The URL can be used to link to this page

09/22/2009 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES September 22, 2009 At 6:40 p.m., Mayor Haakenson announced that the City Council would be meeting in executive session . regarding negotiation of the purchase of real estate. He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 20 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Haakenson, Councilmembers Wilson, Plunkett, Olson, Bernheim, Orvis, Wambolt and Peterson. Deputy City Clerk Linda Hynd was also present. The executive session concluded at 6:51 p.m. The regular Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5"' 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 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services /Economic Development Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Lorenzo Hines, Interim Finance Director Douglas Fair, Municipal Court Judge Rob Chave, Planning Manager Rob English, City Engineer Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 15, 2009. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #114144 THROUGH #114248 DATED SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 FOR $295,507.33. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #48593 THROUGH #48633 FOR THE PAY PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 FOR $835,740.09. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 1 D. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY PIPELINE LICENSE AGREEMENTS E. AUTHORIZE AWARD OF THE CONTRACT FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY SENIOR CENTER ENTRYWAY REPAIRS PROJECT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, BUNTTING, INC. F. RESOLUTION NO. 1206 — APPROVING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLANS FOR THE 2009 PROCESSES RELATING TO THE SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENT AND CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN UPDATE. 3. EDMONDS BUSINESS STORY - RENATA CHURCHILL ENGEL'S PUB. Renata Churchill explained her husband and she acquired Engel's Pub as a working tavern in 2003, upgrading it into a full service bar two years later. They offer a variety of spirits and 17 tap handles, catering, delicious food and music. In March they celebrated 75 years and a commemorative T -shirt is available at the Pub. In April they received the Best Blues Club Award from the Washington Blues Society. She remarked it was an honor to do business in Edmonds where they attracted local residents and business people as well as people from outside the area. She thanked the Chamber of Commerce for offering networking via the internet, commenting visitors to the Pub also enjoy the waterfront, family friendly events, shopping, and other amenities Edmonds offers. She encouraged residents to shop locally, pointing out nearly everything they needed or used was available downtown. She encouraged the City to continue family- friendly events such as the recent car show which draws visitors to the community as well as drawing the next generation. She looked forward to new events such as a Blues Festival, teen concerts, etc. Their annual fundraiser, Women and Blues Night on October 10 from 9:00 - 11:00 p.m., benefits Pathways for Women, features Mary McPage and C.C. Janes. Their month -long food drive benefits Edmonds Food Bank. She encouraged everyone to visit Engel's Pub located at 5`h & Dayton. 4. PRESENTATION ON JAIL SERVICES BY SHERIFF JOHN LOVICK AND CORRECTIONS BUREAU CHIEF MARK BAIRD. Snohomish County Sheriff John Lovick described his background, 13 years in the U.S. Coast Guard, 31 years in the Washington State Patrol, 5 years on the Mill Creek City Council, 9 years in the legislature and Sheriff for approximately 2 years. He commended Police Chief Al Compaan for his professionalism. In early 2009, the Snohomish County Council made a decision to move jail services under the direction of the Sheriff and that has proved to be very successful. Corrections Bureau Chief Mark Baird observed the former message from corrections was the County responsibility population for felons and unincorporated misdemeants would use up the current capacity in the jail and there would be a time in the not too distant future when there would be no room in Snohomish County corrections for municipal prisoners. Since January 1, 2009, Sheriff Lovick has changed that message to assure that the Snohomish County Sheriffs Office will be in the business of municipal prisoners for years to come. He explained the change was due to, 1) population trends have not occurred in the way they anticipated when original forecasts were made, 2) expanded use of community corrections options has allowed better utilization of secure capacity, and 3) Sheriff Lovick's commitment for the jail to be in the municipal business. The current jail services contract expires at the end of 2009. They have been working with municipal Police Chiefs and their administrators to develop a new jail services contract for 2010 and into the future. That process is nearly complete and a final draft will be distributed soon to municipalities. The key Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 2 change in the contract is the opportunity for municipalities to take advantage of community correction options; in addition to secure confinement, there will be opportunity to use work release, electronic home detention, and in- custody work groups. They have found many appropriate uses for those options and those less expensive options will allow municipalities' corrections dollars to be stretched further. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether crime and the need for jail capacity had increased due to the recession. Chief Baird answered they had anticipated that happening, however, it had not materialized. Other facilities along the I -5 corridor have also experienced this unexpected change in the seasonal trend, a decrease in populations. He did not expect that to continue indefinitely but even in the current economy, they have not seen an increase and have actually seen a decrease. He noted that also coincided with typical seasonal low periods. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether it could be attributed to the new administration in the Sheriff's Office. Chief Lovick answered in researching trends, both in King County and Snohomish County, they found although certain crimes have increased, their population has not increased tremendously. He anticipated the very bad criminals were being removed from the streets. For example, the very successful Auto Theft Task Force started last year has reduced auto theft 41% in Snohomish County over the same period last year. He anticipated this was due to the thieves being apprehended and incarcerated. The Snohomish County Sheriff s Office was very interested in crime prevention. Council President Wilson recalled Granite Falls and Snohomish County were identified as the methamphetamine capital of the United States in Rolling Stone Magazine a few years ago. He inquired about changes in meth crimes. Sheriff Lovick responded although there is meth imported into the area, the issue of meth houses has decreased dramatically, particularly due to legislative actions that made it more difficult to obtain the drugs to create meth. He acknowledged meth continued to be a problem but all police agencies were working hard to address that problem. Council President Wilson asked Sheriff Lovick to describe his involvement in the schools. Sheriff Lovick explained growing up in a very segregated part of Louisiana in the 1960's, the person who was most impressive to him was the Sheriff. The Sheriff reached out to the community and treated everyone with great dignity and respect. Sheriff Lovick explained when he became Sheriff he wanted to reach as many young children as possible. He distributes a business card to young people with his picture and the following message, "Sheriff John Lovick offers all children and young people he meets the following tips for success: Be kind and respectful, be honest and respectful to everyone, be kind and forgiving to yourself and to others, never stop learning, take responsibility for your actions, to set goals and work hard to achieve them and to never give up." Council President Wilson referred to recent discussions regarding regionalization of fire service in South Snohomish County, specifically the Edmonds Fire Department and Fire District 1. He noted King County had a model where the Sheriff provided police services to several cities. He inquired about the availability of a similar contract for police services in Snohomish County and his observations regarding regionalization of police services such as King County's model. Sheriff Lovick responded he would not recruit cities to have the Snohomish County Sheriff become their police agency. If a city decided they wanted to talk with the Sheriff s Office, he would provide information regarding the level of service, type of service, etc. King County has had several new cities incorporate in recent years which was not the case in Snohomish County. The Snohomish County Sheriffs Office currently has full service police services contracts with Sultan, Stanwood, Darrington and Community Transit. Councilmember Bernheim explained Councilmember Peterson and he were on a committee considering possible savings in municipal court services. He commented upward of 50% of the municipal court's traffic case load is driving with license suspended charges and up to 20% of the non - traffic case load is marijuana and drug paraphernalia possession. He questioned the amount of municipal court funds Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 3 devoted to prosecuting those crimes. He thanked Sheriff Lovick and Chief Baird for the information they provided at his request regarding jail time for driving with license suspended and misdemeanor drug charges. He asked for their observations on the jailing of adults for misdemeanor drug possession and driving with license suspended crimes from the viewpoint of jail overcrowding, jail budgeting and tax expenditures. Sheriff Lovick answered Police Officers are responsible for enforcing the laws the legislature passes. Although there may be crimes that people may not think deserve jail time, they made the decision to drive with a suspended license and in most cases without insurance, placing the public at risk. Similarly a small misdemeanor amount of drugs was a violation of the law and there were consequences for those actions. He acknowledged there was a cost to municipalities of those rules and regulations and keeping the public safe. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether in their opinion the public was safer via the jailing of those people. Sheriff Lovick answered he was responsible for enforcing the law that the legislature and municipalities passed. 5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AN UPDATE OF THE 2002 TRANSPORTATION PLAN. THE AMENDMENTS IN THE PROPOSED 2009 TRANSPORTATION PLAN WOULD: (1) USE A FUTURE PLANNING YEAR OF 2025 INSTEAD OF 2022. (2) BASE CONCURRENCY ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON UPDATED CITYWIDE TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING MODEL AND UPDATED LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS ON STATE ROUTES. (3) INCORPORATE RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF SAFETY STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BETWEEN 2002 AND 2009. (4) GIVE STRONGER EMPHASIS TO NON - MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROJECTS MAKE UP APPROXIMATELY 25% OF PLAN COSTS INSTEAD OF APPROXIMATELY 5% IN THE 2002 PLAN. (5) UTILIZE PLANNING -LEVEL COST PROJECTIONS BASED ON HIGHER PER UNIT PRICES TO REFLECT TRENDS. (6) ADJUST REFERENCES TO THE EDMONDS CROSSING MULTI -MODAL PLAN. NO CITY EXPENDITURES ARE PROPOSED BUT THE ITEM IS RETAINED AS A LONG- TERM PROJECT. (7) UPDATE THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE, INCREASING THE FEE FROM $764 PER TRIP TO $1,040 PER TRIP. (8) ADD A TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM AND ADA RAMP TRANSITION PLAN AS ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss explained this was a continuation of the August 4, 2009 public hearing. He identified a minor change made in response to public comments submitted since September 1, 2009: In Question 2 regarding rail station improvements and future ridership, sentence five in the second paragraph currently states the permanent Edmonds Train Station is dependent on implementation of the Edmonds Crossing project; this should be changed to "this project may be in conjunction with the Edmonds Crossing project." He explained this change was needed because the project was identified in the Sound Transit 2 Plan and the permanent Edmonds train station will occur regardless of whether Edmonds Crossing occurs. If Edmonds Crossing takes place, the train station will be relocated in close proximity to the new ferry terminal; if the Edmonds Crossing does not take place, the permanent Edmonds station will remain in its current location with additional improvements. Jennifer Barnes, ICF Jones & Stokes, explained the Transportation Plan was the City's long range planning document to establish the framework and priorities for transportation funding through 2025. Plan elements include Goals, Objectives, Policies, Street System, Non - Motorized System, Transit and Transportation Demand Management and Implementation and Financial Plan. Major milestones completed to date on the project include the following: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 4 • Review of the Draft Transportation Plan (June) by neighboring cities WSDOT, PSRC, Washington State Department of Commerce, City staff and community members • Community involvement - three open houses and involvement of the Transportation, Walkway, Bike and Parking Committees • Briefings to the Planning Board on March 11 and May 27 and a public hearing on June 10 • Planning Board passed recommendation to forward Plan to City Council • Briefing to the City Council on July 21, public hearing on August 4 Ms. Barnes advised responses were prepared in response to questions and comments at the August 4 public hearing. Minor revisions made since as a result of feedback provided on August 4 include the following: • Removal of projected future land use in Esperance area from Table 1 -1 totals • Addition of cul -de -sac design standards back into policies until the ECDC is amended (same as sidewalk standards) • Addition of alternative `non - signal' improvements for intersections of Main/9th and Walnut /9th • Addition of TIP description in Implementation Section of Chapter 6 (initially deleted from Policies) • Correction of oversight, recommend upgrade of the functional classification for Olympic Avenue between Puget Drive and Main Street from local to collector based on observation of how the roadway functions Mayor Haakenson requested further clarification on the impact of upgrading the classification of Olympic Avenue, whether it increased the availability of funding for sidewalks, etc. Ms. Barnes answered because Edmonds is a built -up community, when consultants or City staff review the function of the street system, the intent is to have the classifications reflect the function the roadway is serving. Criteria in the Plan are used to determine whether there are roadways whose function should be changed based on observation. On Olympic Avenue, there was no intention to upgrade what was happening on the road but to have the classification match the function the road is currently serving. Factors on Olympic Avenue include traffic volume, connection between a park and school, non - motorized pedestrian traffic, the 3/4 mile length, etc. She noted the amount of traffic on the road versus the number of residents on the road indicate drivers are using the road for mobility versus just for local access. She explained a collector was a 50150 mix between local access and through traffic. She emphasized this was a guideline and the City was not required to adopt their recommendation. The primary implication of adopting the recommended change was the number of potential funding sources for the proposed sidewalk. Classification as a collector is one of the minimum qualifications for certain sources of state and federal funds for the sidewalk. She emphasized the roadway would function the way it functioned regardless of the classification. The sidewalk was the only improvement proposed on Olympic Avenue; there was no proposed widening or increased capacity. Mayor Haakenson commented the residents would likely agree it was not a local road due to the volume of traffic. He summarized there were no improvements proposed other than the sidewalk as a result of changing the classification from local to collector but it would allow the City to apply for more grants for the sidewalk. If the local classification remained, there were less opportunities for grant funding. If the City were successful in obtaining grant funds for a sidewalk on Olympic Avenue, Councilmember Plunkett questioned if the roadway would also need to be improved at the time sidewalks were installed. Public Works Director Noel Miller answered the roadway may need to be widened slightly to ensure proper lane widths. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 5 Councilmember Plunkett referred to sidewalks being installed on 76th, observing the roadway was being improved in that location. Mr. Miller agreed there were slight improvements such as a slight widening. Councilmember Plunkett observed the widening would require additional property. Mr. Miller responded the existing right -of -way width was sufficient. Councilmember Plunkett asked if there was enough right - of -way to add lanes. Mr. Miller answered there was not enough for additional lanes, but enough to accommodate a sidewalk. Councilmember Plunkett asked if there was an example of a street where sidewalks had been installed and the street not also improved. Mr. Miller referred to the sidewalk on 76th between Olympic View Drive and Meadowdale Beach Drive where there are ups and downs in the road profile. Mayor Haakenson referred to sidewalks being installed on Caspers Street. Mr. Miller answered significant roadway improvements were not necessary and speeds were low enough from a sight distance standpoint that the road would not need to be re- profiled. On 220th, the road needed to be re- profiled as part of that project. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether changing the classification of the road to a collector affected speeds. Ms. Barnes advised the range of speed limits on a collector was 25 -30 mph and the range of speed limit on a local street was 15 -25 mph. Councilmember Plunkett asked if it was anticipated the speed limit would be increased. Ms. Barnes answered no. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether changing the classification would necessitate changing the speed limit. Mr. Miller answered it would not. Councilmember Plunkett asked how a collector differed from a local street other than the speed limit. Mr. Hauss referred to Table 3 -6 on page 3 -21 of the Plan that illustrates typical roadway cross - sections, advising that issue was also addressed in Question 1 of the responses to questions. He summarized the requirements were nearly the same; the primary difference was the minimum right -of -way for a collector was 55 feet versus 33 feet for a local street. Olympic Avenue is already 60 feet wide for most of this section and in one section it is 80 feet wide. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out according to that table a local street is 2 lanes; a collector could be 2 -3 lanes, roadway width for a local is 22 feet; a collector could be as much as 35 feet; sidewalk width on a local is 5 feet, sidewalk width on a collector could be 5 -10 feet. Mr. Hauss clarified in the draft plan the sidewalk width for both local and collector streets is 7 feet. With regard to speed, Edmonds does not have any 15 -20 mph speed limits; the speed is 25 mph on local streets and 25 -30 mph on collectors. He reiterated the classification would increase the grant funding opportunities for sidewalks and would make the roadway eligible for overlay using federal stimulus funds. Councilmember Orvis commented this was not the only proposed reclassification, observing there were several other recommendations on page 3 -7. He observed people purchased their home on a local street, traffic began shortcutting through the neighborhood and instead of traffic calming, the solution appeared to be reclassifying the roadway. Ms. Barnes agreed a decision could be made to redesign the road or install a measure to discourage traffic. Their observation is that the roadway is functioning as a collector, serving some mobility function. Changing the classification of the roadway would not change the way it is functioning. Councilmember Orvis asked whether it would be difficult to obtain funding for traffic calming on a collector. Ms. Barnes agreed it would be, pointing out the option was to implement design measures to force it to function like a local access road or recognize the function it was serving now and classify it as a collector. Staff's recommendation is to have the roadway's classification reflect its function. She assured the classification did not generate more traffic. If the Council wanted to calm /mitigate traffic on Olympic Avenue, Council President Wilson anticipated an expensive study would be required to determine the best method. There was also the possibility that the Council would reject the strategy the consultant developed as has happened in the past. He clarified there were no plans to widen Olympic Avenue regardless of its classification, the only improvement was better sidewalks; there were no plans to add lanes and the change in classification would assist the City in Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 6 obtaining grant funds for sidewalks. He looked forward to sidewalks as he frequently walks on that street with his two young children. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the continued public hearing. Lane Sealy, Edmonds, resident on Olympic Avenue, recalled talking with Mayor Haakenson last year about reducing speeds on Olympic Avenue which he anticipated would also reduce traffic volumes. Although Mayor Haakenson had speed limit alert flags installed, excessive vehicle speeds and traffic volumes persist. He disagreed with information in the Plan that Olympic Avenue provided direct connection between the downtown area via Main Street and north Edmonds, pointing out there were existing arterials routes that provide that connection. To the statement in the Plan that Olympic Avenue provides a direct connection to Yost Park, he clarified the Park could be accessed from Olympic Avenue but not the parking lot. To the statement that Olympic Avenue provides a connection to Edmonds Elementary, he questioned reclassifying a street that provided access to an elementary school, envisioning the goal should instead be to minimize traffic volumes and speeds near an elementary school. He summarized the reason drivers were using Olympic Avenue in a manner other than intended was because there were no traffic mitigating devices. Lora Petso, Edmonds, thanked the Council and staff for the changes made to the Plan. She expressed concern with using the business license fee as a possible funding source and with postponing discussion of the impact of Firdale Village, Edmonds Crossing, Pt. Wells, etc. With regard to Olympic Avenue, she pointed out the best solution may not be what staff and the consultant recommend. She pointed out many of the residents on Olympic Avenue who use the right -of -way for parking would lose their parking if a sidewalk were installed. She pointed out there was already a sidewalk on one side of Olympic Avenue. She also questioned whether the notice for this item was adequate as it did not include notice of the proposed reduction in level of service as required by GMA. Don Hall, Edmonds, a resident on Olympic Avenue, opposed the change in classification to a collector. He recalled circulating a petition in their neighborhood to request a 3 -way stop at Daley and Olympic Avenue to reduce speeds. He anticipated a sidewalk on the other side of the roadway would encourage more speeding. He thanked the Mayor for the additional 25 mph speed limit signs and the radar sign provided by the Police Department. He noted drivers slow down when the police are there doing enforcement but it is temporary. He reiterated the request for a 3 -way stop at Daley and Olympic Avenue. He recalled when the Everett Herald interviewed an Edmonds police officer, the officer said the police do not stop drivers unless they are traveling 11 miles over the speed limit. Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, referred to Item 6 in the Plan that states adjust references to Edmonds Crossing multimodal plan; no City expenditures are proposed, the item is retained as a long term project. She relayed a comment made by Natalie Shippen that the ferry system's public position on the future of its terminal in Edmonds is clearly stated in its long term draft plan 2030; scenario A assumes that the Edmonds terminal will remain in its current location; an allowance of $26 million is included to enhance the multimodal connection; and Plan B is unchanged from Plan A. She questioned whether the Washington State Ferries were being truthful with the City Council and objected to what appeared to be a placeholder until 2030. She suggested the City require Unocal to cleanup the site and begin discussing how the property could be used to the City's advantage. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, agreed the statement in the Plan that Olympic Avenue was a route to Yost Park was incorrect. He recalled the sidewalk on one side of Olympic Avenue was installed due to the school; other locations with a single sidewalk include 801h, 84th and 88th. He hoped the same recommendation to change the classification to a collector would not be made for those streets simply because they had a sidewalk on only one side. Next, he recalled there was a requirement for an EIS due to increased traffic and parking associated with the ferry terminal and train station. He suggested the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 7 addition of 300 condominiums in the same area should also require an EIS. He also objected to the $800,000 estimate in the Plan for traffic signals and $2 million for the Five Corners traffic circle. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mr. Hauss explained the Transportation Committee ranked the sidewalk project as one of the primary walkway projects in the City. He clarified the recommendation was not to add a new sidewalk on the west side of the street; the recommendation was to upgrade the existing rolled curb to a six -inch vertical curb which makes it more difficult for vehicles to enter the sidewalk than a rolled curb. Mr. Hauss explained the traffic calming program states collector streets are not eligible for traffic calming. However, on streets such as 220`h, radar feedback signs have been effective at reducing speeds. If the classification of Olympic Avenue were upgraded to collector, the roadway would not be eligible for traffic calming devices but radar feedback signs could be installed to reduce speeds. With regard to installing a 3 -way stop on Olympic Avenue at Daley Street, he explained a stop sign was not a solution to reducing speeds and it did not meet the volume or accident history warrants in the Manual of Uniformed Traffic Control Devices for a stop sign. Councilmember Bemheim referred to language on page 5 -13 of the Plan that states the City is a partner in the Edmonds Crossing project and the preferred alternative would relocate the station near Pt. Edwards which would include traffic circulation in downtown Edmonds. He questioned the adherence to the Edmonds Crossing Plan which has been postponed indefinitely. Ms. Barnes answered the Transportation Plan considers what will happen through 2025; therefore, the transportation improvements identify traffic and non - motorized issues during that timeframe. Because funding for Edmonds Crossing is not secure, it was not feasible to base planning for future improvements on the traffic it would generate. Councilmember Bemheim asked whether the Transportation Plan anticipated substantial improvements in the current ferry system such as the ferry holding lanes, incorporating ferry passengers into the downtown streetscape, etc. Ms. Barnes responded the Plan considered projected ferry ridership that was provided by PSRC and vehicle modeling reflected the additional traffic generated by the ferry. She summarized there was a risk of over - design if the Plan reflected projects that would not be constructed during planning horizon. The reference to the EIS is simply because the project may be in the City's future and if the Edmonds Crossing becomes a reality, it should be reflected in the next update. The intent of the Plan was to acknowledge projects such as Edmonds Crossing that are on the City's radar as well as have a financed improvement plan that reflects what was anticipated to be built in the planning timeframe. Council President Wilson acknowledged the primary issue on Olympic Avenue was speed. He asked how to ensure that a future sidewalk project would include radar feedback signs. Mr. Hauss answered the radar feedback signs could be incorporated into the project such as was done with the Puget walkway project. The City received substantial grant funding for that sidewalk as well as the radar feedback signs. Council President Wilson recalled the Puget /Caspers /9th walkway project was the top rated project in the State. He asked how long it had been the City's top rated project before funding had been obtained. Mr. Hauss advised the application was submitted in spring 2006 and a grant was awarded in spring 2007. Design was begun but construction was delayed awaiting additional funding because the bid amounts were significantly higher than the estimates; another grant for the project was obtained this year. Council President Wilson assumed one of the major differences between the Puget /Caspers /9th walkway project and the Olympic Avenue sidewalk project was traffic volumes. He asked if there were other differences that would make Olympic Avenue less competitive for grant funding. Mr. Hauss commented it would be much more difficult to obtain grant funding if Olympic Avenue were classified as a local street. He recalled the City's grant application for a pedestrian improvement on 80th Avenue West was Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 8 rated the lowest of nearly 100 projects because it was a local street. That was one of the reasons for upgrading Olympic Avenue to a collector in this Plan. Council President Wilson asked the cost of installing radar feedback signage. Mr. Miller estimated $10,000415,000 each. Council President Wilson asked the funding source for installing two radar feedback signs in the next two years. Mr. Miller answered a better economic climate that would provide increased REST funds. Councilmember Peterson asked whether Olympic Avenue was on the cusp between a local and collector street or were the traffic patterns well into the characteristics of a collector. He questioned if traffic mitigation could return Olympic Avenue to the characteristics of a local street. Ms. Barnes answered it was solidly into the function of a collector which did not necessarily mean there could not be a strategy to encourage drivers to behave in another manner. The Plan does include a traffic calming program; however, it is currently unfunded. She commented Olympic Avenue had several characteristics such as its length that attracted more vehicular traffic. She clarified changing the classification to collector was not an indication the City wanted to increase traffic volumes, the characteristics of Olympic Avenue were such that it already attracted higher volumes. She reiterated one of the functions of a collector was to provide access, unlike the primary function of an arterial which was mobility. Councilmember Peterson asked what traffic mitigation /slowing measures could be installed to discourage traffic. Ms. Barnes answered the City was trying to get away from speed humps/bumps as a potential mitigation measure but other methods such as traffic circles, narrowing, etc. were possibilities to break up the length of the road. She did not anticipate traffic mitigation /calming would be a low cost solution due to the 3/4 mile length of the roadway. Councilmember Peterson asked whether a roadway needed to be a collector to obtain Safe Routes to Schools grant funds. Mr. Hauss answered the City's Safe Routes to Schools grant for sidewalks on 80th Avenue was unsuccessful due to 80th Avenue's classification as a local street. Councilmember Orvis asked if Transportation Benefit District funds could be used to fund traffic calming and /or sidewalks. Mr. Miller answered the funds were currently limited to operations and maintenance. Councilmember Orvis pointed out use of the funds could be amended in the future. Councilmember Orvis recalled during the Transportation Plan update in 2003 Maplewood Drive was upgraded to an arterial. He asked if the City had received any state or federal funds for improvements since the upgrade. Mr. Hauss answered no. In reference to Ms. Petso's concern, Council President Wilson asked whether the public hearing had been properly noticed. City Attorney Scott Snyder responded the Growth Management Hearings Board requires changes in levels of service to be noticed. The notice provides that there were changes in levels of service on state routes and references adoption of a Traffic Calming Program. However, the notice did not clearly indicate there were changes in the levels of service for local streets. He recommended continuing the public hearing and providing a corrected notice. Council President Wilson asked how speed bumps /humps impacted the Fire Department's ability to respond. Fire Chief Tom Tomberg answered any impedance in the roadway hampered their response. Councilmember Plunkett observed the axles of fire trucks were longer than automobiles. Chief Tomberg agreed some traffic impedances were designed so that wheels did not touch them. He pointed out the impedances also impacted aid units, police units, Fire Department cars. He reiterated anything that impeded their rapid response increased their response time. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 9 Councilmember Wambolt asked if the effectiveness of radar feedback signs diminished as their use increased. He pointed out there was a significant amount of speeding in the City and in his opinion the only solution was more police officers assigned to traffic control. He recalled 20 years ago there were radar traps throughout the City but now they were very rare. Mr. Hauss answered radar feedback signs were used in many jurisdictions and were very effective. He suggested staff compare speed study information on 2201h before and after the installation of the radar feedback signs. He pointed out police enforcement of speeds was periodic; the radar feedback signs were permanent devices. His observation was that many people braked when the radar feedback sign indicated they were exceeding the speed limit. Mayor Haakenson suggested testing photo radar on Olympic Avenue. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AN UPDATE OF THE 2002 TRANSPORTATION PLAN TO OCTOBER 20, 2009. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Wilson requested staff provide an estimate for one radar feedback signage northbound on Olympic Avenue and one southbound and to fund the cost up to $30,000 from REST. 6. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2010 -2015) AND PROPOSED RESOLUTION. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised this public hearing was not subject to the same constraints as the previous item. Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss advised this was a continuation of the public hearing held on August 4, 2009. RCW 35.77.010 requires that the City update the Transportation Improvement Program. (TIP) annually. A copy of the adopted TIP will be submitted to Washington State Department of Transportation, the Puget Sound Regional Council and adjacent jurisdictions. The 2009 Transportation Plan was used to develop the TIP. The TIP identifies transportation projects in the next six years along with cost estimates and projected funding such as local, federal and state grants, and the Transportation Benefit District (TBD). The TIP assumes a $40 increase in the current $20 TBD fee to fund operations and maintenance. The $40 increase, which requires voter approval, would be implemented in 2013. The only change made to the TIP since the August 4 public hearing was to the project cost of 196th @ 80th intersection improvement, which was increased to $889,000 instead of $789,000. He relayed staff's recommendation to approve the Six -Year TIP and adopt the Six -Year TIP resolution. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the continued public hearing. Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, commented one of his pet peeves is improving people movement between the downtown retail area and the marina/Port area. He referred to an advertisement for an electric tram manufactured by the Electric Car Company in Long Beach, California. He anticipated the tram would travel up Railroad Avenue, up Main Street, up 5th and down Dayton. The trams vary in size from 11 - 14 passengers. The suggested retail price is $17,500 and it has a 50 mile range with a 22 mph maximum speed limit. He suggested this as an environmentally friendly way to move people between downtown and the waterfront so that they could spend more money. He hoped the current Plan did not preclude something like a tram in the future. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed concern with the estimated expenditures of $800,000 each for signals at Walnut and James Streets as well as $2 million for a roundabout at Five Corners. He recommended the traffic signal at 196th /881h be eliminated from the Plan due to the hazards created by large trucks stopping on a hill. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 10 Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2010 -2015) AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTION NO. 1207. Council President Wilson voiced his concern with the policy decision in the Plan and the TIP that the Council would adopt a $100 TBD fee. Although that was the Transportation Committee's and the Walkway Committee's recommendations, he did not support that as a source for funding transportation projects nor did he have a better alternative. MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON OPPOSED. Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess. 7. WORK SESSION ON THE FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT OFFER. PRESENTATION BY CITY ATTORNEY SCOTT SNYDER REGARDING OPTIONS FOR FIRE SERVICE REGIONALIZA- TION. City Attorney Scott Snyder reviewed elements of the following three options for providing fire service: Contracting for Service • Formation - Requires only approval of Fire District Board and City Council. • Personnel - Impact bargaining is required prior to final decision with all affected bargaining units. • Governance - Fire District provides service under day -to -day contract. City Council establishes level of service and pays accordingly. Any increase in level of service necessitates increased payment. • Tax /Finance - No new taxes or increased charges. The City uses available revenue and any savings are attributable to economies of scale and elimination of duplication. Annexation to Fire District • Formation - Approval required by Fire District Board, the City Council, the City Voters and the Fire District Voters. Potential for appeal to the Boundary Review Board. • Personnel - All personnel transfer to Fire District. Impact bargaining required prior to the Council's portion of the decision with all affected bargaining units. • Governance - By Fire District. The City Council would have no role in the provision of fire services. Citizens would vote for Fire District Commissioners. • Tax /Finance - Property tax increment available to City, limited by $3.60 per $1,000 assessed valuation (Chapter 84.55 taxing limitations). City, citizens and businesses pay Fire District for fire protection service to City plant through voter approved benefit charges. • Cities cannot establish their own Fire Districts. Regional Fire Authority (RFA) • Formation - Planning Committee formed with three members from the City and Fire Districts that form the RFA. Single vote on the Plan by voters within the boundaries of proposed RFA. 50% majority vote required, some funding options require a 60% majority vote. • Personnel - All personnel transfer to the RFA under the same Collective Bargaining Agreement terms unless other provisions negotiated. Impact bargaining and negotiation regarding Civil Service System required. • Governance - By Board of RFA. Composition determined by Planning Committee, comprised of elected officials from the jurisdictions that established the RFA. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 11 • Tax/Finance - Funded by benefit charges on personal and real property, collected by County Treasurer. Benefit charges are voter approved, 60% majority every six years. Three voter approved $0.50 per $1,000 assessed valuation excess property tax levies available. • Timing - approximately two years. Mr. Snyder advised the other significant issue is withdrawal. The proposed contract has a ten year notice rolling provision for withdrawal [Note: this was corrected later in the meeting to five years]. An RFA can be ended and the parties can withdraw; although the procedure for withdrawal from an RFA is not well addressed by the State statute and getting employees and assets back from the RFA if it contained more than two parties could be a complex process. He noted one of the advantages of the contract was, although it was a slow withdrawal period, it had well established parameters for how employees and assets were returned. Council President Wilson commented his goal for Mr. Snyder's presentation was to provide options for regionalizing fire service. He asked what lessons Mr. Snyder had learned in his experience with other municipalities. Mr. Snyder responded he had been involved in one reverse annexation, Poulsbo to Kitsap County Fire District 10. The negotiation with the union and the asset transfer were the most time consuming. The reverse annexation served the purpose of freeing revenue for the city and there have been no comments in the community in the ten years following the transfer. He commented 49 cities in Washington have done reverse annexation; the majority before there was an RFA option available. Council President Wilson asked if there were any buyer's remorse or downstream contractual issues in the reverse annexation. Mr. Snyder answered the main fire station remained in Poulsbo. The only thing residents noticed was the name on the trucks changed. Councilmember Bernheim commented the options Mr. Snyder presented were alternatives to the current City - operated fire department. He asked how fire service was provided in the other larger cities in Washington State. Mr. Snyder answered he did not know and offered to forward an AWC link that lists all the Fire Districts and Fire Departments in the State. He suggested reverse annexation was more common in Eastern Washington. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether there was any pattern regarding the type of cities that utilized certain types of fire protection. Mr. Snyder answered the RFA was a new tool and had not had an opportunity to function. Councilmember Wambolt asked for clarification regarding the notice requirement to withdraw from the Fire District I contract. He recalled after five years, there was a two year notice requirement. Mr. Snyder agreed. Council President Wilson asked about termination of the Fire District 1 contract if an RFA were formed. Mayor Haakenson responded Chief Tomberg has forwarded proposed language to the Fire District's attorney and has not yet had a response. Council President Wilson suggested adding a requirement for an annual meeting between the Fire District 1 Commission and the City Council. Chief Tomberg advised the contract included an annual meeting between the Mayor, Chair of the Fire District 1. Board and Fire Chief. Council President Wilson clarified his intent was not a contract management meeting but an opportunity for the Council to have a discussion with the Commission to ensure the City's and the Fire District's interests were aligned. Mayor Haakenson agreed language regarding an annual meeting between the Fire District 1 Commission and the City Council would be added to the contract. Council President Wilson asked what impacts Initiative 1033, which will limit cities' ability to increase revenue to the General Fund beyond inflation, would have on the City's ability to fund the contract. Mayor Haakenson commented the Council planned to consider a resolution regarding I -1033 at a future Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 12 Council meeting. In his opinion if I -1033 passed, "we might as well just close the doors to the City." The City would be better off on a contract basis than operating its own Fire Department because a contract guarantees fire service; with the City's own Fire Department, passage of I -1033 could require the closure of fire stations or worse. He emphasized the impacts of I -1033 would be very detrimental to city services throughout the State. Council President Wilson observed short term the City was better off with the contract due to the savings as well as weathering the impacts of I -1033 should it pass. In the long term, he feared the cost of public safety inflation would outpace inflation. He anticipated it would be difficult to ask voters to fund fire service if the City was not providing the service via its own Fire Department. Council President Wilson explained via the contract, the City would pay 75% of the Fire Marshal position and 100% of the Fire Inspector position and housed both in City Hall. He asked why the contract was not structured to retain them as City employees. Chief Tomberg answered it was to maintain a coherent fire service mission a portion of which is fire prevention. Another issue would be the chain of command and the priority of their mission. Mr. Snyder pointed out if they were retained as City employees, the City would still have the cost of negotiating with them as a bargain unit. Chief Tomberg commented the contract was modeled after the Mountlake Terrace and Brier contract and that was how those positions were handled in their contract. He summarized the priority and focus of prevention was best retained as part of the Fire Department. Council President Wilson asked if a Fire District I representative would attend appropriate Council meetings to respond to questions regarding fire service. Mayor Haakenson anticipated they would. Chief Tomberg advised the Fire Marshal and Inspector would remain in their current offices. On Wednesday mornings the City holds an expanded staff meeting with all directors and other division leaders. Another meeting follows with Community Development, Development Services and Public Works staff. He proposed the Fire Marshal attend that meeting to address and /or refer issues that arise. Mayor Haakenson advised the purpose of housing the Fire Marshal in City Hall was to approve building plans, etc. Council President Wilson inquired about the Public Safety boat, Marine 16. Chief Tomberg responded Marine 16 was acquired via a grant that required it be a County asset and respond to fire, EMS or law enforcement rescues when requested and available. Ownership and title to the boat was given to the City and will remain with the City. When Fire District 1 uses the boat for training or emergency response, they will pay for the fuel the same as they do now. The only vehicle replacement aspects of the boat are the motors. The boat is addressed in the Interlocal Agreement and the exhibits. If an agency wants to add something to the boat, they pay for it themselves; if an item serves both fire and law enforcement purposes, they split the cost. Whoever is driving the boat when an accident occurs pays for the repairs. The City has owned the boat for approximately two years and the current system has worked well. Council President Wilson clarified the boat was currently funded in the budget 50% by fire and 50% by law enforcement. He asked if the 50% cost of Marine 16 had been deducted from projected savings. Chief Tomberg advised the cost was not significant and included only fuel and funds set aside annually to replace the motors. He suggested Fleet Maintenance Manager Dave Sittauer provide a cost estimate. Councilmember Wambolt asked if the City's portion of the Fire Marshal and the Fire Inspector were included in the budget. Interim Finance Director Lorenzo Hines referred to Exhibit C, advising the costs were included in the fire contract of $6.2 million: $130,566 for the Inspector and $121,669 for the Fire Marshal. Councilmember Bernheim provided several observations: • The proposed contract maintains the current level of service and eliminates any opportunities the City had via its own Fire Department to improve levels of service. Under the contract, labor Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 13 increases are passed on; if Fire District 1 negotiates a great contract for the fire personnel, the City has no choice other than to pay the increase which he viewed as a loss of control. • Should such an important issue, contracting for fire service, be the subject of a public vote? • Recalling the lack of intergovernmental cooperation when negotiating for the purchase of property with the Edmonds School District, will the same be true with Fire District 1 in the future? • What is the remedy for non - performance of Fire District 1 such as lengthy response times? • What advisory role have the current Fire Department employees had in the proposed contract? What is their feeling about joining a larger scale operation with a more corporate environment with more resources, larger economies of scale and possibly more opportunities for professional development versus working for a small town Fire Department with local control and input and working one -on -one with the chief and other employees? • Concern with long term costs of contracting for Fire Department, Police Department, Public Works, road maintenance, etc. Council President Wilson asked why the contract proposed that Fire District 1 pay the City for the asset transfer over four years? Mayor Haakenson said the contract could be revised to have the payment in one lump sum. Council President Wilson preferred to have the payment at one time. Mr. Hines explained in speaking with Foster Pepper, the payment was spread over four years to allow repayment of the bond debt associated with the stations over the same four years. If the funds were received at one time, it was possible the entire bond debt associated with the stations would need to be repaid at the same time. Council President Wilson anticipated paying the bond debt with the funds received from the asset transfer. Mayor Haakenson explained the bonds were refinanced recently and there may be prepayment penalties. Council President Wilson questioned the present value of $8.2 million versus the amount with four years of compounded interest. Mr. Hines offered to provide further details. Councilmember Wambolt asked staff to comment on Fire District l cost escalations. Chief Tomberg suggested Councilmember Bernheim's questions be directed to the Mayor and City Manager of Mountlake Terrace and Mayor of Brier when they meet with the Council. The agreement also includes performance clauses, dispute resolution procedures, etc. He summarized the City continuing to operate its own Fire Department would be expensive. He urged the Council to consider the starting point with Fire District 1 of $6.2 million. He acknowledged Fire District 1 would negotiate cost of living increases that the City would pay, the same as the City did with its own Fire Department. He concluded the City got much more via contracting with Fire District 1. Councilmember Plunkett commented uniform labor costs were a function of State law such as firefighters could not strike and the City must use comparables. Chief Tomberg pointed out there is also binding arbitration. Mr. Snyder referred to language in the contract that requires the use of comparables. He pointed out a larger unit would have higher comparables because it would be compared to larger organizations. Councilmember Plunkett summarized Fire District 1 would use comparables the same as the Edmonds City Council and either an agreement was reached with regard to comparables or it was resolved with the use of an arbitrator. 8. PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT OFFER George Murray, Edmonds, liked the City Council's discussion regarding contracting with Fire District 1 but objected to Mayor Haakenson's presentation which seemed like a sales pitch because it did not address the negatives. His involvement with three mergers revealed the only ones that benefited from the merger were senior executives. He questioned how Fire District 1 could operate their Fire Department cheaper than the Edmonds Fire Department, particularly when most of the $6 million cost were labor - associated costs. He requested the Finance Director provide a comparison of the cost under the Edmonds Fire Department versus Fire District 1's costs. He feared the proposed contract was a low -ball estimate Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 14 and there would be a large increase in future years. He was also concerned with the loss of control and how the contract could be unwound. With the potential of I -1033, he pointed out the City could better manage expenses with its own Fire Department. He questioned the Fire Department's endorsement of some City Council candidates. Councilmember Plunkett clarified the Fire Department did not endorse candidates; the firefighters union has endorsed some candidates. Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, asked, 1) what was the best long term arrangement for the community, 2) what was the best long term arrangement for the firefighters, and 3) if the proposed contract was the best for the community and the firefighters, what was the appropriate value and financial terms for the contract? He recognized the benefits of consolidation to minimize duplication of resources and saving money, noting it was usually followed by redistribution of resources that reflect redundancy and to improve overall efficiency of the larger unit. Under this contract Fire District I will be allowed to redistribute firefighters to other stations which he acknowledged may or may not impact fire service in Edmonds as Fire District 1 focuses on maintaining the best service over a broader area. He requested more specifics regarding the process to modify or withdraw from the contract, assuming it would be easier to reverse the contract if the capital transfer was a separate transaction from the contract. He was also concerned with the presentation of the contract as an alternate to the levy, noting if it was a good deal, it should be a good deal in both good and bad financial times. He was concerned with selling capital assets in a depressed market based on current valuation. He was concerned the current schedule did not allow sufficient public hearings after all the information had been presented. Lora Petso, Edmonds, questioned the proposed $800,000 savings. She did not feel the City was receiving full value for its assets if the money were not provided in a lump sum payment. She was concerned the City could not easily withdraw from the contract, and that the contract did not adequately protect response times. With regard to the proposed savings, she questioned the inclusion of $580,000 in overhead items in Tab 3, pointing out the savings included a portion of the Council, the City Clerk, etc. She anticipated once more data regarding the EMS levy was available, the proposed savings would disappear. She anticipated the City would lose $1 million if payment for the assets was accepted over four years. With regard to withdrawal, she pointed out the contract cannot be terminated for at least five years; however, the proposal was to spend the money received from the sale of assets on operating expenses, leaving no money to repurchase assets if that became necessary. She pointed out the City's only recourse to longer response times was to meet with the Fire District 1 Board. She urged the Council to include a mechanism for addressing longer response times with Fire District 1. She also suggested the City consider forming a Fire District with Woodway. Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, agreed with Dr. Senderoff s concerns with piecemeal public comments as information regarding the Fire District 1 contract was presented. The discounted cash flow analysis she conducted revealed the City would lose $1 million - $2 million. She pointed out the itemization of minutia as attractive assets in the contract, yet the furnishings inside the fire stations were not itemized. She suggested separating the real estate transaction from the contract for fire service. Finis Tupper, Edmonds, observed the contract was modeled after the Mountlake Terrace contract. However, in the Mountlake Terrace contract, the city retains the EMS transport fee versus the Edmonds contract in which Fire District 1 collects the transport fees. He pointed out Mukilteo had 2 fire stations with a $4 million annual budget, Mountlake Terrace 1 fire station with a $2 million annual budget, and Edmonds has 3 fire stations with a $6 million budget and 1 of the fire stations serves Esperance and Woodway. Ray Martin, Edmonds, recalled the City's taxes were low 40 years ago compared to today's taxes. He anticipated the additional cost to Edmonds taxpayers in the first five years of the contract would be $1 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 15 million - $2 million. He was not convinced the City would save a great deal long term via the contract. He pointed out the options provided by Mr. Snyder did not include retaining the City's existing Fire Department. He urged the Council to think seriously about this before making a decision. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:45 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Plunkett requested staff provide a written response to the questions raised by Ms. Petso and Ms. Buckshnis. Mayor Haakenson advised staff would provide responses at the next meeting. Council President Wilson expressed interest in the termination clause and how the City could withdraw if the contract was not workable. To Ms. Petso's question about the $580,000 savings in overhead, he explained there was a distinction between the cost of fire service and what the City would save; a percentage of the Council, Human Resources, legal, etc. was currently allocated to the Fire Department. Those costs would continue to be incurred but would not be costs associated with the Fire District 1 contract. Although his preference would be to form a Fire District which allows voters to pay taxes to an organization they approved, that option was not part of this discussion. Council President Wilson observed the contract could only be terminated in five years with the exception of a material breach. He asked that the RFA termination clause be included as a reason for termination before five years. To Dr. Senderoffs concern that public hearings were being held prior to presenting all the information, Council President Wilson assured the Council would take all the time it needed to snake a decision and any Councilmember could request additional meetings. To Mr. Murray's concerns, Council President Wilson acknowledged he has also been working though his skepticism over how Fire District 1 could provide fire service less expensively than the Edmonds Fire Department. He was fording the numbers added up and he was getting to a place where he was increasingly comfortable with the proposed contract. To the question of how Fire District I operated more cheaply, Council President Wilson commented in his opinion Fire District 1 was going to subsidize Edmonds operations which was clearly a financial benefit to Edmonds in the short term. He noted the hypothetical considerations regarding I -1033 applied whether the City had its own Fire Department or contracted with Fire District 1. He assured he would not support placing the funds from the sale of the assets into the General Fund. He wanted to ensure those funds were available in the event the City wanted to withdraw from the contract and buy back the stations and equipment. Councilmember Wambolt stated he would not support placing the funds from the sale of the assets into the General Fund. With regard to Ms. Petso's comments regarding overhead expenses, he explained those were overhead expenses associated with the current Fire Department and would be eliminated via the Fire District 1 contract. To Mr. Martin's comment that this was creating a new tax, he assured this was not an RFA and did not create a new taxing authority. The contract with Fire District 1 would be paid by the City via revenues it currently collected. With regard to the assets within the station, he agreed that needed further explanation. With regard to withdrawal, although there were clauses that addressed withdrawal, he questioned how that could be practically accomplished. If there was any possibility that there would need to be a withdrawal, he did not favor moving forward with the contract. Councilmember Plunkett observed a lot of governmental entities had windfalls and most placed a portion of it in a permanent fund that generated earnings. 9. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Barbara Tipton, Edmonds, referred to the notice of application for development of the former Safeway property and explained a rezone was required if a property owner wanted to use their land in a manner Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 16 that was not currently allowed. In this case it was a change from BC to CG and CG2 which includes a height increase from 25 feet to 60 -75 feet. She referred to Section 20.40.010 that contains factors the Planning Board must consider in their review of a rezone request, 1) whether the proposal is consistent with the long range Comprehensive Plan, 2) the potential impacts on the existing land uses in the vicinity of the proposed development, 3) whether there had been any changes that would necessitate the rezone, and 4) the impacts on the public health, safety and welfare. The City's code also requires applicants to submit a SEPA checklist. The SEPA checklist in file number 820090042 submitted by ESC Associates contains several out -of -date studies including a soils study from July 1980, a geotechnical investigation completed in 1991, . and a site assessment completed in 1991. The City's Best Available Science Report published November 11, 2004 chides the City Planner for relying solely on reports and studies submitted by applicants. In this case the reports are outdated which should make the application incomplete. She pointed out this affected the due diligence the Planning Division and Board must undertake to determine whether to accept or deny the application. She pointed out the need to consider drainage problems. She encouraged the public to make a written request to become a party of record by emailing lien(a ci.edmonds.wa.us or submitting a letter to Planner Kernen Lien at City Hall referencing file number 820090042. Joan Bloom, Edmonds, explained she and two other Edmonds citizens met with Kernen Lien in the City's Planning Department on August 24 to discuss ESC Associates' application for a contract rezone on the Antique Mall /old Safeway property. They were told notification of the application would be made on August 28. She pointed out this application requests the current zone, BC with a 25 +5 foot height limit, be changed to CG with a 60 foot height limit and CG2 with a 72 foot height limit. According to Mr. Lien, the Planning Department would review the application and forward their recommendation to the Planning Board; at least one public hearing before the Planning Board was required and the Planning Board could hold additional public hearings. Following the Planning Board's review, they will forward a recommendation to the Council and the Council will review the application as a closed record review. Ms. Bloom posed the following questions: 1) will there be a public hearing on this application before the City Council, 2) how will citizens be notified of public hearings regarding this application, 3) what is a party of record and how does a person become a parry of record in order to speak before the Planning Board or City Council, 4) what is the deadline to establish oneself as a party of record, 5) what is a Type IVB quasi judicial application and why is the application a Type IVB, 6) is this an application for contract rezone only and not a project the applicants plan to build themselves, and 7) where can citizens easily find answers to these questions on the City's website. She advised the application materials were available on the City's website via Quick Links and Online Permits. The permit number is PLN20090042. At Mayor Haakenson's suggestion, Ms. Bloom provided her list of questions to the City Clerk. Council President Wilson requested staff prepare and distribute written responses to Ms. Bloom's questions. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the open public review was before the Planning Board and notice would be published as well as posted on the City's website. In order to become a party of record, a person needed to submit written comments or oral testimony to the Planning Board prior to their final deliberation. Ms. Bloom asked the date of the Planning Board's final deliberation. Mayor Haakenson invited Ms. Bloom to call him and he would determine when the matter was scheduled on the Planning Board's agenda. George Murray, Edmonds, asserted notification for application R20090042 for the former Safeway property was inadequate. He explained a letter of completeness was issued on August 28, 2009 by City staff and notice published in the Everett Herald as well as posted on the property and mailed to property owners within a 300 foot radius. Only 47 notices were mailed and he questioned whether anyone read the legal notices in the Everett Herald whose circulation in Edmonds was approximately 2400. Further, the boards on the site had no information until September 10 or 12. He displayed the notice and questioned Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 17 the wording it contained. He requested the City publish information in plain English in the Edmonds Beacon and the Enterprise to inform citizens how they could be involved in the process. Joanne Green, Edmonds, thanked the Mayor for meeting with them regarding the house under construction at 523 Alder. She explained the work order was lifted on the home and the developer began Monday morning blocking the line of sight from the second floor of the adjacent building. She pointed out since construction began the developer has done nothing to mitigate the damage to his neighbors. She expressed concern with Mayor Haakenson's response that the neighbors should have expected this. She suggested the lesson learned from this was that the Planning Department and the City believe a 3 -story house on a 40 foot -wide lot was acceptable. She obtained a list of properties this developer owns in Edmonds and planned to visit the neighbors to inform them that a 3 -story house on a 40 -foot wide lot could be coming to their neighborhood soon. Bill Green, Edmonds, referred to the house under construction at 523 Alder as "the ugliest building you've ever seen in your life." He implored the Council to consider the City's regulations to prevent this occurring elsewhere in the City. He explained with the housing boom that followed WWII, some cities had zoning, some did not and some had spot zoning. The spot zoning was declared invalid by the courts and each city was required to develop a general plan prior to zoning. He worked in numerous cities throughout the United States, and most established 25 -foot height limits to accommodate two stories and a peaked roof. However, in Edmonds the height limit was 25 feet plus and could reach 30 -31 feet. He urged the Council to keep Edmonds as "Edmonds" which may mean changing rules or interpreting them differently. He concluded although the house may add $500,000 to the City's tax base, it would lower the assessed valuation of the adjacent properties' value by $1 million. Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, commended the presence of Engel's Pub in Edmonds, rated the Best Blue's Bar by the Washington Blues Society. As a fan of the blues, he used to travel to Seattle to visit blues clubs but now can find blues locally at Engel's Pub. He referred to the movie, "Cadillac Records," the story of Chess Records which popularized blues music. He suggested citizens watch the movie and visit Engel's Pub to hear some great blues music on Wednesday and Saturday nights. Jan Darcy, Edmonds, relayed the comments of a young woman outside her condominium regarding the building at 523 Alder who asked, "Is your City Council asleep to allow that massive, ugly building on such a small space here in Edmonds ?" She thanked the Councilmembers who supported their efforts to enforce the code, make the builder adhere to the code and to question the practices of the Building Department with regard to code violations. She expressed concern with Mayor Haakenson's patronizing attitude and trivializing the impact of the building on their view. She needs to move to be near her son but was unable to sell her condominium as prospective buyers' comments had expressed concern about the ugly building next door. She obtained an inspection dated September 10, 2009 indicating the height of the building had been increased. After being told by staff that further appeal would require a challenge in Supreme Court, she concluded it was fruitless to try to be a good citizen and attempt to reign in the blatant misinterpretation of the City's code that seems to be interpreted any way a builder wants regardless of how detrimental it was to Edmonds' citizens. She was hopeful the group that was working to clarify the code would be successful. Ray Martin, Edmonds, questioned if he was a party of record. He pointed out $6600 had been contributed by the developer to Council campaigns. He was opposed to any increase in the current maximum 30 -foot height. With regard to Olympic Avenue, he pointed out the Council did nothing to help the residents. He suggested rather than the radar feedback signs, installing a school zone crosswalk which required a 20 mph speed limit, or installing traffic cameras which are allowed in a school zone. He suggested once the traffic cameras slowed speed on Olympic Avenue, they could be moved to the school zone on 76th Avenue. He also suggested the Police Department establish periodic speed traps on Olympic Avenue. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 18 COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 11:15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented on the removal of striping on SR 104 that reopened Paradise Lane and Edmonds Way to traffic. He was pleased the Council awarded the bid for the Senior Center entrance. Next, he commented on the proposed rezone of the former Safeway /Antique Mall property, and urged the public to submit comments on the SEPA review. He concluded the City would not have its current financial problems if the Mayor's salary had been remained lower. Mayor Haakenson asked Mr. Snyder to respond to Ms. Bloom's question regarding why the application was a contract rezone, why it was quasi judicial and why it was a closed record review before the City Council. Mr. Snyder responded it was a contract rezone because that was what the applicant submitted; the applicant had the choice of a development agreement or a contract rezone. In a contract rezone, the applicant offers to limit their use of the zone in an effort to address the criteria Ms. Bloom enumerated. It was quasi judicial with a closed record review before the Council because that was required by State law. Mayor Haakenson reiterated it was a closed record review before the Council due to State law, not because the Council chose that process. Mr. Snyder emphasized anyone who wished to address the Council at the closed record review needed to participate at the Planning Board level either by submitting written comment or providing testimony to the Planning Board. Council President Wilson suggested scheduling a 5 -10 minute informational presentation to describe the Planning Board and City Council process with regard to the application, how citizens can be involved in the process, etc. Mr. Snyder suggested providing an outline of the process on the City's website. He advised the review schedule was currently unknown until the notice periods concluded and decisions were made with regard to the SEPA declaration. He offered to confer with staff regarding providing procedural information to the Council and citizens. Councilmember Plunkett complimented the citizens who raised procedural questions regarding the application for the old Safeway site. He clarified the citizens wanted to know how and where they could get involved to ensure they were not left out of the process. He agreed posting information on the City's website would be an excellent method for providing that information. Councilmember Bernheim referred to Mr. Snyder's indication that the public could speak to the Council during a closed record review. Mayor Haakenson clarified the public could speak at the Planning Board public hearing and parties of record may speak during the Council's closed record review. Mr. Snyder explained when there was an appeal to the Council, input from parties of record was limited to written correspondence. A rezone is a combined legislative -quasi judicial decision forwarded to the Council with a recommendation from the Planning Board. Parties of record have an opportunity to address the Council during a closed record review. Councilmember Bernheim clarified a member of the public may become a party of record via submitting written comments to the Planning Board or by providing testimony to the Planning Board. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting in the past, citizens could sign in to become a party of record; that has changed to require submittal of written or oral comments. Councilmember Bernheim inquired about the SEPA determination deadline. Mr. Snyder explained after the SEPA checklist is submitted, the responsible City official makes a Determination of Significance, Determination of Non - Significance or Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance. Because that decision has not yet been made, it is difficult to provide a chronology of dates. Mayor Haakenson advised the SEPA deadline is August 28. Councilmember Bernheim agreed with Council President Wilson's suggestion to provide information to the public to avoid "making this as difficult as possible" for people to participate in this extremely important project. Mr. Snyder responded Washington courts have held that specific notice regarding a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 19 project is not required; the City will follow its adopted procedures. He agreed it was important to identify the steps in the process and provide dates that were known but there was risk associated with the Council providing gratuitous notice. He agreed it was a complex process and this would be the first application under the new code procedures. In response to Mr. Martin's suggestions regarding Olympic Avenue, Mayor Haakenson assured he has met with residents on Olympic Avenue several times in recent years and Olympic Avenue has more radar enforcement than any other street in the City. In response to Mr. Hertrich's comment about the Mayor's salary, Mayor Haakenson suggested even with every penny he has been paid in the last ten years, the City would be in the same financial situation. In response to Ms. Darcy and Ms. Green's comments regarding the building at 523 Alder, Council President Wilson commented he was surprised and shocked at how the code was being interpreted and that a building was allowed to be constructed with a roofline that was later found to be illegal. He acknowledged even if the code had been followed, views from the adjacent building would have been impacted. He expressed appreciation for Councilmember Bernheim and Orvis' involvement in this issue. He advised a meeting was scheduled in the future to review roof issues. He thanked Ms. Darcy and Ms. Green for their effort to identify these issues. 10. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION RELATED TO FOUR (4) SWEET GUM TREES LOCATED AT 5TH AVENUE SOUTH & DAYTON STREET. Mayor Haakenson explained the Council was provided a report from the City Arborist as well as an independent arborist and Councilmembers were asked to examine the condition of the trees themselves including one that is bolted together and another that is rotting. COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO REMOVE THE TWO SWEET GUM TREES ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER AND THE TWO TREES ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF DAYTON & 5TH Councilmember Wambolt recalled the Council placed a moratorium on the removal of these trees with full knowledge of the sidewalk condition. The new information is the City Arborist said the trees are unsafe. He expressed concern that because the independent arborist knew the prior findings and what staff wanted, he /she was likely to reach the same conclusion. Councilmember Wambolt asked if the four trees were unsafe. He asked if the four replacement trees had been purchased and what size they were. Public Works Director Noel Miller relayed Parks Maintenance Supervisor Rich Lindsay had reserved four 3 -inch caliper October Glory Maples at a nursery. The root bail of those trees should fit because the planter areas in this location are bigger than the standard tree well in the sidewalk. Councilmember Wambolt reiterated his question if the four trees were unsafe? Mayor Haakenson referred to sections 4.0 and 4.1 of the arborist report that states there is the potential for failure of one form or another of these trees. As previously discussed, the report included bark that can develop between the co- dominant leaders can cause failure of one of them at anytime. The arborist also circled the areas of damage in Figures 1 and 2 of the exhibits. Councilmember Bernheim anticipated this issue would not have arisen had the tree replacement program been more robust in the past. He referred to studies that indicate shoppers are willing to pay more and go out of their way to shop in a tree -lined small town village; however, the City was not promoting downtown shopping by the type of trees that being used to replace mature trees. He disagreed with the overall tree management downtown with regard to the sidewalks, preferring to remove the sidewalk and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 20 evaluate the roots before removing trees. The value of the City's mature trees justified the cost of repairing the sidewalk or installing flexible sidewalks to accommodate the trees. With regard to the tree species recommended, he anticipated the Maple tree would create similar problems with the sidewalk. He announced a free 3 -hour workshop "Persuasion and the Benefits of Urban Trees" in Tacoma on October 21. Councilmember Bernheim summarized without clear evidence regarding the safety of the trees, he did not support their removal. Councilmember Peterson agreed it was important to have a discussion about the Street Tree Plan in the future. He pointed out one of the trees was bolted together. Mr. Miller advised the bolted tree was small . enough and was being held together sufficiently that it did not create a safety issue. Councilmember Peterson asked which of the four trees presented a safety issue such as a branch breaking and falling. Mr. Miller answered the arborist's report stated as the trees get larger, the likelihood of a branch breaking off increases. Mayor Haakenson clarified it was not a branch breaking off; the trunk of the tree was splitting. Mr. Miller displayed photographs of the October Morning Glory trees in front of the Bank of Washington, pointing out the new trees would be significant size in ten years and they were a better tree long term for this area. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (1 -6), COUNCILMEMBER OLSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, PLUNKETT, BERNHEIM, PETERSON, AND WAMBOLT OPPOSED. 11. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEEIBOARD MEETINGS. Councilmember Wambolt reported on the August 21 and September 4 Port Commission meetings where the Commission began working on the 2010 budget by reviewing moorage costs and a cost recovery analysis. The Commission approved the purchase of a new F150 truck for their Security Department. They approved the Economic Development budget of $30,000 for 2010. The consultants studying the redevelopment of Harbor Square property, LMN Architects, will present their report to the Commission. in October. Councilmember Orvis reported the Health Board has been discussing H1N1 vaccinations. 12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson had no report. 13. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Plunkett referred to a September 15 memo from Mayor Haakenson regarding Yost Pool that states given the success of Yost Pool in 2009, staff recommends continuing the same schedule in 2010. 14. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:23 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 22, 2009 Page 21