10/16/2012 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
October 16, 2012
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley- Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Carl Nelson, CIO
Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr.
Rob English, City Engineer
Mike Clugston, Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS PER RCW
42.30.140(4)(b)
At 6:00 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
labor negotiations per RCW 42.30.140(4)(b) He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last
approximately 60 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety
Complex. He announced action may occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials
present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Yamamoto, Johnson, Fraley -
Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Public
Works Director Phil Williams, Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite, Finance Director Shawn
Hunstock, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 6:55 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:01 p.m. and led the flag salute.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Council President Peterson requested Item A be removed from the Consent Agenda.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 16, 2012
Page 1
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 2, 2012.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #134556 THROUGH #134692 DATED OCTOBER 4,
2012 FOR $1,865,907.81 (REPLACEMENT CHECK #134618 $5,487.85), AND CLAIM
CHECKS #134693 THROUGH #134852 DATED OCTOBER 11, 2012 FOR $845,113.27
(REPLACEMENT CHECKS #134693 $132.00, #134783 $25.00, #134828 $911.25 AND
#134829 $68.61). APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT & CHECKS #51717
THROUGH #51735 FOR $451,069.13, BENEFIT CHECKS #51736 THROUGH #51748 &
WIRE PAYMENTS OF $193,350.01 FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 16, 2012
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2012.
D. AUGUST 2012 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT.
E. QUARTERLY PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT REPORT.
F. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR NORTH TALBOT DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT.
G. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 WITH PERTEET
FOR OVERLAY AND RAISED MEDIAN ON THE 228TH ST. SW CORRIDOR
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
H. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN SUPPLEMENT #4 WITH DAVID EVANS &
ASSOCIATES FOR ADDITIONAL UTILITY WORK ON THE FIVE CORNERS
ROUNDABOUT.
I. ACCEPT A STORMWATER PIPE AND ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCES INSTALLED
BY A RESIDENT AT 23005 -108TH AVE W. AND AN ASSOCIATED EASEMENT.
J. STORMWATER BILLING EXEMPTION RECONSIDERATION.
K. ORDINANCE NO. 3895 — AMENDING SECTIONS OF ECC 5.05 RELATING TO
POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOG DEFINITIONS, DECLARATIONS, AND APPEALS.
L. ORDINANCE NO. 3896 — ESTABLISHING AN HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT
FUND.
ITEM A: ROLL CALL
Council President Peterson explained he pulled this item to take an official roll call and to excuse
Councilmember Yamamoto's absence from the September 11, 2012 meeting and his absence from a
portion of the September 18 and 25, 2012 meetings.
City Clerk Sandy Chase called the roll. All Councilmembers were present.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO'S ABSENCE FROM THE
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 COUNCIL MEETING AND HIS ABSENCE FROM A PORTION OF THE
SEPTEMBER 18 AND 25, 2012 MEETINGS.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether this was a new procedure. Council President Peterson
responded the City Attorney suggested this as a way to address questions that have been raised regarding
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 16, 2012
Page 2
Councilmember Yamamoto's absence from Council meetings. Council President Peterson suggested in
the future when a Councilmember is absent, roll call be taken and the Councilmember excused.
MOTION CARRIED (6 -0 -1), COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO ABSTAINING.
4. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF FRIENDS OF THE EDMONDS LIBRARY WEEK, OCTOBER
21- 27,2012.
Mayor Earling read a proclamation declaring October 21 -27 Friends of the Edmonds Library Week. He
presented the proclamation to Friends of the Edmonds Library President Judith Works. Ms. Works invited
the public to the Friends' book sale on Saturday, October 27 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.; members of the
Friends of Edmonds Library can shop on Friday, October 26 from 4:30 to 6:00 p.m.; membership can be
purchased at the door.
Edmonds Library Manager Lesly Kaplan thanked the Council for honoring the Friends of the Edmonds
Library, commenting the Friends do so much for the library including purchasing window coverings,
sponsoring programs for children and families and sponsoring last night's open house where a time
capsule was assembled that will be opened in 10 years. She thanked Mayor Earling for attending the open
house. She encouraged the public to visit the annual book sale as well as the daily book sale available in
the library.
5. PRESENTATION OF 2013 PROPOSED BUDGET
Mayor Earling provided the following budget message:
I am pleased to present to you the 2013 Budget. The budget is balanced and maintains most of the
services the residents of our community expect. However, while most of those services will be in place, we
face compromises and dramatic reductions at every level and department of the city.
When I took office on November 29, 2011, I spoke of only two issues. One issue was to alert the city we
would be facing a "blunt" conversation regarding the budget over the next several years. The impacts of
the 2008 recession will be felt locally for years. Fifty -eight percent of our revenue comes from property
tax and sales tax. Both revenue sources have been dramatically reduced and will be slow to recover.
The city has, for the last number of years, relied on clever ways to achieve a balanced budget with budget
shifts such as; assigning money used traditionally from the general fund for street overlays to balance the
budget or merging our fire department with Fire District 1. We had a major staff layoff in the early
2000s, over time we have reduced service levels, staff has taken furloughs, we have frozen hiring, and we
have stopped out of state travel
As we would expect, our budget must acknowledge certain mandatory cost increases, such as cost of
living allowances for employees, funding for fleet Maintenance and Operations expenses, increasing
incarceration fees, as well as public defender fees and union contract pay expenses.
Revenues for 2013 are expected to increase by just 0.5% over 2012 projected revenue. This modest
increase comes at a time when expenses are expected to increase by at least 1.5% from 2012. The City is
limited to I% increases in its regular property tax levy each year. For 2013 that increase will be more
than offset by a decline in the EMS levy, which is limited to $0.50 at a time when assessed values are still
declining. The net result for 2013 is a decline in total property tax revenue, the City's largest revenue
source. We also expect modest increases in sales tax and utility taxes, but again these will be outpaced by
increases in mostly mandatory or uncontrollable costs.
To achieve a budget for 2013 where projected revenues meet projected expenses, we set a goal to cut $1.5
million from the General Fund Budget. The three major objectives of that goal were; 1) across the board
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 16, 2012
Page 3
reductions in each department of 4.5% or about $850,000, 2) through the Voluntary Separation Incentive
Program (VSIP), achieve savings of $400,000, and 3) savings in health care premium costs of $250,000.
We have succeeded in meeting, and in some cases surpassing, each of the outlined objectives.
As mentioned above, dramatic reductions are needed to meet the $1.5 million targeted cuts. The staff has
devoted hundreds of hours in carefully analyzing each department and their basic needs, and has come to
some difficult decisions. All Directors, while not pleased to make these difficult decisions, have worked
closely and professionally and concluded the following reductions are necessary:
Through retirements and other staff reductions (including the VSIP) across all departments we have lost
and/or made reductions of 9.2 FTEs, which is about a 5% reduction in our workforce. It should be noted
that applicants for the VSIP program have about another week to make their final decision regarding
participation. Because of that, the 9.2 FTE reduction count could change.
Reducing the workforce by 5% will have a dramatic impact on the ability to deliver the level of service
throughout the city our community is used to receiving. A workforce which is already one of the smallest
on a per capita basis compared to most cities in the Puget Sound Region, reduced again will face new
challenges.
With the budget reductions, I have requested each Director analyze how the reductions will impact the
function of their Department. In some cases the cuts will impact the internal workings of the staff, causing
delays in completing projects. In other cases portions of programs will be cut and not meet the
expectations our citizens have grown to appreciate and expect.
Service level implications of staffing and other reductions:
• Lower level of oversight and monitoring of sales tax reporting
• Technology implementations will occur slower or deferred indefinitely
• Hardware and software updates will occur less frequently
• Internet and social media adoptions will occur on a case -by -case basis and will have to fit into
overall IT work plan
• Reduced level of advertising of City events and activities
• Greater reliance on electronic forms of communication
• Reduced travel and training for staff at all levels
• Slower response times to service calls from the Public Works department
• Fewer staff and slower response times for development review and permit applications
• Fewer updates to the Public Works website
• Lower level of maintenance and custodial work in City facilities
• Additional use of online advertising in Human Resources versus printed advertising
• Lower level of planting and watering of corner flower beds
• Reduced mowing, watering and landscape maintenance, one of the outcomes of which will be
dormant (brown) grass at parks
• Reduction in trash pickup and restroom cleaning in City parks
• Reduced public hours at the Frances Anderson Center
• Reduced number of summer concerts
• Reduced summer beach patrols, closing of visitor station
• Reduction in advertising activities for promotion and marketing of the City for tourism and
development purposes
• Increased reliance on electronic information and communication in the Development Services
Department to reduce printing costs
• Reduction or elimination of passport services at the Court
• Reduced number of hearings at the Court, resulting in longer hearings and wait times
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 16, 2012
Page 4
Reorganization and reassignments within the Police Department, Information Services, Parks &
Recreation, and Public Works because of retirements and VSIP program
In addition to the revenue and expenditure challenges within the General Fund, there is continuing
pressure from other funds of the City for transfers from the General Fund. The 2012 budget included
what was assumed to be a one -time transfer of $600,000 from the General Fund to the LEOFF Medical
Insurance Reserve fund. However, it was necessary to budget that same amount for 2013 due to declining
fund balance in the LEOFF fund. Also, for the first time since the Transportation Benefit District was
created, the City will be transferring $100,000 of General Fund money to the Street Fund in order to
cover a declining fund balance there as well. There are declining fund balances in other funds too, like
the Cemetery Maintenance and Improvement Fund, which could in the near -term require even more
resources from the General Fund to cover declining fund balances.
While there will be disappointment with some of the reductions, we are able to meet the needed
adjustments and still maintain the core services without complete elimination of most programs. The staff
has worked long and hard to make compromises to meet our goals.
While the process has been difficult, we do have many bright spots. We have spent the last two years with
extensive citizen input developing a Strategic Plan which will allow us to prioritize the needs and desires
of our community. The final report will be forthcoming in the next few weeks. One of the outcomes will be
to move our budget process toward Budgeting by Priorities. This concept allows for the community to
have input on which programs are the highest priorities to maintain in the city.
We have had great success in bringing new businesses to town. Old Milltown has a new owner and has
brought new energy to that project. The longtime eyesore, the Antique Mall, has new owners and we will
see dramatic improvement at that site. The Port District proposes to redevelop Harbor Square. Westgate
and Highway 99 continue to add new businesses. Our Arts community continues to bring visitors to town
and expand their creativity. All of this advancement is extremely important as those changes bring vitality
to the community and more importantly, brings much needed tax revenue to the city.
Even with the financial challenges, our staff has been very successful in seeking grants. We have
approximately $14 million dollars in grants either secured or in the pipeline. This bright spot allows us to
make dramatic improvements in Public Works and Parks and Recreation that we would otherwise not
have the ability to fund. Dollars received for grants, may not be used for uses other than the project itself.
As mentioned before, 58% of the city budget comes from property tax and sales tax. At the moment
property values appear to have firmed and our sales tax shows very modest improvement. Dramatic
improvement to reach the level prior to the 2008 national financial debacle is years away.
Even with the bright spots, the difficulties we face over the next few years will be very challenging. Unless
we as a community face the harsh reality of our financial challenges, we will have to make further
compromises. There are very few ways besides a stunning turnaround in the economy to change our
course. We of course can consider new taxes which no one wants to hear about. We can try to have
continued economic development, but that alone will not solve the problem. We will have to work
together to make difficult decisions. This is too good of a community not to face and deal with the
challenges. I look forward to working with the council and the community to solve our long -term
challenges.
The budget now goes before the city council for analysis and work. The staff and I look forward to
answering questions and hearing suggestions in the coming weeks. We have worked long and hard to
deliver a balanced and yet austere budget to the council and citizens. I would ask the council to follow
one principle, if you add to the budget, please either find new revenue or make adjustments by reducing
some other portion of the budget. We have, quite simply, run out of clever.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 16, 2012
Page 5
Copies of the 2013 Preliminary Budget were distributed to Councilmembers. Finance Director Shawn
Hunstock announced copies of the budget will be available at the City Clerk's office tomorrow morning
by 10:00 a.m. and on the City's website this evening. He reviewed changes to the content of this year's
budget document:
• Includes several pages of introductory materials, graphs, charts, data
• Organized by fund, similar to the City's financial reports (CAFR and monthly /quarterly reports)
• Includes total revenue and expenses, by fund
• City utilities are budgeted for separately
• Water utility fund
• Storm utility fund
• Sewer/WWTP utility fund
• Policies should be considered "draft" at this point, to the extent they mention items Council has
not considered previously
• New fund numbers for some funds (Multimodal, Building Maintenance, Transportation Benefit
District, utility funds)
• Includes org charts by department, with positions
• Department summaries, showing divisions
• Additional current year /prior year columns
Mr. Hunstock provided 2013 budget highlights:
• The General Fund budget is balanced (revenues = expenditures)
• Includes no use of reserves or fund balance to balance the budget
• Includes decrease of 9.2 FTE through either across - the -board reductions or VSIP
• Includes the impact of potentially changing health insurance providers
• Impacted by fund balance trends in other funds (for instance, includes a transfer from General
Fund to Street Fund)
• Strategic outlook
0 2013 is balanced
o Small projected surplus for 2014
o Quickly goes to $1.4 million deficit (and growing) by 2017
• Relatively few decisions packages
• Diverse fiber route to Hwy 99
• Fiber optic customer development
• Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) plan
• Engineering FTE
Mr. Hunstock reviewed the schedule and topics for upcoming budget work sessions:
• October 23 — Budget Work Session (3 hours)
• Budget Overview
• City Council
• Mayor's Office
• City Clerk
• City Attorney
• Court
• Community Services/Economic Development
• Finance and Info. Services
• Development Services
October 30 — Budget Work Session, cont. (3 hours)
o Police Department
o Human Resources
o Parks and Recreation
o Public Works
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 16, 2012
Page 6
He reviewed the 2013 budget calendar:
• November 5 — City Council Meeting
• Public hearing on revenue sources including property taxes (20 min.)
• Public hearing on 2013 budget (20 min.)
• Property tax ordinance and resolution (20 min.)
• November 20 — City Council Meeting
o Public hearing on 2013 budget (20 min.)
0 2013 budget adoption (20 min.)
Mr. Hunstock pointed out the 2 budget work sessions on October 23 and 30 as well as the 3 public
hearings will provide the public 5 opportunities to comment regarding the budget.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Mr. Hunstock preferred Councilmembers send him their questions in
advance. Mr. Hunstock responded yes and suggested as the Council begins the budget deliberations, a list
of suggested changes be established rather than considering changes one -by -one. He offered to maintain
the list and provide a spreadsheet with cumulative effects of any proposed changes. He suggested the
Council then prioritize the list and take action via one motion at the conclusion of deliberations.
Councilmember Buckshnis complimented Mayor Earling and Mr. Hunstock on the development of the
budget. She reiterated the recommendation that if any expenditures were added to the budget, the Council
identify a funding source or make other reductions. She offered to review assumptions in the budget with
Councilmembers.
6. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT UPDATE FOR 2013-
2018 TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
THE PROPOSAL UPDATES THE CITY'S CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN TO INCLUDE
IMPROVEMENTS, ADDITIONS, UPGRADES OR EXTENSIONS OF CITY INFRASTRUCTURE
SUCH AS TRANSPORTATION, PARKS, AND STORMWATER ALONG WITH OTHER PUBLIC
FACILITIES NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
City Engineer Rob English provided a comparison of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and
Capital Facilities Plan (CFP):
The 2013 -2018 CFP contains 3 project sections:
• General
o Parks, buildings & regional projects
Transportation
o Safety /capacity & pedestrian/bicycle
Stormwater
He highlighted projects added to the 2013 -2018 CFP and CIP:
• Main Street Undercrossing (Project 113)
• Emergency access
• Grade separation between transportation modes
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 16, 2012
Page 7
CIP
CFP
Mandate?
None
GMA
Reason?
Budget
GMA
Time Frame?
6 year
6 year
20 year
Must include Capital?
Yes
Yes
Must include Maintenance?
Yes
No
The 2013 -2018 CFP contains 3 project sections:
• General
o Parks, buildings & regional projects
Transportation
o Safety /capacity & pedestrian/bicycle
Stormwater
He highlighted projects added to the 2013 -2018 CFP and CIP:
• Main Street Undercrossing (Project 113)
• Emergency access
• Grade separation between transportation modes
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 16, 2012
Page 7
• SR99 & 212th intersection
• Add westbound and eastbound left turn lanes
• Improve intersection level of service.
Mr. English provided a summary of fund numbers in the CIP and department manaxinz each fund:
Fund
Description
Department
112
Transportation
Public Works
113
Multimodal Transportation
Community Services
116
Buildings Maintenance
Public Works
125
REET -2 Transportation
Public Works
125
REET -2 Parks Improvement
Parks & Recreation
126
Parks Acquisition
Parks & Recreation
129
Special Projects
Parks & Recreation
132
Parks- Construction (Grant
Funding)
Parks & Recreation
412 -100
Water Projects
Public Works
412 -200
Storm Projects
Public Works
412 -300
Sewer Projects
Public Works
414
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Public Works
Mr. English highlighted 112 Street Fund projects, noting the City's limited funds have been leveraged by
grants to pursue significant transportation improvements:
• Main Street — 5th Avenue to 6d' Avenue (construction)
• 5"' Avenue Overlay (2013
• Five Corners Roundabout (2013)
• Signal cabinet improvements (2013)
• SR99 Lighting phase 3 design (2013
• 228`' Corridor Improvements, design, right -of -way acquisition (2013)
• 212`' & 76th Avenue Improvements, environmental review, design (2013
He highlighted 412 Utility Fund projects:
• Water Utility Fund
0 3,800 feet of replaced watermains (constructions)
0 10,000 feet of watermain replacement (2013
o Overlay 2,000 linear feet of roadway affected by waterline replacement projects (complete)
• Sewer Utility Fund
o Rehabilitation of nine sewer lift stations
0 5,600 feet of sewer main replacement/rehabilitation (2013
o Sewer Comprehensive Plan update (2013)
o 1,000 feet of CIPP sewer mains (2013)
Stormwater Utility Fund
• North Talbot Road drainage improvements (complete)
• Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek drainage improvement (construction)
• Edmonds Marsh Study (2013)
• 3,300 feet of new /replaced storm drain pipe for Edmonds Basin #3 SD improvements (2013)
• Vactor Waste Handling Facility upgrade (2013)
• Perrinville Creek High Flow Reduction study (2013)
• 95th /93rd Avenue Storm LID Project (2013)
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite highlighted Park CIP projects:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 16, 2012
Page 8
• Completion of Interurban Trail
• Completion of Hazel Miller Plaza
• Groundbreaking of SR99 International District
• Progress on 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor
• Beginning Dayton Street Plaza
Ms. Hite highlighted CFP projects:
• Added Public Market
• Development of Woodway High School Athletic Complex
Ms. Hite highlighted BEET 125 funded projects:
• Additional repairs needed at Yost Pool ($50,000). Added another $120,000 next year for boiler.
• Moved City Park to 2013, combined playground replacement with spray pad to match grant: City
Park Spray and Play Revitalization
• Carryover: Edmonds Marsh Study
• Set aside for Woodway High School fields
• Replacement of Mathay Ballinger play equipment
• Park Impact Fee Study, PROS Plan update
Ms. Hite highlighted Park Construction Fund 132 projects, advising this fund does not have its own
revenue source; it receives funds from grants and transfers from REET 125:
• 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor planning
• Completion of Dayton Street Plaza
• City Park/RCO grant
• Senior Center Improvements: subject to CDBG (unsecured funding)
Mr. English reviewed the CFP /CEP schedule:
• September 12 — Public Works, Parks, & Planning Committee
• October 2 — City Council; introduction
• October 10 —Planning Board
• October 16 — City Council public hearing
• December 2012 — Adopt CFP with Comprehensive Plan Update
Councilmember Petso asked when the CIP decision is final and if it is when the budget that incorporates
the CIP is adopted. Mr. English answered staff's recommendation is to approve the CFP and CIP tonight.
Councilmember Petso asked how adoption of the CIP would be affected if the Council made changes
during budget deliberations. Mr. English answered the CIP could be amended; a change to the budget
would not necessarily affect the CIP.
Councilmember Petso asked if the older version of the City Park Plan that Ms. Hite referred to includes a
change to the City Park road. Ms. Hite answered no; the Master Plan adopted in 1992 is the only plan for
City Park. The 1992 plan shows the play area and splash pad together in one footprint rather than the
splash pad at the wading pool location. A concept design for the grant that reconfigures the footprint for
the two play areas to expand and add the spray pad was presented to the Council at a public hearing.
To illustrate this is a living document Public Works Director Phil Williams explained within the last 3 -4
working days the City was notified by the Interagency Coordinating Committee (ICC) that the City's
application for funds for the design phase of the Sunset Avenue walkway project from reallocated
Congestion Mitigation for Air Quality (CMAQ) money is expected to be authorized; the grant will be
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 16, 2012
Page 9
approximately $159,000. He suggested the Council amend the document to add the $159,000 grant and
move the project up to 2013.
Councilmember Bloom asked Mr. English to describe Project IA and 113. Mr. English answered Project
IA is the original multimodal facility that has been in the planning stages for several years and is located
south of the Port at the former Chevron pier. Project 1B, a minimum build version of Project 1A, is an
undercrossing of Main Street under the existing railroad tracks. The undercrossing would serve the ferry
and provide a safety access to Railroad Avenue.
Councilmember Bloom asked staff to describe why the projects are linked when they are in two separate
locations. Mr. Williams answered the project at Pt. Edwards met the purpose and need of the
environmental document that was prepared and adopted and a record of decision filed. However, due to
changes in the economy and state and federal budgets, that project was not fundable in the immediate,
foreseeable future. Consideration was then given to a minimum build alternative that would meet much of
the purpose and need of the original project but could potentially be fundable. Many of the problems
solved by the project at Pt. Edwards can be solved by a less expensive alternative. He acknowledged it
would not be the entire package provided by the project at Pt. Edwards but it may be more doable in the
near term. He summarized the goal of the minimum build alternative is to achieve some grade separation
at the crossing at Main Street. He pointed out the benefits of grade separate can be illustrated by this
morning's accident between a Sounder train and a semi -truck at Railroad and Main.
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained an additional common
feature between the projects is they are both multimodal in nature. Edmonds Crossing includes all the
multimodal components together in one project including holding lanes, Sound Transit and Amtrak
stations, parking structure, bus transit station and ferry pier; the area at Main Street is multimodal in that
all the modes of transportation are in close proximity to each other. He assured Project lA is not
technically dead, it is taking a nap. Washington State Ferry's (WSF) 2009 -2030 Transportation Plan does
not contain any reference or funding for Edmonds Crossing. The project did receive a Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Record of Decision in 2005; at that time the estimated
expenditure cost was $237 million. WSF does not have the money to fund the project at this time but the
project is still alive. The choices are to wait until 2030, wait for a spectacular recovery of the economy to
allow WSF to fund the project, or look at other options for providing grade separation for WSF and other
modes of transportation. He referred to an aerial photograph of a concept overlay of the underpass which
WSF provided the City in 2008 that he recently emailed to Councilmembers. Due to the economic
downturn in 2008, WSF changed its focus from funding new terminals to maintenance.
Mr. Clifton explained due to the proposal to build a coal terminal at Cherry Point in Bellingham, there is
the possibility of 18 additional trains per day, each 1'/2 miles in length. Page 1 -4 of the FEIS referenced 35
trains /day passing through Edmonds, 35 -42 today, up to 70 trains by 2020 and up to 104 in 2030. Adding
the 18 trains from the proposed coal terminal would mean a significant disruption to the WSF system.
The intent at this time is to analyze the engineering and financial feasibility of an undercrossing.
Councilmember Bloom pointed out Project 1B is scheduled for 2019 -2025 and there are no other projects
in the CIP to address safety issues related to waterfront access before then. She asked how safety issues
would be addressed in the meantime. Mr. Clifton answered Project 1B does not preclude considering
other safety improvements. WSF offered the WSDOT parking lot south of the old Skipper's site to the
private sector in exchange for constructing a pedestrian overcrossing. Unfortunately at that time there was
not enough value in the property to fund the overcrossing. Councilmember Bloom reiterated there are no
projects in the CFP or CIP that address emergency, pedestrian and non - motorized access to the waterfront
in the interim. Mr. Clifton agreed but Project 1B does not preclude adding a project to the CFP /CIP next
year or the following year if another concept is developed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 16, 2012
Page 10
Councilmember Johnson referred to page 38 of the CIP, the description of the Sunset Avenue project,
observing the total project cost is estimated at $900,000. She noted there is $200,000 identified for 2014
and the CMAQ grant would be $159,000. Mr. Williams answered there is $88,000 available in the CIP in
2013; the remainder of the design would be in 2014. He offered to confer with Mr. English tomorrow
regarding the timing of the design. The cost of design is $184,000; the difference between $159,000 and
$184,000 would be a local match from Fund 112 and would be split between 2013 and 2014.
Councilmember Petso recalled when the CFP /CIP was presented to Council Committee, the
undercrossing at Main and the original multimodal project at Pt. Edwards were two separate projects. She
asked the rationale behind combining the projects. Mr. Williams answered it was due to a growing
realization they were linked for the reasons he previously described. At one time the City and other
partners collected approximately $80 million for the larger project. That project is on hold pending future
changes in available funding at the state and federal level, changes in concept, or a better idea. The
minimum build alternative was felt to have a better chance of being funded sooner than the Pt. Edwards
project and would solve many of the same issues. A potential funding source is Puget Sound Regional
Council reallocating some of the funds for Edmonds Crossing to a minimum build alternative. Another
potential funding source is the Strategic Investment Board for Freight Mobility; Mayor Earling, Mr.
Clifton and he plan to make a presentation to the Board on October 25. Linking the projects may improve
access to Edmonds Crossing funds.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas expressed concern with the wording of the Main & Dayton
undercrossing project as there has been no agreement that a tunnel is the best option. She recalled staff
stated the project was added to the CFP /CIP in case funding became available. Mr. Williams answered the
City cannot qualify for grant funding if the project is not in the CFP /CIP. Adding the project to the
CFP /CIP will allow staff to seek funding to evaluate the project. He assured the project described is not
the only answer; it is a possible answer and is worthy of additional investigation and feasibility analysis.
Other alternatives can be considered.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked if the undercrossing was included in the City's CFP /CIP because
the tunnel is within the City. Mr. Williams answered WSDOT Ferry's Division, the Port and other
transportation modes in close proximity would be partners in any study /project but the City was the
logical driver.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas pointed out one of the legislative priorities of the Economic Alliance
Snohomish County is $80 million for the SR104/Main Street/Dayton project. Another of their priorities is
$62 million for a Hwy. 99 & SR104 overpass which relieves the choke point for the north -south corridor
for Swift transit. She asked why the Hwy. 99 & SR104 overpass is not in the City's CFP /CIP but the
Main Street underpass is. Mr. Williams answered WSDOT is interested in improvements across Hwy. 99
and has taken the lead on that project. Edmonds is supportive of that project. Edmonds would be the lead
on the projects contained in the City's CFP /CIP. Not all projects within the city limits are in the CFP /CIP
unless the City has a sponsorship or implementation role.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas concluded from Mr. Williams' explanation that the City would take the
lead in the ferry project but not the project on Hwy. 99. Mr. Williams answered he did not see the Main
Street underpass as a ferry project; it is two City streets, Main and Railroad, pedestrian activity,
automobiles, and local City traffic that are impeded and at risk with the current arrangement. He
acknowledged the ferries were also involved. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas commented there is a
similar situation at Hwy. 99 & SR104. Mr. Williams commented the Hwy. 99 & SR104 overpass project
could be added to the City's CFP /CIP.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the Economic Alliance's legislative priority for $80 million for the
underpass; the City's CFP /CIP only contains $57 million. Mr. Williams answered the project has not been
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 16, 2012
Page 11
designed and the cost and scope of the project is unknown. A transportation engineering consultant
estimated the cost at $60 -80 million.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if staff wanted the Hwy. 99 & SR104 overpass added to the City's
CFP /CIP. Mr. English responded it is Council's discretion whether to add a project. He explained that
portion of Hwy. 99 & SR104 is limited access which is a higher controlled access for WSDOT than at
Main Street. That may be one of the reasons that project was not included in the City's CFP /CIP.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
David Preston, Port of Edmonds Commissioner, urged the Council to consider the undercrossing at
Main Street. He explained public safety is important to the Port; response to a boat fire at the Port on
December 31, 2011 would have been much more difficult had a train been there. Access to the dog park,
underwater park, restaurants, the Port, the Senior Center and everything between is important. He recalled
discussion regarding the Fire Department locating an aid vehicle near the Port in the event the tracks were
blocked and suggested that be considered as an alternative. In addition to today's accident between a
Sounder train and a semi - truck, a freight train was stuck on the tracks last month. Double tracking will
increase the potential for the tracks to be blocked.
Richard Stewart, Edmonds, suggested the undercrossing should be an expense for BNSF and WSDOT.
He asked why the undercrossing would be a City expense and suggested the City should be a minor
player or only a coordinator. If the need for the underpass is linked to the coal trains, he suggested the
City object to coal trains as Bellingham and 50 other cities have done.
John Dewhirst, Edmonds, expressed support for an underpass or railroad crossing. He pointed out the
issue of funding, explaining if a project is not in the City's CIP, "you don't even get to play the game."
There are funds available from a variety of sources but the project must be in the CIP to be considered for
grant funds. He acknowledged there were a lot of questions to be answered and alternatives considered to
determine what would be suitable now and possibly could be phased in the future until funds are available
for the final improvement. He pointed out all the transportation projects underway are funded with money
from state, county and/or federal sources. All those projects began as a line item in the CIP. He
summarized this is an important short and long term project.
Farrell Fleming, Executive Director, Edmonds Senior Center, echoed the previous comment
regarding the importance of a project being in the CFP /CIP, expressing his support for including the
Senior Center in the CFP /CIP awaiting future funding. Although the Senior Center is described as being
at the end of its useful life and ideally needs to be replaced, it functions very well. He supported the
Senior Center project occurring sooner than 2019 -2025 and suggested developing a concept for
redevelopment that is so architecturally stunning, technologically advanced and conceptually innovative
that it would attract funding. One of the benefits of the public /non - profit partnership between the City and
Senior Center is it allows both to pursue grants for the Senior Center. In the past the City has applied for
the CBDG grant; this year the Senior Center plans to apply for the grant. The Senior Center is also
applying for a Boeing grant; the two will provide in excess of $200,000 for Senior Center refurbishments.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, reiterated his concern with signals that were taken out and put back into the
CFP /CIP. He expressed concern with the addition of Project 1B. He pointed out the ferry at Unocal would
allow overhead loading, ample parking, creation of a well- functioning transportation system and move the
highway out of the middle of the City. He referred to North Bend and Sequim where the highway had
been moved outside the town. He suggested the City could improve its connection to the waterfront if the
ferry traffic were eliminated; an underpass would destroy the mid- waterfront area. Keeping the ferry in
the current location will result in, 1) expansion of the ferry dock to include parking, and 2) a second dock.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 16, 2012
Page 12
He also expressed concern the City was seeking funding from the Freight Mobility Board who promotes
coal trains; the City is asking to join their team and Mayor Earling is leading that charge.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Petso suggested the Council consider the following:
• Change Aquatics Center at Yost Park to Aquatics Center (no location specified)
• Eliminate the mid -block crossing on SR104 between City Park and the Marsh. If Edmonds
Crossing is ever constructed, a signal at Pine & SR104 will provide a safe crossing.
• Remove rain gardens from Southwest Drainage Plan. The proposed location is an area currently
used for parking, walking to the school bus stop and bike riding. A public hearing on the project
in the next few months will provide the neighbors' response to the project.
• Remove the signal at 9"' & Caspers that was previously removed from the CFP /CIP
• Remove the signal at 88"' & 196`" that was previously removed from the CFP /CIP
• Concern with ferry underpass project.
• Concern with coal trains
Councilmember Petso suggested continuing the public hearing to take additional comment on the ferry
underpass project. She explained the underpass contradicts the existing plan to move the ferry and it
contradicts a parks project in the plan for improvements at Brackett's Landing as the schematic indicates
a portion of the park will be lost to a proposed tunnel. She shared the interest for improved public access
to the Port, suggesting a better way to accomplish that via a minimum build alternative would be a project
that implements a portion of the currently proposed multimodal facility, a road that provides emergency
access to the waterfront area. She envisioned that would be significantly cheaper than a ferry loading
underpass as it would only need to meet the requirements of an emergency access road.
Councilmember Petso stated in searching for information regarding the ferry tunnel project, she found a
2009 document from the state ferries that one of their objectives was to build a tunnel in downtown
Edmonds and put six stories of condos on top. She has been told that project is not the motivation for
pursuing the underpass at this time but she did not want to further that goal via the City's CFP /CIP.
Councilmember Petso stated another of her concerns is coal trains; she suggested proponents of the coal
export facility be informed that the City has a plan for eliminating the conflict between the railroad and
the ferry terminal and if they want to build their facility, they should help fund the multimodal project.
She hated to think the project was being included in the City's CFP /CIP to facilitate the coal terminal in
Bellingham. The City has passed resolutions in opposition to the coal export facility and coal trains.
Councilmember Petso understood the argument that if a project was not in the CIP, it was difficult if not
impossible to get grant funds. She recalled a comment after the City accepted funds for design of the
roundabout that if the project did not proceed to construction, the City would be unlikely to successfully
compete for construction grants in the future. She was not interested in a repeat of that scenario and
preferred to do more work and have more public discussion on this project before adding it to the
CFP /CIP.
Councilmember Bloom thanked Councilmember Petso for outlining her concerns and she echoed the
issues Councilmember Petso identified related to the Main Street undercrossing. She agreed further
discussion was necessary before the project was included in the CFP /CIP. If the focus is on an underpass,
she questioned whether any effort would be made on a less expensive alternative for a safety access. She
assumed safety and emergency vehicle access to the beach was the point of Mayor Earling's "Don't
Block the Beach" gathering, not access to the beach for ferry traffic. She did not support including the
underpass on the CFP /CIP without a project to provide safety access to the waterfront. Safety access
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 16, 2012
Page 13
could be less expensive, could be very attractive and could accommodate emergency vehicles, pedestrians
and non - motorized vehicles.
Council President Peterson spoke in favor of the undercrossing. He agreed emergency access was
important but questioned what alternatives exist other than going over or under the railroad crossing. He
recalled public safety was the primary focus of Mayor Earling's gathering on the beach. He cited the boat
fire at the Port on December 31, 2011 and this morning's train/semi accident. To the suggestion of having
an aid vehicle on the waterfront side of the tracks, he questioned how the people that staff the vehicle
would reach it, how the injured would be transported to hospitals, etc. if the tracks were blocked by a
train. He pointed out the need to identify conceptual ideas; if the project is not in the CFP /CIP, there will
be no opportunity to get grants to study ideas.
Councilmember Yamamoto commented the intent of the CFP /CIP was to get to a starting point. Unless
the underpass is included in the CFP /CIP, the City is not in the game. Even if the City gets some funding,
the City is not bound to pursuing a specific alternative.
In response to Council President Peterson, Councilmember Bloom explained Mr. Hertrich offered an
alternative in his comments at the Planning Board public hearing of going over the tracks somewhere else
such as Pt. Edwards, Bell Street or another area where access over the tracks would not block views. She
suggested an access that could accommodate emergency vehicles and pedestrians be pursued to improve
safety in the short term. She was concerned the proposed project was scheduled for 2019 -2025 but hours
of staff time will be allocated to pursuing grants, partnerships with the ferry, etc. The problem that needs
to be solved is safety access to the waterfront, not ferry access. Ferry access is WSF's responsibility; the
City's responsibility is safety access. She preferred a project that would address safety access in the short
term; linking the projects delays a solution that addresses safety issues until 2019 -2025.
Councilmember Buckshnis disagreed with Councilmember Petso's comments regarding the roundabout;
the Council voted in favor of the roundabout concept and moving that project forward.
Main Mntinn
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE 2013 -2018 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN AND CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.
Amendment #1
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO REMOVE PROJECT 1B, MAIN STREET UNDERCROSSING
MINIMUM BUILD VERSION, FROM THE CFP /CIP AND REFER IT TO THE UPDATE OF THE
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked if the project had been reviewed by the Transportation
Committee. Mr. Williams answered the Transportation Advisory Committee is formed to review updates
to the Transportation Element which is done every six years. The Committee has not been active for some
time. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked if the Main Street Undercrossing was in the Transportation
Element. Mr. Williams answered no; it was adopted in 2009, before the current status of the Edmonds
Crossing project was known.
Councilmember Johnson asked a point of order; it was her understanding that once a motion was made
and seconded, discussion should occur among Councilmembers and not staff. Councilmember Fraley -
Monillas responded discussion can occur among Councilmembers and with staff; it would be difficult for
a Councilmember to vote on a motion without staff answering their questions.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 16, 2012
Page 14
Councilmember Johnson pointed out the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan addresses
transportation and the underpass is not included. GMA requires the Transportation Element be updated
every six years; the correct time to consider the underpass would be as part of the Comprehensive Plan. In
the short term, there are two issues, 1) emergency access for pedestrians and/or emergency vehicles and
2) an emergency preparedness policy to address fire or medical emergency at the Senior Center, Port,
public beaches or the ferry. She relayed Port Director McChesney's comments that the Edmonds Police
Department had an agreement with BNSF regarding providing emergency access but that agreement no
longer exists with Fire District 1. She summarized rather than including the Main Street Underpass in the
CFP /CIP, it should be deferred to the update of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan in
order to see the project in a comprehensive context.
Vote on Amendment #1
AMENDMENT CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING NO.
Amendment #2
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD A CHIP SEAL PROGRAM INTO THE CIP.
Councilmember Petso expressed support for the amendment, assuming funding for chip seal would be
zero, the same as the overlay program. Including it would allow chip sealing to be pursued if additional
funding became available.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked for Public Works' input, whether the amendment would work.
Mr. Williams answered it would work if there were funds attached to it. The issue is a revenue source for
pavement preservation, whether that is overlays, chip seals, slurry seals, or any other technique. He was
happy to include it in the CFP /CIP in the event funding specific to chip sealing became available.
Council President Peterson asked whether chip sealing was currently excluded as a possible pavement
preservation method. Mr. Williams answered no. If the City had funding for pavement preservation, the
best technique for each segment would be identified and implemented whether it was an overlay, rebuild,
chip seal, etc. He pointed out chip sealing would actually be done on roads that are in better condition
which may be confusing to some citizens.
Council President Peterson asked if there was grant funding that designated chip sealing over other
methods. Mr. Williams answered he was not aware of any. There were few grant programs that apply to
pavement preservation. There were funds set aside for pavement preservation in the last ICC grants; the
City applied and was awarded $551,000 to repave 5th Avenue and install ADA ramps. That was the first
time funds were available for pavement preservation since the stimulus package in 2009 when funds were
obtained for 212th and Dayton.
Council President Peterson was hesitant to add such specifics to the CFP and CIP. Chip sealing is
currently available. He did not support the amendment.
Councilmember Bloom asked the rationale for including chip sealing. Councilmember Buckshnis
answered street overlays are included in the CFP /CIP but she was uncertain it included chip seal. She was
willing to withdraw the motion if staff indicated chip seal was the same as overlay.
Vote on Amendment #2
UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (4 -3),
COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, FRALEY- MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS AND BLOOM VOTING
YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS YAMAMOTO AND JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON VOTING NO.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 16, 2012
Page 15
Amendment #3
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO REMOVE THE TRAFFIC LIGHT AT 9TH & CASPERS.
Vote on Amendment #3
UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (4 -3),
COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY- MONILLAS, PETSO, BLOOM AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING
YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS YAMAMOTO AND
JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember Petso inquired about former Project 15 and the current plan for the Perrinville Creek
drainage situation. Mr. Williams answered the CFP /CIP includes a project where the City would join with
Lynnwood to conduct a study of Perrinville Creek drainage and consider alternatives. Project 15 is one
concept but others will be evaluated to determine which provides the greatest benefit for the lowest cost
to help resolve the current hydrology problem in the Perrinville Creek basin. Improvements to the Talbot
Road culvert or rerouting the stormwater will not necessarily benefit Perrinville Creek from a habitat
perspective until hydrology issues such as rapid flash flows, limited detention in the basin, etc. are
addressed. Staff recommends doing the study first and let that guide development of the CIP for
Perrinville Creek.
Councilmember Petso asked for confirmation that if by supporting approval of the CFP /CIP, she will be
voting to proceed with a study and to partner with Lynnwood, not authorize a specific pipe configuration.
Mr. Williams agreed.
Councilmember Johnson explained she was very concerned with the SRI 04 corridor. Long ago it was a 2-
lane road from Hwy. 99 to 5`h Avenue. Now the City has completed a study of the Westgate area that
focuses on land use. She proposed a complementary transportation project and staff assisted her with
drafting the description of a Transportation Corridor Study.
Amendment #4
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO PREPARE A TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR
STUDY OF SR -104 BETWEEN THE INTERURBAN TRAIL (76TH AVE. W) TO THE FERRY
TERMINAL FOR A 20 -YEAR PLANNING HORIZON. THE STUDY WILL DETERMINE
EXISTING AND FUTURE DEFICIENCIES OF THE CORRIDOR AND INCLUDE
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES TO INTEGRATE FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT WITH A
FOCUS ON PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CONNECTIONS, HIGHWAY ACCESS
MANAGEMENT, AND STREET -SCAPE DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION. THE PURPOSE OF
THE STUDY IS TO DEVELOP A MASTER PLAN FOR THE CORRIDOR, BOTH WITHIN AND
OUTSIDE THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY.
Councilmember Johnson explained the purpose of the study would be to complement the work done by
the Economic Development Commission to promote growth and development in the Westgate area. The
study that was conducted focused on land use and she felt additional work was needed related to
transportation. There are no capacity projects for this area in the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. There are three issues, 1) moving pedestrians and bicycles through the corridor, 2)
implementing the concept for streetscape and street planting plan, and 3) improving safety, access
management and circulation within the four quadrants. This study will complement the work that has
been done.
Councilmember Petso observed the City is required to hold a public hearing on the CFP /CIP. This study
is a new idea that was not considered during the public hearing. She asked whether the public hearing
should be continued to allow the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed study. Mr. Taraday
answered the Council may want to continue the public hearing out of an abundance of caution.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 16, 2012
Page 16
Council President Peterson suggested adding the study to the CFP /CIP next year, recognizing there is no
funding source for 2013. He agreed it was an excellent idea but the Council is running out of time to
schedule items on its agendas.
Vote on Amendment #4
AMENDMENT CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING NO.
For Councilmember Johnson, Ms. Hite explained the PROS Plan is not in the CIP this year; it is in the
budget as a decision package. The PROS Plan is a Comprehensive Plan planning document for the entire
park system and not a specific park, therefore, it is not eligible for funding in that category.
Amendment #5
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO REMOVE 196TH & 88TH AVENUE INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked whether this project included the right -turn only option. Mr.
Williams answered the intersection does not currently meet warrants for a signal; it may in the future
when traffic or pedestrian volumes increase. A variety of interim solutions to improve the intersection
were considered such as eliminating left turns but the Council was unable to reach a consensus on an
interim solution. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked whether right -turn only, curbs, etc. would be
considered if the project is removed from the CFP /CIP. Mr. Williams agreed they can be, noting no
policy direction has been provided to staff with regard to the intersection.
Councilmember Johnson recalled the Transportation Committee recommended restricting left turn
movements to improve safety.
Council President Peterson did not support the amendment; including the project in the CFP /CIP allows
the City to revisit the intersection.
Councilmember Bloom noted the project description for 196th Street SW and 88th Avenue is to install a
traffic signal. The recommendation in the Transportation Element was to restrict left turns for safety. She
asked if Council could still discuss changes to the intersection if the project was removed from the
CFP /CIP. Mr. Williams stated yes; a traffic signal is a future project. The intent of long range planning is
to look ahead to future projects. Removing it would not prevent discussion of near -term solutions.
Councilmember Bloom clarified her understanding of Mr. Williams' explanation was the project could be
eliminated from the CFP /CIP and near -term solutions could still be considered. Mr. Williams answered it
can be eliminated but he does not see a reason to as staff is not applying for grants for a traffic signal; it is
a placeholder for a future project. Councilmember Bloom observed it is a placeholder for a traffic signal,
not restricting left turns. She asked whether the project needed to be revised to consider other alternatives
or was removing it from the CFP /CIP a better option.
Mr. English explained the project the Council removed earlier, 9th & Caspers Intersection Improvements,
and this project, 196th and 88t`' Intersection Improvements, may have been included in the Traffic Impact
Fee calculation. Removing the 9th & Caspers project and the 196th & 88th project from the CFP /CIP would
remove them from the list of projects used to calculate the Traffic Impact Fee and likely would result in a
reduction of the Traffic Impact Fee.
Councilmember Yamamoto pointed out the project descriptions refer to an alternate or interim solution
that could be implemented until traffic signal warrants are met. Unless the project is included in the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 16, 2012
Page 17
CFP /CIP, no funding can be sought. He emphasized there was no harm in keeping the project in the plan;
it is long range planning.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked the City Attorney to comment on Traffic Impact Fees. Mr.
Taraday agreed with Mr. English's assessment and explained many cities calculate Traffic Impact Fees
based on the 6 -year project list. Removing a project from the list would likely justify a recalculation of
the Traffic Impact Fee. Many cities adjust their Traffic Impact Fees on an annual basis although the
statute does not require an annual adjustment based on the current CIP but it is a good practice to ensure
nexus between the impact fee and the project list. Whenever the impact fee is reviewed, it is based on the
project list and to the extent projects have been removed, it could affect the impact fee amount.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas noted 196`h is a state route and asked if the City had any say over a light.
Mr. Williams stated the City and WSDOT must meet the same standards; the intersection does not meet
warrants for a signal. He recommended against installing a signal at an intersection until it meets
warrants.
Vote on Amendment #5
UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FAILED (3 -4), COUNCILMEMBERS
PETSO, JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON
AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY- MONILLAS, YAMAMOTO AND BLOOM VOTING NO.
Amendment #6
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
ADD THE AQUATICS CENTER TO THE COMMUNITY PARK ATHLETIC COMPLEX AT
OLD WOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained when the aquatics center feasibility study was done, the old
Woodway site was not considered and that information is available.
Councilmember Petso suggested revising the language to eliminate any specificity regarding the site for
the aquatics center.
Amendment #7
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
AMEND THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION TO DELETE "AT YOST PARK" FROM THE
AQUATICS CENTER PROJECT NAME.
Councilmember Johnson, a participant in the aquatic's study, recalled there was a preferred alternative but
the analysis included a generic cost evaluation that could be applied to any location.
Council President Peterson asked whether a broad, vague description hurt the project's chances for
funding. Ms. Hite answered it did not.
Vote on Amendment #7
THE AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT #6 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Vote on Amendment #6
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
In response to the question about continuing the public hearing due to Councilmember Johnson's
amendment to add a Transportation Corridor Study of SR104 to the CFP /CIP, Mr. Taraday explained if
the study is a new project on which there has not been any public comment, he recommended there be
another public hearing to allow public participation with regard to the amendment. The CFP is a
component of the Comprehensive Plan, projects can be deleted but adding a new project requires a public
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 16, 2012
Page 18
hearing. The Council approved the amendment to add the Transportation Corridor Study of SR104 to the
CFP /CIP so there is now a project in the Comprehensive Plan for which there has been no public hearing.
Councilmember Johnson clarified the Transportation Corridor Study is not a CFP project but rather a CIP
project. Mr. Taraday pointed out the CIP statute also requires a public hearing.
Council President Peterson asked if one public hearing was required or whether Planning Board review
was required. Mr. Taraday referred to RCW 35.77.010 which states the legislative body of each city
pursuant to one or more public hearings thereon shall prepare and adopt a Comprehensive Transportation
Program for the ensuing six calendar years. He commented a study does not need to be included in the six
year CIP as it is not a construction project. Ms. Hite commented the CIP is part of the budget process;
there will be a public hearing on the budget and this project could be included in that discussion.
Vote on Main Motion
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Earling relayed discomfort with Councilmember Bloom's comment that implied the only reason
he was interested in the underpass was to expedite ferry traffic. He stated at the event held at the
waterfront that his underlying concern was public safety; it would be great to solve the ferry problem but
the high priority was public safety.
Mayor Earling took offense with Mr. Hertrich's comment that he was leading the charge on coal trains; he
stressed that could not be farther from the truth; he signed the resolution the Council passed.
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ron Cantu, Woodway, expressed support for the Edmonds Port Harbor Square development. A great
deal of planning and input has been generated in the effort to commercially revitalize the Harbor Square
area. The proposed residential and commercial development would add to the quality of life of Edmonds
as well as provide increased tax revenue to Edmonds and the surrounding community. The existing
structures have reached the end of their commercial life and the area warrants a substantial
redevelopment. He viewed the proposed development as ideal but suggested all power lines be
undergrounded with the eventual goal of doing the same in downtown Edmonds. The critical issue is
allowing additional height at Harbor Square; the proposals are very modest but without additional height
development options are unreasonably limited and the goals of successful development including a
pedestrian walkway and increased tax revenue will not be met. If Edmonds wishes to continue as a
beautiful place to live, the proposed plan for Harbor Square should be supported.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, apologized to Mayor Earling, stating he did not mean to say that he knew his
exact motives with regard to the tunnel. Because the Freight Mobility Board promotes coal train type
traffic, asking them for funds was asking the enemy for money. He pointed out he could have suggested
Mayor Earling's support of a tunnel was supportive of WSF's proposal for six story buildings. Mayor
Earling said that comment would have been equally as offensive. Mr. Hertrich summarized if Mayor
Earling promoted a tunnel, possibly he promoted one of those ideas. He referred to questions at the
Planning Board regarding traffic studies and safety concerns and the Engineering Department's indication
a high level study was available. However, that study was described as a review of intersections with
accidents and potential improvements which he felt was not a study and did not address the Planning
Board's concerns. He summarized Councilmember Johnson's suggestion for a Transportation Corridor
Study fit the description on page 5 of the Planning Board's minutes.
8. FINAL PLAT AND PRD FOR STONEBRIDGE COURT AT 7723 & 7807 220TH ST. SW
(PLN20070020 AND PLN20070021).
Councilmember Petso recused herself due to a potential conflict of interest. She left the dais and the room
at this time.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 16, 2012
Page 19
Planner Mike Clugston explained Belton Homes is seeking final plat and PRD approval of their 10 lot
plat and PRD at 7723 and 7807 220`h Street Southwest. The original applicant received preliminary
approval in 2007 with items for remand. Due to the economic downturn, the project was idle for a few
years. Belton Homes took over the project approximately a year ago, addressed the remand issues and the
Hearing Examiner approved the remand in December 2011. The applicant subsequently submitted and
received approval for civil plat improvements and installed a number of the improvements. As shown in
Exhibit 6, the applicant submitted a bond that was accepted by the City reflecting the total cost to
construct all required improvements in the amount of approximately $689,000. Exhibit 6 also identifies
dedications to the City including 78"' Place West, a 10 -foot wide public stormwater utility easement, and
2 pedestrian access easements.
Mr. Clugston summarized the applicant has completed the requirements for the preliminary plat and PRD
approval and has posted bond for completion of the remainder of the improvements. Since all preliminary
plat and PRD conditions and requirements have been completed or provided for, staff recommends the
Council approve the final plat and PRD.
Councilmember Bloom referred to the statement in the agenda memo that the final plat/PRD documents
in Exhibit 2 are not signed by the Directors of Public Works and Development Services, and asked where
their signatures are located. Mr. Clugston answered they were not on Exhibit 2 in the Council packet;
their signatures are on the mylar copies. All the certificates /statements required by the code are on the plat
and have been signed by the appropriate individuals. Councilmember Bloom asked why the signatures
were not included in the Council packet. Mr. Clugston answered they were not available in time for
preparation of the Council packet. He provided Councilmember Bloom the mylar copies.
For Councilmember Bloom, Mr. Clugston reviewed required certificates /statements referenced in
20.75.140 that are contained on the plat.
a. Surveyor seal on the plat
b. Owners certification of free consent
c. Dedications
d. Waiver of claims
e. Waiver of access
f. Roads not dedicated (not applicable)
g. Statement by Health Officer certifying the proposed means of sewage disposal and water supply
are adequate. Edmonds does not have a Health Officer. The Public Works approval block notes
sewage disposal and water supply are adequate.
Councilmember Bloom suggested the code needed to be revised if the City does not have a Health
Officer. Mr. Clugston agreed.
Councilmember Bloom requested the record reflect a formal recommendation from Development
Services Director Rob Chave and Public Works Director Phil Williams. Mr. Clugston referred to
20.75.155, Review of Plat, subsection d addresses City Council review: if the City Council finds the
public use and interest will be served by the proposed subdivision and all requirements of preliminary
approval in this chapter have been met, the final plat shall be approved and the Mayor and City Clerk
shall sign a statement of the City Council approval on the final plat. The code does not specify wording
that must be included on the plat. The Public Works and Development Services Directors' signatures on
the plat indicate their approval.
Councilmember Bloom asked if Mr. Chave and Mr. Williams could verify their approval. City Attorney
Jeff Taraday responded the Public Works Director, Mr. Williams, signed language on the face of the plat
that states the survey date, layout of streets, alleys and other rights -of -way, design of bridges, sewage and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 16, 2012
Page 20
water system and other structures are approved and the subject final plat is authorized for recording by the
City of Edmonds Engineering Division. Although that statement does use the word "recommend," stating
it is authorized for recording necessarily implies that he is recommending the City Council approve the
plat. The Development Services Director or the Community Development Director as stated in the code,
Mr. Chave, signed the statement on the face of the plat that states the subject final plat conforms to the
approved preliminary plat and all conditions of the preliminary approval and is approved and authorized
for recording by the City of Edmonds Planning Division. Again, although the word recommend is not
used, authorized for recording clearly implies Mr. Chave recommends the City Council approve the plat.
COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1283, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, APPROVING THE TEN LOT STONEBRIDGE COURT FINAL
PLAT AND PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) (P- 2007 -21; PRD- 2007 -20).
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 45 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to concerns citizens raised regarding potential drainage issues which
were the reason the buffers were increased. Mr. Clugston responded the final plat review is to ensure the
conditions of preliminary plat approval have been met, bonds taken, civil documents approved, etc. Issues
addressed at preliminary plat in 2007 and 2011 were ruled on by the Hearing Examiner and the applicant
has met the conditions imposed by the Hearing Examiner.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the Hearing Examiner's statement that the City Council may want
to dedicate land for parks. Mr. Clugston responded areas were set aside for open space as part of the PRD
and as required by the code.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether citizens' concerns with regard to water have been addressed.
Mr. Clugston referred to Exhibit 6, the Engineering Program Manager's statement that the civil
subdivision improvements were reviewed and approved by Engineering. Civil construction plans were
submitted to Engineering in February 2012 and approved for construction in June 2012. That approval
indicates all engineering code requirements were met for stormwater, utilities, etc.
Councilmember Johnson inquired about the status of the Planning Board updating /combining the PRD
and subdivision code. Mr. Clugston answered that issue was delayed due to other work. Next year staff
plans to have the Planning Board review and update the subdivision code in Chapter 75.
Councilmember Johnson asked if there are any covenants regarding the PRD restrictions. Mr. Clugston
referred to the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC &Rs) in Exhibit 3. A homeowners association
will be established as part of the plat to address maintenance of private utilities on the site.
Councilmember Johnson commented a homeowner in the Shell Creek PRD, constructed in the 1970s,
discovered the CC &Rs had never been filed and the rules were not enforceable if the homeowners
association did not meet annually. She asked how guarantees could be provided via a homeowners
association. Mr. Taraday advised the CC &Rs in Exhibit 3 will be recorded against the title; all
prospective purchasers of lots in the subdivision will see the CC &Rs on their title report.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED (6 -0).
Councilmember Petso returned to the dais.
9. ORDINANCE REGARDING STEP BACKS AND DESIGN STANDARDS
Interim Development Services Director Rob Chave explained the ordinance was drafted in accordance
with Council action at the October 2, 2012 meeting. The proposed ordinance eliminates the step -back
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 16, 2012
Page 21
requirement; Section 3 on page 9 of the ordinance addresses building heights in the BD5 zone. Section
3(a) states the maximum height may be increased to 30 feet with a pitched roof, Section 3(b) would allow
a building height of 30 feet regardless of the roof type. He suggested the Council clarify that contradiction
by striking Section 16.43.030(C)(3)(b) in its entirety. The effect would be a pitched roof would be
required to achieve a building height of 30 feet in BD5. That would defer the step -back discussion until
the Planning Board works with the Historic Preservation Commission on more specific design guidelines
for BD5.
Councilmember Petso suggested there was a similar contradiction between Section C(1) that states the
base height limit is 25 feet and C(2) states the building height is 30 feet. She suggested the ordinance be
referred to the Planning Board to discuss how to address these conflicts.
Main Mntinn
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO
REFER THE STEP -BACK ORDINANCE TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR EXPEDITED
REVIEW PREFERABLY IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXPEDITED REVIEW OF DESIGN
GUIDELINES.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the Council agreed at the August 21 meeting to discuss development
agreements and step- backs. She asked the status of development agreements and why step -backs and
development agreements have not been addressed together as the Council agreed at the August 21
Council meeting. Mr. Chave responded development agreements and step -backs are two separate and
different issues and are not necessarily linked. He recalled when the Community Services /Development
Services Committee discussed four amendments (step- backs, retail only, designated street fronts and
development agreements), the Committee uncoupled development agreements from the other three
amendments. The City Attorney is preparing a memo regarding development agreements and incentive
zoning.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO TABLE THE FINAL DECISION ON STEP -BACKS TO A DATE CERTAIN WHEN THE
REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND INCENTIVE ZONING HAS BEEN
COMPLETED.
UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCILMEMBERS
PETSO, BLOOM, JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FRALEY - MONILLAS AND YAMAMOTO AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING
NO.*
*(City Attorney Taraday later determined a motion to table requires a majority vote plus one to pass.)
Council President Peterson commented the Council had this discussion last week and directed staff to
provide an ordinance. He recalled at that Council meeting, there was a 5 -2 vote to move forward, now
Councilmembers are changing their minds. It was unfair to staff and the Council and he found it
ridiculous for this type of decision to be made at this late hour.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked the status of the architectural design standards. Mr. Chave
responded the Planning Board can review the Council minutes to determine the Council's priorities but it
would be helpful if the Council provided specific direction. The Planning Board is unable to begin
discussing design standards this month or next due to other agenda items.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday read from Resolution No. 292 regarding Council procedures that passage of a
motion to table requires the vote of one more than the majority of members present. He summarized a
vote of at least five members was required to pass a motion to table.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 16, 2012
Page 22
MAYOR EARLING RULED THE ABOVE MOTION TO TABLE FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A
MAJORITY PLUS ONE.
Amendment #1
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY - MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION TO INCLUDE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
CODES FOR THE BD1 -4 ZONES.
Council President Peterson advised he would not support the amendment or the motion as the Council
had already had this discussion. He urged the Council to make a decision, commenting the Council kicks
things back to the Planning Board constantly because they do not have the courage to make a decision.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled she made a motion at the August 21 meeting to discuss step -backs
and development agreements prior to making a decision. At that meeting, Councilmember Fraley -
Monillas expressed her preference for discussing development agreements prior to removing the 15 foot
step- backs. She summarized the Council needed to follow through with that direction. Council President
Peterson expressed frustration that the Council gave staff direction to proceed on October 2.
Councilmember Bloom recalled discussion regarding development agreements was to be scheduled on the
September 25 meeting but that was not done. She supported Council doing what they said they will do.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY - MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, TO ADJOURN.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas commented that 10:25 p.m. is too late to be determining the future of the
City.
Mr. Taraday advised Resolution No. 292 is silent on a motion to adjourn.
MAYOR EARLING RULED THE MOTION TO ADJOURN OUT OF ORDER.
Vote on Amendment #1
UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (4 -3),
COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, BUCKSHNIS, PETSO AND FRALEY - MONILLAS VOTING
YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND YAMAMOTO AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON VOTING NO.
Vote on Main Motion
UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION CARRIED (4 -3),
COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, FRALEY- MONILLAS, BLOOM AND PETSO VOTING
YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND
YAMAMOTO VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY - MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, TO MOVE AGENDA ITEMS 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 AND 15 TO WHENEVER COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PETERSON CAN SCHEDULE THEM.
CIO Carl Nelson stated Agenda Item 10, Indefeasible Right of Use Agreement, is time sensitive as Black
Rock is being acquired by Wave Division Holdings at the end of November. Having the IRU in place
before then would guarantee the quoted prices.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY - MONILLAS RESTATED HER MOTION, NOT TO INCLUDE
RESCHEDULING ITEM 10.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 16, 2012
Page 23
10. INDEFEASIBLE RIGHT OF USE AGREEMENT FOR EXISTING FIBER CONNECTION
CIO Carl Nelson explained this is a request for the Mayor to sign a 30 -year Indefeasible Right of Use
Agreement with Black Rock Communications which will save the City approximately $116,000 over the
30 year period. This is for continued use of the fiber between the City and Snohomish County for video
arraignment and other services. Under the existing agreement, after a 3 -year period, the City would pay
$500 /month forever; the IRU provides a reduced rate of approximately $175 /month for 30 years.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE IRU AGREEMENT.
Councilmember Buckshnis advised this had been vetted by the Finance Committee.
Finance Director Shawn Hunstock explained this item was not budgeted and if approved will be included
in the year end budget amendment.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
NOT TO POSTPONE AGENDA ITEM 15.
UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED (5 -2), COUNCILMEMBERS
YAMAMOTO, PETSO, BUCKSHNIS, BLOOM AND JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY - MONILLAS VOTING NO.
11. OCTOBER 2012 BUDGET AMENDMENT ORDINANCE.
This item was postponed to a future meeting via action taken following Agenda Item 9.
12. LAKE BALLINGER/MCALEER CREEK WATERSHED FORUM UPDATE.
This item was postponed to a future meeting via action taken following Agenda Item 9.
13. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF OCTOBER 9, 2012.
This item was postponed to a future meeting via action taken following Agenda Item 9.
14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
This item was postponed to a future meeting via action taken following Agenda Item 9.
15. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Johnson stated on this day 100 years ago the Edmonds Police Department was
established.
Councilmember Bloom commented Mayor Earling may have misinterpreted what she said. She clarified
her statement was that the "Don't Block the Beach" rally focused on safety issues and she was puzzled by
the lack of focus on safety issues in the CFP /CIP. She apologized but did not think she said what Mayor
Earling thought she said.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 16, 2012
Page 24
Councilmember Yamamoto asked to be excused from the remainder of the meeting and left the meeting at
this time.
16. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(i).
At 10:32 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last
approximately 15 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety
Complex. Action may occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the
executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley - Monillas, Peterson, Petso
and Bloom. Councilmember Buckshnis joined the executive session at 10:49 p.m. Others present were
City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Public Works Director Phil Williams, City Engineer Rob English, and City
Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 10:54 p.m.
17. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION UNDER AGENDA ITEMS 1 AND 16.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 10:55 p.m.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
CONSISTENT WITH THE AGREEMENT SENT TO THE COUNCIL THIS AFTERNOON.
MOTION CARRIED (5 -0 -1), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINING. ( Councilmember
Yamamoto was not present for the vote.)
18. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:56 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 16, 2012
Page 25