08/02/2011 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
August 2, 2011
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council
Chambers, 250 5`" Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Cooper, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley- Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Peter Gibson, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Jim Tarte, Interim Finance Director
Carl Nelson, CIO
Rob English, City Engineer
Renee McRae, Recreation Manager
Rich Lindsay, Park Maintenance Manager
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 26, 2011.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #126843 THROUGH #126968 DATED JULY 28, 2011
FOR $494,038.74
D. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN LOCAL AGENCY STANDARD
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH PERTEET FOR THE 228TH ST. SW CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
3. SOUND TRANSIT UPDATE
Matt Sheldon, North Corridor Program Manager, Sound Transit, explained the North Link Project is
the extension of light rail from Northgate to Lynnwood, one of the projects approved as part of the ST2
package the voters approved in 2008. He described Sound Transit accomplishments:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 2, 2011
Page 1
• Link light rail
• Service from Seattle to SeaTac - 2009
• First Hill Street Car — 2014
• Sounder commuter rail
0 4 round -trip trains, Everett to Seattle — 2003
o Special weekend Mariners /Seahawks service
o New Edmonds Station — July 2011
• Sound Transit Express regional bus service
• Fast, all-day buses — 1999
• ST Express 510, 511, 522 serve NE 145`h
• Transit Facilities
• Ash Way Park & Ride —1999
• Lynnwood/SR 99 Transit Lanes — 2003
• Lynnwood TC & HOV direct access — 2004
• Ash Way HOV direct access project — 2005
• Mountlake Terrace freeway station — 2011
He highlighted Sound Transit's biggest challenge: long term revenues are down 25% compared to
projections prior to the recession and at the time the ST2 package was approved. The North Link project
is on track and moving toward implementation in the next decade.
Mr. Sheldon described Sound Transit projects:
• University Link: Downtown Seattle to UW
0 3.2 miles
0 2 stations
■ Capitol Hill
■ UW
o Under construction
o Opens 2016
• North Link: UW to Northgate
0 4.3 miles
0 3 stations
■ Brooklyn (U District)
■ Roosevelt
■ Northgate
o Starting final design
o Opens in 2021
• South Link: Airport to South 2001h
• Board recently approved accelerating delivery of this project by several years
• 1.6 miles
• 1 station — South 2001h Street Station
• Design -build project
• Opens in 2016
• East Link Preferred Alternative
0 14 miles
0 12 stations
o PE complete
o Still in negotiations with Bellevue regarding tunnel alignment
o Open to Overlake — 2022/2023
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 2, 2011
Page 2
Mr. Sheldon explained although the North Corridor is not anticipated to open until the end of the Sound
Transit program in 2023, the process is beginning now due to, 1) the revenue situation and the need to
determine the cost of the project as early as possible to provide as much flexibility in moving the project
forward, and 2) plans to seek a sizable federal grant. Both the initial segment to the airport and the UW
link project have major federal contributions, $500 million for the airport segment and $813 million for
the UW link. The New Starts grant program is a competitive grant and requires a formal alternatives
analysis (AA). Although voters indicated in 2008 they wanted Sound Transit to extend light rail from
Northgate to Lynnwood, the AA rules require an unbiased look at all methods from improving transit in
the corridor, not just light rail but also bus -based solutions.
He provided a schedule for the complete North Corridor project:
0 2010 -11: Alternatives analysis
0 2012 -13: Draft EIS & conceptual engineering
• 2013 -14: Final EIS & preliminary engineering
0 2015 -17: Final design; request New Starts grant
• 2017 -19: Permitting & ROW acquisition
0 2018: Sign New Starts grant agreement
0 2019 -23: Construction
0 2023: Testing & start of service
The AA process began last October and draft results have been shared with the FTA. In September the
formal results will be presented to the public. He displayed maps of the initial North Corridor bus rapid
transit (BRT) and light rail alternatives, the product of an early public scoping process in October 2010.
Three basic ways to connect high capacity transit, I -5, SR 99 and the 1.5`" Avenue corridor in King
County, were considered in the AA. He described the three level AA screening process, explaining
considerations include ridership potential, cost, land use and economic development potential, and an
initial environmental screen. The level 2 evaluation has been completed and the results will be shared
with the public this fall as well as beginning the scoping process for the EIS.
Mr. Sheldon explained the two most promising alternatives are both are light rail. It was determined BRT
was not adequate to serve long term demand in the corridor and did not have the ability to eventually
extend the system north of Lynnwood. Sound Transit's plans as well as PSRC's regional transportation
plan call for extending the system eventually to Everett. He reviewed the two most promising light rail
alternatives, identifying sections that are envisioned to be elevated and on the ground likely in a dedicated
guideway:
I -5 Light Rail
• Same alignment as the ST2 planning process
• Originally assumed all elevated system, now 40% on the ground
• Follow I -5 right -of -way on the east side to Mountlake Terrace, then I -5 median to Lynnwood
and crossing back to reach Lynnwood transit center
SR 99 Light Rail elevated
• West across 110`" in North Seattle to reach Aurora Avenue
• West side of Aurora to county line with stations at Bitter Lake, Shoreline Park & Ride and
Aurora Square, return to I -5 corridor to serve Mountlake Terrace transit center and on to
Lynnwood
• Alternatives that stayed on SR 99 were considered but did not perform as well in terms of
ridership or impact
He provided a performance comparison of the SR 99 all- elevated LRT and I -5 at- grade /elevated LRT:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 2, 2011
Page 3
Measure
SR 99 All- Elevated LRT
I -5 At- Grade/Elevated LRT
Length/Stations
10.2 miles /5
8.5 miles /4
Frequency
Vehicles required
4/10 mines peak/off -peak
42
4/10 mines peak/off -peak
32
Travel Time
L nnwood -North ate
18 miles
14 minutes
2030 daily riders
48,000 per day
52,000 per day
2030 new riders/hours saved
3.9 M/3.8 M per year
4.5/4.6 M per year
TOD & economic development
Potential
Weaker in V2040 centers
Stronger along the line
Stronger in V2040 center
Weaker along the lines
Property impacts
High commercial
Low residential
Low commercial
Moderate residential
Traffic impacts
Minor impacts
Minor improvements
Construction impacts
Moderate; long duration
Low - moderate; long duration
Environmental impacts
Moderate
(noise, visual, wetlands)
Moderate
(noise, visual, wetlands)
Mr. Sheldon noted the travel time and new rider measures and cost are particularly important in the New
Starts grant process. He noted one of the goals of the I -5 route is to make as much use of existing
transportation right -of -way as possible. He provided a cost comparison of the SR 99 all- elevated LRT and
I -5 at- grade /elevated LRT:
Measure
SR 99 All- Elevated LRT
I -5 At- Grade/Elevated LRT
Capital Cost
$2,010 - $2,310 M
$1,420 - $1,640 M
Difference v. I -5 LRT
$590 -$670 M
- --
Difference v. ST Financial Plan*
$470 M over to $770 M over
$120 M under to $100 M over
Cost per new passenger in 2030
$41 -$46
$25 -$29
* 2011 TIP estimate funded in ST Financial Plan = $1,540 M (mid 2010 $s)
Mr. Sheldon summarized the above table, explaining Sound Transit's financial plan contains
approximately $1,540 M for this project, $600 M is assumed to come from the federal government. If the
SR 99 route is selected, additional funding will be necessary. The fall scoping process will include asking
citizens whether they want Sound Transit to take a closer look at the SR 99 route in the EIS process or
limit examination to the I -5 route. He briefly reviewed next steps:
• August: FTA reviews draft AA results
• September: finalize AA and release results; publish EIS Notice of Intent
• October: EIS scoping
• November: share scoping results
• December Sound Transit Board approves alternatives to evaluate in DEIS
• January: Begin. DEIS
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed complaints from citizens trying to reach Edmonds from the airport via
Sounder. She asked whether more frequent Sounder service could be implemented to assist residents in
reaching Edmonds from downtown Seattle. Mr. Sheldon answered the Sounder service provided today,
four round -trips per day between. Everett and Seattle with stops in Edmonds and Mukilteo, was part of the
Sound Move program that voters approved in 1996. As part of ST2 program development, there was
discussion regarding whether to include funding for more service in the north corridor. The Sound Transit
Board ultimately decided not to ask voters to fund expansion of that service because, 1) ridership is not as
high as the south corridor, approximately 800 -1000 riders /day, and there is little additional market in west
Snohomish County, and 2) the cost. To implement more service on Sounder North would require
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 2, 2011
Page 4
purchasing time from BNSF and there is enough freight traffic that additional Sounder service would
require double or triple tracking major segments of the corridor. He summarized the service today on
Sounder North is what will exist for a while.
Council President Peterson referred to parking issues at the Edmonds station. Patrice Harding,
Government Relations, Sound Transit, acknowledged they have heard concerns from Edmonds
residents regarding parking at the newly opened commuter rail station. Since the station opened, they
have been considering ways to resolve /alleviate the parking situation via, 1) eliminating overnight parking
via enforcement, 2) re- negotiating set aside spaces with partners such as eliminating security parking and
changing Amtrak parking, and eliminating motorcycle parking and 30- minute parking, and 3) working
with the City regarding the use of on- street parking on Railroad Avenue and James Street now that the
station can accommodate Community Transit buses. They are also considering leased parking. She
explained the property leased for parking during construction was part of construction mitigation and did
not have to meet the same requirements that permanent parking must meet. If the same property were
leased for permanent parking, it would need to be repaved, restriped, made ADA and pedestrian
accessible with signalization, and light stanchions installed. The cost to make those improvements is
approximately $14,000 per space which is not in the current budget.
Council President Peterson inquired about the original plan for a permanent parking structure. Ms.
Harding explained the permanent parking structure was part of the Edmonds Crossing project. When
those funds became unavailable from the State, that project was put on hold.
Councilmember Wilson recognized the Port of Edmonds Executive Director in the audience and
suggested Sound Transit speak to the Port about more cost effective parking on Port property.
Councilmember Wilson commented parking on Railroad Avenue was unlikely to be desirable for the
community. He noted parking at the Antique Mall property may also be an option. He noted the daily
Sounder did not meet a service threshold that made it useful for him, a common complaint among
Edmonds residents. He does use the Sounder service to Seahawk games; however, there are no seats
available when it reaches Edmonds. Anyone desiring a seat must board the train at Everett. He suggested
consideration be given to additional service on those specific days.
Of the two light rail alternatives, Councilmember Wilson suggested the SR 99 route would be more useful
for Edmonds users as it would allow them to use existing Community Transit bus service on SR 104 to
Aurora Village transit center. He recognized this may require moving the Shoreline Park & Ride stop to
Aurora Village. The I -5 light rail route would require Edmonds residents to transfer to another
Community Transit bus to reach Mountlake Terrace. He appreciated the cost differential, pointing out the
issues raised by Bellevue. He did not want cost to become an issue in the north end subarea when other
subareas have a different understanding of cost.
Student Representative Gibson asked when Community Transit will be operating out of the new facility.
Ms. Harding answered September.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas commented she may be too old to use the service to the airport by the
time it is available but it will be useful for future generations. She referred to concerns expressed by
businesses and residents on the SR 99 corridor.
Mayor Cooper relayed his frustration with what appears to be a lack of communication between
Community Transit, Metro and Sound Transit. There is already BRT infrastructure from the Aurora
Village transit center to the Everett station. He asked why Sound Transit may not be interested in running
Sound Transit BRT buses in cooperation with Community Transit to the stops where there is already
infrastructure. Mr. Sheldon explained the BRT alternatives that were considered would have done that,
taken advantage and leveraged the Community Transit's investments in their Swift BRT system and that
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 2, 2011
Page 5
King County Metro will make on Aurora Avenue in the future via their Metro Rapid Ride system. The
concept was to provide a connection from Lynnwood to the Northgate rail head and access to the rest of
the regional transit system.
To the question of why light rail is needed on SR 99 when there is already BRT, Mr. Sheldon commented
the services are not duplicative, they are complementary. One of the reasons the Shoreline Park & Ride
was selected as a potential station rather than Aurora Village, it provides the opportunity for a multimodal
center where Swift and Rapid Ride could come together with a light rail station. Co- locating BRT and
light rail is a consideration when choosing where to make the light rail investment.
Mayor Cooper commented Edmonds residents and the surrounding communities would benefit sooner if
BRT infrastructure was put in and changed from 10 minutes between departures to 5 minutes as well as
transport more passengers. Mr. Sheldon advised the results of the AA including the performance of BRT
will be available in September during the scoping process. He encouraged the City to consider whether
Sound Transit should take BRT further in the EIS.
With regard to a multimodal facility at the Shoreline Park & Ride, Councilmember Wilson commented it
would be easier for Edmonds residents to walk 100 yards from the Aurora Transit Center to BRT on SR
99 than to make a bus connection through a different agency.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Dave Page, Edmonds, commented he has participated on two levy committees in the past seven years.
He referred to the need to put a levy on the ballot and described plans to ensure passage of a levy. He
proposed that current and former Councilmembers and candidates for Council to contact their constituents
to ask for the vote. He also suggested forming a committee of people who are enthusiastic about passing a
levy to contact registered voters. He offered his office on Wednesday evenings. Mayor Cooper cautioned
Mr. Page about discussing campaign strategy during a Council meeting. He suggested Mr. Page contact
Councilmembers individually outside the Council meeting.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented the public is aware the City is short of funds but when voting will
have to pick between the three proposals. He expressed his support for public safety and police, noting
funding of public safety comprises the majority of the City's budget. Observing that public safety is most
residents' top issue, he encouraged the Council to place a separate public safety levy on the ballot.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to his question regarding cost overruns on two projects. He thanked
Public Works Director Phil Williams for calling him to discuss the projects, one he was able to discuss
and the other he was not. He informed Mr. Williams that he did not need a special report; if the Council
was satisfied with the answers, he was satisfied. Next he referred to the discussion at last week's Council
meeting regarding expenses exceeding revenues. If the City's finances are clear and the City is able to pay
all its bills today, he asked what caused expenses to exceed revenues in future years and whether it was
something other than labor. It was his understanding that labor costs had the greatest impact expenditure
increases. He suggested managing labor costs in a way so that expenses do not exceed revenues. He
pointed out the State reduced salaries by 3 %; Edmonds included escalators in its contracts and has
indicated the cost of medical insurance will decrease.
5. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING THREE ORDINANCES PLACING
PROPOSITIONS ON THE NOVEMBER 8, 201.1 GENERAL ELECTION
A. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES; PROVIDING FOR THE
SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY AT THE NOVEMBER 8,
2011 GENERAL ELECTION OF A PROPOSITION AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 2, 2011
Page 6
REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY IN EXCESS OF THE INCREASE OTHERWISE
ALLOWED BY CHAPTER 84.55 RCW TO HELP MAINTAIN CURRENT LEVELS OF
SERVICE IN PUBLIC SAFETY PARKS AND OTHER CITY SERVICES; SETTING FORTH
THE BALLOT TITLE THEREFORE; REQUESTING THAT THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY
AUDITOR PLACE THE PROPOSITION ON THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 BALLOT; AND
FIXING THE TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE
B. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES; PROVIDING FOR THE
SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY AT THE NOVEMBER 8,
2011 GENERAL ELECTION OF A PROPOSITION AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE
REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY IN EXCESS OF THE INCREASE OTHERWISE
ALLOWED BY CHAPTER 84.55 RCW TO FUND STREET PAVEMENT OVERLAYS;
SETTING FORTH THE BALLOT TITLE THEREFORE; REQUESTING THAT THE
SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR PLACE THE PROPOSITION ON THE NOVEMBER 8
2011 BALLOT; AND FIXING THE TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE
C. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES; PROVIDING FOR THE
SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY AT THE NOVEMBER 8,
2011 GENERAL ELECTION OF A PROPOSITION AUTHORIZING AN INCREASE IN THE
REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY IN EXCESS OF THE INCREASE OTHERWISE
ALLOWED BY CHAPTER 84.55 RCW TO FUND BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND PARK
IMPROVEMENTS; SETTING FORTH THE BALLOT TITLE THEREFORE; REQUESTING
THAT THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR PLACE THE PROPOSITION ON THE
NOVEMBER 8, 2011 BALLOT; AND FIXING THE TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about an ordinance that was distributed to the Council tonight. Mayor
Cooper advised the new ordinance was a potential amendment to one of the ordinances in the packet.
Mayor Cooper referred to the ordinances in the Council packet, A) General Fund levy; based on Council
conversations at the July 26 meeting, the purpose was narrowed to public safety, parks and other city
services; B) road overlays with reference to maintenance removed; and C) parks.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the whereas in all three ordinances are significant different than the
ordinances proposed at the July 26 meeting because he clarified how the levy rate was determined in the
proposed ballot title such as how changes in assessed value impacted the levy rate, what could be done in
the absence of voter approval and the rate required to raise the additional revenue.
Mayor Cooper asked Mr. Taraday to explain why the total levy amount (i.e. $1 million) or an amount per
$1000 of assessed value was not used in the ballot title. Mr. Taraday explained there is nothing that
strictly prohibits the inclusion of an absolute dollar amount in the ballot title. His review of levies in other
cities found that was not done in regular levy lift resolutions or ordinances. An absolute dollar amount is
frequently included in the ballot title for a bond because there is a fixed amount of money to be raised by
the bond and property taxes will be collected until that amount is paid off.
With regard to including language in the ballot title regarding the effect the levy would have on an
average home, Mr. Taraday explained that was more appropriate to include in an explanatory statement
than the ballot title. The City Attorney drafts the explanatory statement and submits it to the County
Auditor by August 16, the same time the certified ordinances are submitted. The amount intended to be
raised by each levy will be included in the explanatory statement; $1 million for the General Fund, $1
million for overlays and $500,000 for parks.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 2, 2011
Page 7
Mayor Cooper asked staff to explain why the amount per $1000 of assessed value changed and how it
relates to the change in the City's assessed value. Mr. Taraday answered Interim Finance Director Jim
Tarte provided information from the Snohomish County Auditor regarding the City's 2012 assessed
value, a decrease of approximately 11% from 2011 assessed values. When the assessed valuation
decreases, the millage rate must increase. There is a significant difference between the 2011 rate and the
proposed ordinances due to the significant decrease in assessed valuation.
Council President Peterson thanked staff and the Council for the healthy, though lengthy, deliberative
process. He felt the proposed ordinances were compromises; none of the Council got exactly what they
wanted.
Ordinance A: Help Maintain Current Levels of Service in Public Safety, Parks and Other City Services
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE ITEM A, ORDINANCE NO. 3848, A GENERAL FUND
ORDINANCE TO MAINTAIN CURRENT LEVELS OF SERVICE IN PUBLIC SAFETY, PARKS
AND OTHER CITY SERVICES.
Mr. Taraday suggested it may be more accurate to refer to this ordinance as the City Services ordinance
as it is technical no longer a General Fund ordinance. Due to the changes made, if the levy passed, the
City would not have unlimited use of the funds; the funds must be used for public safety, parks or other
city services.
Council President Peterson explained this ordinance will help retain basic City services. There are no
plans to add building or departments; it provides "a few gulps of air" while the economy hopefully
recovers and other possibilities are considered such as the Regional Fire Authority (RFA). Because the
ordinance is for a levy to fund basic City services, he had concerns with it being a 3 -year levy.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON,
TO AMEND THE MOTION TO MAKE THIS A PERMANENT LEVY AND REMOVE THE 3-
YEAR LANGUAGE.
Mayor Cooper advised this amendment was reflected in the ordinance that was distributed to the Council
tonight.
Councilmember Wilson explained this ordinance gives the Council permanent authority to raise the tax
rate. If the economy turns around, the Council can reduce the tax rate although admittedly government
rarely does that. The Council learned last week that over the next 5 year period, the City needs $1.75
million to cover existing City services. The 3 -year levy does not solve the problem, $1.75 million over the
next 5 years. The amendment gets the City part of the way. With a 3 -year levy, when the levy terminates
in 3 years, there will be a $2.75 million shortfall in 1 year. When that happens 8% of the City's staff will
need to be laid off and an 8% cut in City's services in addition to the 2 police officers that have been cut
previously, cuts make to parks, etc. He preferred to place a levy on the ballot that solved the problem; $1
million/year for 3 years will not solve the problem. To illustrate his willingness to compromise, he
pointed out he has submitted a number of proposals over the last two years, has given away his advocacy
for public safety, and set aside his interest in buying back cuts. If the Council will support making this $1
million levy permanent, he will support the other two levies. The other two levies are great "nice -to-
haves" but he cannot ask voters for nice -to -haves without funding the basic problem in the General Fund.
He urged Councilmembers to support the proposed amendment.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 2, 2011
Page 8
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas was unable to support a permanent levy. She felt three years was enough
to ask the citizens for; if the basic problems cannot be solved within those three years via economic
development and other efforts, the taxpayers should be asked again.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked Mr. Tarte to display the projections with the change to a modified
accrual accounting that is used by many other cities. Mayor Cooper urged Councilmember Buckshnis to
focus her remarks on the levy and not the accounting method. Councilmember Buckshnis commented a
new forecast shows that in 2015, with $4 million as the fund balance and adding the accruals and
removing the payables, the City is in much better shape. For that reason she could not support a
permanent levy but would support a 3 -year levy with funding dedicated to fire service.
Councilmember Wilson clarified what staff presented last week was Mayor Cooper's forecast. He asked
whether there was a new forecast. Mayor Cooper answered he did not have a new forecast and neither the
City Council nor the Mayor's office have adopted a new accounting method. Councilmember Wilson
recommended that until the Council decided to book accounts receivable differently, the Council should
stick with the forecasts that staff and the Mayor provided last week.
Mr. Tarte explained last week he provided a what -if scenario if the Mayor and Council approved a
different accounting method, fund balance versus working capital. He explained that one -time change did
not fix the problem of expenditures exceeding revenues. Expenses exceed revenues because of the
recession, sales tax revenues have declined and assessed values have decreased. The sooner the Council
and citizens recognize the shortfall, the easier it will be to mitigate. If the Council waits 2 -3 years and
proposes a $3 million General Fund levy, it will require a 40 -50% increase in taxes in one year.
Councilmember Petso expressed support for the amendment to a permanent levy because she was not
comfortable with the number of staff positions that would be connected to the $1 million levy. She
commented this was different than roads; at the end of a 3 -year road levy, no staff would be laid off,
paving could just be stopped as has been done in the past. The idea of funding $1 million in staff positions
with a levy that may last only 3 years concerned her.
Council President Peterson pointed out the Council was not voting for a tax increase tonight; they were
asking the voters to make informed decisions. The information provided by staff and the Mayor and the
Council's deliberations over the last months highlighted that the City does not collect enough money. The
citizens understand that and will be willing to support a levy. With a permanent levy if the economy
improves in 3 years, sports tourism and other economic development is generating money, the Council
could decide to reduce the levy rate. With a 3 -year levy if the economy does not improve, the concerns
will be compounded exponentially. He felt a 3 -year levy was a significant gamble. He was willing to
support a 3 -year option but did not feel it was the fiscally wise or conservative choice to maintain existing
City services and staff.
Council President Peterson referred to Councilmember Fraley- Monillas' comment last week, that she
wished a levy had been passed two years ago, pointing out three years passes very quickly and he did not
want to have this discussion again at that time. He summarized the $1 million City services ordinance
would not fully support all existing services and the other funding sources the Economic Development
Commission (EDC) and others are working on will be needed.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas felt it was a bigger gamble to ask citizens for a permanent increase in
taxes when citizens losing their homes and their jobs, unable to afford their medical insurance and food,
etc. She did not think the voters would pass a permanent levy and felt it was smarter to ask for a shorter
term, particularly if people were banking on the economy improving. She preferred to seek other funding
sources rather than permanently tax property owners.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 2, 2011
Page 9
Councilmember Bernheim asked the proponents of the amendments the consequence of a permanent levy
failing. His support of a 3 -year levy was a step -by -step, baby -step, earn the voters trust approach; going to
the voters with a discrete project and illustrate how the money will be spent over a specific time period. If
successful, that success can be leveraged into continued levy requests. He summarized his two questions
were: 1) the consequence of a permanent levy failing, and 2) whether there was enough voter trust to
convince them to support a permanent levy.
Councilmember Plunkett did not support subsidizing the General Fund. He referred to Mr. Tarte's
comment that the source of the City's problems was the economy. Councilmember Plunkett anticipated
improvement in the economy was years away. For those who support the City Services ordinance and the
amendment he questioned how they reconciled the Finance Director stating the problem was the economy
with a permanent levy.
Councilmember Petso was uncertain how she would vote on the ultimate levy proposal. Her decision
tonight will not be whether the City has made its case for any of the proposals but whether the proposal is
close enough that she can allow the citizens to vote. As a result she did not feel a temporary levy was safe
to propose to the voters. She recognized a 3 -year levy was more likely to pass although she did not
envision either a 3 -year or a permanent levy would pass. With regard to Councilmember Bernheim's
question regarding the consequences of failure, the consequences are either the City gets good news or
cuts another $300,000 from the 2012 budget and places another levy on the ballot in the future. When
another levy is placed on the ballot, the City will have completed a Strategic Plan, hopefully completed
union negotiations and have an idea of the reduction in medical benefit costs. She summarized the
consequence of failure was not the end of the world; if the levy fails, the City will adapt and make do.
With regard to the baby steps theory, Councilmember Petso explained placing a levy on the ballot that
everyone can support in an effort to build public support went "out the window" when the theory of
Council unanimity on a proposal was abandoned. She recalled the only proposal the Council unanimously
supported was $700,000 - $750,000 for roads. Several Councilmembers have managed to compromise.
Councilmember Wilson referred to Councilmember Plunkett's view of this levy as General Fund subsidy;
he viewed it as paying for services that citizens ask for. Councilmember Wilson explained since he was
elected 3 t/2 years ago he has cut $3 million from the budget; the budget today is smaller than when he
was elected 31/2 years ago. The City realigned how it provides fire service via the FD1 contract and has
made changes in public safety and parks. That is how the Council builds trust. When citizens were asked
via the survey what they wanted to see, they wanted the Council to speak with as much consensus as
possible. When the TBD was placed on the ballot, the Council said they would learn from the vote. What
the Council learned is citizens expect the Council to speak with some consensus. If this amendment is
approved, there may be six votes for final approval of the City Services ordinance. He will be unable to
support the other two levies if the basic General Fund problem is not solved first. He urged
Councilmembers to compromise a little bit, noting these levy proposals are approximately the vision
provided by the Citizen Levy Committee led by Councilmember Buckshnis.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas stated she will stand behind the levy because she believes the City needs
a levy. She does not support a permanent levy to fund City services. She referred to Councilmember
Petso's statement that if a City services levy does not pass, the City will adapt and make do, commenting
that conflicted with asking voters to pass a permanent levy. She wanted a levy to pass and she agreed
unanimity would be desirable but she would not support a levy longer than three years.
Mayor Cooper explained the 2012 budget he will present at the first meeting in October will not reflect
the levy. It will be a balanced budget that reflects the $300,000- $350,000 shortfall.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 2, 2011
Page 10
Student Representative Gibson asked if there was really any difference in the 3 -year levy passing and then
the voters being asked again to pass another levy.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested tying the 3 -year City Services levy to first service because the
contract with FD1 is up for renewal in 3 years. She did not support a permanent levy because assessed
values will eventually increase and if the City joins an RFA, the $6.4 million expense for fire service will
be removed from the General Fund, thereby eliminating the problem.
Council President Peterson commented the individual levies for roads and parks provide an opportunity to
demonstrate improvements. The problem with the baby steps approach to the City Services levy is it
"keeps us just from going under water, it's not very exciting." The intent of the City Services levy is that
citizens do not notice the difference and quality services are maintained. He hoped the services that the
City Services levy funds are invisible other than citizens saying they are happy with the Police
Department or thanking the City for maintaining parks. The roads and parks levies provide an opportunity
to make improvements that have been ignored for the last decade due to previous cuts.
UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FAILED (3 -4), COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBER PETSO AND WILSON VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY- MONILLAS, BERNHEIM, PLUNKETT AND BUCKSHNIS
VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO SPECIFY THAT THE LEVY FUND FIRE SERVICES.
Mayor Cooper clarified the ballot title currently states, "public safety, parks and other City services;"
Councilmember Buckshnis' amendment is to change that language to "current levels of fire services."
1574-11 1*1"f W-ricirI 41,19
LACK OF A SECOND.
UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 3848,
CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCILMEMBERS BERNHEIM, BUCKSHNIS, AND FRALEY - MONILLAS
AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS
PLUNKETT, WILSON AND PETSO VOTING NO.
Ordinance B: To Fund Street Pavement Over
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE ITEM B, ORDINANCE NO. 3849,$1 MILLION TO FUND STREET
PAVEMENT OVERLAYS.
Councilmember Wilson commented it was bad policy to ask the voters for nice -to -have items. He
acknowledged fixing the City's streets and parks was very important but if the General Fund levy fails,
there will be no staff to fix the streets or make park improvements because staff will have to be laid off.
Even if the General Fund passes, the City is still $750,000 short of its expenditures. The most ridiculous
embarrassing position for him as a Councilmember would be if the street or park levies passes and the
General Fund levy fails and he has to tell the voters that either staff will be laid off or money from the
street or parks levy will be moved around in the General Fund. He did not support the motion.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked whether Councilmember Wilson did not support this ordinance
because of the limited time frame approved for the General Fund levy. Councilmember Wilson answered
he did not support this ordinance because he did not want to ask the voters to fund a levy that did not
address the City's basic problem. The basic problem is the City does not have enough money to pay for
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 2, 2011
Page 11
the services it offers. This levy provides an additional service that is important but it does not fund
existing services.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the General Fund levy and for this levy. She anticipated
the voters will approve a General Fund levy; if not, the budget has historically been 3 -5% over during the
past 4 -5 years, approximately $990,000 which will cover the 2012 shortfall.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas expressed support for the ordinance. Whether a General Fund levy
passes is irrelevant; if the City's streets are in poor condition, there will not be economic development or
people moving to Edmonds and residents will not have the ability to travel around Edmonds.
THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 3849 CARRIED (6 -1),
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO.
Ordinance C: To Fund Building Maintenance and Park Improvements
i,,• i i' i i � 1
Council President Peterson commented he was the least excited about this ordinance due to potential
conflicts if the General Fund levy failed and the roads levy and this levy passed. He was hopeful all three
levies would be approved by the voters. He will support the motion although somewhat reluctantly.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed support for the ordinance. With regard to whether there will be staff
remaining if this levy passes and the General Fund levy does not, he pointed out the City's reserves can
be used to address the shortfall at some point.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas expressed support for the motion, noting building maintenance and
parks are very important to Edmonds residents. Buildings falling down and poorly maintained parks
affect quality of life.
Councilmember Wilson reminded twice a year when the General Fund budget goes into the red, funds are
transferred to cover it. This motion does nothing to solve the basic problem and therefore he cannot
support it.
THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 3850 CARRIED (6 -1),
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO.
Mayor Cooper commented this has been a long process and many have been subject to verbal criticism
for the length of time it has taken. Although he would have preferred a closer vote than 4 -3 on the first
ordinance, he thanked the Council for working so deliberatively over the past several months to find a
solution. The Citizen Levy Committee's recommendation, the proposal from the Mayor's office, and the
three ordinances the Council approved for the ballot tonight all had a similar approach. His proposal was
one proposition; the Levy Committee recommended three propositions but the funding was similar. He
thanked the Council for their deliberative and professional approach to the levy.
Mr. Taraday reminded the Council needed to appoint pro and con committees for each of the three
propositions. Mayor Cooper recalled the Council Presidents calls for and makes those appointments. Mr.
Taraday advised the Snohomish County Auditor's Voters Pamphlet states the legislative authority makes
the appointments. If not tonight, the Council could make those appointments at the August 15 meeting.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 2, 2011
Page 12
Council President Peterson invited citizens and Councilmembers interested in participating on the pro and
con committees to contact him via email at Peterson @ci.edmonds.wa.us.
Mayor Cooper advised Mr. Taraday will write the explanatory statement. Mr. Taraday advised the pro
and con statements are due on August 30.
6. DISCUSSION REGARDING A DIVERSITY COMMISSION
Councilmember Wilson explained Edmonds has an increasingly diverse population. According to the
2010 Census 9.9% of residents are foreign born and 11.6% speak a language other than English at home.
Diversity includes age as evidenced by strollers on City streets and the active Senior Center; economic
with Edmonds having some of the most affluent residents and some of the most disadvantaged
populations; an active LGBT community at the high school; and an openly gay member of the legislature
who serves the 21s` Legislative District. A group of citizens asked to present the idea of a Diversity
Commission to the Council. He will offer a resolution that gives a stamp of approval for citizens, staff
and him to create an outlines of a Commission or Commissions focused on diversity.
Carol Schiilios, Edmonds, explained this presentation is to, 1) open a conversation about diversity, 2)
describe what might be meant by diversity, and 3) to explore the possibility and ask for the Council's
support for a forum for conversations about diversity. The 2010 Census indicates there is social,
demographic and economic diversity. Of the nearly 40,000 Edmonds residents, 18,700 are male and
20,816 are female. There are 13,000 people 62 years of age and older and 9,000 kids enrolled in school of
which 6,000 are elementary and high school. Approximately 3,000 or 6% of the Edmonds population are
Asian and over 1,500 or 4% are Latino.
The goal of a diversity commission is to explore how they are represented, not to say they are not
represented but to open community relationships and explore the diversity, whether by bringing different
age groups together, bringing different ethnicities together, or learning about different culture. A diversity
commission would enrich the community, open communication as well as have a direct effect on public
safety. She cited an example of someone afraid of a group of young people with purple hair. That
discomfort can be bridged by helping people understand each other, bringing different age groups
together and creating forums for learning about different cultures. In the last 10 years, nearly I I% foreign
born citizens have moved into Edmonds.
Over 6,000 people in the census reported they are disabled. The commission could explore how those
people are served. Over 2,000 women reported in the census they are widowed. She relayed a woman
who visited her shop who had not been out in public for months because she did not know what services
were available. In 1999 there were over 300 families below the poverty level. There are two Section 8
housing complexes in the Edmonds bowl; the diversity commission could consider the needs of the low
income residents. She clarified they were not asking the City for money; they want a forum to engage
people in an effort to enrich the community. Other communities have been exploring diversity
commissions and a variety of issues. The structure of the commission is unknown but she was certain
there are unheard voices in the city and a diversity commission can enhance public safety and inform
decision - making. There is a fair percentage of residents who speak limit English; she questioned how the
City communicates with that population. She encouraged the Council to support the creation of a forum to
honor and celebrate diversity.
Rey Gardea, Edmonds, incoming junior at Edmonds - Woodway High School, accompanied by her friend
and classmate, Taylor Minor, commented that in addition to diversity, youth are a very important part of
the community. She viewed Edmonds as a diverse community encompassing multiple age groups, races
and lifestyles. There is huge potential in the City, both economically and socially, and as future citizens of
Edmonds, they would like to open dialogue regarding an ethnic diversity commission. She summarized
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 2, 2011
Page 13
they do not want youth to be feared in Edmonds. Youth are the future and have a huge economic presence
in the City that is often unrecognized. She envisioned events that would unite age groups socially. She
was also interested in political education for youth, pointing out a more educated youth will result in a
more successful future.
Per the 2010 census younger people are moving to Edmonds bringing new social and economic problems
and challenges. A youth commission could address those issues from the youth perspective as well
provide ideas regarding economic development from their perspective. A youth commission will provide
a voice for the future of the City as well as a way to educate potential future leaders.
Stacy Gardea, Edmonds, explained as a Hispanic woman, she wants to open the doors to allow
exploration. She met with Edmonds - Woodway High School's Principal and Vice Principal today and they
were excited about a youth commission. She encouraged the Council to allow a dialogue to be opened, to
determine what is needed. She envisioned the two commissions addressing issues and evolving over time.
Councilmember Plunkett was uncertain what was meant by diverse cultures not being heard and youth not
being recognized. He asked why certain cultures' voices were not heard and what the City did that closed
doors and did not recognize or hear. Ms. Schillios explained the goal is to explore what needs exists.
Some of the young people who visit downtown are seeking educational things; perhaps a larger service
learning program to learn about different cultures could be explored. She noted the high schools in the
area have clubs for different minority groups to assist them explore their needs. There is a huge Russian
population in the area; serving at the food bank recently, she found many of them speak very little
English.
Ms. Gardea wanted a voice for different ethnicities and youth. She recalled a meeting with a group of IB
students to discuss the national budget and most did not know how the City's Police Department was
paid. She wanted an opportunity to bring City government to the youth. There are not always activities in
the City that attract and promote youth; the kids need things to do. The Economic Development
Committee has a lot of ideas but they are often for older citizens. For example, there could be paddle
boats on the waterfront.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas commented her background is State employment where there is a very
diverse population. She thanked Ms. Schillios for the work she does. She lives in a diverse family where
English is not the first language and understood the cultural issues in a diverse family. For
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas, Ms. Gardea advised there is interest in forming two commissions, a
diversity commission and a youth commission. Ms. Schillios acknowledged the definition of the
commissions has not been defined. They are seeking the City's support to explore it. It may be one forum
with subgroups to explore different issues. Direction from the Council will be important with regard to
the structure of the commission(s). Although the structure is uncertain, the goal is enrichment.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas suggested including people with disabilities and intellectual disabilities
in the forum.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested using the EDC as a venue. Ms. Gardea responded that was a
possibility in the future, the EDC has been considering some very large issues recently. There is a group
of energetic young people interested in being involved; a youth commission will give them a voice.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested creating a youth subgroup of the EDC. She pointed out Parks &
Recreation Director Carrie Hite is exploring opportunity for recreational concessions on the waterfront.
Councilmember Bernheim commented the questions they have raised have outlets and means of success
in far more areas than a formal government setting. These issues will not be solved by only a Council
commission. Everyone shares in the effort to help their fellow men, women and children who are unable
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 2, 2011
Page 14
to cope as effectively as others. He was supportive of any group of people that wanted to get together to
help improve the community. Ms. Gardea assured the intent was not for the Council to make a decision
tonight; the intent was to open a dialogue for future discussion. Councilmember Bernheim preferred to
refer the issue to the Public Safety /Human Resources or Community Service /Development Services
Committee.
Mayor Cooper opened the opportunity for public input. There were no members of the public present who
wished to comment.
Councilmember Wilson advised the resolution was intended to get Council approval to move forward. He
was happy to do it himself and bring it back to a committee or to full Council. He preferred to work with
staff and citizens and return to the full Council for consideration.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
APPROVE RESOLUTION 1255, SUPPORTING THE CREATION OF AN ORDINANCE(S) FOR
THE PURPOSES OF FUTURE DELIBERATION REGARDING THE CREATION OF
COMMISSION STRUCTURES RELATED TO OUTREACH, EDUCATION AND
ENGAGEMENT.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the statement on the agenda that public comment will be
received, questioning whether notification was required when public comment was taken. City Attorney
Jeff Taraday answered there is no legal requirement for public hearing or public comment on a resolution.
It is at the Council's discretion to invite public input. Mayor Cooper explained the Council President can
agree to allow public comment on any agenda item. A public hearing requires specific notice.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the Council adopted the agenda; if there was a question about public
comment on a specific agenda item, it could have been raised at that time. He looked forward to work
being done regarding diversity. He preferred to have citizens work on it and return to the Council. He was
uncomfortable with the wording in the resolution, that the Council supports the creation of an ordinance,
as he was uncertain whether an ordinance was needed. He suggested a resolution and/or ordinance return
to the Council after further work has been done.
Councilmember Bernheim preferred to have the matter considered by a Council committee. He preferred
to adopt a resolution in support of a commission, not regarding future adoption.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY - MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BERNHEIM, TO REFER THE RESOLUTION TO THE COMMUNITY
SERVICES/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE.
Councilmember Wilson questioned referring a resolution that committed the Council to do nothing to a
committee. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas explained her intent was to have the group that presented to
the Council discuss their vision for the forum with the committee.
Mayor Cooper suggested if the Council was uncomfortable with the resolution, they pass a motion of
support and allow the Council President to determine how to proceed.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY - MONILLAS WITHDREW THE MOTION.
Council President Peterson advised before Councilmember Fraley- Monillas' motion, he had added
discussion regarding a diversity commission/youth commission to the CS/DS Committee's September 13
agenda. He expressed support for the resolution.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 2, 2011
Page 15
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM,
TO REFER THE RESOLUTION TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES/DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES COMMITTEE. MOTION CARRIED (5 -2), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING NO.
Mayor Cooper expressed his strong support for this effort. He encouraged the Council not to get bogged
down in the committee structure. The Council will need to discuss staff support for a diversity /youth
commission. He suggested it may be preferable to utilize the energy of the people in the community who
want to work on this and allow it to proceed as an ad hoc group.
If the CS /DS committee decided to allow the community members to proceed with creating something
more tangible, Councilmember Plunkett asked whether they could proceed without returning to the
Council. Council President Peterson preferred to have it return to the Council.
Councilmember Wilson advised the Public Safety /Human Resources Committee will be discussing this at
their meeting next week.
7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Cooper reported he participated as a judge in the sand sculpture contest at Marina Beach on
August 1. He commented on the amazing creativity and artistic abilities. He commended the Parks &
Recreation staff, Tammy Rankins in particular, and Namas Candy who sponsored the event. He relayed a
call from the media after the event who said they were unable to find a parking place to take photographs
of the event. He concluded the sculpture contest was another example of how hard the Parks & Recreation
staff works.
8. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Petso reported the audit has commenced. It was mentioned at the entrance interview that
it is less expensive and questions /concerns are more likely to be considered if they are raised now rather
than later.
Councilmember Petso announced the Edmonds Center for the Arts fundraising auction in September. She
encouraged anyone interested in contributing to the auction to contact Jamie Herlich at the ECA.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported on Step Out Edmonds, the Senior Center walking program. She
announced the Edmonds Senior Center is also holding its annual auction in September. She encouraged
Councilmembers and/or the Mayor to donate lunch for four as well as other items for the auction.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed his support for the diversity groups. To the comment that the
commission does not need any staff, he explained the commission cannot be under the city's framework
and not spend City money due to the need for staff to be assigned to the commission, reports, etc. That is
yet another example of the need for a levy. Government tasks are not increasing because of new buildings
but the increase in the day -to -day activities.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas reported she helped with the introduction of Reilly & Maloney at
Concerts in the Park on Sunday. She encouraged the public to attend the free concerts 3:00 -4:00 p.m. at
City Park on Sundays through the end of August.
Councilmember Wilson relayed there has been a shortage of participation at Yost Pool this summer. His
children attend swim classes daily but if not enough people go to family and/or recreation swim time, it
will be part of the budget conversation. He encouraged the public to swim at Yost Pool. He also reminded
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 2, 2011
Page 16
citizens of the outdoor movies at Frances Anderson Center on Friday evenings. This Friday's feature is
Ghost Busters.
Council President Peterson reported Bellingham and Portland recently passed their version of the plastic
bag ban. Edmonds is a trend setter and leader in environmental issues and keeping Puget Sound clean.
9. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:38 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 2, 2011
Page 17