02/24/2009 City CouncilFebruary 24, 2009
Following a Special Meeting beginning at 6:00 p.m. to interview newly appointed Planning Board
Members and Sister City Commissioners, the Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00
p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5'b Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was
opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
D. J. Wilson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Grace Guenther, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services /Economic
Development Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Debi Humane, Human Resources Director
Carl Nelson, Chief Information Officer
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr.
Rob English, City Engineer
Bio Park, City Attorney
Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Council President Wilson added a "State of the City Report" by Mayor Haakenson as Agenda Item 4B
and renumbered the current Item 4 to 4A.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON,
TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL RETREAT MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6 & 7, 2009.
C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17, 2009.
D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #109980 THROUGH #110080 FOR FEBRUARY 19,
2009 IN THE AMOUNT OF $988,676.64. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT
DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #47847 THROUGH #47883 FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 1
THROUGH FEBRUARY 15, 2009 FOR $821,491.36.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 24, 2009
Page 1
E. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM NO. 6 TO THE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH R112 ENGINEERING, INC. FOR
THE 2003 WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT.
F. AMEND THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD FOR
THE OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND APPROVE THE
AWARD OF PHASE 2 OF THE PROJECT.
G. APPROVAL FOR MAYOR TO SIGN LETTER OF SUPPORT REGARDING LAKE
BALLINGER FORUM CAPITAL REQUEST.
3. CONFIRMATION AND INTRODUCTION OF NEWLY APPOINTED SISTER CITY
COMMISSIONERS.
Council President Wilson reported prior to tonight's meeting, the Council interviewed five Sister City
Commissioners appointed by Mayor Haakenson. He remarked the applicants were very competent and
capable and the Council was excited to have them participate on the Sister City Commission.
Councilmember Wambolt remarked he was always amazed by how many qualified people there were in
Edmonds who are willing to volunteer.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF YOSHITAKA INOUE, JEANNE BLAIR,
WAYNE PURSER, LILI HALL AND MARIKO WATTS TO THE SISTER CITY COMMISSION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
New Sister City Commissioners Yoshitaka Inoue, Jeanne Blair, Wayne Purser, Lili Hall and Mariko
Watts introduced themselves. Mayor Haakenson recognized Sister City Commissioners in the audience.
4A. CONFIRMATION AND INTRODUCTION OF NEWLY APPOINTED PLANNING BOARD
MEMBERS.
Council President Wilson reported the Council also interviewed two highly competent appointees to the
Planning Board, Val Stewart and Kevin Clarke. He recalled the Council's policy decision last year to
interview appointees one week and make appointments the following week. In this instance, because
Councilmembers Wambolt, Peterson and Bernheim participated in the interviews, he suggested the
Council could confirm the appointments tonight.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
TO CONFIRM THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF VAL STEWART AND KEVIN CLARKE TO
THE PLANNING BOARD. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
New Planning Board members Val Stewart and Kevin Clarke introduced themselves and expressed their
interest in serving on the Planning Board.
4B. STATE OF THE CITY REPORT.
Council President Wilson explained Mayor Haakenson provided the State of the City Report to the Rotary
Club this morning which has typically been the forum for this information. He requested Mayor
Haakenson make the same presentation at the Council meeting because it was an appropriate message and
would frame the conversation with the community in the coming months about the City's financial
situation and the November levy.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 24, 2009
Page 2
With regard to how we got here, Mayor Haakenson explained it was a result of, 1) past City Council
policy decisions over the last 20 -30 years, decisions that impacted growth in the community and reduced
potential for revenue, 2) the initiative process that began in 1999 which has impacted the ability of cities
to provide services to citizens, and 3) the economy.
He did not fault Councilmembers for their decisions because the citizens elected them and assumed those
policies were what the citizens desired. He remarked on a presentation made by the Director of the
Association of Washington Cities who was retiring after 30+ years, and his comment that the citizens of
Washington have not yet connected the dots from the initiative process to the lack of services cities
provide.
Mayor Haakenson explained the City has 266 employees; the annual budget is $73 million; and the day -
to -day General Fund operating budget is $35 million. Two - thirds of the budget is salaries and benefits.
The City provides services on a daily basis to 41,000 citizens. He challenged anyone to find another city
in the State of Washington that had this few employees providing services to that many citizens. He
displayed several photographs of City employees.
He explained balancing the budget required a give and take effort. Citizens "give" the City $14
million /year in property taxes. He pointed out only approximately 20% of citizens' property taxes came
to the City; 70% goes to the School District and 10% goes elsewhere. In return, the City provides police
services ($10 million budget), and fire services ($8 million). He pointed out with the $14 million the City
collected in property taxes, the City was already behind by $4 million just with police and fire services.
He identified other services the City provides: parks & recreation, building, planning, engineering,
human resources (2 people for 266 employees), information technology, court, city clerk, facilities
maintenance, and non - departmental. He explained the non - departmental budget includes fees paid to the
911 call center, transfers from the General Fund to Utilities, bond interest, public defender, voter
registration, elections, insurance, Leoff 1 retirement benefits, and loan payments. Of the other $20
million in revenue, $6 million is derived from sales tax. He noted car dealers provided the most sales tax,
and car dealers were not doing well in this economy. The City has reduced sales tax projections by an
additional 15% from the already reduced sales tax projection in the 2009 -2010 budget. The remaining
$14 million is derived from other taxes, licenses and fees, the Transportation Benefit District, EMS
transport fees, court fines, investment income, recreation fees, and development fees.
In addition to the General Fund, the City has 30 other expense funds, primarily utility funds for street,
water, drainage and sewage treatment. All are mandated by state and federal laws and are required to be
in balance. In simple terms, the City ensures citizens have fresh water to drink, that their toilets flush, and
their houses are not flooded by stormwater; very basic but expensive services to provide.
Mayor Haakenson described the City's ending cash balance, comparing it to the balance in a person's
checkbook. He explained the City's ending cash balance was projected to be approximately $50,000 at
the end of 2010 and a deficit of over $1 million in 2011. The City's ending cash balance should be
approximately $3 million; it should be even higher but the City can operate with an ending cash balance
of $3 million. He identified three ways to maintain an ending cash balance of $3 million, 1) new
revenues, 2) budget cuts, 3) increase taxes. He pointed out there were few opportunities for new revenue
streams; the only two remaining sources are not supported by the Council - gambling and a B &O tax.
With regard to budget cuts, he stressed there was nothing left to cut without eliminating programs. He
recalled during budget deliberations in November 2008, the Council was faced with making cuts of over
$1 million. Citizens pleaded with the Council not to make those cuts, not to cut Yost Pool or parks
maintenance. As a result the Council agreed not to make the budget cuts and instead to ask the voters for
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 24, 2009
Page 3
a tax increase in 2009. He explained in November voters would be asked to increase their property taxes
by approximately $250 /year, commenting the specifics of the levy had not yet been decided.
Despite the implementation of an EMS transport fee, voter approval of an EMS levy, a fee on vehicle
license tabs for roads and sidewalks, and increase in all development fees, the revenue the City collected
was not sufficient. He referred to recent news regarding the Dow, unemployment rates and foreclosures,
acknowledging the news was not good. He anticipated 2009 would not be a good year and he was
dubious about 2010.
He pointed out for the last nine years the City has dealt with ever- declining revenue streams and
increasing costs with budget cuts and duct tape. The decision to ask taxpayers to pay more did not come
easily for the Council. He emphasized the success of the levy would require the full commitment of the
City Council. Councilmembers will need to talk to their constituents and hold many public meetings and
educational seminars to help people understand the dilemma the City faces. He noted when the Council
passed the 2009 -2010 budget, they included a budget note that they would go to the voters in 2009 with a
request to increase taxes. Councilmembers agreed again at their recent retreat that they were in favor of a
levy.
If the levy failed, Mayor Haakenson explained there would be cuts and service reductions. He noted the
levy process included the formation of a Citizen Review Committee to discuss the size of the levy, cuts
that would be made without a levy, etc. He recalled the cuts proposed in the budget process totaled $1.2
million; since then staff has reduced sales tax projections and if cuts were required today, a total of $2
million would be required. If the levy fails and cuts are made in November, they likely will total $2.5 -3
million. He challenged anyone to review the budget and find anything else that could be cut other than
services. It will be up to the Council and the voters to determine what type of community they want
Edmonds to be.
Council President Wilson asked Mayor Haakenson to identify the cuts that were proposed during the
budget process that were postponed in hopes of a levy. Mayor Haakenson recalled there were cuts in
Parks & Recreation including the closure of Yost Pool and significant reductions in parks maintenance,
cuts in the Planning Department, cuts in Police Services such as the DARE Program and several other
cuts. He noted the emphasis in those proposed cuts was on Parks & Recreation, noting it was difficult to
cut a person here or there without affecting the level of service the City provides, for example, the only
way to cut firefighters was to close an entire station. He summarized services would be impacted if
employees were cut.
Council President Wilson highlighted the importance of determining what type of City citizens want
Edmonds to be, noting several citizens have mentioned public safety as a need -to -have and parks as a
want -to -have. If that is the prevailing sentiment of the community, it would be appropriate to make the
cuts proposed in parks maintenance that would result in the closure of 31 neighborhood parks due to
insufficient maintenance. He noted the $60,000 the City provides the senior center for programming as
well as the lease, Yost Pool, etc. would be on the table for cuts. The Council may be required to begin
making cuts in the next few months as the situation worsens. He noted the $3 million reserve was a
minimum; the desired amount is $3 -5 million; the projected $50,000 in reserves represents 1% of the
recommended amount.
Mayor Haakenson added in his nine years in office he has done nothing but make cuts and added very
little to the budget. The City's employees see that on a daily basis as their workloads increase and there
are fewer employees, but it has not yet affected the general public which may be the reason some do not
fear further cuts. He described his struggle with asking the voters for a tax increase in this economy
versus not doing the levy and making $2 million in cuts so that the public could see the results. However,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 24, 2009
Page 4
he recognized a tax increase was necessary because the City would not be what it is today without an
infusion of cash to carry on the current programs.
Council President Wilson asked Mayor Haakenson to comment on cuts that were made in the past.
Mayor Haakenson responded as a result of the initiative processes in 2000 and 2001, over $1 million was
cut from the budget which resulted in lost services and the layoff of 24 employees or 9% of the
workforce.
Council President Wilson summarized the question for voters was this: is $250 /year worth maintaining
the services the City offers today?
5. COMMUNITY TRANSIT UPDATE ON SWIFT BUS RAPID TRANSIT.
Todd Morrow, Chief of Strategic Communications, Community Transit, expressed appreciation for
the relationship with the City and staff and welcomed Council President Wilson to their Board. He
explained Community Transit (CT) provides local and commuter bus services, van pools, DART
paratransit and commute trip reduction services to most of Snohomish County. CT makes more than
40,000 trips /day and manages 20 park & ride lots with 6,100 spaces. These services are paid for by fares
and a .009% sales tax. He noted sales tax has historically covered approximately 70% of their expenses
and the downturn in the economy has impacted the sales tax they collect. He described an increase in
ridership of 11.8% last year, steps taken to control expenses and the importance of increased sales tax to
their budget. He displayed a map of their service area in Edmonds, identifying routes and areas within I/4
mile of their service, explaining 702 buses enter Edmonds each weekday. There are 17,000 boardings on
those buses, and 192 bus stops in Edmonds.
Mr. Morrow described CT projects including ORCA smart card used for travel between transit systems;
Mountlake Terrace's transit center with 660 spaces; a new park & ride in Marysville; the purchase of 23
double tall buses for commuter service; a program to curb congestion on 164th 128th and 20th by
encouraging drivers of single occupancy vehicles to take the bus or carpool; work on a 20 -year plan;
consideration of new park & ride facilities east of Mill Creek; improving the old transit center at Smokey
Point; and renovating a maintenance base.
He described Swift Bus Rapid Transit, a train -like service on rubber wheeled vehicles, a 17 -mile line of
transit service from Everett Station to the Aurora Village Transit Center with 12 stations in each direction.
Swift provides shorter trip times (40 minutes versus 60 minutes), utilizes business access transit lanes and
transit signal priority. Swift was designed for people who live, work and shop along the corridor and was
intended to complement Sounder, light rail and commuter bus service. Mr. Morrow displayed a
photograph of the bus, describing the three doors to facilitate entrance /exit, places for mobility devices to
enter /exit the bus, loading of bikes onto the bus itself, and tickets purchased at stations. He explained this
will be the first Bus Rapid Transit system in the State and is made possible via partnerships with Everett
Transit, the Federal Transit Administration, and Washington State Department of Transportation.
He displayed a map of the Swift line, explaining there were no mid -block stations, stations are located
adjacent to local bus stops, and it is hoped stations will stimulate economic activity in the surrounding
area. He described station construction and identified stations in Edmonds at 216th southbound and 238th
north and southbound. The total cost of Swift is approximately $31 million, half for buses and the
remainder for stations. He provided a Swift construction schedule with groundbreaking in December
followed by site construction and station installation with a total construction time of nine months. Swift
is expected to be operational in late fall 2009. He commented on their outreach efforts to the surrounding
areas and businesses regarding the impacts of construction.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 24, 2009
Page 5
Council President Wilson asked Mr. Morrow to comment on how the December snows impacted
Community Transit's service. Mr. Morrow responded the snow had a substantial impact on their service
particularly in hilly areas and areas where articulated buses are used. He noted the double tall buses
operated better in adverse weather.
Council President Wilson asked if there was anything Edmonds could do with regard to the double tall
buses such as tree trimming. Mr. Morrow advised they were working with staff in regard to some areas
where trees restrict the use of the double tall buses.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether declining sales taxes would affect Swift service. Mr. Morrow
answered it should not; Community Transit expected to receive economic stimulus funds for preventative
maintenance and other capital items.
Councilmember Wambolt commented he often walks downtown and observes buses traveling very fast.
Mr. Morrow acknowledged they occasionally receive complaints about speeding and encouraged anyone
with a concern to call their customer service line, 353 -RIDE.
6. UPDATE ON THE COMMUNITY TECHNOLOGY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CTAC).
Rick Jenness explained during the budget process, the Council approved funding for a legal test case in
Snohomish County Superior Court to seek the opinion of the court on the City's ability to resell
telecommunications capability in areas where the City has excess capacity. He described fiber optic
assets the City has purchased and been given that run from the ferry terminal to Hwy. 99, south to the
county line, and to the Westin building in downtown Seattle, assets that have enormous economic value
to the City. He noted ten years ago the City had the ability to resell telecommunications capabilities;
however, during code cleanup, the legislature inadvertently eliminated all reference to second class cities
which also contained the provisions regarding telecommunication service. He expected to have a ruling
on procedural motions by late next week and to a court date in early May.
Mr. Jenness advised the activities of the CTAC have been in support of its attorneys including preparing
affidavits from businesses in the City regarding whether they would find this service useful and
economically viable. In his contact with local businesses, virtually no one objected to the idea and all
were overwhelming positive regarding the benefits to their business and the economic magnet this type of
asset would provide. He commented on video -on- demand which would change the paradigm of
television from a broadcast schedule to viewer selected, which will require an infrastructure such as this
fiber optic network. He anticipated the capacity and capabilities of this fiber optic system would make
Edmonds a magnet for creative development software industry type jobs.
He planned to continue working in support of the attorney, noting Chief Information Officer Carl Nelson
is working with Snohomish County and neighboring cities in an effort to purchase fiber optic cable to
connect cities with Snohomish County and each other. The ability to provide cities with internet access
and access to an intergovernmental network would be economically attractive and revenue positive for
Edmonds.
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Rose Cantwell, President, South County Senior Center Board, thanked the City for the funds they
have provided annually to the South County Senior Center. She noted although South County is a
regional center, its cornerstone is Edmonds. She also thanked the City for renewing their lease agreement
and Councilmember Plunkett for his guidance through the lease agreement process. She explained for
many seniors, the Center is a second home, providing classes formatted to maintaining health, continued
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 24, 2009
Page 6
learning, staying independent, making friends, enjoying life and keeping them young at heart. The name
of their new fundraising campaign is Young at Heart. She encouraged the public to join the Center,
noting it was not necessary to be a senior to join. In spite of the economic situation, South County Senior
Center is excited to have their first membership - elected boards, new programs, new goals and a new
Executive Director, David McNair. One of their goals is to become more community oriented and find
ways for senior centers to help with the healthcare crisis.
David McNair, Executive Director, South County Senior Center, commented the Center has a long,
rich history of providing services to area seniors and he wanted to ensure it continued to be a strong part
of the fabric of the City and Snohomish County. He was excited about the Young at Heart challenge
campaign and invited the public to visit the Center.
Cliff Sanderlin, Edmonds, commented he preferred to call the South County Senior Center the Edmonds
Senior Center because it was located in Edmonds and was not a county agency. He sought election to the
Board when his mother -in -law, Alice, who recently sold her home in another state and moved in with his
wife, found herself very isolated. After a friend began taking her to the senior center, she began taking
classes, singing in the choir, eating lunch and enjoying social interaction. He stressed the importance of
assisting the Center to succeed financially, recalling his suggestion to the Board that instead of an auction,
they take a more direct approach to fundraising by telling the Center's story and asking for donations.
The Senior Center needs to raise $100,000 in charitable contributions by the end of December and start by
raising $25,000 by the end of March. Boardmembers have pledged to make gifts larger than they can
afford to motivate the public to make generous tax- deductible contributions. If they raise $25,000 or
more by March 31, he and other boardmembers will follow through with their pledges. He urged the
Council, the Mayor and the public to give generously to keep the Center alive and healthy. He invited
everyone to visit the Center south of the ferry terminal on Railroad Avenue.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to Item 10, amendments to Chapter 20 of the ECDC, and asked what
would be accomplished via a development agreement that was outside the normal permit application
process, what advantages there were to a developer, and whether the development agreement process
excluded the public. He referred to the section regarding determination of completion by the City,
commenting there were many examples of buildings that were changed after the application was
determined to be complete and the public was not informed. He urged the Council to consider how
buildings were changed after a determination of completion was issued and an application approved and
how the public should be notified of those changes.
Brian Vanderburg, Lake Forest Park, referred to Item 8, advising his design team had spent the past
two years and approximately $1 million designing the Edmonds Station and were ready to go out to bid.
He encouraged the Council to move forward with whatever portions of the Edmonds Station project were
non - controversial.
Councilmember Plunkett thanked the Senior Center for their fundraising drive, advising he planned to
make a contribution and anticipated other Councilmembers would as well.
8. DISCUSSION ON SOUND TRANSIT EDMONDS STATION.
Community Services /Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained as requested by the City
Council at the February 2009 retreat, tonight's presentation includes updates on three projects, 1)
Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Terminal, 2) Sound Transit Edmonds Station, and 3) a study recently
released by the Washington State Department of Transportation Ferries Division called Revised Draft
Long -Range Plan 2009 — 2030. The emphasis of tonight's presentation relates to potential impacts on the
Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Terminal project and more specifically the Sound Transit Commuter Rail
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 24, 2009
Page 7
Station (Edmonds Station) if the Revised WSF Draft Long -Range Plan is adopted by the Washington
State Legislature.
Edmonds Crossing
Mr. Clifton explained Edmonds Crossing was a multimodal terminal intended to integrate several modes
of transportation and accommodate future growth in travel along SR 104 corridor and the
Edmonds /Kingston ferry run. The project is supported by several local, regional and statewide
transportation and comprehensive plans. Project partners include Community Transit, Sound Transit,
Washington State Department of Transportation, Washington State Ferries, Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Transportation Administration, and City of Edmonds. Upon completion, project
components would include: a ferry terminal, Sound Transit and Amtrak train station, Community Transit
Bus Transit Station, structured parking, and holding lanes for the project.
After a lengthy environmental process, a Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision was
issued in 2005 which includes a preferred Edmonds Crossing alternative. Since that time, Washington
State Ferries and the City have been working on Phase 2 related to the final design and permitting as well
as ways to fund the project.
Mr. Clifton displayed a drawing of the Edmonds Station submitted for permitting in 2008. He explained
during the past several years, Sound Transit has been implementing their Sound Move Plan. One element
of the plan includes commuter rail services, otherwise known as Sounder. Three commuter rail stations
are currently operating within Snohomish County, i.e., Everett, Mukilteo and Edmonds. Operations
include eight trains per day, Monday through Friday, which equates to four round trips, and could
eventually include reverse trips.
Sound Transit Edmonds Commuter Rail Station, otherwise known as "Edmonds Station" is currently
located between Main and Dayton Streets adjacent to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) tracks.
The station area is also co- located with Amtrak's Edmonds Passenger Station. Although the station is
operational, all planned interim amenities, e.g., two platforms, lighting fixtures, signage, shelters, railings,
revised parking lot, etc., have yet to be constructed. In order to fully commence construction, Sound
Transit must obtain all necessary permits, including a building permit submitted to the City of Edmonds
in 2008. Sound Transit and the City of Edmonds must also execute interlocal and developer agreements
related to Edmonds Station.
As Sound Transit, City administration and legal counsel were nearing an agreement on final drafts of
developer and interlocal agreements, Washington State Ferries released the Draft Long -Range Plan in
December 2008. Up to that point, Sound Transit and the City were considering defining the current
Sound Transit Edmonds Station as an interim facility until such time the Edmonds Crossing project is
completed, or circumstances related to the status of Edmonds Crossing change. The latter of these two
scenarios appears to have occurred with the release of the Washington State Ferries Revised Draft Long -
Range Plan.
As an interim Station, Sound Transit proposed fewer amenities than were contained in an Edmonds
Station plan approved by the City's Architectural Design Board and City Council in 2002. Presentations
and updates have been given to the City Council in the past regarding the interim and 2002 proposals.
On November 4, 2008, voters of the Central Puget Sound region also approved the Sound Transit Phase 2
transportation package. Contained within the Phase 2 transportation package is $22.9 - $26.3 million to
help fund future permanent Sound Transit Commuter Rail Station improvements.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 24, 2009
Page 8
Washington State Department of Transportation Ferries Division Revised Draft Long -Range Plan 2009 —
2030
The Revised Draft Long -Range Plan identifies three strategic issues, i.e., Operational Strategies, Fleet
Procurement, and Long Term Capital Funding. The plan also contains possible future service and
investment scenarios. Scenario A assumes that current levels of service remain constant with modest
capacity improvements, includes a 23- vessel fleet and would show a $3.3 billion deficit. Scenario B
recognizes that the State may not be able to provide new revenues to meet the evolving needs of all ferry
customers and communities, and looks at a reduced marine highway system. Scenario B includes a 1.7-
vessel fleet and would show a $1.3 billion deficit.
Exhibit 6 of the Revised Draft Long -Range Plan indicates that the Edmonds - Kingston ferry route
currently carries the highest number of vehicles and second - highest number of passengers of all WSF
ferry routes. The forecasted vehicle and passenger ridership is expected to increase by 22% and 48%
respectively for a total increase of 34% over the next 21 -year timeframe.
Scenario A assumes that the Edmonds Terminal will remain in its current location, at least through 2030,
and that an allowance of only $26 million in new capital money is included to provide multimodal
connections. Under Scenario B, costs for major terminal improvements and reservation system remain
unchanged. However, an amount of $11 million is proposed for terminal preservation. The document
remains unclear as to how the increase in ridership on the Edmonds - Kingston route will be addressed
using only $26 million for multimodal connections.
Although the City has been able to secure $12.3 million in federal funding for the project, considering the
current economic climate of Washington State and its agencies, it is unlikely the legislature will provide
the funding needed to construct the Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Terminal project (as defined within
the Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision) prior to 2030.
City administration has asked that at a minimum, the legislature preserve and retain previously budgeted
funds through year 2017 to help pay for review and examination of minimum -build alternatives to the
Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Terminal project (as defined within the Final Environmental Impact
Statement Record of Decision). Washington State Ferries representatives are supportive of this request.
Retaining budgeted financial resources could help design and construct a well - functioning minimum build
multimodal terminal / area for the City of Edmonds, Washington State Ferries, Sound Transit, and
Community Transit. Funding for a minimum build alternative, in whatever form, would/could come from
the following sources:
Federal Funding $12.3 million (available and obligated)
State Funding $23 — 26 million (capital)
$4.6 - $11 million (preservation) as identified in the WSF Revised Draft
Long - Range Plan and Governor's proposed 2009 -2011 biennial budget
Sound Transit $22.9 - $26.3 million - Voter approved Proposition 1 in November 2008
Within the next 21 -year timeframe, if WSF were not able to move forward with the Edmonds Crossing
preferred plan defined within the Environmental Impact Statement 2005 Record of Decision, the funding
mechanisms listed above could provide the financial resources to help pay for improvements related to
multimodal operations and connections between Washington State Ferries, Community Transit, Amtrak
and Sound Transit in the vicinity of Main / Dayton Streets and Sunset / Railroad Avenues. This funding
could also serve as a significant catalyst for other development in the area.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 24, 2009
Page 9
In light of the limited amount of funding ($26M) proposed for Edmonds Ferry Terminal improvements
within the WSF Revised Draft Long -Range Plan timeframe of 21 years, City administration recommends
requesting Sound Transit work with other stakeholders, e.g., City of Edmonds, Community Transit,
WSDOT, etc., on an ongoing basis, to implement the Sound Transit Edmonds Station plans approved by
the City's Architectural Design Board and the City Council in 2002.
The 2002 plans include amenities above and beyond those currently proposed as a part of the 2008 permit
set for an interim station. Specifically, additional amenities include a bus transit station south of Main
Street, a roundabout, additional landscaping and enhanced shelters. In response to Mr. Vanderburg's
comments, Mr. Clifton explained Sound Transit could move forward with the plans about to be permitted,
the platform, the south parking lot, landscaping, railing, etc., and work with the City and other
stakeholders to design and eventually construct additional amenities needed to implement the 2002 plan
such as the roundabout and the bus transit station.
Ultimately, both Sound Transit and City of Edmonds desire a well functioning, attractively designed
station that compliments the overall Sound Transit system and encourages local development that
supports regional transit. As such, Sound Transit would utilize unexpended funding from Sound Transit's
Phase 1 budget, along with any other available funding, for the Edmonds Station Project to fund
improvements identified in the 2002 plan. He commented on the current favorable bidding climate.
Mayor Haakenson commented once this project was built, it would be due to Mr. Clifton's perseverance.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
THAT THE COUNCIL CONCUR WITH THE ADMINISTRATION STATEMENT THAT SOUND
TRANSIT WORK WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, E.G., CITY OF EDMONDS, COMMUNITY
TRANSIT, WSDOT, ETC., ON AN ONGOING BASIS, TO IMPLEMENT THE SOUND TRANSIT
EDMONDS STATION PLANS APPROVED BY THE CITY'S ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
BOARD AND THE CITY COUNCIL IN 2002. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. UPDATE OF STORMWATER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND STORMWATER MANAGE-
MENT PROGRAM.
Stormwater Engineering Program Manager Jerry Shuster explained reasons for updating the Stormwater
Comprehensive Plan include that the recently published Puget Sound Action agenda cited stormwater
runoff as one of the top threats to Puget Sound and the GMA requires the City have a capital facilities
plan and stormwater infrastructure. The purpose of the Plan is to provide for the management of
stormwater runoff from public and private property for the purpose of minimizing property damage from
flooding and impacts to the water quality and the habitat value of receiving waters. This can be done by
developing a stormwater capital facilities plan and financial plan to serve the needs of the community to
ensure all activities related to the management of stormwater runoff are in compliance with applicable
federal, state and local requirements. The Plan was last updated in 2003; since then the Department of
Ecology has come out with the stormwater permit for Phase 2 municipalities such as Edmonds. The
City's 2003 Plan had several capital projects that have been completed and there are additional capital
needs.
Mr. Shuster described steps to update the Plan including performing a gap analysis on current operational
and capital needs and regulatory requirements; developing policies, programs and projects to fill those
gaps; developing utility rate structure to fund the policies, programs and projects. He reviewed the
schedule to have an updated Stormwater Utility Capital Improvement Plan by June 2009, a revised Rate
Analysis by December 2009, draft Plan update by December 2009 and adoption of the final Plan in 2010.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 24, 2009
Page 10
He provided a brief history regarding trends in stormwater management which began with ditches /pipes
to convey water to the nearest waterbody. Rapid development led to flooding and the need for bigger
pipes. Stormwater detention was developed in the mid 1970's and in the 1990s it was discovered
detention volumes were too small to protect streams from back -to -back storms. Current practices include
low impact development (LID) or "rainwater management" to manage rainwater so it does not become
stormwater by mimicking forested or predevelopment conditions.
Mark Eubank, Herrera Consultants, identified the following project goals: Ensure compliance with
the City's DOE - issued Western Washington Phase H Municipal. Stormwater Permit (National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System or NPDES permit), and improve the development review process for
stormwater submittals
Project tasks include the following:
1. A gap analysis to compare Edmonds' program with those required by the Phase II permit.
2. Develop necessary programs and recommend a staffing needs and funding strategy for permit
compliance.
3. Develop conceptual plans and a funding strategy for Stonnwater Capital Improvement Projects to
address current issues.
4. Develop new client handouts to clarify new stormwater requirements for new development and
redevelopment especially small sites.
Mr. Eubanks described the Phase II Municipal. Permit, explaining the City was issued a Phase 11 permit in
January 2007. The Phase II program stems from the EPA Clean Water Act implementation that began in
the 1970s and has now reached Edmonds and similar communities looking at sources of runoff. The
requirements for compliance are phased in over five years; Edmonds is facing several permit compliance
deadlines in 2009. The City is required to report progress to the DOE on a yearly basis; the next report is
due in March. He explained the Phase II Municipal Permit is divided into five major categories:
1. Public education and outreach - many audiences need to be reached; many are currently being
reached via the City's Discovery Parks Program.
2. Public involvement and participation - the City is required to have public input into the City's
stormwater management program (SWMP). Opportunities for public participation include the
Planning Board public hearing, City Council public hearing, Channel 21, quarterly newsletter as
well as making the SWMP and annual reports available to the public via the City's website.
3. Illicit discharge detection and elimination - the City is required to prohibit non - stormwater,
illegal discharges, have an ordinance that includes enforcement procedures and actions, develop
an enforcement strategy and implement an illicit discharge detection program. Deadlines include
an illicit discharge ordinance by August 2009, training requirements by August 2009, ongoing
IDDE program in place by August 2011 and development of a municipal storm sewer map by
February 2011. Mayor Haakenson remarked these were unfunded mandates.
4. Controlling runoff from new development, redevelopment and construction sites - the City is
required to adopt ordinances that includes new technical requirements consistent with 2005 DOE
stormwater manual (or more stringent), adopt provisions for LID inspection of all development
sites, train staff and update procedures for storm drainage reviews, adopt legal authority to inspect
private stormwater facilities and adopt requirements for a maintenance plan for private
stormwater facilities, including adopting an enforcement strategy.
5. Pollution prevention and operation and maintenance for municipal operations. He
commented the Public Works staff was meeting most of the requirements but documentation of
those efforts was needed to satisfy DOE.
Mr. Eubank identified next steps including updating the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan, annual
compliance report due to DOE by March 31, establish a formal process for inviting public involvement in
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 24, 2009
Page 11
the plan, begin work on compliance deadlines in 2009 and 2010, and considering the utility rate structure
for stormwater management.
Councilmember Orvis commented his house was built before 1970 and did not have any stormwater
controls. He noted property owners in his situation had two options, a detention vault for stormwater or
hiring a hydrology engineer to develop an alternate plan. He asked if this process would result in more
standard options. Mr. Eubank answered staff has begun determining the appropriate types of stormwater
facilities for small sites and to define tools so that a stormwater design engineer would not necessarily be
required to design an onsite stormwater system by providing standard tables with the size of a stormwater
treatment or flow control device for the amount of impervious surface on a site and to encourage low
impact landscape type facilities.
Councilmember Orvis asked if rain gardens had been used successfully for stormwater retention. Mr.
Eubank answered yes and remarked they worked well in most settings. Councilmember Orvis
commented he previously thought of things like the International Building Code as a pain but was
learning it made it easier and cheaper to develop, in this case better stormwater controls.
Councilmember Wambolt commented on periodic flooding at Harbor Square and asked whether this Plan
would rectify that situation. Public Works Director Noel Miller advised that was being discussed with the
consultant and a potential project will be identified for that area. Mayor Haakenson remarked the real
problem was when the stormwater entered the drains at high tide and there was nowhere for it to go.
Councilmember Peterson noted there were bills in the State legislature regarding stormwater funding as
well as federal stimulus funds for clean water /stormwater. Mr. Miller answered the City's lobbyist, Mike
Doubleday, was tracking those bills which would provide funding assistance for cities required to comply
with the NPDES Phase II permit. The requirement for projects to be construction ready limited the
projects that were eligible for economic stimulus funds but staff was hopeful some projects would qualify.
The deadline for the first round of economic stimulus funding requests is March 15.
Councilmember Bernheim asked about the major sources of illicit discharge. Mr. Eubank answered the
sources in Edmonds would not be determined for a few years. They typically find illicit discharges are
from residences, small businesses or episodic discharges such as a charity carwash. He noted the methods
for detecting illicit discharge were simple; following stormwater outfalls to a creek and tracking any
obvious indicators of non - groundwater or non - stormwater discharges upstream to their source.
Council President Wilson commented in evaluating what enters the lake, the Lake Ballinger Community
Association have discovered people dumping their used motor oil into the storm drain because they are
unaware it does not go to the treatment plant and local restaurants that dump their fryer grease into catch
basins. He commended Mr. Shuster for his work with the Lake Ballinger Forum. Mayor Haakenson
echoed Council President Wilson's commendation of Mr. Shuster, commenting his background and
knowledge had been a great addition to the City.
Council President Wilson commented the Lake Ballinger Forum has discussed areas to coordinate on
such as discharge hotlines, public education outreach, etc. He asked whether there were plans for cities to
work together to defray costs. Mr. Shuster noted coordinating on an illicit discharge hotline would be a
way for cities to work together. Council. President Wilson invited Mr. Shuster to seek the Council's
assistance if necessary.
Council President Wilson commented he had been told one of the easiest ways to control the toxins in
stormwater was to require development to place a thatched covering over open soil and asked if that
should be addressed in the Plan. Mr. Eubank agreed a number of jurisdictions require preservation of the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 24, 2009
Page 12
natural soil layer or soil amendment for any major land redevelopment. Preservation or creation of that
type of soil characteristic could be included as a way of mitigating stormwater runoff impacts.
Council President Wilson suggested coordinating the requirement for a thatched covering on exposed soil
with Development Services. He learned recently that an 18" diameter tree holds 100 gallons of water and
therefore removing trees impacts the capacity of a site to retain water. He asked how the City could
incorporate retention of significant stands of trees into this Plan. Mr. Eubank advised that could be
included as a policy objective in the Stormwater Comprehensive Plan.
Council President Wilson commented he was specifically interested in preserving large stands of trees.
Mr. Shuster recalled staff recently discussed the possibility of allowing stormwater credits as an incentive
for retaining or adding certain size trees on a site.
Councilmember Orvis asked if Development Service fees could be used to cover the cost of DOE's
unfunded mandates. Mr. Bowman answered yes. Mr. Shuster advised approximately $50,000 of the
Stormwater Program update was funded via a grant from DOE. With regard to tree preservation, Mr.
Miller commented it was problematic to save trees that were uplifting sidewalks. He noted any trees that
were removed were replanted.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
10. WORK SESSION ON RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20 OF THE EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO ESTABLISHING PERMIT TYPES
PROCESS REQUIREMENTS, NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, CONSISTENCY WITH SEPA, OPEN
RECORD HEARING PROCEDURES, CLOSED RECORD APPEALS, AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENTS.
Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained the purpose of tonight's presentation was to
provide the Council an overview of the draft regulations, address any questions the Council may have and
set March 17, 2009 for a public hearing on the proposed changes. He explained objectives of the rewrite
were to, 1) provide clear standards for permit processing, 2) reduce potential liability, and 3) address
Hearing Examiner procedural concerns.
He identified the major proposed changes:
• Establishing permit types.
• Tables identifying the different permit types and the decision - making process.
• Submission requirements and procedures.
• Public notice requirements establishing the responsibility for the permit applicant to provide the
notice.
• Establishing SEPA consistency regulations.
• Establishing open and closed record hearing procedures.
• Creating a new section dealing with Development Agreements.
With regard to the fonnat, he envisioned Title 20 would be reformatted to place the process and
procedures section at the start of the chapter with a subsection for specific permit review criteria. The
process and procedures section would have seven subsections:
• Chapter 20.01 - types of development project permit types
• Chapter 20.02 - type I -IV development project permit applications
• Chapter 20.03 - public notice
• Chapter 20.04 - consistency with development regulations and SEPA
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 24, 2009
Page 13
Chapter 20.06 - open record public hearings
Chapter 20.07 - closed record appeals
Chapter 20.08 - development agreements
Mr. Bowman displayed the development project permit application framework for decisions found in
Chapter 20.01. He explained this was not in the current code and a person would need to search the code
to find this information. The table defines the different permit types and the table in Chapter 20.02
identifies who makes a recommendation, who makes the final decision, whether a notice of application .
was required, whether there was an open record public hearing or open record appeal of a final decision,
whether there was a closed record review and judicial appeal.
Mr. Bowman reviewed the public notice requirement in Chapter 20.03, explaining the biggest change in
this section was the requirement for the applicant/appellant to provide all public notice. Staff will prepare
the notice content and give it to the permit applicant /appellant to post and mail. Affidavits for posting
and mailing are required prior to any public hearing. Failure to provide proper notice will result in the
project not going to public hearing or the appeal being dismissed. Mayor Haakenson asked how public
notice was currently provided. Mr. Bowman answered the applicant/appellant submitted the mailing list
and staff prepared and mailed the notice and posted the property. He advised some of the cost of the
current process was passed on to the applicant.
Councilmember Plunkett asked the standard used to determine if mailing was accomplished, recalling
there have been instances when residents have claimed not to have received notification. Mr. Bowman
answered along with the affidavit of mailing and posting, the applicant /appellant submitted their mailing
list. Staff would also drive by the site to ensure posting was accomplished. Councilmember Plunkett
asked how many other cities had the applicant do the public notice. Mr. Bowman answered he knew
Bothell did but would research that for the March 17 public hearing. City Attorney Bio Park advised the
affidavit was submitted under penalty of perjury.
Mr. Bowman explained Chapter 20.06, open record public hearings, establishes clear procedures for
conducting open record hearings, addresses the issues raised by the Hearing Examiner regarding the
processing of reconsideration requests, and establishes the burden of proof (in a permit applicant, the
burden of proof is on the applicant; in an appeal the burden of proof is on the appellant /proponent).
Mr. Bowman explained Chapter 20.04, consistency with development regulations and SEPA, formalized
what staff already does in preparing staff reports and adds planned actions which are not currently
covered.
Councilmember Bernheim commented on the difficulty of evaluating the new code without reference to
the existing code. Mr. Bowman explained the reason for the changes was to bring the code in line with
the Regulatory Reform Act, to make the code easier to understand and to streamline information. He
offered to provide citations to the existing code by March 6 to allow the Council to track the changes that
were made and how they relate to the existing code.
Council President Wilson agreed with the suggestion regarding addressing half of the amendments on
March 17 and the other half the first Tuesday in April. Mayor Haakenson encouraged the Council to
complete this by March 17 because Mr. Bowman was retiring on March 31 and no one else on staff had
his institutional knowledge.
Mr. Bowman explained Chapter 20.07, closed record appeals, establishes procedures for closed record
appeals, establishes consolidated appeals process, and establishes standing to initiate an administrative
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 24, 2009
Page 14
appeal. Mr. Park commented there were a few substantive changes in this section including permitting
parties of record to submit written arguments based on the record to the Council to avoid oral arguments
that should not occur in a closed record appeal.
Councilmember Plunkett commented that was a substantive change. Mr. Bowman offered to highlight
that type of change in the code. He noted having argument submitted in writing made the Council's
process much easier; the biggest problem with closed record reviews was the introduction of new
information. Mayor Haakenson commented written argument also made it easier for the chair of the
meeting, who must determine whether argument was on the record. Councilmember Plunkett stated there
were some advantages but there were also disadvantages with not allowing oral argument.
Mr. Bowman explained Chapter 20.08, establishes a new section dealing with development agreements,
establishes processing procedures, and establishes an appeal process. He recalled the fee ordinance
established fees for a development agreement to ensure the City Attorney and staff's time spent reviewing
the development agreement were recovered. He explained development agreements required a public
hearing before the City Council.
Mr. Park explained a development agreement was an agreement in advance of development between the
City and the proponent. The agreement establishes the standard of development and requirements that
will apply to the development. He assured the regulations in place at the time the development agreement
is established apply, there are no exceptions. Development agreements provide more consistency for a
multi -stage development and provide ease of process.
Councilmember Orvis recalled a development agreement case in Spokane where there were trades made
between the City and the developer. Mr. Park answered the provisions of the development agreement
must be consistent with the code at the time the agreement is established. He noted some codes allowed
"trades" such as building height in exchange for open space, etc.
Mr. Bowman encouraged Councilmembers to email him any questions prior to the public hearing. He
agreed to provide the Council an annotated version of the ordinance that included citations to existing
code sections and to identify substantive changes.
Councilmember Orvis referred to the table in 20.01, types of development project permit types, and
clarified preliminary plats, general variances and conditional use were moved from Type III -B to Type
III -A. Mr. Bowman agreed, commenting there is currently a bifurcated process whereby a preliminary
plat goes to the Council but the Planned Residential Development (PRD) goes to the Hearing Examiner.
Because a developer typically does a preliminary plat at the time of a PRD, both should be in the same
category. Mr. Bowman advised a site plan, shoreline substantial development variances and plat
vacations were heard by the Hearing Examiner. The Council retains its authority over Architectural
Design Board as the Hearing Examiner is not design- oriented. He advised the Planning Board conducted
the open record hearing on site specific /contract rezones (Type IV -B) and the Council conducts the closed
record appeal. He offered to also highlight changes made to the table.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to page 30 and the statement that applicants may submit written or oral
argument. Mr. Bowman stated an appellant could submit oral argument, and suggested Council consider
requiring argument be submitted in writing in advance of the hearing to ensure the record maintained its
integrity. Judicial appeals considered whether the integrity of the hearing process was maintained.
It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this on the March 17 agenda for a public hearing. Mr.
Bowman offered to email responses to a Councilmember's questions to all Councilmembers and to
provide a list of questions /answers at the public hearing.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 24, 2009
Page 15
11. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE /BOARD MEETINGS
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Wilson reported the Lake Ballinger Forum discussed their request for federal funds.
Further, the internal Levy Review Committee has been meeting frequently to develop a plan for the
Citizen Levy Review Committee that will meet the last two Mondays in March and the first two Mondays
in April. Applications are available on the City's website.
Councilmember Wambolt reported at their February 9 meeting, the Port Commission approved the design
of the new yacht club building. The Commission approved an updated travel policy for staff and
Commissioners, and reviewed their financial results for 2008; their net income was $364,000 below
budget but would have been $91,000 over budget if they had not been required to take an unbudgeted
environmental expense accrual of $483,000 for Harbor Square remediation. At their February 23
meeting, the Commission reviewed plans for Harbor Square renovations to make the buildings more
attractive to prospective tenants. He advised the Port Executive Director Chris Keuss is retiring May 31.
There were 73 applicants for that position. Two Commissioners screened those to 25; the Commission
will screen them to 6 -10 semi - finalists. A committee comprised of two Commissioners, an Executive
Director from another Port, a person with real estate knowledge, the Mayor of Woodway and he will
reduce the applicants to three finalists. The Port Commission will make the final selection.
Councilmember Orvis reported the Health Board is seeking people to serve on the Strategic Plan
Committee; he volunteered to serve.
Councilmember Peterson reported Mr. Clifton reported what he has been working on the Economic
Development Committee and they began discussing marketing toward environmental initiatives. They
also met with local builders to discuss how the Committee could assist them.
Councilmember Plunkett reported a property owner has proposed to the Highway 99 Task Force a
transition zone between the highrise zone on Highway 99 and the residential zone. He plans to hold
public meetings and eventually make a proposal to the City.
12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson thanked the Council for the opportunity to present the State of the City report.
13. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Wilson expressed his appreciation to Mayor Haakenson for his State of the City report.
Student Representative Grace Guenther asked to photograph the Council for her senior project.
14. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 24, 2009
Page 16