Loading...
12/20/2011 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES December 20, 2011 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5`" Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, 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 Alex Springer, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Debi Humann, Human Resources Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Carl Nelson, CIO Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Rob English, City Engineer Leonard Yarberry, Building Official Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.11.0(1)(i), AND A REAL ESTATE MATTER PER RCW 42.30.1100)(b). At 5:30 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(1) and a real estate matter per RCW 42.30.110(1)(b). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 60 minutes and would be held in the Police Training Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Bernheim, Plunkett, Fraley- Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Wilson. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Attorney Mark Bucklin, Attorney Anne Preston (via telephone), Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton, Finance Director Shawn Hunstock, Parks and Recreation Director Carrie Hite, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 6:30 p.m., Ms. Chase announced to those present that the executive session would be extended for 20 minutes. At 6:55 p.m., Ms. Chase announced the executive session would be extended for 15 minutes. The executive session concluded at 7:05 p.m. Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:14 p.m, and led the flag salute. 2. RECEPTION IN HONOR OF COUNCILMEMBERS STEVE BERNHEIM AND DJ WILSON Due to the length of the executive session, Mayor Earling announced the Councilmembers who were to be honored have agreed to forego the reception. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2011 Page 1 Selection of Mayor's Executive Assistant Mayor Earling reported on the application process for his executive assistant. The City received 1.27 applications for the position. Screening reduced the applications to 25 potential applicants and 6 were interviewed. At the conclusion of that process, he selected Carolyn LaFave. Public Hearing Sign -In Sheets Council President Peterson announced the availability of sign -in sheets for audience members to indicate their support or opposition to public hearing topics without signing up to speak. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Petso requested Item K be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember Bernheim requested Item I be removed. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 6, 2011. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #129221 THROUGH #129387 DATED DECEMBER 8, 2011 FOR $588,030.36, AND CLAIM CHECKS #129388 THROUGH #129555 DATED DECEMBER 15, 2011 FOR $873,482.27. D. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #51050 THROUGH #51076 FOR THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 16, 2011 THROUGH NOVEMBER 30, 2011 FOR $713,624.43. E. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM JAMES KREIDER (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), FRONTIER (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), MONIQUE WALSH (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND KIMBERLY COLE (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED). F. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE ALDERWOOD INTERTIE AND RESERVOIR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. H. ORDINANCE NO. 3864 - ADOPTING THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: REMOVING CERTAIN PROPERTIES FROM THE MEDICAL / HIGHWAY 99 ACTIVITY CENTER; REVISING POLICY LANGUAGE DESCRIBING THE MEDICAL / HIGHWAY 99 ACTIVITY CENTER; REDESIGNATING CERTAIN PROPERTIES FROM "SINGLE FAMILY URBAN 1" TO "MULTI FAMILY - MEDIUM DENSITY "; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. J. ORDINANCE NO. 3865 — BDl ZONE DESIGNATING 45 FOOT STREET FRONTS. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2011 Page 2 L. 2012 CDBG APPLICATION RESOLUTION NO. 1266. M. RESOLUTION NO. 1267 - IN RECOGNITION OF COUNCILMEMBER STEVE BERNHEIM. N. RESOLUTION NO. 1268 - IN RECOGNITION OF COUNCILMEMBER D. J. WILSON. ITEM K: ORDINANCE NO. 3866 - AMEND ECDC 20.40.030 AND ECDC 17.40.020 ADDING LIMITED EXCEPTIONS FROM BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS FOR (1) CERTAIN SOLAR ENERGY INSTALLATIONS AND (2) REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT WITH ENERGY EFFICIENT UPGRADES Councilmember Petso explained she voted against this item previously. She was concerned with a resident discovering their view blocked by a rooftop solar array and therefore could not support the ordinance. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM K. MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO. ITEM I: PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 6.90 FOOD PACKAGING IN THE EDMONDS CITY CODE TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN USES BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND ON CITY PROPERTY OF POLYSTYRENE AND NONRECYCLABLE FOR DISPOSABLE FOOD PACKAGING AND TO REQUIRE INSTEAD THE USE OF RECYCLABLE OR COMPOSTABLE FOOD PACKAGING; REOUIRING FOOD SERVICE BUSINESSES TO RECYCLE FOOD WASTE; PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Councilmember Bernheim explained this ordinance restricts the use of polystyrene and nonrecyclable products by the City government and on City property as well as requires that by 2013 food service providers recycle and compost and offer recycling bins to their customers. As he had a few suggested changes, he requested the Council delay approval of the ordinance. Council President Peterson responded he will work with staff on the changes Councilmember Bernheim suggested and reschedule the ordinance on a future agenda. 5. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT - HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. John Dewhirst, Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), updated the Council on the HPC's achievements over the past year: • Applied for and received a state grant for a survey. A consultant surveyed an additional 120 properties throughout Edmonds. • Added two properties to the Edmonds Historic Register. • Updated and printed the Edmonds Historic Sites Walking Tour. • Wrote, designed and printed 2,000 18 -month historic Edmonds calendars. Purpose of the calendar is to increase awareness of historic properties. Calendars available free of charge at City Hall, the Museum, and the Frances Anderson Center. Mr. Dewhirst relayed the HPC's thanks to the Council for the funds provided in the budget that were used to produce the updated walking tour and calendar. He also provided an updated Public Art Walking Tour brochure produced by the Arts Commission. Councilmember Plunkett thanked the HPC for their work. He noted that the HPC will make a proposal to the Council in January to increase their membership due to interest from the community in participating on the Commission. Mayor Earling remarked the calendar is spectacular. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2011 Page 3 6. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION AND PLAQUE IN RECOGNITION OF COUNCILMEMBER STEVE BERNHEIM. Council President Peterson read Resolution No. 1267 thanking Steve Bernheim for his service on the Edmonds City Council from January 2008 through December 2011. He also presented a plaque to Councilmember Bernheim. 7. PRESETITAT1011 OF RESQUU Allf)--PlAf-YltF—Ill—RFCf-g-'.T!tTIO- IiA COUNCILMEMBER D. Council President Peterson read Resolution No. 1268 thanking D.J. Wilson for his service on the Edmonds City Council from January 2008 through December 2011. He also presented a plaque to Councilmember Wilson. 8. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON A PROPOSED DRAFT CITY OF EDMONDS 2012 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS AND MIKE DOUBLEDAY. Community Services /Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained the draft Edmonds 2012 Legislative Agenda, when approved by the City Council, will serve as the scope of work for the City's government relations contractor, Mike Doubleday, during the 2012 Washington State Legislative session. He recalled on November 1, 2011, the City Council expressed support for the Snohomish County Cities and Towns legislative agenda which will also serve as Mr. Doubleday's scope of work. Mr. Doubleday reviewed top priorities in the City of Edmonds 2012 Legislative Agenda: • Transportation Revenue Package o Support the advancement of a statewide transportation revenue package to address infrastructure projects in Snohomish County and Edmonds. Specifically Edmonds seeks support to finish key projects already in development and funded by federal transportation grants: • 228th/SR99 Safety Project • 212th/84th (Five Corners) Congestion • Edmonds Main Street Project o Seek capital budget funding for the Edmonds Main Street Rebuilding Project using Low Impact Development (LID) techniques • Public Records Requests o Support legislation to provide some relief for cities and other governmental agencies from overly burdensome public records requests • Extension of Public Facilities District (PFD) Sales and Use Tax Credit o Seek to extend the PFD sales tax credit (.033) 15 years from 2027 to 2042 • Protect State - Shared and Committed Revenues such as: • Liquor profits and taxes • The municipal criminal justice account • Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) • The Washington Wildlife and Recreation Grant Funding Program (WWRP) • Enhance Fiscal Flexibility Options for Cities • Make REST flexibility permanent • Expand uses of Hotel/Motel Tax to any purpose that maintains or enhances tourism • Remove public vote requirement for metropolitan park districts • Revamp the state unemployment benefit programs to limit the exposure of government entities related to part time or seasonal employment Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2011 Page 4 o Allow cities to pass on the cost of credit card transactions. Counties already have this authority (RCW 36.29.190) Councilmember Wilson asked if a metropolitan park district could be contiguous to a city's boundaries. He pointed out the establishment of a metropolitan park district currently requires a public vote; the proposal is to remove the public vote requirement. He inquired about the tax implications for establishing a metropolitan park district. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained if the legislature approved that option, the Council could create a metropolitan park district and assess up to $0.75/$1000 of assessed value. She advised a metropolitan park district can be contiguous to a city's boundaries and the City Council can be the governing body. Mr. Doubleday reviewed the support/monitor items on the legislative agenda: • Aerospace Partnership o Support the Aerospace Partnership's efforts to enact legislation needed to insure that Washington State and Snohomish County remain the world's leader in aerospace manufacturing • Medical Marijuana o Monitor medical marijuana legislation. Support the governor's proposed petition to the DEA requesting that cannabis for medical use be reclassified from a schedule I drug to a schedule II drug for medical use which could allow for dispensing legally by pharmacies. • Phase II Storm Water Funding o Seek state funding for cities, including Edmonds, so they can continue to meet Phase 11 storm water permit requirements • SEPA Reform o Support (or monitor) options to reduce unnecessary regulations and costs while not affecting outcomes intended by current regulations • Refinements to Local Revitalization Financing (LRF) and Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Tools • Support the adoption of the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) • Support legislation to create local funding options for street maintenance through formation of local street utilities or by expansion of the existing Transportation Benefit District to raise the local option with Council approval from $20 to $40. • Amend notice requirements in the "newspaper of record" to allow for less costly alternatives, e.g., posting on the City's website. Councilmember Plunkett asked Mr. Doubleday to explain the difference between monitor and support. Mr. Doubleday explained when he monitors a bill, he watches it and reports to the City on its progress. When he supports a bill, he is actively working to pass or in some cases defeat it. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the language under Transportation Revenue Package, "support the advancement of a statewide transportation revenue package" and asked what type of revenue would be used. Mr. Doubleday answered the Task Force's recommendation was a menu of options that included gas tax and fees. A public vote would be required to pass the package which would include bonding against a revenue stream of gas tax and other revenues. Councilmember Plunkett asked what relief is sought with regard to public records requests. Mr. Doubleday answered there was an effort in the past to charge for requests that took beyond five hours a month. Another suggestion that has been offered is to charge a person who requests a large amount of documents but does not pick them up. Councilmember Plunkett asked if this included an effort not to provide public records or to change what records are to be public. Mr. Doubleday answered it was monetary relief for abuse. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2011 Page 5 Councilmember Plunkett referred to the priority regarding SEPA reform, noting the Council needed to provide direction whether to support or monitor. Mr. Doubleday agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the governor's action with regard to coal trains. Mr. Doubleday advised he did not have any information other than what had been reported in the newspaper. Councilmember Wilson commented placing too many things on the ballot was a recipe for disaster. He preferred to prioritize education and healthcare at the state level over roads. He asked how much money Edmonds would have lost as a result of the legislature reducing revenue to cities. Mr. Clifton relayed Finance Director Shawn Hunstock's calculation was approximately $570,000. Councilmember Wilson commented if the legislature takes that $570,000 and Edmonds supports a transportation package, the City will not be better off. Mr. Doubleday answered there are three parts to the operating budget, 1) the budget, 2) a package of reforms, and 3) a revenue package. That would be in addition to a possible transportation package in the fall. Councilmember Wilson summarized if the Council supports a tax levy by the legislature, it should support a levy that secures the operational budget rather than support a levy for transportation improvements. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND MIKE DOUBLEDAY. Councilmember Wilson commented Mr. Doubleday represents a number of Washington cities; having worked with him as part of his day job and as a Councilmember, he found him to be one of the most professional lobbyists and he provides a tremendous return on the City's investment. 1 04 Coil V [/7►[ x111 9:7101II11►/:hl104111i1.`I11•� Main Motion COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE THE CITY OF EDMONDS 2012 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA. Amendment 1 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD MONITOR ANY LEGISLATION REGARDING STATE POLICY REGARDING THE INCREASE OF COAL EXPORTING. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Amendment 2 COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD "MONITOR" TO PUBLIC VOTE REQUIREMENT FOR METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICTS. AMENDMENT CARRIED (5 -2), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Plunkett objected to the wording under public records requests as it gave the impression the Council took issue with public records requests when in fact the Council supports the public's right to request records. Amendment 3 COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION SO THAT THE PRIORITY REGARDING PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS READS, "SUPPORT LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE SOME FINANCIAL SUPPORT TO MEET SOME PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS." AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2011 Page 6 Councilmember Wilson inquired about the effort to tape record executive sessions. Mr. Doubleday answered he had not heard anything about that recently. Councilmember Wilson next expressed his preference to protect state shared and committed revenues by supporting a statewide operational levy and lower or eliminate prioritization of the transportation package. Amendment 4 COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO SUPPORT PASSAGE OF A STATEWIDE OPERATIONAL LEVY TO PROTECT STATE- SHARED AND COMMITTED REVENUES TO THE CITY. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Councilmember Wilson's intent was to replace the tax revenue from liquor eliminated by I -1185. Councilmember Wilson answered that effectively was his intent and more specifically to urge the legislature that if they place a levy on the ballot, it help cities' operational budgets rather than transportation infrastructure. Council President Peterson asked if the legislature planned to consider such a ballot measure. Mr. Doubleday answered there is clearly an effort among the majority party to put a ballot measure on in the spring. THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Amendment 5 COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO CHANGE THE TRANSPORTATION REVENUE PACKAGE TO MONITOR RATHER THAN SUPPORT. Mr. Doubleday explained the City is requesting that funding for two projects be included in the transportation package. If he is directed to monitor the transportation package, he will not work on including Edmonds' projects in the package. Councilmember Wilson responded he preferred to prioritize the integrity of the budget over transportation and to tell the legislature they should choose an operational levy over a transportation infrastructure levy. He preferred to oppose the transportation package. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas pointed out if Mr. Doubleday was directed to only monitor the transportation package, he would not lobby for including Edmonds' projects. Councilmember Plunkett commented even if the word monitor was added, Mr. Doubleday could contact the City to ask whether they wanted to be more supportive. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas questioned why the Council wanted to monitor the transportation package if they wanted the Edmonds projects included. It seemed logical to direct Mr. Doubleday to pursue inclusion of the projects versus monitoring. Councilmember Buckshnis did not support the amendment to monitor the transportation package. Mayor Earling commented the top priorities were not listed in priority order. He preferred to give direction to Mr. Doubleday that all the priorities are important and provide specific advice to Mr. Doubleday during the session. Councilmember Plunkett explained he proposed changing support to monitor due to unknowns regarding the transportation package. When the legislature proposes a package, Mr. Doubleday can inform the Council and the Council can make a decision at that time. The transportation package as currently proposed was too broad for him to support. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2011 Page 7 Council President Peterson pointed out if Edmonds is only monitoring the transportation package as the package is developed, it is unlikely the Edmonds projects will be included. He preferred to support the transportation package due to the importance of the Edmonds projects. Councilmember Petso asked Mr. Doubleday if the proposed amendment would prevent him from actively working to include the Edmonds projects in the legislation. Mr. Doubleday answered yes, if it were changed to monitor. He explained a large coalition with representatives from corporations, cities, and counties have been working on the transportation package for two years. Councilmember Petso clarified if Mr. Doubleday were directed to monitor the transportation package, the risk was the package would be placed on the ballot without the Edmonds projects. Mr. Doubleday did not find changing that item to monitor to be in the City's best interest. THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FAILED (1 -6), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING YES. Councilmember Wilson asked about the bill supported by Futurewise and the environmental community that would force more density into neighborhoods around regional transportation facilities like the ferry. Mr. Doubleday answered he had heard nothing about that. AmPnrlmPnt 6 COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO MONITOR SEPA CHANGES. AMENDMENT CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT VOTING NO. Vote on Main Motion THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE POSSIBLE REMOVAL OF THE 212TH AT 84TH (5 CORNERS) INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AND THE CASPERS ST AT 9TH AVE W INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS FROM THE 2012 -2017 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. Mayor Farling asked if Councilmembers wished to make any disclosures. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out this is a legislative matter. City Attorney Jeff Taraday agreed. There were no disclosures made. Mayor Earling advised there were sign -up sheets provided for audience members to indicate whether they were pro or con without signing up to speak. Caspers Street at 9"' Avenue W Intersection Improvements Public Works Director Phil Williams provided a photograph of the intersection northbound on 9"' looking toward SR 524 and reviewed the following: • Existing conditions: • Stop - controlled for northbound movement only (from 9th Ave. N, accessing SR -524) • Currently meets LOS standards for Highways of Regional Significance (LOS E) • Concurrency project in 2002 and 2009 Transportation Plans • Project included in 2002 and 2009 Traffic Impact Fee calculations • Proposed improvement: • Traffic signal installation • Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) (scheduled between 2018 and 2025) • Estimated cost: $1,022,000 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2011 Page 8 Mr. Williams explained taking the project out of the plans requires staff to continue to monitor the intersection and put it back in when LOS is exceeded along with a proposed solution. Leaving it in requires no action and none is necessary for 5 -7 years. Staff recommends leaving the project in. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the traffic signal could be a blinking signal rather than the typical red/yellow /green signal. Mr. Williams answered it could be any of a variety of options as long as it was consistent with what the Manual on Traffic Control Devices indicates for that intersection. The type of light or how it would function has not yet been determined or designed. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how a determination was made regarding when a traffic signal was needed as there did not seem to be any problem now. Mr. Williams answered it is based on delay for the northbound movement. There are numerous cars in the queue there at certain times of the day trying to access SR 524. He agreed it currently met the LOS but the LOS was worsening. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked if the project could be removed now and put back in later. Mr. Williams answered yes but taking it out would require modifying several plans as well as removing the project from the calculation of Traffic Impact Fees (TIF) and reduces the fee collected. As a result when it was time to make this improvement, the City would not have collected any funds for it through TIF. Only approximately $30,000 of the cost of this project was calculated to be growth related. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked about putting this project back in two years. Mr. Williams answered the City would lose two years of collection of TIF for the project. He estimated the City collected a total of $300,000 in 2011 in TIF citywide, acknowledging little of that was for this project. 212`h at 84th (5 Corners) Intersection Improvements (Roundabout) Mr. Williams provided a conceptual drawing of the roundabout. He explained the roundabout will: • Dramatically reduce traffic congestion (+90 %) • Reduce air pollution • Reduce accidents • Improve aesthetics • Facilitate future development by eliminating LOS deficiency • 86.5% funded by federal grant (CMAQ) and 13.5% local TIF. No impact to City's General Fund. He described existing conditions: • Stop - controlled intersection for all five approaches • 1,700 vehicles go through intersection during PM Peak Hour. Approx.5,600,000 vehicles per year • Identified as concurrency project in the 1995, 2002, and 2009 Transportation Plan and LOS F • This roundabout was also identified in the City's TIP approved each year for the last nine years by Council after a public hearing. • The project has been included each year since 2004 (8 years) in the City's CFP and CIP and City budget document. Each time it has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission Mr. Williams recognized: • Drivers are generally opposed to roundabouts when first suggested • Most opposition is from a lack of experience driving modern roundabouts • Roundabouts are broadly accepted after construction and acceptance tends to increase over time • Some equate roundabouts to east coast rotaries or traffic calming circles Mr. Williams provided a graph illustrating only 31% of people surveyed favor a roundabout when first proposed and 41% strongly oppose it. After the roundabout is built, the numbers change to 63% in favor and only 15% strongly opposed. In the State of Washington 205 roundabouts have been built since 1997 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2011 Page 9 and over 3,000 nationwide. He provided feedback from Gig Harbor, Sammamish, and Woodinville regarding initial opposition to roundabouts and support of roundabouts since their installation. He provided a photograph of a multi -lane, 6- legged asymmetrical roundabout in Gig Harbor, noting that was about as complicated as a roundabout gets; Gig Harbor has had great success with it. He recognized there was a certain amount of angst from residents about changing Five Corners to a roundabout, and he assured the learning curve would not be as steep as many suspect. Mr. Williams summarized reasons for a roundabout at Five Corners: • Congestion relief • Air quality improvement • Accident reduction. • Restore acceptable LOS • Other reasons • Facilitate future development • Stormwater quality /quantity improvements • Financial prudence Student Representative Springer asked whether the proposed roundabout was double lane or single lane. Mr. Williams answered it was a single lane. Mr. Williams provided a projected intersection delay comparison: Mr. Williams provided the following facts with regard to air quality: • Reduces vehicle delay by 145,400 hours /year • Cost savings to citizens of $2.54 million/year • 92,880 gallon /year fuel savings • 80,168 lbs. carbon reduction, carbon footprint reduced by 40 tons • 2,500 lbs. NOx reduction • 4,000 lbs. hydro carbon reduction Mr. Williams commented on the accident history at the intersection noting there were eight accidents in the past three years, four of which were fairly serious. He displayed a drawing of the current intersection and identified potential vehicle and vehicles /pedestrians conflict points. He displayed a drawing of the conflict points in a roundabout, pointing out there are fewer potential conflict points and they are in more predictable locations. Mr. Williams explained for all the reasons mentioned, a roundabout is a much safer alternative than the current intersection or a traffic signal. He provided a graph regarding collision reduction in roundabouts, relaying a 37% reduction in overall collisions, 75% reduction in injury collisions, 90% reduction in fatality collisions and 40% reduction in pedestrian collisions. With regard to aesthetics, Mr. Williams displayed a photograph of a large utility pole, explaining the pole will be relocated as part of the project and it is hoped the utilities can be undergrounded as part of the project. He displayed a rendering of the roundabout, commenting it is a major aesthetic improvement over the existing intersection. He displayed photographs and renderings of the existing and proposed conditions. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2011 Page 10 Existing Conditions Traffic Signal Roundabout 2009 115 seconds (LOS F) 50 seconds (LOS D) 10 seconds (LOS A) 2015 172 seconds (LOS F) 61 seconds (LOS E) 17 seconds (LOS B) 2025 204 seconds (LOS F) 171 seconds (LOS F) 42 seconds (LOS B) Meets required service level No No Yes Mr. Williams provided the following facts with regard to air quality: • Reduces vehicle delay by 145,400 hours /year • Cost savings to citizens of $2.54 million/year • 92,880 gallon /year fuel savings • 80,168 lbs. carbon reduction, carbon footprint reduced by 40 tons • 2,500 lbs. NOx reduction • 4,000 lbs. hydro carbon reduction Mr. Williams commented on the accident history at the intersection noting there were eight accidents in the past three years, four of which were fairly serious. He displayed a drawing of the current intersection and identified potential vehicle and vehicles /pedestrians conflict points. He displayed a drawing of the conflict points in a roundabout, pointing out there are fewer potential conflict points and they are in more predictable locations. Mr. Williams explained for all the reasons mentioned, a roundabout is a much safer alternative than the current intersection or a traffic signal. He provided a graph regarding collision reduction in roundabouts, relaying a 37% reduction in overall collisions, 75% reduction in injury collisions, 90% reduction in fatality collisions and 40% reduction in pedestrian collisions. With regard to aesthetics, Mr. Williams displayed a photograph of a large utility pole, explaining the pole will be relocated as part of the project and it is hoped the utilities can be undergrounded as part of the project. He displayed a rendering of the roundabout, commenting it is a major aesthetic improvement over the existing intersection. He displayed photographs and renderings of the existing and proposed conditions. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2011 Page 10 With regard to business impacts, Mr. Williams explained: • No business relocation is required • No changes in access are required • Business visibility is unchanged • Parking impacts: 1 or fewer stalls per parcel effected • 2 -3 signs relocated or replaced • Access improved • Redevelopment potential realized by improved LOS Mr. Williams explained letters of support have been provided from property owners on four of the five corners at the intersection. With regard to the statement that trucks cannot use roundabouts, Mr. Williams displayed a drawing illustrating the path of a semi - tractor trailer making a left turn. He also noted the following: • Splitter islands designed for trucks • Central island includes truck apron • Current intersection design does not accommodate trucks for all movements • 212`h and 84`" are designated truck haul routes • Buses and emergency vehicles require less space than this vehicle Mr. Williams summarized the benefits of a roundabout: • Traffic flow improved by 90% • Eliminates concurrency failure • Opportunity to create a gateway into Edmonds • Underground utilities • Air quality noticeably improved • Non - motorized transportation improved • Bike lanes • Flashing pedestrian beacons • Reduction in crossing distance with sputter islands • Drainage improvements • Encourages future development • Grant funded (86.5% federal grant and 13.5 local TIF) Councilmember Plunkett disclosed he lives at Five Corners. For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Williams advised there are no stop signs proposed in the roundabout. Councilmember Wilson observed the level of service for this intersection in the 1995, 2002 and 2009 Transportation Plans was LOS F. He asked if a building permit had ever been declined due to concurrency issues related to LOS. Mr. Williams answered no. The intersection was identified as a problem in the 1995 Plan due to its failed LOS but no specific solution was recommended. The roundabout was included as the solution in the 2002 and 2009 Plans. He pointed out the intersection had a failed LOS in all three plans but has been getting worse; only a 50 second delay is required for failure. Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Swan Seaberg, Edmonds, who lives close to Five Corners, recognized the intersection as one of the biggest hassles there is. He described driving 4 -lane highway roundabouts in Sweden where traffic barely slows. He acknowledged some people are initially shocked by a roundabout but will catch on quick. He concluded roundabouts work well, the money will be well spent, and it will be a long term gain to the community. He supported the roundabout. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2011 Page 11 Lila McDonald, Edmonds, a resident three blocks from Five Corners, remarked she had never seen an accident or near accident at that intersection; drivers are respectful. She disagreed with the traffic data, commenting she seldom waits more than two cars to go through the intersection. There is only a line of cars between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. She opposed the roundabout. Noel Miller, Seattle, former Edmonds Public Works Director, expressed support for both projects. When he came to Edmonds in 1988 as a project engineer, he managed the project to improve 212`" from Five Corners to the high school. At that time engineering was beginning to discuss a roundabout for Five Corners. He estimated he made approximately 20,000 trips through the intersection during his 22 years at the City, traveling from Public Works to downtown. He recalled many instances when drivers were unsure whose turn it was to proceed which resulted in traffic conflicts and delays. Installing a roundabout would greatly reduce those situations, smooth traffic flow and increase traffic capacity of the intersection. Renate Haberpointner, Edmonds, a resident near Five Corners, agreed the proposed roundabout looked very nice aesthetically but she did not feel there was a need for it at this time. She pointed out traffic volumes on the approaches to Five Corners were not equal. In her opinion the flashing red light made drivers stop before proceeding with caution, observing common right -of -way rules. Edmonds drivers are courteous and visitors from Europe often question how an all -way stop intersection was possible. She suggested discourteous drivers at the intersection could provide revenue for the City if police enforcement were increased. She concluded there were no cars at the Five Corners intersection recently at 7:30 a.m. Port Townsend found their roundabout caused more accidents due to older drivers' hesitation. Doug Peterson, Edmonds, did not support the roundabout at this time. As a business owner in Woodinville, he understood the need for the roundabouts in Woodinville due to the amount of tourists visiting the wineries but that is not the case at Five Corners. Bruce Faires, Edmonds, commented on the connection between potential redevelopment and the roundabout. As a member of the Transportation Committee for two years he learned there is technology and processes associated with the measurement of traffic and the timing of improvements. He concluded Five Corners would be well served by redevelopment which must include a roundabout. The reasons include: traffic technology determines the current condition is at failure; under GMA further development at Five Corners is curtailed unless traffic improvements are made; without a roundabout a 5- legged traffic signal will be required at a cost of $1.5 million; design and acquisition are 85% funded by a federal grant; funds for construction would also come from grants; nothing will be done without further grants; and it may cost the City over $1 million to stop the project. He expressed support for the roundabout, pointing out the importance of gateway entrances to the City. Ken Hicks, Edmonds, stated he is conditionally opposed to the roundabout. As an engineer he is aware that transportation is a system and all intersections have factors that affect their operation, the physical configuration and the users. His primary concern was the users of a roundabout were faced with a new set of rules in an environment that did not support a roundabout. He was confident Edmonds residents could manage the roundabout but was concerned with visitors navigating the roundabout. He also feared there would be unintended consequences if the roundabout was effective and changed traffic patterns at other intersections. Keith Porter, Edmonds, commented he travels Five Corners 2 -8 /times /day, playing the whose turn is it now game. He opposed the roundabout in its present form and urged the Council to consider other options. He read the definition of a roundabout and how to drive in a roundabout from the Washington Driver's License Guide. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2011 Page 12 Darlene Stern, Edmonds, pointed out the Five Corners intersection fails GMA; any future development at Five Corners or between Five Corners and Highway 99 could not be approved if it increased traffic at the intersection. The roundabout was reviewed and selected by the Federal Highway Administration as a good investment of federal dollars because of its potential to significantly improve air quality and congestion. The Council previously committed to the project and has devoted resources of employee time and taxpayers dollars. She did not want this to be a project where the City went through the exercise and expense of addressing improvements and then shelves it. It will cost more to stop the project than to complete this phase as federal funds that have been spent would need to be reimbursed. With the talk in the community about becoming greener, she questioned the hesitancy to take advantage of this opportunity to spend a small amount of local dollars to improve air quality. She concluded the project would keep the City in compliance with GMA, improve air quality, and provide opportunity for the Five Corners area to engage in a long needed upgrade in appearance and development potential. She encouraged the City to complete the project. Jerry Barr, Edmonds, commented he has traveled through Five Corners hundreds of times; his experience differs from the data presented. With regard to grant funds for the roundabout, he pointed out the grants are taxpayer dollars. He concluded the roundabout is a very expensive solution in search of a problem and he did not think it would be money well spent. Eric Anderson, Seattle, a property owner at Five Corners since 1998, commented he initially had reservations regarding the roundabout and likely will continue to have concerns until a final decision is made on the project. His primary concern was that traffic flow through the intersection not interfere with customers entering and exiting businesses at Five Corners. His next concern was that the City did not think much about Five Corners and concentrated its efforts on the bowl. He supported aesthetic improvements at Five Corners to encourage people to shop there such as undergrounding utilities, widening sidewalks, improving pedestrian crossing, etc. He was concerned that a construction project would affect his tenants. He agreed the roundabouts in Europe were not scary to drive and drivers learn to go with the flow. He did not plan to oppose the project until he had an opportunity to see the final plans. Hank Landau, Edmonds, representing the Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group, described their bicycle training program in the Edmonds School District. He explained the success of a roundabout is highly dependent on traffic speeds and volumes, the level of education and enforcement, and alternatives the roundabout is compared to. For example roundabouts or traffic circles in residential communities can significantly reduce risk compared to unregulated intersections; however, enforcement is important to ensure motorists do not cut corners. Roundabouts with multi -lane or high speed traffic can be very unsafe for bicyclists. He relayed their members are generally supportive of the proposed Five Corners roundabout even though there may be some additional risk to bicyclists if risks are not mitigated. Members are also motorists and concerned about the environment and want to see the benefits Mr. Williams described as a result of the roundabout. He suggested the following mitigation measures: 1) speeds properly controlled by traffic calming to ensure a 15 -20 mph speed, 2) education for motorists and bicyclists, and 3) enforcement for motorists and bicycles. Dave Page, Edmonds, commented most people who voted on the My Edmonds News poll regarding the roundabout did so using the information provided by the City: the current 115 second average wait that will increase to 172 seconds by 2025, the 142,400 hours /year in delay for citizens and $93,000 /year fuel expenditure. He conducted his own observations on 10 consecutive weekdays at different times including 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. and 4:00, 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. The longest delay he experienced during any of those times was 57 seconds; the average time was 15 seconds. He urged the Council to delay the project and conduct their own observation of the Five Corners intersection to verify the data. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, commented the disparity between those who support and oppose the roundabout is due to each side having a different assessment of the intersection's LOS. The bureaucrats Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2011 Page 13 and some others say the intersection has a failed LOS; most motorists state they navigate the intersection in an acceptable amount of time. The bureaucrats state a roundabout will significantly improve the quality of the surrounding area. Walking in the area, he has never experienced any problem with air quality. Constructing a roundabout is not a current need. Pursuing projects that may be required in the future is spending money the country simply cannot afford at this time. Grants are taxpayers' money and the country often does not have money for essential projects. He recommended bringing the roundabout project to a halt at this time and urging all communities not to seek grant funds for unessential projects. Taxpayers need to stop state and federal governments from giving away money that should be directed toward higher priorities or not spent at all. Chaz Verrall, Edmonds, expressed support for the roundabout. His informal survey of commercial drivers who service his business found that approximately 85% are in favor of a roundabout. He observed Five Corners is a crazy intersection at times. Tom King, Edmonds, expressed support for the Five Corners roundabout. He pointed out numerous City vehicles go through the Five Corners intersection daily. The roundabout could provide the City significant savings in fuel costs and employee hours. Johnny Lewis, Edmonds, commented there were at least two things wrong with this project, 1) financial: loss of jobs and taxes due to negative impacts on small businesses during construction, waste of public money, and money could be better spent regulating traffic signals on 2201h 76`h, 91", SR104 and Hwy. 99 as delays in those locations are much more significant, and 2) safety and practicality: during his 30 year experience using the intersection, delays have never caused him to be late or inconvenienced. Accidents occur due to distracted drivers not taking turns at the Five Corners intersection. He recommended canceling or delaying the project. Don Hall, Edmonds, commented the presentation made it difficult to say the roundabout was not the right thing to do. He did not support or oppose the roundabout due to the following concerns: 1) how are pedestrians or bicyclists safer with no stop signs particularly at night, and 2) if traffic goes 15 -20 mph, drivers will not see businesses; currently they see businesses when stopped. He concluded his primary concern was that the economic impact on businesses of traffic flows in the roundabout had not been adequately considered. Patrick Brady, Business Manager, Edmonds Lutheran Church, explained they lease property to the non - profit Center for Community Youth Jeremiah Center. In 2011 more than 600 individuals, most of them young people ages 20 and under came to the Jeremiah Center, most of them traveling on foot, skateboards and bicycle. The Jeremiah Center and Edmonds Lutheran are in favor of the roundabout project. Their property is the largest square footage at Five Corners and they feel the benefits to pedestrian traffic will be very significant. They support the redevelopment of Five Corners and recognize the use of Edmonds Lutheran property will change. The infrastructure the City provides will be the basis on which they can continue to serve the community. Dr. Linda Lyshell, Edmonds, a resident two blocks from Five Corners, found it a frustrating intersection and spoke in favor of the roundabout. Her primary concern is human health due to air quality. It has been shown repeatedly that roundabouts reduce pollutants in the atmosphere and enhance human health. Air pollutants from vehicles are known to cause cancer, and increase rates of asthma, heart attack and cardio pulmonary disease. She remarked more and more roundabouts are being constructed throughout the world and they will become quite common in this area. Chris Herman, Edmonds, agreed Five Corners was a messy intersection. He has driven numerous roundabouts and had never seen an accident or any significant problems. Drivers at Five Corners often do not know when to stop or go. Roundabouts work as evidenced by roundabouts in Europe. If the City does Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2011 Page 14 not utilize the grant money awarded for the roundabout, the federal funds will be spent elsewhere. He summarized the roundabout was needed to reduce pollution, enhance development, reduce congestion and reduce drivers' frustration and delay. He concluded the roundabout is a worthwhile project and the opportunity should be embraced without delay. Laura Spehar, Edmonds, commented the roundabout design is one of the smartest investments Edmonds can make in terms of mobility, safety, environmental and physical health. This is a chance for Edmonds to be a smart growth leader in Snohomish County. Studies show the use of stop signs and signals at intersections guarantee that cars will contribute CO2 into the atmosphere from idling engines as well as heavy metal particulates from vehicles' brakes, particles that are washed into storm drains and into Puget Sound. As a resident in areas with roundabouts, she found over time roundabouts are much appreciated by the community. Studies show that modern roundabouts are the safest form of intersections. This project is funded by a federal transportation grant, paying for 86.5% of the cost; the remainder is from locally generated transportation impact fees collected from new development. It is less expensive for the City to complete this phase of the project at Five Corners than to stop the project. Installing a 5- legged traffic signal at the Five Corners is estimated to cost $1.5 million plus $20,000 for annual maintenance. She concluded this was a very competitive grant. The transportation specialists that reviewed the grant determined the Five Corners roundabout was a great investment of federal dollars. She urged the City to move forward with the project. Coralee Beth Snow, Edmonds, commented she often walks to the Jeremiah Center. Her experience when crossing the street is many drivers do not know when to go and do not understand that pedestrians have the right -of -way. She has almost been hit numerous times when crossing the street at Five Corners. A roundabout with islands would be much safer for pedestrians. Students at Chase Lake Elementary also cross at this intersection and it is very unsafe for small children. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Petso reported she received two emails during the public hearing. 1. Mr. Buckhold, Edmonds, urged the Council not to waste money on the Five Corners roundabout. It works fine and will do so for some time in the future. When that time comes and the City has money to burn, it can be revisited. 2. Mr. and Mrs. Shaw voiced their opposition to the roundabout because there is no significant accident history at Five Corners and they have witnessed more accidents at the Bellingham roundabouts than the Five Corners intersection. They relayed their concerns about small businesses at Five Corners if people did not patronize them during construction. Mayor Earling referred to a packet of correspondence provided to the Council by the City Clerk from members of the public who supported and opposed the roundabout. Councilmember Bernheim inquired about the list of people who signed up pro and con for the roundabout. Mayor Earling advised the list contains 40 -45 names and will be part of the public record of the hearing. Councilmember Petso asked whether the 40 -45 people were generally opposed or supportive. Mayor Earling answered 26 were in support and 18 were opposed. Councilmember Buckshnis advised in the packet of correspondence, 19 were opposed and 23 were in support. Main Motion COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE 2012 -2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2011 Page 15 City Engineer Rob English explained on December 6, the Council approved the addition of the public market in the downtown waterfront area. He distributed revisions to the CIP and CFP that reflected that addition. Councilmember Plunkett commented he had voted against the CFP and CIP twice due to the roundabout. Amendment 1 COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ELIMINATE THE LIGHT AT 9TH & CASPERS. Councilmember Petso commented she initially would have supported this motion but tonight's presentation made it clear the light at 9`'' & Caspers did not need to be removed because it was not in the six year plan. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2 -5), COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY- MONILLAS AND PLUNKETT VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, BERNHEIM, PETSO AND WILSON VOTING NO. Amendment 2 COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO REMOVE THE ROUNDABOUT AT FIVE CORNERS. Councilmember Plunkett commented he liked a lot of things about Five Corners and would probably support it if it included stop signs. He did not feel the traffic flow in a roundabout in an area with businesses and residents would provide a safe situation. The only way he can currently access Main Street from his condominium development is because cars stop at the stop sign. He envisioned removing the stop signs would make the intersection more difficult and dangerous. He supported improvements at Five Corners but did not feel this was the best way to do it. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas did not support the amendment. She frequently drives roundabouts in Woodinville and Port Orchard. When driving through Five Corners nearly every night during rush hour, there are often 10 -15 cars waiting to cross the intersection. To those who spoke in favor of the roundabout, Councilmember Petso acknowledged they saw opportunity in the roundabout. She did not find sufficient public support for including the roundabout and wished a public hearing had been held earlier in the process. To Mr. Page, she explained she drove through the Five Corners intersection tonight at 5:30 p.m. and agreed it was an effortless event. Councilmember Buckshnis remarked she grew up in an area that had roundabouts and felt they improved the neighborhood, improved the aesthetics and made crossing safer for pedestrians and bicyclists. To those who were opposed, she assured it would improve the area tremendously. Businesses will see an increase because people will walk to and around the area. This phase is funded by a grant and the City has only spent $20,000 - $30,000 so far. Council President Peterson provided quotes from letters the Council received: • Transportation Director, Edmonds School District: "We believe the roundabout will improve pedestrian safety. This is critical as we have Chase Lake Elementary School nearby and that intersection is on the walking route." • Fire District 1: "The Fire District supports the improvements to vehicle flow at Five Corners where traffic commonly stalls. We see fire and emergency medical response times improved by the proposed modifications." Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2011 Page 16 Council President Peterson concluded he would not support the proposed amendment. Councilmember Wilson commented he has been on both sides of this issue. To the speaker Coralee Snow, he explained he changed his vote primarily due to her comments and reminding him about the children from Chase Lake Elementary and Jeremiah Center that cross that intersection. He did not support the amendment. Councilmember Bernheim explained his objective has been to encourage further discussion regarding the roundabout. Student Representative Springer commented his concern if the roundabout is not retained in the CFP is the Five Corners intersection already has a failing LOS. In order for development to occur in Five Corners, the intersection needs to be improved. More than 50% of the people support the roundabout. MOTION FAILED (2 -5), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND PETSO VOTING YES. Councilmember Petso asked the difference between Agenda Items 9 and 10. Mr. Taraday explained Item 9 is approval of the CIP and Item 10 is approval of the CFP Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Petso confirmed both include the public market. Mr. English agreed they did. Vote on Main Motion THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. City Engineer Rob English explained this ordinance amends the Comprehensive Plan to include the Capital Facilities Plan. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the aquatics center at Yost Park is the $16 million version or a Yost Pool improvement. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained the aquatics center in the CFP is the preferred option in the feasibility study, which is a complete aquatics center. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how it could be amended to be improvements to Yost Pool. Ms. Hite suggested leaving the aquatics center in the CFP this year and staff could bring together the committee that developed the plan to discuss amendments. Councilmember Bernheim commented his pet peeve project in the CFP is the $5 million art museum. He did not feel Edmonds needed an art museum and if $5 million was provided by a federal grant, he would still oppose it. He suggested engaging the arts community over the next year to discuss it. Hite assured there were no plans for an arts museum. (Councilmember Fraley- Monillas left the meeting at 10:00 p.m.) Councilmember Wilson concurred with the spirit of Councilmember Bernheim's comments. Many of the projects are included in the CFP, not because of great political support for them, but because there is no reason to oppose them and none of them will be funded in the next decade. He opposed the CFP last year and will oppose it again this year because it is not realistic. He concluded most of the projects with perhaps the exception of the senior center and the civic playfield acquisition are pie in the sky. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2011 Page 17 Councilmember Wilson commented he participated in the aquatics study which was done concurrent with the Lynnwood project. No one on the committee including staff felt it was realistic to propose the $16- $23 million project but none of them thought the Council would do anything so why not include the pie in the sky project. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3867, ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION CARRIED (5 -1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO. (Councilmember Fraley - Monillas was not present for the vote.) 19�3 111115104W K1 0Q11DINR Jenny Antilla, Edmonds, recalled the three proposed levies failed and the prior mayor said he had cut the City's budget to the bone. She questioned where the additional money will come from. One of the national trends in public and private sectors with regard to medical costs is for employees to pay more of their medical premiums. She recalled negotiations with one of the City's unions earlier this year to pay 10% or $47 for themselves and each dependent toward their premium. She suggested the Council consider having employees pay more toward their medical premiums. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. 12. NON REPRESENTED SALARY AND BENEFITS STUDY: SURVEY COMPARATORS Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained Matt Weatherly, Public Sector Personnel Consultants, made a presentation to the Council two weeks ago regarding suggested comparator cities for the salary survey as well as policy development for non - represented employees. At Council's direction, he developed four options for comparator cities: 1. Puget Sound Basin (recommended by consultant) • Cities within Snohomish, Pierce, King and Kitsap counties • Most competitive with Edmonds staff • No cost of living adjustment would be required • Would need to make adjustment for cities over 75,000 2. Cities already used in Union Negotiations (alternative to Recommendation) • Creates more consistency between unions and non - represented 3. Current " 4 Up, 4 Down" Model (not recommended) • Very limiting and includes many contract cities who are not comparable • Does not provide enough cities to match positions 4. Statewide Cities, 30,000 - 50,000 population, cost of living differentials (not recommended) • Very complex to administer Ms. Hite explained in an email conversation, Councilmember Petso proposed a fifth hybrid option for Council consideration: 5. Puget Sound area cities, 30,000 - 50,000 population, Snohomish, King, Pierce and Kitsap counties (Des Moines, Issaquah, University Place, Bothell, Lynnwood, Puyallup, Bremerton, Sammamish, Burien and Kirkland) plus Mt. Vernon, Lacey and Olympia • Cost of living adjustment would be necessary for Mt. Vernon which increases the complexity of the model. • Lacey and Olympic have similar cost of living but are outside the Puget Sound region. Ms. Hite relayed Councilmember Petso's recommendation for the consultant to also obtain information on Shoreline, SeaTac, Redmond, Mountlake Terrace, Snohomish County and King County. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2011 Page 18 Councilmember Petso explained her intent was an objective method of selecting comparator cities. She started with Puget Sound area cities 30,000 - 50,000 population and asked for information only for King and Snohomish counties and Shoreline, SeaTac, Redmond, and Mountlake Terrace in response to Councilmembers' interest in that information. She was interested in including Lacey and Olympia because they are comparable to Edmonds. Although Mt. Vernon is similar in size to Edmonds and in the Puget Sound area, she was agreeable to not including Mt. Vernon because their lower cost of living could bias the numbers or require an adjustment. Councilmember Petso clarified her suggested Option 5 was the cities Ms. Hite indicated plus Lacey and Olympia and information on Snohomish and King counties and Shoreline and Mountlake Terrace. Councilmember Bernheim agreed with including Lacey and Olympia as comparators. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO INCLUDE THE CITIES SHE PROPOSED IN THE CALCULATION AND THE FOUR INFORMATION CITIES /COUNTIES AND SUBMIT THEM TO THE CONSULTANT FOR HIS SALARY WORK. Ms. Hite asked whether the intent was to remove Mt. Vernon and include Lacey and Olympia. Councilmember Petso advised that was her intent. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Fraley - Monillas was not present for the vote.) 13. EXTENSION OF SUNSET DATE FOR CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Community Services /Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained in June 2009 the Council approved Ordinance No. 3735 establishing a 17- member Economic development Commission (EDC) and establishing a sunset date of December 31, 2010. In October 2010, the Council approved Ordinance No. 3808 extending the sunset date to December 31, 2011. At the November 2011 EDC meeting, it was the consensus of the commissioners that the sunset date should be extended at least 1 year and staff recommended an extension of up to 3 years. Staff recommended up to a 3 year extension, recognizing it takes time to establish economic benefits and baseline and lay the foundation for future development. Regarding the appointment of EDC members, staff recommends the City Council initiate a similar process used for selecting and appointing initial EDC members in 2009. Interested citizens would be invited to submit an application to the City. The applications would be forwarded to the City Council for their review and consideration. Each Councilmember would appoint two individuals to serve on the EDC and the Mayor would appoint three. In order to maintain some continuity and institutional memory within the EDC, staff recommends encouraging existing EDC members to apply for reappointment. Councilmember Plunkett commented the ordinance does not state that Councilmembers will make new appointments. Mr. Clifton explained that process is described in Ordinance No. 3735 that established the EDC. The proposed ordinance is to extend the sunset date. Councilmember Bernheim referred to Section 10.75.10 in the original ordinance that states the terms of Commissioners shall be 2 years. Mr. Clifton suggested appointments be staggered. Councilmember Bernheim supported turnover in the EDC. He was opposed to reappointing the current membership and extending their terms for three years. He preferred to have all members reapply and establish a maximum term of three years including time served. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2011 Page 19 Councilmember Buckshnis, Council representative on the EDC for the past two years, supported having existing commissioners reapply. She also supported an attendance policy as some of the 17 members have not attended meetings consistently. She remarked there is a lot of work being done by a few people. Councilmember Petso commented she has mixed feelings about the EDC. She recognized they are doing good work but preferred to limit the extension to one year. She supported an effort to better capitalize on volunteers so that there was less duplication. For example, the Planning Board already works on land use issues and the Community Technology Advisory Committee is working on fiber. She suggested the Council consider whether the correct structure was in place to utilize volunteers. Councilmember Plunkett commented he would not be able to vote on the extension of the EDC until he had further clarity regarding the structure. He recalled when the EDC was created, it was his understanding the commission would pursue economic development. Ordinance No. 3735 refers to development of a broad range and long term strategies. Chapter 10.75.030 refers to determining new strategies for economic development and identifying new sources of revenue for consideration for the City Council. He did not consider a proposal to enact a fee for 911 calls as economic development. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND SECTION 10.75.030(A)(2) TO READ, "IDENTIFYING NEW SOURCES OF REVENUE AS A DIRECT RESULT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. Mr. Clifton asked for clarification, advising there are all kinds of economic development initiatives, some are planning related, physical capital projects, etc. He clarified the 911 fee was presented to the EDC by one Commissioner. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the EDC unanimously endorsed that proposal. He preferred the EDC bring the Council ideas that are the result of economic development, not a standalone tax or fee. Mr. Clifton responded if the Council did not want the Commission to consider taxes or fees, the EDC could not consider a B &O tax, employee head tax, etc. which EDCs typically review. Councilmember Plunkett responded he was not interested in the EDC making a recommendation to increase /decrease taxes. It was his understanding the EDC would create economic development that increased the City's economic base. Councilmember Wilson agreed with Councilmember Plunkett. He recalled in 2009 the members of the Citizens Levy Review Committee supported a levy and an increase in economic development. The reason for having 17 members was so each Councilmember's voice was reflected and to capture volunteer interest. It was not his intent for the EDC to exist in perpetuity hence the sunset date and the limited extension. He recommended the Council set this aside, think about what they wanted from the EDC and staff and discuss it at the Council retreat. Council President Peterson agreed the EDC should not be spending their time considering 911 fees. He disagreed the EDC should not consider other government actions that directly affect businesses such as a B &O tax or head tax. He suggested the Council give direction to staff and the two Council liaisons. Councilmember Plunkett commented the intent of the EDC was to create new economic development, not to recommended taxes on businesses and certainly not 911 fees. Councilmember Petso agreed with Councilmember Wilson's suggestion to discuss the extension of the EDC at the Council retreat. She also had concerns with what constituted economic development. For example she was less interested in construction of residential units and more interested in business recruitment and retention. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2011 Page 20 Council President Peterson asked whether the EDC sunsets at the end of the year if the Council takes no action. Mr. Clifton answered yes. Council President Peterson agreed with discussing the EDC's mission at the Council retreat but did not want the EDC to sunset and then need to be restarted. Councilmember Petso suggested extending the sunset date for the EDC to February 28, 2012 with the understanding it would be discussed at the Council retreat. MOTION CARRIED (5 -1), COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM VOTING NO. (Councilmember Fraley - Monillas was not present for the vote.) COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3868, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF EDC 10.75.010(B) IN ORDER TO EXTEND A SUNSET DATE FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FOR AN ADDITIONAL THIRTY SIX (36) MONTHS. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. During a discussion regarding what motion/amendments were appropriate, City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the motion the Council approved was to amend Section 10.75.030. The recommended action is to approve the ordinance in the packet extending the sunset date. Mayor Earling suggested extending the EDC for 120 days. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3836, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF EDC 10.75.01.0(B) IN ORDER TO EXTEND A SUNSET DATE FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FOR AN ADDITIONAL THIRTY SIX (36) MONTHS. Amendment 1 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE SUNSET DATE FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION TO 120 DAYS. Amendment 2 COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND SECTION 10.75.010(B) SO THAT THE DATE OF COMMISSIONERS' TERMS PARALLEL THE 120 DAYS. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Fraley - Monillas was not present for the vote.) It was the consensus of the Council to retain the existing Commissioners for the 120 extension. Vote on Amendment 1. AMENDMENT CARRIED (5 -1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO. (Councilmember Fraley - Monillas was not present for the vote.) Vote on Main Motion. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (5 -1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO. (Councilmember Fraley - Monillas was not present for the vote.) 14. TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP — SEEKING CITY OF EDMONDS SUPPORT. Public Works Director Phil Williams recalled one of the key items in the City's 2012 Legislative Agenda was developing a thoughtful transportation package. The Transportation Partnership is a coalition of 75 organizations including labor groups, environmental groups, businesses, Chambers of Commerce, transportation organizations, and local governments. This would add Edmonds to the list of local governments working individually as well as collectively with the coalition. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2011 Page 21 Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her support. 1111111 1. 10 IN I AN 1 1 1 Wei 4111y W , I'm I R.1110 Wei / Lei ON 1 / / ell I 1 Councilmember Wilson expressed his opposition, commenting although it was a great package, it was a misplaced priority for the State. The priority should be education, higher education, and health care and there should not be multiple items on the ballot. This is the formational organization to support the campaign that will occur. Support for this organization is implicit support for the campaign as it moves forward in the legislative session as well as on the ballot this fall. By attaching its name to this effort, Edmonds is stating this is the top revenue priority for the State which he did not believe was appropriate. Mr. Williams responded this also gives the City an opportunity to assist with designing a transportation package. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her support for education, noting there are many important priorities and this is one of them. MOTION CARRIED (5 -1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO. (Councilmember Fraley - Monillas was not present for the vote.) 15. REPORT ON FINAL PROJECT COSTS FOR 1025 12TH AVE N STORM SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. City Engineer Rob English reported this was a successful project that corrected a problem dating back to the 1960s, a 12 -inch storm line located beneath the Sheldon's house. How the house was built over the storm line in the 1960s is unclear but it resulted in erosion on the hillside as more stormwater was directed to the system. This project was included in the Capital Improvement Program and completed this year. The property owner, Ms. Sheldon, attended a Community Services/Development Services Committee meeting earlier this year expressing her support for the project. Her letter of thanks is included in the Council packet. He thanked Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry Schuster and Project Manager Pam Lemcke for their efforts. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO ACCEPT THE FINAL PROJECT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Fraley - Monillas was not present for the vote.) 16. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 13, 2011. Finance Committee Councilmember Petso reported the Committee discussed the COLA for non - represented staff and confirmed COLAs could be awarded retroactively after the salary study is complete. Staff provided a General Fund update for October 2011 that displays fund balance rather than working capital. The Committee is also working on a Reserve Policy to determine appropriate reserve levels. Community Services/Development Services Committee Councilmember Plunkett reported all the items discussed by the Committee were approved on the Consent Agenda except outdoor dining which will be presented to the Council in the near future. Public Safety Committee Councilmember Bernheim reported the Committee discussed an extension of a DNA testing contract and the governor's proposed petition to the DEA requesting that cannabis for medical use be reclassified from a schedule I drug to a schedule II drug for medical use. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2011 Page 22 17. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling thanked Councilmembers Bernheim and Wilson for their service, recognizing the amount of time both devoted to the position. Mayor Earling reported he has been invited to a gathering of mayors to discuss transportation issues. 18. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Wilson commented it had been a tremendous honor to serve the citizens of Edmonds, serve with this Council and serve with staff. He thanked several staff members including Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman, Police Chief Al Compaan, Public Works Director Phil Williams, Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry Schuster, Planning Manager Rob Chave, and Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite. Councilmember Wilson pointed out democracy is a fragile thing; public service is important and comes in many ways. When citizens vote they commit a public service but the word voter is not considered a bad word. When citizens serve on jury duty, they do not think being a juror is a bad thing. When a citizen serves as an elected official, the term politician is a bad word. Councilmember Wilson emphasized being a politician is not a bad thing; he has been honored to be a member of a Council constituted by regular folks doing the best they can. He acknowledged their best sometimes is not good enough but it will always be better by citizens being engaged and involved. He urged the public not to assume the worst of politicians; they were doing the best they can. He wished everyone the best in the future. Councilmember Petso thanked Councilmembers Wilson and Bernheim for their service and requested both stay involved. She reported the Public Facilities District will bring term limit changes to the Council along with a change in the PFD Board's meeting date and time. Councilmember Petso reported the Regional Fire Authority (RFA) has scheduled an action item regarding the financing plan for the December 21 Finance Committee meeting, a plan that neither the Council nor she has seen. Finance Director Shawn Hunstock will accompany her to the meeting. The RFA process is entering the phase where jurisdictions will begin manipulations to their jurisdiction's best advantage. She was disappointed to see that phase arrive as she has enjoyed the cooperative efforts. The Council will also begin to receive presentations and information. Councilmember Plunkett thanked Councilmembers Bernheim and Wilson for their service. Council President Peterson thanked Councilmembers Wilson and Bernheim for their service, commenting they have helped move Edmonds forward on an environmental and global level and they have been engaged with citizens as well as local and regional elected officials. He wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Councilmembers Wilson and Bernheim for their service. She thanked everyone who donated to gift giving trees, reporting they were able to fulfill over 357 gifts. Councilmember Bernheim encouraged the Council to maintain the tradition of rotating the Council President on the basis of seniority, finding that helped to depoliticize the process. He thanked several City employees including Community Services /Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton and City Clerk Sandy Chase, commenting both work extremely hard at very difficult jobs and their work product is very competent and at a high level. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2011 Page 23 Councilmember Bernheim expressed his confidence in the future City Council and looked forward to Council activities in the coming year. He cited the importance of the Council's decision - making process; if the process is just and fair, everyone can live with the results even if some mistakes are made along the way. He thanked citizens Finis Tupper, John Reed, Betty Mueller and Roger Hertrich for their assistance over the past four years. He concluded serving on the Council had been a great experience. 19. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:14 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2011 Page 24