could be delayed by interim projects. She pointed out that because the consultant
recommended an $80 license fee in addition to the $20 fee, the proposed fee puts the City out of balance
with the Comprehensive Plan. The contingency plan developed by the consultant in case of a revenue
shortfall included considering a change in the level of service standards, increasing revenue from another
existing source, identifying other sources of revenue such as LIDs or grants, requiring developers to
provide facilities at their own expense, or changing the Land Use Element. She explained in order for
development to occur, transportation improvements must occur concurrently with development. There is a
list of projects to be completed by 2015 and another list of projects to be completed by 2025.
5. BOARD COMMENTS
Board Members Peterson and Fraley-Monillas thanked the Citizens Transportation Committee and staff
for their efforts.
6. ADJOURN
With no further business, the TBD Board meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Packet Page 18 of 26
AM-3256 3.
Ordinance # 2 of the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District (ETBD)
Transportation Benefit District Board
Date:08/03/2010
Submitted By:Phil Williams
Submitted For:Phil Williams Time:15 Minutes
Department:Public Works Type:
Information
Subject Title
Consideration, public comment, and action on a proposed ordinance of the Edmonds
Transportation Benefit District (ETBD) to adopt ballot title language and instruct the City Clerk to
notify the County Auditor and take all other necessary steps to place before voters within the
ETBD, on the general election ballot in November, an opportunity to approve or reject a $40
increase in the local user fee for transportation to be used to pursue a specific list of 37
transportation capital projects.
Recommendation
Approval of proposed ordinance.
Previous TBD Action
The ETBD passed Ordinance No. 1 on November 18th, 2008 to adopt a $20 local user fee for
preservation and maintenance of the local transportation system in Edmonds.
Narrative
The ETBD was created by action of the Edmonds City Council under its Ordinance No. 3707 in
November, 2008. The ETBD was authorized only to seek funding for maintenance and
preservation of the City's transportation infrastructure. The District adopted a $20 local
transportation user fee to be collected on all authorized vehicle licensing transactions within the
boundaries of the ETBD which are contiguous with the Edmonds city limits. Net revenue realized
from this source has been spent exclusively on maintenance and preservation of Edmonds'
transportation infrastructure.
The Edmonds City Council, at the request of the ETBD Board, has acted to expand the authority
of the District to specifically seek a voter approved increase of $40 in this user fee. The purpose of
this additional fee is to pursue a specific list of 37 capital projects that will provide funding for;
street overlays to extend the life of the local street system, construction of key pedestrian
connections, intersection improvements to relieve congestion, traffic calming measures, corridor
improvements, pedestrian lighting, signalization installation and replacement, and bicycle loop
signage.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Attachment 1
Packet Page 19 of 26
Link: Attachment 1
Link: Attachment 2
Link: Attachment 3
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Linda Hynd 07/30/2010 08:59 AM APRV
2 Community Services/Economic Dev. Stephen Clifton 07/30/2010 09:02 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Linda Hynd 07/30/2010 09:16 AM APRV
Form Started By: Phil Williams Started On: 07/30/2010 08:03
AM
Final Approval Date: 07/30/2010
Packet Page 20 of 26
0006.90000
WSS/gjz
7/21/10
ORDINANCE NO. ______
A ORDINANCE OF THE EDMONDS TRANSPORTATION
BENEFIT DISTRICT, PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION
OF A PROPOSITION TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE
EDMONDS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT AT
THE NOVEMBER ELECTION FOR THEIR APPROVAL OR
REJECTION OF A PROPOSED INCREASE IN VEHICLE FEES
OF FORTY DOLLARS ($40) FOR THE PURPOSE OF
FUNDING TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN
THE EDMONDS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT,
DESCRIBING SAID IMPROVEMENTS, SETTING FORTH
THE BALLOT PROPOSITION, DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO PROVIDE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS
RESOLUTION TO THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITORS;
AND REQUESTING THAT THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY
AUDITOR PLACE THE PROPOSITION ON THE BALLOT.
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has established the Edmonds Transportation
Benefit District (TBD) under the provisions of Chapter 36.73 RCW in order to acquire,
construct, improve, provide and fund transportation improvements within the District, whose
boundaries are contemporaneous with those of the City, and,
WHEREAS, the Board of the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District has
previously approved a Twenty Dollar ($20) vehicle fee to provide for the ongoing maintenance
of City streets in accordance with state, regional and legal transportation plans; and
WHEREAS, the Board has identified an additional 37 projects which it finds
should be planned and built in order to:
1. Reduce the risk of transportation facility failure and to improve the safety
to the traveling public;
Packet Page 21 of 26
2. Improve travel time;
3. Improve air quality;
4. Address increases in daily and peak period trip capacity;
5. Improve modal connectivity;
6. Improve the optimal performance of the system through time; and
7. Achieve or maintain concurrency in accordance with the Growth
Management Act, the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Transportation Improvement
Plan; and
WHEREAS, RCW 36.73.065 and 82.80.140 authorize the TBD to impose vehicle
fees in excess of Twenty Dollars ($20) and up to One Hundred Dollars ($100) per vehicle in
order to fund certain specified improvements by submitting such additional vehicle fees to the
voters for their approval; and
WHEREAS, the Board deems it to be in the public interest to submit a funding
measure to the voters at the November election requesting approval of the additional Forty
Dollars ($40) vehicle license fee to fund the improvements listed herein; now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF THE EDMONDS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A special election is hereby requested to be conducted within the
Edmonds Transportation Benefit District (TBD), whose boundaries are contemporaneous with
the City of Edmonds, Washington, on Tuesday, November 2, 2010, for the purpose of submitting
to the qualified voters of TBD for their approval or rejection a proposition to raise vehicle tax
fees within TBD by Forty Dollars ($40) per vehicle to a total of Sixty Dollars ($60) for the
purpose of funding public transportation improvements within the TBD. A list of the specific
Packet Page 22 of 26
projects to be improved with the proceeds of the vehicle tax are shown on the attached Exhibit A,
incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth.. The improvements shall be
addressed in the priority shown on said exhibit, provided, however, that the Board may, at its
discretion and in conjunction with its annual report and its material change policy:
1. Adjust the ranking of any project on the list based on the availability of
grant or other funding;
2. Defer any project whose cost, scope or schedule has materially changed in
a way which lowers it’s utility to the City;
3. Adjust its priorities based upon material changes in the cost, scope or
schedule of any project in accordance with its material change policy and the requirements of
Chapter 36.73 RCW; and
4. Utilize general obligation revenue bonds as provided in RCW 36.73.070 to
construct all or any part of the improvements and to adjust the priority of any individual project
based upon the use of such bond proceeds.
5. Other lawful considerations permitted pursuant to Chapter 36.73 RCW.
Section 2. The proposition to be submitted to the voters of the Edmonds
Transportation Benefit District shall read substantially as follows:
Edmonds Transportation Benefit District
The Board of Directors of the Edmonds Transportation Benefit
District adopted Ordinance No. 2 concerning a proposition to
finance specified transportation improvements by an increase in
vehicle fee. This proposition would authorize an additional vehicle
fee under RCW 82.80.140 of $40, for a total of $60 per vehicle, in
order to fund transportation improvements specifically described
and prioritized in the ordinance. The improvements include
walkways, bicycle loop signage, signalization, intersection
improvements, lighting, corridor enhancements, and roadway
improvements all as provided in Ordinance No. 2.
Packet Page 23 of 26
Should this proposition be approved?
Approved
Rejected
Section 3. The City Clerk shall provide a certified copy of this resolution to the
Snohomish County Auditor.
Section 4. Consistent with statutory requirements, the Snohomish County
Auditor shall cause the proposition identified to be submitted on the November ballot, shall
conduct the election, canvas the vote and certify the results.
Section 5. In the event of voter approval, the Transportation Benefit District
shall take measures to levy the additional $40 license fee in accordance with the provisions of
RCW 36.73.065 and RCW 82.80.140 and expend such funds for the improvements listed on
Exhibit A in accordance with its charter, annual plan, material change policy and this ordinance
as necessary to reflect such voter approval.
RESOLVED this ___ day of July, 2010..
EDMONDS TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT
DISTRICT
By:
Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By
W. Scott Snyder,
Attorney for the Edmonds TBD
Packet Page 24 of 26
Project priority list with additional TBD funding
Rank Project Name Project Type Total Project Cost TOTAL
1 Street Overlay / Resurfacing (~ $500,000/year)Overlay $5,519,064 $5,519,064
2 Main St. @ 3rd Signal Upgrade Safety $164,039 $5,683,103
3 Main St. @ 9th Av. W Intersection Improvement (Interim solution)Concurrency 2009 $10,000 $5,693,103
4 Walnut St. @ 9th Av. W Intersection Improvement (Interim solution)Concurrency 2009 $10,000 $5,703,103
5 212th @ 84th / Five Corners Intersection Improvements Concurrency 2009 $2,270,390 $7,973,493
6 234th St. SW / 236th St. SW (#1 Long Walkway)Walkway $2,210,956 $10,184,448
7 Bicycle Loop signing Bicycle $29,717 $10,214,166
8 Walnut St. (#5 Short Walkway)Walkway $109,900 $10,324,065
9 Walnut St. (#4 Short Walkway)Walkway $218,551 $10,542,616
10 Maple St. (#3 Short Walkway)Walkway $62,443 $10,605,060
11 Dayton St. (#2 Short Walkway)Walkway $78,678 $10,683,738
12 2nd Av. S (#1 Short Walkway)Walkway $31,222 $10,714,960
13 City Wide Traffic Calming Program Maintenance $124,886 $10,839,846
14 212th @ 76th Av. W Intersection Improvements Concurrency 2015 $2,888,620 $13,728,466
15 100th @ 238th Upgrades Maintenance $294,732 $14,023,198
16 Maplewood Dr. (#2 Long Walkway)Walkway $674,386 $14,697,584
17 220th St. SW @ 76th Av. W Intersection Improvement Concurrency 2015 $172,718 $14,870,301
18 228th St. SW Corridor Imp. / Hwy. 99 @ 76th Intersection Impr.Safety $4,930,761 $19,801,062
19 Meadowdale Beach Rd. (#4 Long Walkway)Walkway $949,136 $20,750,198
20 Main St. Pedestrian Lighting Walkway $624,431 $21,374,629
21 80th Av. W / 180th St. SW Walkway (#7 Long Walkway)Walkway $999,090 $22,373,720
22 Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Av. W Intersection Improvement Concurrency 2015 $1,431,197 $23,804,917
23 Caspers @ 9th Av. W Concurrency 2025 $1,021,570 $24,826,487
24 238th St. SW (#9 Long Walkway)Walkway $811,761 $25,638,248
25 84th Av. W (212th St. SW to 238th St. SW)Safety / Walkway $10,211,953 $35,850,200
26 4th Avenue Corridor Enhancement Enhancement $6,868,746 $42,718,946
27 Olympic Av. (Long Walkway #3)Walkway $1,248,863 $43,967,809
28 Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection Improvement Concurrency 2025 $3,931,421 $47,899,230
29 238th St SW (#8 Long Walkway)Walkway $1,049,045 $48,948,275
30 Hwy 99 @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvement Concurrency 2025 $4,078,786 $53,027,061
31 189th Pl. SW (#7 Short Walkway)Walkway $174,841 $53,201,902
32 84th Av. W (#9 Short Walkway)Walkway $174,841 $53,376,743
33 Puget Dr. @ Olympic View Dr. Signal Rebuild Preservation $247,275 $53,624,018
34 ADA Transition Plan Walkway $5,245,224 $58,869,242
35 Olympic View Dr @ 174th Av. W Concurrency 2025 $905,426 $59,774,668
36 Main St. @ 9th Av. W Signal Installation Concurrency 2009 $1,092,006 $60,866,674
37 Walnut St. @ 9th Av. W Signal Installation Concurrency 2009 $1,092,006 $61,958,680
TOTAL Cost $61,958,680
Annual Overlay / Resurfacing project
Pedestrian and bicycle project
Roadway Project
Maintenance / Preservation / Programs / Enhancement
Packet Page 25 of 26
VOTER PAMPHLET -- EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
The Board of the Edmonds Transportation Benefit District has identified thirty-six (37)
transportation improvement projects for funding through a voter authorized increase in the local
vehicle fee of Forty Dollars ($40.00) per vehicle. The 37 projects include construction of
walkways, pedestrian lighting improvements, intersection improvements, street upgrades, traffic
calming programs, and new signal construction and replacement in addition to resurfacing of city
streets to preserve their condition and reduce future maintenance costs. The additional revenue
guaranteed by the fees is dedicated to these projects and can be used for no other purpose. 99%
of the monies generated (the State Department of Licensing takes 1% to administer the program)
will be spent on projects to improve Edmonds local transportation system. A detailed list of the
improvements, their cost and priorities are contained in TBD Ordinance No. 2 and are available
upon request from the Edmonds City Clerk and are posted on the City’s web site. The vehicle
fee will expire when the improvements are constructed, unless sooner terminated by the TBD.
Packet Page 26 of 26