Loading...
04/06/2010 City CouncilApril 6, 2010 At 6:00 p.m., Mayor Haakenson announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding negotiations for the purchase of real estate. He stated the executive session was scheduled to last approximately one hour and would be held in the Jury Meeting 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 Haakenson, and Councilmembers Bernheim, Plunkett, Fraley - Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson and Wilson. Others present were City Attorney Scott Snyder, Community Services /Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 6:57 p.m. The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor Steve Berrheim, Council President D. J. Wilson, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley- Monillas, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Dave Orvis, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Graham Marmion, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services /Economic Development Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Rob English, City Engineer Leonard Yarberry, Building Official Steve Fisher, Recycling Coordinator Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder Mayor Haakenson relayed the following changes to the agenda: • Move Consent Agenda Item 2K to Agenda Item 5B Move Agenda Item 12 to Agenda Item 5C Add a Presentation on Downtown Redevelopment by Councilmember Wilson as Agenda Item 5D. COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Plunkett requested Item J be removed from the Consent Agenda. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 6, 2010 Page 1 COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 201.0. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #117851 THROUGH #118007 DATED MARCH 25, 2010 FOR $878,424.05, AND #118008 THROUGH #118162 DATED APRIL 1, 2010 FOR $465,748.70. D. ACCEPTANCE OF LIST OF BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, MARCH 2010. E. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A STATE OF WASHINGTON HERITAGE CAPITAL PROJECT FUND (HCPF) GRANT AGREEMENT TO RESTORE THE EDMONDS MUSEUM EXTERIOR. F. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY HOTEL /MOTEL FUND GRANT OF $1,885 FOR PROMOTION OF THE ARTS COMMISSION WRITE ON THE SOUND 2010 CONFERENCE. G. AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE WATERFOWL (CANADA GOOSE) MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. H. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY SENIOR CENTER (SCSC) MAIN ENTRY REPAIRS PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT. I. AUTHORIZATION TO SURPLUS A CITY VEHICLE AND TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES G. MURPHY AUCTIONEERS. L. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF PATRIOTS DAY, APRIL 19, 2010. ITEM J: RESOLUTION NO. 1227 — URGING THE WASHINGTON STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ABANDON HIS LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT ENACTED INTO LAW ON MARCH 23, 2010. Councilmember Plunkett pulled this item as he did not support the resolution. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM J. Councilmember Peterson commented this was not a discussion regarding healthcare but the use of state funds. He relayed that few people felt there was merit to this lawsuit and that it was a waste of state funds. Councilmember Plunkett advised state funds associated with the lawsuit were negligible as other states were pursuing the lawsuit. The Washington State Attorney General was not providing a friendly brief, only consultation and no state funds being expended. MOTION CARRIED (5 -1), COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT VOTING NO. Staff Introduction Mayor Haakenson introduced Leonard Yarberry, the City's new Building Official. Mr. Yarberry briefly described his background. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 6, 2010 Page 2 3. SNOHOMISH COUNTY TOURISM BUREAU ANNUAL REPORT Amy Spain, Snohomish County Tourism Bureau, provided statistics regarding tourism in Snohomish County including a nearly 6% growth in tourism in 2008 (2009 figures not yet available) for a total economic impact of $911.6 million. She described the impacts of tourism in Snohomish County on transportation/fuel, restaurants, retail sales, recreation and entertainment as well as employment and local and state taxes. She noted Snohomish County Tourism Bureau (SCTB) is the least funded tourism organization in the State and Washington State Tourism is one of the least funded in the nation. The State Tourism Office is in jeopardy of losing its funding. She relayed in 2009 there had been a 62% increase in responses to ads and over 430,000 visits to their websites, a 31% increase over the previous year. Visitor Centers the SCTB manages experienced a 3% increase in visitors served in 2009 compared to a 3% decrease countywide. SCTB achieved over $200,000 in free media coverage as a result of their public relations efforts. The off season discount lodging program advertised to the Canadian market, Rooms at Par, decreased by over 50 %. Convention sales decreased approximately 20% and hotel occupancy was down 8.1% for 2009 along with hotel /motel lodging taxes. Trade shows that Bureau staff attended in 2009 generated over 600 leads, included distribution of over 3600 Visitor Guide and Bureau staff provided assistance to 26 groups with their conference needs. She described unsuccessful efforts to host Olympic teams. She commented on the Snohomish County Tourism Promotion area; the Snohomish County Council recently adopted a resolution to continue that process. Ms. Spain reported on tourism development for individual leisure travel, describing advertising marketed to various publications that generated over 15,000 requests for information, up 62% over the previous year, and over 11,000 hits to their Rooms at Par and Your Great Escape websites. She described media buys in various publications identified to reach the demographic and geographic of their target audience. She provided their primary website, www.snoholnish.or -y, www.snohomishcount wewddin s.com, a website directed to the wedding market, www.RoomsatPar.com directed at the Canadian market and www.YourGreatEscapes. She provided a comparison of website visits in 2007, 2008, and 2009 that illustrate a nearly 100% increase in that three year period. SCTB recently developed a mobi site for handheld devices and Facebook pages for Snohomish.org, the Snohomish County Sports Commission and the Snohomish County weddings websites. She commented on distribution of the annual Visitor Guide, seasonal calendars, and new guides for 2009: Arts, Cultural and Heritage and Tribal attractions in Snohomish County, and a hiking guide. She described public relation and media efforts; publication of StoryLine, a bimonthly media newsletter distributed to travel writers; volunteer hours and services provided at four Visitor Centers; donations from area businesses; and education provided to the tourism community. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if statistics were available for the first quarter of 2010. Ms. Spain answered unfortunately there continued to be a decline in occupancy and revenue. February figures reflected an increase in King County, a slight decrease in Pierce County and a significant decrease, nearly 10 %, in Snohomish County. She referenced information provided to the Council that anticipated a 1 -3% decline in occupancy in 2010 nationwide. A recent presentation from the King County Tourism Bureau and the Vice President of Operations for Starwood Hotels International that also projected a 1 -3% decline in 2010. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 6, 2010 Page 3 4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED TITLE 18 AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW USE OF CITY RIGHT -OF -WAY FOR BISTRO AND OUTDOOR DINING AND PLACEMENT OF ART IN CITY RIGHT- OF-WAY. City Engineer Rob English explained at the conclusion of the March 16 Council meeting, staff met with Councilmembers Wilson and Peterson and developed several changes to the ordinance and administrative policies based on Council input and feedback provided at the public hearing. He summarized the proposed changes: 1. Removed the 11:00 p.m. restriction. Tables, chairs, etc. can remain in the right -of -way until the close of business. 2. The right -of -way use fee was reduced to $0.50 /square foot per month (plus 12.84% leasehold excise tax) for exclusive outdoor dining. The original right -of -way use fee was based on the fee charged the vendor at the ferry holding lanes; this was reduced as it was felt the vendor at the ferry holding lanes did not pay property taxes that businesses downtown do. 3. An applicant requesting to place art work in the right -of -way will not be required to provide documentation showing property ownership adjacent to the City right -of -way as there may not be an adjoining property owner associated with the art work. 4. Minor revisions to the term art work and submittal requirements for the Edmonds Art Commission. 5. Revised the administrative policy to require sketches rather than a scaled plan. 6. The clear zone for pedestrian passage around tables and chairs can be reduced to 4 feet in front of obstacles (street trees, signs, street lights, etc). 7. The area in front of businesses where general encroachments can be placed without having to be moved was increased from 24- inches to 36- inches. Staff developed one additional change and proposed it be included in the final ordinance: art work in the right -of -way would be exempted from the current requirement to record an encroachment permit at Snohomish County. Council President Bernheim recalled at the March 16 meeting he inquired whether revisions could be made to the regulations to allow the use of a parking space to widen the area available to a restaurant beyond the sidewalk. He asked if any changes were made to address that issue. Mr. English answered there were not. Councilmember Peterson commented at the meeting Councilmember Wilson and he had with staff, it was decided that was out of the scope of the immediate interest in getting outdoor seating in place for the upcoming summer season but could be a future topic of discussion. He thanked Mr. English, Mr. Clifton and Ms. Chapin for their assistance in developing the revisions. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to the revision that would allow tables and chairs to remain in the right - of -way until the close of business, pointing out during a special event, businesses may not be open. He suggested the regulations address circumstances that may occur as part of a special event. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, relayed the owner of the restaurant that had outdoor dining area last year was unhappy that no one from the City contacted him to solicit his input. Next, Mr. Hertrich inquired whether the ordinance allows tables and chairs to remain in the right -of -way until the close of business or 11:00 p.m., whichever was earlier. He recommended the ordinance allow tables and chairs to remain in the right -of -way until the close of business. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 6, 2010 Page 4 In response to Mr. Rutledge, City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the City typically addressed special events via individual contracts with the organization such as the Arts Festival, Hot Autumn Nites, the Summer Market, etc. In response to Mr. Hertrich's comment, Mr. English explained the 11:00 p.m. restriction was removed and items could remain in the right -of -way until the close of business. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO DIRECT STAFF TO SCHEDULE THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND FEE RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION ON THE APRIL 20, 2010 CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5A. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE TITLE 18, PROCEDURES. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained this was the second time this had been presented to the Council and the ordinance had been reviewed line -by -line by the Community Services /Development Services Committee. The packet includes a comparison of the existing code and the proposed code as well as a matrix of the changes. Staff reviewed the entire ordinance in an effort to provide clear reference to appeal procedures in each section. Their effort was based on two premises: 1) these are engineering permits that are not discretionary and appeal from those permits is generally to the Hearing Examiner, and 2) rights were not expanded except in the area of a variance /waiver of street grade to allow a steeper street grade where notification to properties within 300 feet of the proposed grade change was added. The code previously contained a very nominal fee for an illegal hookup to the City's sewer system; this penalty was increased significantly. Mr. Snyder emphasized the appeal procedures in Title 18 will control unless the engineering requirement is part of a larger application such as a subdivision, PRD or other development application. In that case, the appeal would be part of that packaged review. The appeal procedures in Title 18 apply if a request is a standalone and not part of a larger application. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to visibility blockage in Section 18.85.060 regarding an owner who fails to prune to prevent visibility blockage. He questioned whose visibility this referred to and who would be penalized. Next, he agreed with increasing the penalties for illegal tree cutting and inquired about the amount charged for the illegal tree removal on the Pt. Edwards site versus the amount that would be charged under the proposed ordinance. He suggested the code specifically address illegal tree removal in a critical area, recalling tree removal on the Pt. Edwards site was not only in a critical area but also removed a wildlife corridor. Lora Petso, Edmonds, was hopeful the code was written in a manner so that when a PRD or a project was proposed, the requirements could be enforced. For example, in a recently proposed PRD adjacent to a neighborhood with underground wiring, she made an effort to ensure the PRD also had underground wiring. This effort failed at the Hearing Examiner but succeeded at Superior Court. In her experience, a PRD application was often approved and then the applicant requested a variance to the underground wiring requirement which was granted separate from the PFD application with no public notice. She urged the City to write the ordinance so that the public was notified if an applicant requested a variance at a later date. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to a case currently under review by the Hearing Examiner in which the Hearing Examiner asked for an extension of the 10 day period in which she issues a decision. That case involves land clearing and tree removal. He anticipated the case would be appealed to the City Council. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 6, 2010 Page 5 Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. In response to Mr. Hertrich's question about visibility blockage, Mr. Snyder explained the proposed revisions address where in the code penalties can be found. Visibility blockage is defined elsewhere in the code; visibility blockage refers to impediments to the view of the public as it travels on public or private easements. The Community Services /Development Services Committee recommended an increase in the penalty for an illegal sewer connection fee. The Committee also discussed whether the penalty for illegal tree cutting was adequate, currently $1000 /day and $500 /tree and tripled to $3000 /day or $1500 /tree for clearing in a critical area. Recent discussions of tree value in Native Growth Protection Easements indicated those penalties are somewhat low. An upcoming Council agenda will include a discussion regarding trees in general and the Committee felt it would be appropriate to discuss tree value and whether to raise the penalty at that time. The revisions to Title 18 were intended to provide clear appeal references and not make substantive changes. Council President Bernheim advised that discussion was scheduled for the May Community Services /Development Services Committee meeting. With regard to Ms. Petso's comment, a variance in a subdivision or PRD from the City's requirements should be considered as a waiver in that process. The process in Title 18 is intended to be applicable only to undergrounding requirement for individual homes and the extension of existing systems rather than new subdivisions. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3788. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved is as follows: COORDINATING THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE 18 AND TITLE 20 BY AMENDING ECDC SECTION 18.00.020(C); AMENDING 18.10.010 SEWER CONNECTIONS, SECTION E HEARING; AMENDING 18.10.030 UNLAWFUL CONNECTIONS; AMENDING 18.30.065 EXCEPTIONS TO MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING 18.30.080 ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS, (C) CIVIL PENALTY; AMENDING 18.30.130(C); AMENDING 18.40.120 PROHIBITED ROCKERIES, BY AMENDING SECTIONS (B) AND (C) AND ADDING A NEW SECTION (D); AMENDING SECTION 18.45.070 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES; AMENDING CHAPTER 18.60 BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 18.60.050 DECISION AND APPEAL; AMENDING SECTION 18.70.030 (D) APPEAL; AMENDING SECTION 18.80.060 DRIVEWAY AND CURB CUT REQUIREMENTS, BY AMENDING SECTION (D) AND ADDING A NEW SECTION (E) APPEALS; SECTION 18.80.070 STREET SLOPE REQUIREMENTS; SECTION 18.85.060 VISIBILITY BLOCKAGE, (B) ENFORCEMENT; SECTION 18.95.030 TO ADD A NEW SUBSECTION (C), AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE 5B. INTERIM ORDINANCE AMENDING PROVISIONS OF TITLE 20 ECDC RELATING TO PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS TO ALLOW CLOSED RECORD ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF PRELIMINARY PRD DECISIONS AND TO ELIMINATE OVERLAP OF PERIMETER BUFFERS AND SETBACKS FOR EXTERIOR LOT LINES (Formerly Consent Agenda Item 2K) Council President Bernheim explained there were two issues proposed by this ordinance, 1) returning the appeal of a PRD to the City Council, making it a type III -B application rather that the current III -A where appeals are to the Hearing Examiner, and 2) clarifying the language so that PRD perimeter buffers are separate from setback requirements. He explained under the current ambiguous language, a property owner on the perimeter of a PRD may find their backyard is comprised of the setback and perimeter buffer. If the intent is to have a perimeter buffer as compensation for the increased density allowed in a PRD, the perimeter buffer should be separate from backyards and setbacks. He proposed the Council adopt the Option 1 ordinance included in the packet that would adopt these two revisions on an interim Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 6, 2010 Page 6 basis and to schedule a public hearing within the next 1 -2 months. He explained the options before the Council were to adopt the interim ordinance tonight and have these two provisions in place for a six month period pending a public hearing and further discussion /action. If no further action was taken, the provisions would expire in six months. The other option was not to adopt the interim ordinance and set a public hearing prior to any further action. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, FOR APPROVAL OF INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 3787, ALTERNATIVE I IN THE COUNCIL PACKET. Mr. Snyder clarified PRD's allow concentrated density not enhanced density. He explained Council President Bernheim's direction to the City Attorney's office was to prepare an ordinance for public hearing; it was unclear whether the intent was a public hearing tonight or on a future date. The ordinances provide both options. Council President Bernheim advised a public hearing would be scheduled for a future date. Mr. Snyder advised the date of the public hearing was not included in the ordinance; a date within 60 days should be inserted. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved is as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 3787 — AMENDING PROVISIONS OF TITLE 20 ECDC RELATING TO PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS TO ALLOW CLOSED RECORD ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF PRELIMINARY PRD DECISIONS AND TO ELIMINATE OVERLAP OF PERIMETER BUFFERS AND SETBACKS FOR EXTERIOR LOT LINES, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. 5C. FISCAL POLICIES (Formerly Agenda Item 12) Councilmember Buckshnis explained at the Council retreat she was asked to prepare fiscal policies. After conducting a great deal of research of other cities' fiscal policies, and discussion with Finance Director Lorenzo Hines and Councilmember Plunkett she drafted fiscal policies and resolution. After reviewing the policies, City Attorney Scott Snyder drafted an alternate resolution as well as an ordinance. She identified sections of her proposed fiscal policies that Mr. Snyder separated into a resolution and an ordinance and his addition of a section that states the forms and information must be compliant with the requirements established by the State Auditor. She relayed the conversation Mr. Hines and she had regarding modified accrual accounting and full accrual accounting; modified accrual accounting is typically used in municipalities because there is not a net worth or income statement. She reviewed the changes that would occur when the policies were adopted: • hnproved report labeling. She displayed City of Redmond's reports that are labeled Monthly All Recap Funds, the month, biennium budget. By comparison, Edmonds' reports are labeled Example B. • Including financial information on the City's website. She displayed financial information available on the City of Lake Oswego's website that included budget projections and details that help the citizens understand the city's financial condition. The goal will be to provide information in the finance section of the City's website. • Providing the fund flow of the General Fund. • Improved narrative of trends and indicators. She displayed the City of Des Moines quarterly report that provides explanation of revenue and expenses. This provides a framework to support the City's financials. She summarized providing this information on the City's website would allow citizens to become more familiar with the City's financial condition. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 6, 2010 Page 7 Councilmember Wilson expressed his appreciation for Councilmember Buckshnis' efforts to improve the transparency of the City's financial policies. He pointed out the City did not have a Finance Director for several months which increased the difficulty in understanding the City's current finances. Councilmember Plunkett asked what the financial policies would provide the Council and citizens that did not currently exist. Councilmember Buckshnis responded one of the primary items is the cashflow in the General Fund. Another is adding the information to the City's website. She anticipated a levy would be necessary; in order for a levy to be successful, it will be important for the Council to provide a roadmap for citizens to educate them regarding the City's financial condition. Councilmember Plunkett commented some Councilmembers would like to have certain conditions met before a levy is place on the ballot. He referred to his interest in labor negotiations and changing the City's form of government to Council - Manager. He recognized Councilmember Buckshnis' focus has been on the City's financial policies. He observed Councilmember Buckshnis would be more comfortable with a levy with improved transparency of the City fiscal policies. Councilmember Buckshnis responded she envisioned a levy will be needed in the future but until she had a better understanding of the City's financial situation and assumptions, she was unable to comment. The fiscal policies are a roadmap to assist citizens in understanding the City's financial condition. Councilmember Plunkett asked why a resolution and an ordinance were necessary. City Attorney Scott Snyder referred to his memo, summarizing the Council had certain defined budgetary authority. The powers the Council has under State statute are specified in the ordinance. For example, the Council could by ordinance define when reports would be provided; under State statute it can be no less than quarterly. Councilmember Buckshnis has summarized what the City's financial reporting should look like in a citizen /user - friendly format; those policies are contained in the resolution. Mr. Snyder clarified the Council could not require the Finance Director to provide monthly accounting but the Council could request it. The items the Council does not have the authority to require are contained in the resolution as requests or standards. Council President Bernheim clarified the recommended action was approval of Attachments 6, the resolution prepared by the City Attorney and Attachment 7, the ordinance prepared by the City Attorney. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM, FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3789, ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 3.04, FINANCIAL REPORTING, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1226, ADOPTING A FINANCIAL POLICY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5D. PRESENTATION ON DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT Councilmember Plunkett questioned why this was added to the agenda at the last minute and why no information was provided to the Council. Council President Bemheim answered it was added to the agenda at Councilmember Wilson's request to introduce the topic of land acquisition as it relates to economic development. Councilmember Wilson displayed a PowerPoint presentation entitled The Future of Edmonds Downtown Activity Center. He explained three weeks ago, the Council directed Council President Bernheim, Councilmember Buckshnis and him as a committee to review possible land acquisition. A meeting was held on March 25 that included Council President Bernheim, Councilmember Buckshnis and him, Community Services /Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton, Planning Manager Rob Chave, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 6, 2010 Page 8 Mayor Haakenson, two Port Commissioners and the Port's Executive Director, and representatives of the State. The intent was to get as many of the parties who represent the public and are interested in the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center, the area from the Port on the south to the Skipper's property on the north, together around a table. This same presentation was provided at that meeting. The PowerPoint is being presented to the Council tonight to kickoff an expedited community visioning process that could reach a conclusion by yearend regarding what the waterfront area could look like as well as meet the Economic Development Commission's recommendation for a community visioning process. The presentation was being made tonight in response to a public records request and a suggestion that secret meetings were being conducted. Rather than have misinformation circulating, it was determined it would be appropriate to present this information tonight. Councilmember Wilson clarified this was not his presentation, it was not the committee's presentation, it was an attempt to compile all the information that has been heard in the community. There is no political agenda, the intent is a fair and open conversation. Councilmember Wilson explained the presentation addressed four topics: • Assumptions: Interests and goals • Current "state of play" • Future: Thought Exercise or hypothetical • Bottom line Councilmember Wilson identified the properties under discussion today: Skippers, DOT parking lot and Harbor Square, recognizing success with those three could lead to future discussion of the Safeway, Senior Center, Sound Transit, DOT parking at Port and lower Unocal properties. He explained there were willing players with regard to the three properties (Skippers, DOT parking lot and Harbor Square). Councilmember Wilson identified the interests and goals of the parties who participated in the meeting: • City of Edmonds • Do no harm — make sure something very bad doesn't happen at Skippers or other properties • Ideal — an engaging public space • Doorway to Edmonds from ferry • An integration of downtown to the Port area • Common sense, innovative, frugal • Port of Edmonds • Financial — make Harbor Square increasingly viable • Purchase of land and buildings expensive • Limited occupancy depresses Port budget activities • Vision — create a vibrant waterfront • Leave a lasting legacy • A new element of the Edmonds community • Economic development — be a catalyst and driver of economic activity for the community • Department of Transportation /Washington State Ferries • Add to the safety of ferry passengers • Fund the creation of a pedestrian overpass • Not directly tied to economic development • Take advantage of situations which offer worthy return on investment like the Edmonds facility does Councilmember Wilson reviewed the current state of play for each property: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 6, 2010 Page 9 • Skippers • Owned by the bank • Offer made and declined for $1 million • Many interested developers, including various Councilmember and others • Talk about a visioning exercise by City and citizens • Finding the resources is a challenge • WSDOT Property o Moving toward an exchange for a pedestrian overpass • Deadline for engagement appears to be April 15 • Appears to be on a very ambitious and aggressive timeline • Harbor Square • Interest by Port of Edmonds to bring a redevelopment proposal to the City • Discussion is around increasing heights to allow for five stories on the property • Vacancies on site and state of buildings is a significant drain on Port resources • McCaw Foundation • Invest in project which makes sense from a social impact perspective as well as a financial return perspective • Project must serve a social good • Money is not the whole reason projects take place • Committed to northwest communities Councilmember Wilson reviewed a "thought exercise," assuring it was not a proposal, it was a purely hypothetical "what if." Assumptions in the thought exercise include: • We should work together where we can o Lot of interested parties o Sum is greater than the component parts • A little complicated but not really o Public - private partnerships sometimes take a little extra work o Tries to keep everyone at the table Steps in the thought exercise include: • Port of Edmonds wins contract to build pedestrian overpass • Gets DOT property in exchange upon completion • No immediate cost • Timeline: immediate • Proposal includes overpass to connect with Skippers property • Also includes a southerly connector • Port of Edmonds signs option to purchase Skippers property o Timeline: immediate o Immediate cost: minimal. • Likely through a bank financing mechanism • Includes key commitment from City leaders on future Port of Edmonds, City Council initiate a visioning process for three parcels (Harbor Square, Skippers and DOT) o Process includes citizens, Sound Transit and Community Transit • Timeline: definite end date of August/September • Cost: $40,000 - $100,000, possibly split between the City, Port and McCaw • May be value in having philanthropic "glue" • Models include the levy work group, Group of 33 Three Council representatives commit to: o Willingness to go to 5 stories at Harbor Square Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 6, 2010 Page 10 • Willingness to go to 38 feet at the DOT site • Must be within the right context, package, vision • Not a blank check • Return on investment driven by social interest rather than purely financial Council goes to voters with a levy in August • City's top priority is operational revenue stability • Should not make a major acquisition of property before levy revenues are secured • Mixed message to the public and staff • Council threaten City's primary concern of financial stability Following a successful levy, City Council uses councilmatic bonds to purchase Skippers property (possibly DOT too) from the Port • Eliminates Port's liability with bank • City's commitment allows initial flexible financing between bank and Port • Takes property off market but does not hinder levy campaign. • Requires a good faith effort and engagement by all parties • Includes commitment from three Council representatives to purchase from bank Vision process concludes in the fall • Integrated development of Skippers and DOT properties and Harbor Square • Moves Community Transit bus outflow back to James (Councilmember Wilson displayed maps to illustrate this and the next point) • Makes James a hub for bus traffic in and out • Reduces asphalt and car traffic at Main Street • Significantly public utility of space at Main and Sunset • Connects foot traffic from ferry to downtown • Draws foot traffic to the DOT parcel. Rezone and Developer Agreement move through the Council • Begin in late fall and conclude by end of the year • Includes updated agreements with Community Transit/Sound Transit as needed • Includes changes to James Street as needed Port issues RFP for developer • Rebuild Harbor Square, DOT /Skippers in exchange for compensation • Maybe cash • Could be condominiums /real estate such as 5'h floor at Harbor Square, building or area at DOT • Work to begin during second quarter of 2012 • Includes pedestrian overpass for ferry Councilmember Wilson reviewed the bottom line of the above thought exercise: • City of Edmonds • Controls shape of Skippers /DOT development • Owns land at Skippers and possibly DOT • Ensures a public utility of Skippers that integrates with the DOT property, ferry pedestrian bridge • Gets 1 -2 new public spaces/buildings • Little to no financial liability to develop parcels • Community vision implemented • Secures interest in site without threatening viability of an operations levy • WSF /DOT o Gets pedestrian overpass • Integrates into building on east side of tracks • Not just a landing to street Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 6, 2010 Page 11 • Gets two pathways for foot traffic • One path to Skippers property • One bridge southward toward the Sound Transit/Community Transit connection • No additional cost • Port of Edmonds • Redevelopment of Harbor Square up to five stories • Once rezoned by City, immediate multimillion dollar increase to assets on balance sheet • Gets predictability, commitments for projects where non would otherwise exist • Project that integrates into northerly parcels Councilmember Wilson summarized this thought exercise was one way to reach a community vision, the City implements the vision and the public entities (State, Port and City) come together perhaps with a philanthropic organization. He assured the intent of this thought exercise was to begin a conversation that may lead the community forward. Councilmember Plunkett asked who set up the meeting between the Councilmembers, staff, the Port and the State. Council President Bernheim responded Councilmember Wilson had. Councilmember Plunkett referred to Councilmember Wilson's comment regarding the intent to get public representatives around a table, pointing out meetings such as this needed to be public. Council President Bernheim explained Councilmembers Wilson and Buckshnis and he had been delegated by the Council to explore options and were using their discretion in how they explored the options. Other meetings have been held with citizens, residents, experts, and others in an effort to gather ideas with the goal of presenting to the public in the future. He assured Councilmember Plunkett's comments would be considered by the committee but they did not intend to have all their discussions announced as public meetings. He assured no decisions were being made in any of the committee's meetings. The committee plans to provide the Council and the public periodic updates on the information they gather. Councilmember Plunkett acknowledged the meeting did not violate the Open Public Meetings Act, however, he was uncomfortable with the appearance of a private meeting between three Councilmembers, City staff, Port Commissioners and DOT. He suggested future meetings be open to the public and questioned why the same discussion could not occur in a public meeting that occurred in a private meeting. Councilmember Buckshnis explained the meeting was an informative gathering. She did not necessarily agree with the infonnation Councilmember Wilson provided but agreed with the spirit in which the information was provided, an opportunity to think outside the box. For example, she did not support placing a levy on the ballot in August until the City's financials were reformed. The meeting was intended to be fact - finding and Councilmember Wilson's presentation was thought- provoking and opened up discussion. Councilmember Peterson recalled the Council's objective of appointing three Councilmembers to a committee was to present the Council with ideas. He was impressed that three Councilmember were able to get the major players at the table at this early stage. No decisions were made, only ideas were discussed. He recalled the Economic Development Commission and the public have encouraged the Council to be bold; this was a bold step. Although he did not agree with the presentation in its entirety, he agreed with the intent to get a conversation started and to involve the other parties including the Port, DOT and citizens. He highlighted the suggestion for the City, Port, and perhaps the McCaw foundation and other citizen groups to contribute to funding a professional visioning process, noting if the elected officials and civic organizations led that process, it would be community driven instead of development driven. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 6, 2010 Page 12 Councilmember Fraley - Monillas expressed her appreciation for the presentation, commenting she had no problem with the three Councilmembers meeting with the Port and DOT. She was uncomfortable the presentation appeared to be from the three Councilmembers but this discussion revealed there was not consensus on the ideas. Councilmember Wilson clarified none of the three Councilmembers agreed with all the material in the presentation. The presentation was not a proposal; it was to collect what has been heard in the community and begin working through it toward building a framework for a solution. He acknowledged the concepts in the presentation may be politically uncomfortable, recognizing heights were a sensitive issue. He supported talking about all possibilities particularly in the current climate where there is time, where there is a group of citizens, the Economic Development Commission, interested in moving forward. He assured this was the first Council meeting where this presentation could have been provided since the meeting. He explained the reason some meetings were held in private was to respect the desire of some other parties not to have everything they said be public. He envisioned members of the Council, Port and/or DOT may behave differently in a public meeting. He urged the Council not to sidetrack the goodwill put forth by the three Councilmembers with a quarrel over process. Councilmember Plunkett requested the PowerPoint presentation be made available to the Council. Council President Bernheim assured it would. Councilmember Plunkett commented he would be the first one to sidetrack this process if it was not conducted in public. He did not support the idea that the Port Commissioners or DOT representatives were uncomfortable speaking in public. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas referred to Councilmember Wilson's comment that the presentation collected what had been heard in the community however it appeared only to contain data from DOT, the Port and Council. The community needs to be represented in this process, for example the Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, as development of that area would greatly impact the Marsh. She emphasized the City consists of more than just the downtown corridor, there is Perrinville, Firdale Village, Ballinger, Aurora, etc.; everyone needs to be involved. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, viewed Councilmember Wilson's presentation as a preemptive strike. She recalled two years ago the Council paused its discussion regarding whether to acquire the Skippers/ Safeway property to allow a willing partner, a private owner, to offer to participate. No offers have been made by the private sector in those two years. She recalled the owner of the Safeway property was interested in swapping open space for a height increase to 75 feet and has said he is not interested in developing the property until the height limit is increased. The Skippers owner at that time was willing to construct a green building for a height increase to 6 stories. Recently WSF expressed their willingness to swap their parking lot for a pedestrian bridge. A potential builder commented at the WSF work meeting that due to political dynamics a project was not feasible because the value of the land was not sufficient under current zoning height limits. The market considers the Skippers property worthless at this time unless the height limit is increased. She noted two years ago the residents requested the Council allow the public the opportunity to say whether they wanted to purchase the property for public use. She summarized tonight's presentation and discussion was simply to evade a discussion regarding placing a measure on the ballot to purchase the property. She suggested that item be struck from the minutes, finding it highly improper as it was not on the agenda and no public notice had been provided. She suggested the Council review the minutes of March 25, April 1, May 22, June 3 and August 5, 2008 where this subject has been discussed previously. Lora Petso, Edmonds, commented the Highway 99 task force appeared to have correctly identified the problem, that Edmonds citizens spend their money in Lynnwood and Shoreline but misidentified the solution as developing commercial property with mixed use transited oriented development. She Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 6, 2010 Page 13 commented such developments would never be commercially viable, noting none of the money she spends in Lynnwood and Shoreline is at mixed use developments; it is typically at Fred Meyer, the mall, etc. She recommended abandoning mixed use transit oriented development as the solution. Next, she explained the church softball league she has belonged to since her early 20s will either not be playing or playing in Lynnwood or another city because Edmonds does not have any appropriately sized fields and the School District, the City's partner in providing park and recreation services, has a policy that adults cannot rent elementary school fields. In the past they have used Westgate, Edmonds and Sherwood Elementary fields for these pickup level softball games. She commented the fields at the Lynnwood Athletic Complex are above what this league requires and the high school fields are not available. She summarized pretending the School District would meet the City's park and recreation needs was useless and the City needed to plan for playfields for adults. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, thanked those who contributed to the food drive at Top Foods, announcing they sold 500 bags at $5 each. He recognized Channel 21, Channel 39 and the Edmondv Beacon who advertised the event. With regard to labor negotiations, he recommended the City negotiate with its unions in private. Faye May, Imagine Edmonds, explained they are a small, active group of citizens who all have lived in Edmonds at least 26 years and have a deep love for Edmonds' uniqueness, charm, diversity, and tremendous potential. She read a letter written by Imagine Edmonds member Jack Farris to the Hazel Miller Foundation explaining Imagine Edmonds' commitment to the pursuit of a positive future for the community. Imagine Edmonds members volunteer their time and have no specific agenda other than to preserve Edmonds specialness and lay the groundwork for the next 100 years. Their objective to engage citizens throughout Edmonds in a process that combines positive energy, creativity and a shared commitment to solutions that satisfy the diverse demands of economic development, fiscal viability, aesthetics, environmental values and community. Imagine Edmonds is convinced that that the Pomegranate Center has the experience and skill to contribute immensely to this process and their ability to help the citizens of Edmonds build a better future for themselves, their children and grandchildren. The starting point is to develop innovative approaches to difficult issues and land use but Imagine Edmonds is convinced they will be building a stronger community that will be better equipped to meet challenges in education, public safety and government. Imagine Edmond's objectives meet the mission of the Hazel Miller Foundation and will be able to leverage support from the Foundation in the form of a stronger, more connected and engaged community. Ms. May added that Imagine Edmonds recently received a letter of endorsement from Rick Sieves supporting Imagine Edmonds and their request to the Hazel Miller Foundation. Craig Stewart, Imagine Edmonds, reported on a community meeting held in Shoreline conducted by Pomegranate Center Executive Director Milenko Matanovic regarding public space and private space, commenting the citizen engagement in that process was amazing. He emphasized the importance of citizen engagement, envisioning without a master plan that is economically and environmentally sustainable with substantial citizen involvement and engagement, the City would not get the private and philanthropic support it could otherwise. He encouraged the Council to consider inviting Mr. Matanovic to describe what the Pomegranate Center has to offer and what it has done in other cities. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, compared the committee of three Councilmembers discussing property acquisition to the Group 33 where Mayor Haakenson and Councilmember Wambolt participated in secret meetings with the Port. He urged the Council not to follow Councilmember Wilson's lead in acquiring the waterfront property. He was opposed to discussion of increasing building heights in the waterfront as a tradeoff. He suggested the Council purchase the Skippers property using the $4 billion available via the federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program to purchase foreclosed property. He suggested the Council avoid a partnership with the Port as their primary interest was increased building heights. He objected to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 6, 2010 Page 14 being refused entry to the meeting between the three Councilmembers, City staff, Port and DOT. He anticipated his public records request was what motivated tonight's presentation. Councilmember Wilson commented Mr. Hertrich both urged the Council not to follow his lead to acquire the property and then urged them to purchase the property. He explained meetings occasionally need to be held just to get conversation flowing. The City did not need to partner with the Port but he envisioned it would be better if the City did. Councilmember Wilson respected Mr. Hertrich's watchdog role and urged him to keep an open mind in this process. He offered to meet with Mr. Hertrich and to be as transparent as possible. One of the reasons he made the presentation tonight was to avoid misinformation such as Mr. Hertrich's comment regarding secret meetings. He emphasized there was a difference between private meetings and secret meetings. Councilmember Plunkett expressed appreciation for Imagine Edmonds' comments. He preferred the Pomegranate Center's approach and their interest in what is best for the community rather than an approach that is created via private meetings. He preferred a direction that was created by citizens with the assistance of a consultant such as the Pomegranate Center. Councilmember Buckshnis explained Councilmember Fraley- Monillas and she are holding Town Hall meetings to engage the public. When she attended the committee meeting, she was unaware of the content and assured no one would ever buy her vote. She also offered to review the information provided with Mr. Hertrich. The information Councilmember Wilson presented was an effort to think outside the box. Council President Bernheim commented on March 16 he proposed each Councilmember sponsor neighborhood visioning meetings, an effort Councilmember Plunkett did not support. Councilmember Plunkett responded he did not support that proposal as he was not interested in holding a neighborhood meeting in one community; he was interested in broad -based community meetings that provide the opportunity to develop a process. A broad community effort was needed in regard to the waterfront properties that could not be accomplished via individual Councilmembers meeting with a group of neighbors. Councilmember Wilson recalled when Council President Bernheim established the committee, he agreed to participate only if Councilmember Plunkett or Council President Bernheim participated; Councilmember Plunkett declined to participate. Councilmember Wilson hoped Councilmember Plunkett did not decline to participate in the community simply to highlight how bad those who were participating were conducting the effort. Councilmember Plunkett explained he declined to participate because he was not interested in Councilmember Wilson leading an effort regarding the downtown waterfront. Councilmember Wilson commented the 3- person committee was approved unanimously by the Council. He offered to exchange positions with Councilmember Plunkett and allow him to lead the effort. Councilmember Plunkett proposed the City hire the Pomegranate Center and work with Imagine Edmonds. Councilmember Wilson asked how the consultant would be funded. Councilmember Plunkett offered to present a proposal to the Council at a future meeting. Councilmember Wilson reiterated his offer to allow Councilmember Plunkett to lead the effort. If Councilmember Plunkett preferred that he along with Council President Bernheim and Councilmember Buckshnis continue that effort, he encouraged Councilmember Plunkett to support them. Mayor Haakenson commented he was bemused by Mr. Hertrich's comments that he attends secret meetings, explaining there were no requirements regarding what meetings he can attend. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 6, 2010 Page 15 7. PRESENTATION ON THE STATUS OF THE EDMONDS MARSH Keeley O'Connell, Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, invited the Council, staff and the public to the first public presentation by the Friends of the Edmonds Marsh on Thursday, April 8 at 7:30 p.m. at the Frances Anderson Center. She identified the members of the Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, Susie Schafer, Pilchuck Audubon; Laura Spehar, Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Project; Alan Meares, NOAA; Bonnie Meares, Edmonds citizen; Barbara Tipton, Edmonds citizen; Jon Houghton, Pentec Environmental; Thayer Cueter, Just Frogs, Toads Too Foundation and herself, explaining they were all Edmonds residents. She introduced Mr. Mearns, Mr. Houghton and Ms. Tipton. The Friends of the Edmonds Marsh are asking the City for the following: • Assist with securing funding for feasibility studies and restoration opportunities, support letters, joint grant applications • Help to leverage funding identified in CIP • Develop ideas for recreational opportunities; extending the boardwalk and pathways throughout the Marsh is identified in several City documents Integrate a restored marsh into storm water planning Work jointly with Port of Edmonds on Harbor Square re- development She displayed a satellite image showing the greater downtown Edmonds, the Marsh and adjacent properties. She identified the following current conditions at the Marsh: • 23.2 acres pocket estuary • Fed by Willow and Shellabarger Creeks that drain 833 acres • Provides a freshwater to saltwater gradient • Ditched and diked and tide gate • 1380 feet ditched channel that the outlet of Willow Creek moves through on its way out to Puget Sound before entering a 1300 -1400 foot long 30 -inch pipe under Marina Beach parking lot into Puget Sound (Pentec Inv., 1998) • Ditching has limited salt tolerant vegetation • Contains invasive plant species • Intact riparian corridor in places • Recent restoration on Willow Creek • Boardwalk, view corridors and educational signage • Willow Creek hatchery and Community Demo Wildlife Garden • Multiple partnerships and community opportunities She displayed a map developed as part of a historical change analysis provided via a project coordinated with University of Washington and Puget Sound Partnership's Puget Sound Near Shore Restoration Project that overlays historical data on a current satellite image. Historically there was a 40+ acre barrier estuary that extended up to what is currently Brackett's landing. It was a barrier estuary due to the large sand spit that maintained a shallow, low energy environment and uniquely rich habitat. Because these low energy, low lying environments were easily filled and built upon, there has been nearly a 100% percent loss of this type of habitat in Puget Sound. She displayed a 1947 aerial photograph, pointing out there was no marina, no development between Main and Dayton, no Harbor Square, Unocal oil and the pier and a different ferry terminal. She displayed and compared a 1989 aerial photograph that shows the marina, Brackett's Landing, the ferry terminal, downtown core development, etc. The Friends are advocating for restoration work including daylighting of Willow Creek into a more natural stream system that provides a direct outlet to Puget Sound. Improving access to Willow Creek Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 6, 2010 Page 16 would provide habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon, spawning habitat for Coho as well as habitat for shorebirds, marine birds and waterfowl. She commented although many do not associate the Orca Whale with the Edmonds Marsh, the bio diversity provided by unique systems like the Edmonds Marsh form the foundation for the Puget Sound food web. Ms. O'Connell provided catch trends for herring and commercial fisheries catch, and population trends for indicator bird species Brant and Western Grebe, summarizing declining trends are being seen in these indicator species within Puget Sound. She listed the following benefits of restoration, explaining the $ signs represent money, generally federal, available for restoration that benefits these species: • Chinook juvenile habitat $$$$ • Coho spawning and rearing habitat $ • Steelhead habitat $ • Shorebird and migratory bird habitat $ • GBH, bald eagle, and other resident bird habitat • Invertebrates (food web resources) • Native plants • Overall biodiversity o Ecosystem support (food) for marine birds, mammals, and other fish • Opportunity for managing stormwater and stormwater conveyance and reducing flooding downtown • Filter for toxins and improving water quality • Climate change preparedness • Preserve ecological buffers and wetlands • Increase capacity of stormwater collection and conveyance systems • Restore wetlands for runoff storage and flood control • Carbon Sequestration • Tidal salt marshes are extremely productive habitats that remove significant amounts of carbon from the atmosphere • Restoring tidal salt marshes is one of the most effective measure for sequestering carbon • Tidal salt marshes release only negligible amounts of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas • Opportunity for scientific research • Youth education opportunities • Community volunteerism • Opportunities for increasing passive recreation in the Marsh and connecting it to other natural resources such as Marina Beach • Opportunity for positive impact on key Puget Sound species such as salmon and Orea Whales • Economic Impacts She identified areas in the City's Parks & Recreation Comprehensive Plan, Sustainability Plan, Capital Improvement Plan, and the Shoreline Master Program as well as the Port of Edmonds Master Plan that reference the Edmonds Marsh. Ms. O'Connell summarized restoration opportunities would improve juvenile salmon access, salmon spawning habitat, shorebird and waterfowl habitat, stormwater conveyance to Puget Sound and reduce flooding; as well as expand the area of native salt marsh, nearshore ecosystem at Edmonds waterfront, and access, recreation and educational opportunities. She displayed a schematic that would address a fish passage barrier problem at Pine Street on Willow Creek, channels that would leave the salt marsh and connect to Puget Sound, and boardwalks systems. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 6, 2010 Page 17 She explained daylighting Willow Creek had been identified in several documents including the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) done for the Edmonds Crossing project. That EIS included daylighting of Willows Creek as part of mitigation. As part of the second rail line being installed in Edmonds, Sound Transit has used the EIS developed for Edmonds Crossing Sound Transit to site a 33- foot span trestle bridge that will go under the new line and the existing line. Sound Transit will backfill that awaiting opportunity to daylight Willow Creek. She explained that was the most costly and prohibitive portion of completing the restoration project and would be done at no cost by Sound Transit as part of their mitigation. The Friends of the Edmonds Marsh are committed to the following: • Raising awareness of this rich, rare and irreplaceable resource • Advocating for identified restoration opportunities • Engaging stakeholders • Securing funding for a feasibility study to understand the system and move toward "shovel - ready" projects • Maximizing unique potentials for the community • Fostering long -term stewardship of the Marsh Stakeholders include: • City of Edmonds • Port of Edmonds • Sound Transit, BNSF • $$ - PSP, PSNRP, WRIA 8, Shared Strategy, DOE, WDFW • UW, EdCC, Battelle, NOAA, local K -12 schools • Local Tribes- Tulalip Tribe • $$- Snohomish Marine Resources Committee • Elected officials • Edmonds community and user groups- birders, walkers, Willow Creek hatchery /Laebugtens Salmon chapter Councilmember Buckshnis requested a copy of Ms. McConnell's PowerPoint presentation, explaining WRIA 8 has daylighting of Willow Creek on their 10 -year plan and she would like to move it to their 3- year plan. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the Friends of Edmonds Marsh had been invited to any meetings or discussions with anyone interested in developing the downtown waterfront properties and whether the Friends had a role in those discussions. Ms. McConnell explained Friends of the Edmonds Marsh was a group of people with a mutual interest. She envisioned the Friends being involved in those discussions particularly with regard to how the Marsh can draw visitors to the City. The Marsh is an underutilized resource for passive recreation and many people are unaware it exists. Councilmember Plunkett commented some people's vision for economic development is taller buildings, others believe economic development is making Edmonds a more attractive place to visit and enjoy. Ms. McConnell responded the Friends did not have a specific position on building heights. The Marsh has a role in economic development particularly with regard to ecotourism, connectivity of the system and showcasing the unique habitat. Councilmember Plunkett advised he would be making a proposal with regard to using the Pomegranate Center to begin a process for visioning development of the downtown waterfront properties and asked if a representative of the Friends would be interested in participating in that process. Ms. McConnell answered they would appreciate an invitation to be involved. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 6, 2010 Page 18 Councilmember Plunkett asked if the Friends had received any grant funds. Ms. McConnell explained she works for People for Puget Sound as a restoration ecologist and has a small grant ($4,000) via their NOAA Restore America's Estuaries Community Restoration Program that allows her to be involved in the Marsh and staff time to pursue grant opportunities. People for Puget Sound may be the organization to procure grants for the Friends of the Edmonds Marsh as they are a 501(c)(3) organization. Councilmember Wilson recalled when he first moved to Edmonds in 1999, his first public meeting was Friends of the Lund's Gulch who were interested in the Edmonds Marsh. He is also a Board Member of the Cascade Land Conservancy. As the Friends developed actionable ideas, he anticipated the Council would be quick to take action. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1001217_x►Y Recycling Coordinator Steve Fisher referred to handouts that include curbside recycling instructions and a list of locations where that accept free drop -off and recycling of computers, monitors, laptops and TVs as part of the State E -Cycle program. He also highlighted an electronic waste recycling event on April 24 & 25 from 10 am to 3 pm at the Edmonds Top Foods. TVs, computer monitors, CPUs, laptops and cell phones will be accepted free; other electronics have a small disposal fee. Mr. Fisher explained curbside recycling is 20 years old and has become a social norm. Curbside recycling is convenient and easy; all accepted materials are mixed together in one container. Recycle has traditionally been collected every other week on single family residential routes and the cost is included in the overall garbage service cost. Recyclables represent up to 50% or more of typical household waste; recyclables are not banned from garbage waste. He explained garbage service is not mandatory in the City; it is estimated approximately 87% of single family residences subscribe to garbage service. Of those customers, approximately 89 -90% participated in curbside recycling in 2009. Approximately 7,000 tons of recyclables were collected in Edmonds in 2009. Another convenient curbside service provided to residents is yard waste. This service now includes food waste and food - soiled papers. It is unknown how many people take advantage of food waste diversion into yard waste collection. Multi family properties also receive recycling as part of garbage service. There are 275 multi family properties (apartments and condominiums) in Edmonds that have 5 units or more. Approximately 86% have recycling collection available; 35 properties, or approximately 500 households, are not taking advantage of recycling. He planned to reach out to those properties this year to encourage them to make recycling available to their residents. Allied Waste, who serves the majority of the Edmonds area, will be moving to a once -a -week recyclables collection on single family routes in 2011. He is involved with a commercial outreach program to promote the available food waste collection to businesses. Twenty businesses are participating now; over 1100 tons were diverted in 2009. The recycling program will continue to provide information and education on other opportunities and options such as recycling batteries, cell phones, fluorescents, and building materials. Mr. Fisher emphasized the first two Rs in recycling (reduce and reuse) lead to more environmental benefits. While recycling plays a large role in lowering greenhouse gas emissions, studies have shown Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 6, 2010 Page 19 that waste prevention (or reduction) and reuse activities can prevent emissions altogether. Waste prevention actions are often difficult to measure; they can range from reducing junk mail or opting out from receiving unsolicited phone books to reusing durable bags when shopping and other positive habits that prevent waste. He applauded the leadership the Council has shown in Snohomish County by acting to reduce materials that have a negative impact on the environment. Council President Bemheim inquired how the apartment and condominium complexes that did not provide recycling receptacles could be encouraged to make recycling available. Mr. Fisher answered he planned to reach out to those complexes with education to encourage them to participate. He commented there were many reasons /barriers that precluded complexes from making that service available. He did not plan any enforcement action to encourage them to participate and preferred an educational approach. Mayor Haakenson expressed his appreciation to Mr. Fisher for his work on the Mayor's Climate Change Committee. 9. ALTERNATIVE WATER UTILITY RATE STRUCTURE DISCUSSION Public Works Director Noel Miller explained the City of Edmonds is in the process of updating its Water Comprehensive Plan. Part of the plan update requires the City to review its water rate structure so that the rates are in alignment to encourage customers to conserve water. For many years, the City has required meters for each water service connection and charged a uniform rate for each unit of water sold. He displayed a diagram illustrating the uniform rate where the unit cost remains the same regardless of water usage. This is the minimum standard for a water rate structure under the Water Use Efficiency measures established by the Department of Health regulations. Under the water use efficiencies rules, the City is to consider and may elect to impose alternative rate structures to further encourage water conservation. These rate structures are: • INCLINING BLOCK RATE CHARGE - This rate structure increases the unit price of water at higher consumption levels. It sends a price signal to customers to keep their consumption at a lower level or expend more money at higher rates than a customer who consumes a lesser amount of water. He displayed a diagram illustrating the inclining block rate charge. • SEASONAL RATE CHARGE- This rate structure increases the unit price of water during the drier summer months. It also sends a price signal to customers to use less water to irrigate landscaping and to landscape with more drought tolerant plants. He displayed a diagram illustrating the season rate structure. Changing to an inclining or seasonal rate charge will have a dramatic cost impact to higher consumption customers. Presently, the City is meeting its water use efficiency measures currently in effect and the per capita average consumption is being reduced by over the stated goal of one percent (1 %) per year. He displayed a graph illustrating the citywide water consumption, noting since the early 1990s it had been on a gradual downward trend. He also identified per capita consumption that has mirrored the downward trend since 2003. He explained alternative rate structures are often adopted to avoid additional capital costs due an increase in water supply needs. Because Edmonds' water consumption has been declining, there is no need for additional facilities and no economic justification for an alternative rate structure. As part of the Water Comprehensive Plan Update, staff is currently working with its utility rate consultant, FCS Group, to analyze the projected cost of service and capital expenditures for the next six (6) years and develop water utility rates to support the projected expenditures. As part of this Water Comprehensive Plan update, staff requests that City Council provide direction in regard to contracting with FCS Group to develop alternative rate structures. The additional cost to the City to develop and implement an alternative rate structure is estimated to cost $50,000 - $100,000. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 6, 2010 Page 20 Councilmember Wilson asked why it would cost $50,000 more to develop and implement an alternative rate structure. Mr. Miller answered the cost for the consultant to develop an alternative rate structure is approximately $40,000; the additional cost is to implement the rate structure. Councilmember Wilson observed the cost of the standard rate study is $40,000 and the alternative rate study is an additional $50,000. Mr. Miller explained the current scope of work for the rate consultant is a recommendation for water rate increases based on the City's existing rate structure. Doing a full cost of service analysis that considers how much each customer class uses would require much more data analysis to develop a rate recommendation for an alternative structure. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the rate study had already been put out to bid. Mr. Miller answered it is done via a consultant selection process; FCS is already assisting with the Water Comprehensive Plan Update. He anticipated hiring another consultant to consider an alternative rate structure would require review of a great deal of information. Councilmember Wilson asked when the rate consultant contract was signed. Mr. Miller answered it was approximately a year ago. Council President Bernheim observed because of declining per- capita water usage, there was not a glaring need to increase water revenue to pay for new or expanded facilities. He asked whether there was an environmental, ecological or sustainability reason to promote even lower per - capital usage among systems or if the water supply was sufficient for the foreseeable future that it is unnecessary to further reduce per - capita use. Mr. Miller answered there was sufficient water supply. If that changed in the future due to climate change, changes in rainfall, etc., an alternative rate structure that would further reduce consumption could be considered. Council President Bernheim asked whether the Water Comprehensive Plan anticipated a reduction in the water supply in the next 10 -15 years or was it anticipated water supplies would remain as plentiful as they are today. He commented he was not interested in graduated, complex, expensive rates if there was not a policy basis for promoting further water conservation. Mr. Miller answered the water planning outlook done by Snohomish County is that even with growth in the county as well as factoring in some loss of water supply due to climate change, water supplies are sufficient for the next 50 years. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the additional cost of the alternative rate structure analysis was already budgeted. Mr. Miller answered it was not. Councilmember Plunkett observed the Water Comprehensive Plan update requires the City to review its water rate structure to ensure rates are in alignment to encourage customers to conserve water; the current rate structure is designed to encourage water conservation. Mr. Miller agreed, pointing out the more a customer used, the more they paid. Councilmember Peterson observed at some point water rates needed to be increased to pay for the City's aging infrastructure. He asked whether an alternative rate structures or an across -the -board increase generated more revenue. Mr. Miller answered the step rate increases discouraged high consumption; therefore the amount of water sold decreased which results in declining revenues. The unit cost of water then must be increased higher than would be required for a uniform rate. The cost of operating the utility is a fixed cost; the same number of employees, the same number of mains, hydrants, reservoirs, etc. Less revenue due to reduced consumption forces rates to increase faster. Councilmember Wilson referred to the flat rate diagram, clarifying even if the rate per unit declined, customers who used more paid more. With an inclining block rate, a savvy consultant could create a step that was revenue neutral. For lower income families who use little water, the inclining block rate would provide a price break in their water rates. As incomes increase, water usage increases due to moving from an apartment to a house, the lawn and landscaping that accompanies the house, etc. Commercial users, especially car lots and carwashes typically use a great deal of water. If the burden of the rate is shifted to commercial users and higher income users, lower income families could receive water service at a reduced rate, clearly an economic policy that would support an inclining block rate. He disagreed the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 6, 2010 Page 21 additional cost to review and implement an alternate rate structure was $100,000 but would support directing staff to pursue the inclining rate based not on environmental concerns but economic impacts. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmember Wilson and suggested capping the consultant study at $50,000. She commented such uses water conservatively compared to her neighbors who have automatic sprinkler systems. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas disagreed with Councilmembers Buckshnis and Wilson, pointing out the neighbor that was operating their sprinklers paid more under the current rate structure because they used more water. With regard to families living in apartments using less water, she pointed out families with children often used more water due to increased laundry, showers, dishes, etc. She envisioned an inclining rate would penalize those families and felt the current rate structure was fairer for families. Councilmember Wilson agreed with Councilmember Fraley - Monillas, pointing out the consultant would need to determine at what point it was appropriate to have a step in the rate. He envisioned families with typical household use would be in the first step, families with wide lawns may be in the next step, and carwashes and car lots would be in a third step. A flat system that charges carwashes the same as residential uses made less sense to him. The direction to the consultant would be to consider the water usage of a typical family of four. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas suggested Councilmember Wilson's intent could be accomplished now by charging commercial users a higher rate. She asked where the funds would come from for the consultant study. Mayor Haakenson suggested it could be from the utility fund and the rate payers pay for the study. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas did not support that funding mechanism. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the Mayor and staff did not recommend having the consultant develop an alternate rate structure; the Mayor and staff recommend continuing to charge for water consumption using a uniform water utility rate structure. Council President Bernheim commented his primary objective was environmental. He was interested in attempting to reduce water consumption via a rate structure if there was a need; however, the information provided tonight does not illustrate a need to reduce water consumption. He noted an alternate rate study could be conducted at anytime. He was satisfied with maintaining the existing rate structure. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, THAT THE COUNCIL DISPENSE WITH ANY EXTRA RATE REVIEW BASED ON GRADUATED RATES AND KEEP THE UNIFORM RATE STRUCTURE. MOTION CARRIED (5 -1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO. 10. GREEN BUSINESS PARTNERS /ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN Councilmember Peterson explained three members of Sustainable Edmonds, Rich Senderoff, Rebecca Wolfe, and Jeannie Blair, developed a Green Business Partner program that would recognize businesses that use and embrace environmentally friendly business practices. Business categories are broken down into: 1) Retail, Office, Light Industrial 2) Restaurants, Bars, Grocers and 3) Hotels, Motels, Hospitality. The businesses would complete a checklist and if they met the criteria, they would be recognized by Sustainable Edmonds and likely a partnership with the Chamber of Commerce and the City, with a window sticker, extra presence on the Chamber's website, etc. He applauded the citizens who developed this program. 11. GREEN POWER PURCHASE BY THE CITY Due to the late hour, Council President Bernheim suggested this item be rescheduled on a future agenda. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 6, 2010 Page 22 13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. 14. COUNCIL COMMENTS As a follow -up to his comments at a previous Council meeting regarding the City's pension and retiree healthcare liability, Councilmember Wilson explained Human Resources Director Debi Humann provided an actuarial study conducted in 2009 that highlights the City's liability. He explained there are a few retirees who draw pension benefits and a large number who draw health benefits. He displayed a page from the actuarial study that illustrates the pension liability is approximately $1.9 million; the liability for LEOFF 1 is approximately $8.5 million, a total of approximately $10 million, the amount the City should have been setting aside during those employees' tenure. Councilmember Wilson displayed other pages from the actuarial study that state the total liability for the LEOFF 1 healthcare benefits is $8.7 million and total assets in the fund of $500,000, a shortfall of $8.2 million which previous decades of Councils have underfunded. Mayor Haakenson clarified this was only for City firefighter employees of which there were only a few surviving. Councilmember Wilson advised there were 35; the total actuarial liability for that small group of people is quite large. Mayor Haakenson commented their average age is approximately 80. He displayed a graph from the study that shows the total annual payments for the pension and healthcare; beginning in 2009 and for the next 20 years, annual payments will steadily increase to approximately $650,000 /year. He displayed another chart that showed the fund balance, the investment return on the balance, and the recommended City contribution. The actuarial study suggests the City will be paying for these pensions and healthcare benefits through 2051. He displayed a chart showing the ending balance 2007, 2008 and 2009, the amount the City should be paying and the amount the City actually paid. Because the City pays the actual rather than the actuarial, some years the actual could increase dramatically and there was nothing in the fund balance to cover that amount. The shortfall in 2007 was $92,000; in 2008 it was $208,000, and $343,000 in 2009. Extrapolating those amount over 30 years was how the $8.5 million unfunded liability was determined. He displayed another page that illustrates how much the City is contributing, how much actuarially the City is required to pay, approximately $560,000 and the percentage the City is contributing. He referred to a statement on page 46 of the actuarial study that states the City has a positive obligation and as a result of underfunding the account, it must be noted on the government -wide statement of net assets. He questioned whether that was being done. He asked the Finance Committee to consider the information he provided. Councilmember Buckshnis reported 15 people attended the Town Hall meeting at the Corner Coffee Bar. Some of the comments from the meeting were reported in the Edmonds Beacon. She anticipated the next Town Hall meeting would be held in Firdale. 15. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:54 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 6, 2010 Page 23