Loading...
10/30/2009 City CouncilOctober 20, 2009 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor D. J. Wilson, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember Steve Bemheim, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Ron Wambolt, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief Mark Correira, Assistant Fire Chief Al Compaan, Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services /Economic Development Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Lorenzo Hines, Interim Finance Director Debi Humann, Human Resources Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager Steve Koho, Treatment Plant Manager Rob English, City Engineer Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER, ADDING "AUTHORIZE STAFF TO REMOVE FOUR TREES AT THE NORTH CORNER OF 5TH & DAYTON" AS AGENDA ITEM 8B. 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 OCTOBER 6, 2009. C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 13, 2009. D. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #114535 THROUGH #114703 DATED OCTOBER 8, 2009 FOR $820,758.42, AND #114704 THROUGH #114864 FOR $561,991.99 DATED OCTOBER 15, 2009. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #48634 THROUGH #48675 FOR THE PAY PERIOD SEPTEMBER 16 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 FOR $806,648.57. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 1 E. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM SHEJANA TSANEV AND GERALDINE HEISEY (AMOUNTS UNDETERMINED). F. SURPLUS OF COMPUTERS AND MONITORS AND DONATION TO INTERCONNECTION. G. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED ON OCTOBER 6, 2009 FOR THE PURCHASE OF TREATMENT PLANT CHEMICALS AND AWARD TO JONES CHEMICAL, INC. FOR SUPPLYING SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE AND SODIUM HYDROXIDE. H. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BROWN & CALDWELL FOR THE ODOR CONTROL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR $90,558. I. AUTHORIZATION TO SURPLUS CITY VEHICLE TOTALED IN ACCIDENT. J. APPROVAL OF THE 5 YEAR UPDATE OF THE NORTH KING AND SOUTH SNOHOMISH COUNTIES REGIONAL MITIGATION PLAN. K. AUTHORIZATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1210 TO SUBMIT GRANT APPLICATION FOR 2010 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CDBG PUBLIC FACILITIES & INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS FUNDING FOR SENIOR CENTER PARKING LOT REHABILITATION. L. ORDINANCE NO. 3758 - AMENDING ECC 8.51.030 AND ECC 8.51.040 RELATING TO EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT CHANGES. 3. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF ARTS & HUMANITIES MONTH OCTOBER 2009 Mayor Haakenson read a Proclamation in honor of Arts and Humanities Month, October 2009. He presented the Proclamation to Arts Commission Chair Greg Banasek who thanked the Council for recognizing the arts as an integral part of the community and the economy. On behalf of the Arts Commission, he thanked the community members who participate in their programs as well as the Art Commission's partners in those events. He commented on the very successful Summer Concert Series and record attendance at the Write on the Sound Writers Conference. 4. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF FRIENDS OF THE EDMONDS LIBRARY WEEK OCTOBER 18 - 24, 2009. Mayor Haakenson read a Proclamation in honor of Friends of the Edmonds Library Week, October 18 - 24, 2009. He presented the Proclamation to Friends of the Edmonds Library Board President Page Gorud. Ms. Gorud relayed the thanks of the approximately 200 members of the Friends of the Edmonds Library. She explained the Friends provide programs for the library as well as this year they provided furniture for the library, provided a scholarship to the University of Washington Information School, and sent one library staff member to continuing education at the Washington Association of Library Employees (WALE) Conference. Funds for these activities are generated by the ongoing book sale at the library and the annual book sale which will take place Saturday, October 24 at the Frances Anderson Center. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING SCENARIOS AND WILL SELECT A PREFERENCE: (1) WITHOUT FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT (2) WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT (3) WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT (REVENUE REMOVED) (4) WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT (SELL APPARATUS; KEEP STATIONS, LAND, AND TRANSPORT FEES) (5) WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT (SELL APPARATUS- REVENUE REMOVED; KEEP STATIONS, LAND, TRANSPORT FEES) (6) WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT (KEEP STATIONS, LAND, APPARATUS, AND TRANSPORT FEES) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 2 Mayor Haakenson apologized the scenarios were not available on Wednesday on the City's website as promised but were made available via the Council packet on Friday. Councilmember Wambolt referred to a question he sent to Finance Director Lorenzo Hines regarding the revision made to expenses and asked Mr. Hines to explain the change. Mr. Hines advised an additional $246,000 was added to the original expenses in Option 1. The change was the result of "re- staking" the Fire District I proposal back to the 2010 budget. The 2010 budget for the Fire Department is $7.972 million. Because the modeling spreadsheet is continually updated for CPI, bargaining agreements, etc., he removed all the adjustments in the modeling software for the Fire Department to return to the original budget of $7.972 million. This provides an objective basis from which to measure the savings. He summarized if the 2010 budget is modified as a result of the contract, staff would start with that number. Councilmember Wambolt commented the original budget contained 4.5% for wages but the model reduced it to 2 %; that 2.5% reduction was virtually all the change. Mr. Hines agreed, emphasizing that was a fluctuating estimate. When the current forecast is updated, he would consider whether that amount was viable and whether it needed to be raised or lowered. The choice was whether to measure the savings from a fluctuating estimate or a stable base of the original budget. Councilmember Orvis referred to the comparison of Option I versus Option 4, which shows the Fire Department budget of $7.9 million, fire contract $6.2 million and 2010 savings of $983,000. One of the differences was the revenue difference because of the loss of the Woodway and Esperance contract which brings the cost to $6.8 million. He asked the reason for the difference. Mr. Hines answered the difference was retaining transport fees of $700,000 /year. Councilmember Orvis pointed out transport fees were retained in both Option I and 4. Mr. Hines explained this was a comparison of the General Fund subsidy in the current budget with the General Fund subsidy with Option 4. The General Fund subsidy in Option 4 is $983,000 lower than the current situation. The reason it was $983,000 lower was the loss of some overhead costs and transport fees. Councilmember Orvis asked what was included in the $6.2 million. Mr. Hines answered that was the contract amount proposed by Fire District 1 and is based on their estimate of labor costs for 2010. Fire Chief Tomberg explained the $6.2 million was the labor cost to staff stations, plus the overheads, the Fire Marshal and the Fire Inspector, and vehicle replacement. He advised this was detailed in Exhibit C of the original August 24 binder. Council President Wilson referred to Mr. Hines' response this afternoon to Councilmember Wambolt's email, observing the previous numbers included the year -to -date actuals and impacted the 2010 outlook based on those actuals and the new numbers did not include any actuals and relied solely on budget numbers. Mr. Hines responded the old numbers factored in estimates, CPI changes, etc. He reversed out those changes to put the Fire budget back to its original state in January to allow measurement of the savings from the original budget in January. In that manner, the 2010 and 2009 budgets are stated using the same budget methodology and rationale and the savings are measured from the budget. Council President Wilson commented these are the budget numbers as of January 2009 and not the actual numbers as of October 20, 2009. He recalled when the budget was developed in August 2008, the outlook changed based on the collapse in September but the final budget was developed in October and approved in November. Mayor Haakenson noted the 4.5% was already factored into the 2009 and 2010 budget. Council President Wilson clarified if the numbers are the January 1, 2009 numbers, those numbers are from a process that began in August 2008 and finalized in October. He reiterated they were not the most recent known numbers. Mr. Hines referred to the 2008 actual column in the current forecast, the actuals as of the end of January 2009, pointing out the spreadsheet was the outlook/forecast but had Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 3 been modified to reflect the Fire Department's original budget to allow an easier comparison of the impact of the proposal on the Fire budget. His intent was to isolate the Fire budget. Council President Wilson commented the challenge with looking at the budget was recognizing that the budget was very conservative and the budgeted savings could be very different than the actual savings. For example, the EMS transport fees, the budget was $700,000 and he believed the actual amount would far exceed that. He asked whether Mr. Hines had addressed his questions regarding transport fees. Mr. Hines answered he had not. He recalled Council President Wilson anticipated revenue from transport fees would exceed $700,000 in 2009. He explained the City has received $440,000 in transport fees through the end of September 2009 and he anticipated the $700,000 amount would be achieved for 2009. Mayor Haakenson asked whether transport fees were projected to increase in future years. Mr. Hines answered it was projected to increase by 2.5 -3% per year. Council President Wilson answered that amount was appropriate for budgeting but he was certain the revenue would exceed $700,000 next year because the year -to -date transport fees for 2009 were short at least 1 month and possibly as much as 3. Council President Wilson expressed concern with the Council selecting a preferred alternative tonight when staff had not had enough time to answer the questions he raised two weeks ago. Mr. Hines responded the questions Council President Wilson's raised in his PowerPoint had been answered. He suggested Council President Wilson and he meet to determine which questions had not been met. Mayor Haakenson acknowledged transport fees would increase in the future. A modest increase of 2.5 -3% was budgeted; he viewed anything more than that as imprudent budgeting. Council President Wilson commented the Council had not had enough time or information to make a decision tonight on a preferred alternative. There were fundamental budgeting differences between the actual s. For example, the City did not receive any transport fees in January, 1112th of the year or 8 %. A 2.5% increase was not the same as an 8% increase. Mayor Haakenson responded staff had prepared the budget and was standing by those numbers. The Council could add 10% or $70,000 to that revenue stream if they wished. A Councilmember Bernheim recalled Chief Tomberg mentioned he wanted to move his office from the third floor of City Hall to be closer to his men. He asked where Chief Tomberg's office would be located under the Fire District 1 contract. Chief Tomberg answered if the Council approved the Fire District 1 contract, he would be assigned to the Fire District 1 Administration building southeast of Mariner High School and adjacent to the training tower. Fire Station 11, the largest station Fire District 1 operates with the most personnel, is kitty - corner from the site. Councilmember Bernheim asked how much closer that office would be to the Fire Department than his current office. Chief Tomberg answered it was approximately the same or slightly further but it was a much larger station. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether there were plans under the Fire District 1 contract to abandon the costly training exercises at the North Bend facility and utilize the new Fire District 1 training facility instead. Chief Tomberg answered the only training that was done at North Bend that could not be done locally was live fire exercises where a building similar to the training tower is fire loaded and set on fire under strictly controlled conditions. Every Fire Department on the west side goes to North Bend for that training. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether that training could be conducted at the new Fire District 1 training facility. Chief Tomberg answered it was unlikely the Air Pollution Control District would allow that type of burning at the site. The Fire District 1 training facility does have a smoke room in which non -toxic smoke and conditions similar to an interior structure fire can be simulated. Exercises with actual flames, heat, etc. are conducted at North Bend. Councilmember Bernheim concluded even Fire District 1 went to North Bend for that training. Chief Tomberg agreed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 4 Councilmember Bernheim asked whether the Edmonds Fire Department planned to use the Fire District 1 facility for training if the contract were not approved. Chief Tomberg answered there would be opportunities to use it on Fire District 1's schedule. Councilmember Bernheirn commented levels of service for Edmonds residents under the contract would not change. Chief Tomberg answered the response time aspect of level of service would not change much because the fire stations would be in the same locations, staffed by the same personnel and at the current levels. The level of service of all the other services offered by Fire District I would increase via the contract such as enhanced career development opportunities for firefighters, improved training, a dedicated Public Education person, a dedicated Public Information person, three Medical Service Officers, a dedicated Safety Officer, as well as other programs that Edmonds could not provide. Councilmember Orvis commented because both Options 1 and 4 included transport fees, the projected revenue from transport fees did not affect the savings. Councilmember Wambolt commented the discussion regarding transport fees was only relevant in the option where the City sold the land and the transport fees were collected by Fire District 1; in the options where the City retained the land and the transfer station, the savings would be greater if the transport fees exceeded the projected $700,000. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing Lora Petso, Edmonds, commented she did not receive the information until today and wanted additional time for review. If the Council chose to select an option tonight, she recommended selecting an option that retained the transport fees and did not require spending down the ending cash balance. However, if that were done, the contract with Fire District I no longer solves the City's budget issues and the Council was likely to approve placing a levy on the ballot. She suggested allowing the public to vote in February whether to contract with Fire District I for fire service at the same time as the levy. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented the taxpayers had invested a great deal in the fire station, apparatus and equipment. He agreed with the suggestion to allow the citizens to vote whether to contract with Fire District 1. Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, thanked firefighters Doug Dahl and Tim Hoover for spending time with Dr. Senderoff and her to review the contract, the RFA concept, and the history of the contract offer. Information provided at last week's meeting was also very helpful. She recommended slowing down the process and taking another 2 -4 weeks to discuss the issue because many citizens were still confused. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Wambolt summarized the options: I. Without Fire District 1 Contract - business as usual, expenses exceed revenue in 2010; General Fund ending cash balance goes negative in 2011. 2. With Fire District 1 Contract - sell all the Fire Department assets to Fire District 1, place the proceeds in the General Fund to operate the City, lose transport fees of $700,000+ /year, expenses exceed revenue in 2013, General Fund ending cash balance goes negative in 2015 3. With Fire District 1 Contract (revenue removed) - sell all the Fire Department assets to Fire District 1, place the proceeds outside the General Fund, lose transport fees of $700,000+ /year, expenses exceed revenue in 2011, General Fund ending cash balance goes negative in 2012 4. With Fire District 1 Contract (sell apparatus; keep stations, land, and transport fees) - sell all the depreciating assets and retain all the appreciating assets. Place the proceeds in the General Fund Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 5 to operate the City, retain transport fees, expenses exceed revenue in 2011, General Fund goes negative in 2013. 5. With Fire District I Contract (sell apparatus- revenue removed; keep stations, land, transport fees) - sell all the depreciating assets and retain all the appreciating assets, place the proceeds outside the General Fund, retain transport fees, expenses exceed revenue in 2011, . General Fund goes negative in 2012. 6. With Fire District 1 Contract (keep stations, land, apparatus, and transport fees) - expenses exceed revenue in 2011 and General Fund ending cash balance goes negative in 2012. Councilmember Wambolt commented regardless of the option the Council chose, the City would still need to take a levy lid lift to the voters next year. This was not a permanent fix. He did not agree with taking the issue of whether to contract with Fire District I to the voters, remarking it would be a monumental achievement if everyone in the Council Chambers understood the issue; getting 26,000 voters to understand would be impossible. This was a decision for the Council to make. Council President Wilson commented although he could see how he was going to vote eventually, he did not want to be pushed into it. The service level increases were not enough to justify contracting. For example there would be no change in response times and no change /increase in emergency services. There would be public information benefits and it would be easier to calendar training at a training tower the Fire Department already has access to. The question of finances was the primary issue and the Council was still working on that. Council President Wilson pointed out the Council had not been provided any numbers with regard to the passage of I -1033, which polls currently estimate has a 61% approval rate. He anticipated if the City had to fix its General Fund to inflation, at the end of the first five years of the contract, the City would have a $7 million budget deficit. If the Council did not approve contracting for fire service with Fire District 1, at the end of five years, the City would still have a $7 million deficit. This did not solve the City's financial problems. The issue of ensuring that fire services were secure had not been addressed. Council President Wilson summarized the information provided did not address I -1033, which the voters would decide on in two weeks, nor did it address how to ensure the stability of fire services into the future. He was unable to vote on a preference until the numbers were provided because the question was not about service, it was about finances. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON, TO CONTINUE FURTHER DISCUSSION UNTIL NOVEMBER 24, 2009 WHEN FINAL NUMBERS WOULD BE AVAILABLE. Councilmember Bernheim agreed this was not a permanent fix. It was a sale of Fire Department assets in order to generate income to cover a short term gap of 3 -4 years. He used the analogy of selling one's home and using the equity to pay rent, concluding that was a short term recipe for disaster. He anticipated the City would get rid of its Fire Department and in 10 -12 years when contract rates had increased substantially, citizens would question why the Council sold the Fire Department. He did not view this as an urgent issue, recalling a very successful plan was developed to place a levy on the ballot. He recalled the levy included funds for the Fire Department. If money was an issue, he suggested placing the levy on the ballot rather than selling the City's assets to generate short term capital. Councilmember Bernheim commented the current fire service was outstanding and questioned why anyone wanted to tinker with it. He objected to the rush to approve the contract by the end of the year, noting the only thing that would achieve was end of the year advantages for employees. He pointed out it was clear the union wanted new management. He referred to the frustration voiced by the firefighters with funding issues in every budget which led to their desire to get out of the current system and under new management. He reminded the firefighters had contracts and if there were give - backs, it was due to the panic in the economy and the alternative of layoffs. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 6 Councilmember Bernheim summarized the reason he was recommending postponing further discussion was because it was not an urgent financial problem, the Council should be focusing on the levy rather than selling off its assets, the union clearly wants new management, and he wanted time to see the real numbers. He suggested there were alternatives such as working out the management problems. Mayor Haakenson referred to Councilmember Bernheim's comment that Mr. Hoover had described management problems last week rather than revenue problems and the City's inability to fund the Fire Department each year. He asked Mr. Hoover if he had mentioned management problems. Tim Hoover, President, Edmonds Firefighters Local 1828, responded he did not talk about management problems; he talked about the annual fight for funding to maintain levels of service. Councilmember Plunkett suggested narrowing the options to a preferred option which would allow the public to learn more about and speak to that option. He did not support a motion to set a date to continue discussion, noting the selection of a preferred option would lead the Council to that. Councilmember Orvis agreed with selecting a preferred option, pointing out staff did not need to continue generating numbers for selling the land if none of the Councilmembers supported that option. Similarly, the projection for transport fees was not relevant unless the Council was interested in selling the stations. He was in favor of retaining the land and the stations. He commented Option 1 was always under consideration and recommended moving forward with discussion on Option 4 which saves the City a significant amount of money operationally. If the Council narrowed the Options to 1 and 4, it was not a final decision but would focus the discussion. He suggested having the contract rewritten to reflect Option 4 and to hold another public hearing on the scenario of Option I versus 4 at the next meeting. Councilmember Wambolt agreed with the suggestion to narrow the options. He asked Councilmember Bernheim what new numbers he was waiting for. Councilmember Bemheim responded his understanding was the numbers were not final, referring to an email sent late this afternoon. Mr. Hines explained the email was simply an explanation of why some of the numbers changed; the numbers provided to the Council were final. Councilmember Wambolt commented the fire service contract would not be a solution to I -1033. The solution to I -1.033 would be a levy. Council President Wilson responded the question of what the City would do if I -1033 passed and how it affected this decision needed to be addressed. There were other solutions to consider such as creating an independent Woodway - Edmonds Fire District or reverse annex into Fire District 1 rather than contract for fire service with Fire District 1. Mayor Haakenson pointed out if I -1033 passed, the City would be in a better position with a contract with Fire District I than its own Fire Department in an amount of approximately $2 million /year. The deficit in 2011 without the contract is $635,000; with the contract it is $2.3 million. He summarized the City would have issues with I -1033 regardless. Councilmember Wambolt clarified Council President Wilson's point was the City would be worse off with I -1033 and a contract with Fire District 1 because the City would be stuck with a contract payment. Council President Wilson agreed, noting the City would be unable to terminate the contract for five years. He recommended waiting until the outcome of I -1033 was known before entering into a contract that would tie the City's hands for five years. Mayor Haakenson stated he would prefer a contract for $6.2 million for five years rather than a $9 million Fire Department. Council President Wilson clarified there were many figures in the $9 million that were not direct financial savings such as non - departmental costs. Councilmember Wambolt commented his analysis showed the $6.2 million was definitely less than the City could provide fire service for and less than the Fire Department payroll. Even if the City's finances Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 7 were in tremendous shape, the City should be evaluating this because it made the Fire Department more efficient. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (1 -6), COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM VOTING IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, PLUNKETT, OLSON, PETERSON AND WAMBOLT OPPOSED. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO DRAFT AN AGREEMENT FOR OPTION 4 AND PLACE IT FOR PUBLIC HEARING WITH COMPARISON FROM OPTION 4 (WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT - SELL APPARATUS; KEEP STATIONS, LAND, AND TRANSPORT FEES) TO OPTION 1 FOR THE NEXT MEETING. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. If the Council planned to pursue a contract with Fire District 1, Councilmember Orvis recommended it be via Option 4. Councilmember Peterson supported narrowing the options which would give staff and the public an opportunity to focus on one option. If this wasn't the preferred option at the end of the discussion, Council could focus on a different option. Councilmember Wambolt asked if the intent was to have the contract rewritten to reflect Option 4. Councilmember Orvis answered yes. Mayor Haakenson explained the contract for service did not change with any of the options. The Interlocal Agreement would change if the stations and land were not part of the sale. Council President Wilson clarified the motion was to schedule this on next week's agenda. He asked Mayor Haakenson if the updated information would be available for public review by Friday. Mayor Haakenson stated all the information would be available on the City's website by the end of the week. Council President Wilson asked whether that was enough time for the public to review and comment and for the Council to make a decision next week or if Councilmember Orvis envisioned additional public hearings. Councilmember Orvis responded he was uncertain whether he would be ready to make a decision next week but anticipated he could by the November 2 meeting. Mayor Haakenson restated the motion as follows: TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR OCTOBER 27 ON OPTION 4 (WITH FIRE DISTRICT 1 CONTRACT - SELL APPARATUS; KEEP STATIONS, LAND, AND TRANSPORT FEES). UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5 -2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON, PLUNKETT, WAMBOLT, ORVIS AND OLSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILSON AND COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM OPPOSED. (Council President Wilson left the meeting at 8:18 p.m.) 6. 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. (3) INCORPORATE RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF SAFETY STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BETWEEN 2002 AND 2009. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 8 (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. (9) CORRECTION OF THE RECOMMENDED FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF OLYMPIC AVENUE AND ADDITION OF AN ALTERNATIVE `NON - SIGNAL' IMPROVEMENT FOR THE INTERSECTIONS OF MAIN @ 9TH AND WALNUT @ 9TH. (10) UPDATE POLICIES SECTION Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss explained during the September 22 public hearing, speeding concerns along Olympic Avenue were addressed. There was also discussion regarding radar feedback signs as an option to help reduce speeds. Council requested staff obtain information on those signs with regard to their effectiveness, cost, and revenue sources. The speed limit along Olympic Avenue between Main Street and Puget Drive is 25 mph. Several speed studies were conducted in 2005 with following results: • 85th percentile speed for northbound movement: 35.2 mph • 85th percentile speed for southbound movement: 34.7 mph The 85`h percentile represents the speed at which 85% of the vehicles travel at or below the speed limit. In the Traffic Calming Program (Appendix B in 2009 Transportation Plan), a stretch of roadway will be evaluated when the 85th percentile speed is at least 8 mph above the speed limit. He explained radar feedback signs detect the speed of passing vehicles, flashes speeds on a reader board when vehicles exceed the speed limit, and are used as an alternative solution to physical traffic calming devices in the roadway. Drawbacks to physical traffic calming devices in the roadway include delay for emergency vehicles, traffic noise and they are hazardous for bicycles. With regard to the effectiveness of radar feedback signs, he explained staff was unable to do a before /after study of the signs on 220`h because one of the signs is out of service. Staff's research of other jurisdictions found Bellevue has 31 radar feedback signs. Bellevue's study found the signs resulted in an average speed reduction of 1 -5 mph. Kirkland has 6 radar feedback signs and their study also found an average speed reduction of 1 -5 mph. He concluded the radar feedback signs were effective in reducing speeds. The cost of the signs per unit is approximately $14,500 (from bids obtained for the Puget Drive Walkway project in 2009). The cost to place signs in both directions on Olympic Avenue would total $29,000. The available funding source is Fund 112. Future funding sources include Fund 125 (REST -2 Transportation), increased vehicle license fee via the Transportation Benefit District (still needs voter approval), and the sign could be included in the grant application for the Olympic Avenue Walkway project. Mayor Haakenson clarified voter approval would be required for a $100 vehicle license fee. If the Council approved the Transportation Plan, they were only approving asking the voters to approve a higher vehicle license fee to fund transportation projects. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 9 Mr. Hauss provided a map identifying the proposed locations of the signs, northbound at 612 Olympic Avenue and southbound at 747 Olympic Avenue. Councilmember Wambolt questioned the cost, recalling the signs on 220th were $7000 -$8000 each. Mr. Hauss responded that was the latest estimate provided for the Puget Drive Walkway project. Councilmember Wambolt asked how the speed reductions of 1 -5 mph were measured. Mr. Hauss answered a speed study conducted prior to installation was compared with a speed study conducted a few months after installation and again 6 -12 months after installation. Councilmember Wambolt pointed out the signs display drivers' speed regardless of whether they were exceeding the speed limit. Mr. Hauss advised the signs were adjustable to display a vehicle's speed only when it was traveling over the speed limit. Councilmember Peterson asked if there were funds available in Fund 112. Mr. Hauss answered there were. Councilmember Peterson asked whether grant applications for future projects were contingent on Olympic Avenue being upgraded to a collector. Mr. Hauss answered if staff applied for a grant for the sidewalk project and Olympic Avenue was a local street, the probability of obtaining the grant was significantly lower than if the street were characterized as a collector street. Councilmember Peterson asked whether installation of the signs would reduce speeds and traffic volumes enough to retain its classification as a local street. Mr. Hauss did not anticipate the volumes would change significantly. Jennifer Barnes, ICF Jones and Stokes, responded there was a chance that volumes could be reduced slightly if drivers felt it was a less fast route but most of the criteria for a collector street would be met even at lower speeds. Councilmember Plunkett referred to Item 9 in the agenda title (Correction of the Recommended Functional Classification of Olympic Avenue), and asked if staffs recommendation was to reclassify Olympic Avenue as a collector street. Mr. Hauss answered it was. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing Bill McCormick, Edmonds, resident on Olympic Avenue, explained ever since Olympic Avenue was improved, the residents' concern has been speed. He anticipated that changing the classification from local to collector would result in widening of the street and the sidewalk which would encourage speeding. He was also concerned with the eight narrow, substandard streets that intersect with Olympic Avenue, one that is 18 feet wide that serves 10 homes, as well as 5 unnamed lanes that serve 5+ homes that are as narrow as 10 feet. He disagreed that Olympic Avenue provided access to Yost Park, noting the only access to Yost Park from Olympic Avenue was a steep, unpaved path. Don Hall, Edmonds, submitted a petition with 50 signatures to City Clerk Sandy Chase. He explained they had not encountered anyone who favored reclassifying Olympic Avenue to a collector. He was in favor of the radar feedback signs, noting the temporary radar signs on Olympic Avenue have been effective at reducing speeds. He urged the Council to remove Olympic Avenue as a collector in the Transportation Plan. Lora Petso, Edmonds, reiterated her belief that when levels of service were reduced, the notice of public hearing must state levels of service have been reduced. The level of service has been lowered for several intersections along Hwy. 99 and the level of service standard has been eliminated for local streets. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, expressed concern with the proposed $100 vehicle license fee. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 10 Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, suggested the statement in the Plan that Olympic Avenue provides a direct connection between Edmonds Elementary and Yost Park was misleading and should be removed. He noted most of the changes were based on the installation of a walkway to replace the existing walkway which required the classification of Olympic Avenue to be changed to a collector. The matrix indicates walkways will be installed on several roadways, of those Olympic Avenue is the only one with an existing walkway. He questioned the expenditure of $1 million to replace 6,000 feet of an existing walkway with a 5 -foot wide sidewalk and curb and recommended installing sidewalks other places in the City where there were no sidewalks. He also recommended retaining the local street designation of Olympic Avenue, remarking it was only a device to get money. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Wambolt agreed with Mr. Hertrich's comment that it appeared the change in the designation of Olympic Avenue was necessary to enhance the probability of obtaining grants. He also agreed with his comment about spending money to widen a sidewalk on a street that already has a sidewalk when there were many streets in the City without sidewalks. He agreed with the comment that Olympic Avenue was not a direct connection to Yost Park. Mr. Hauss responded all the walkway projects in the Walkway Plan were identified by the Walkway Committee who evaluated many different walkways with regard to several criteria including safety and speeding. The sidewalk on Olympic Avenue was identified because it currently has a rolled curb and due to the high speeds, particularly northbound. In regard to upgrading Olympic Avenue to obtain grant funds, Mr. Hauss explained during the last public hearing, staff submitted a report that contained detailed reasons for the upgrade including that it already serves as a collector based on the average daily traffic, high non - motorized usage, street length, street spacing and street connectivity. In 2004 there were 1,920 vehicle trips /day; the typical range for a collector street is 1,000 and 5,000. He summarized there were numerous reasons for the upgrade, not only to enhance the probability of obtaining grant funds. Councilmember Wambolt commented there was more that could be done to slow traffic, pointing out speeding occurred throughout the City because there were not enough resources to control it. In order to make a record regarding Ms. Petso's comment, City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the advertisement that appeared in the newspaper states as Item 2 of this agenda item, Base Concurrency Analysis and Recommendation on Updated Citywide Travel Demand Forecasting Model and Updated Level of Service Standards. He asked the consultant to explain why that was an accurate description of what occurred. Ms. Barnes responded there was an update to several components of the level of service standards, some higher, some lower. For SR 524, the City received direction from WSDOT to hold the standard to the classification of Highway of Regional Significance, LOS E. Historically the level of service standard on that roadway was D; as part of this update there was a drop in the level of service standard from D to E to comply with WSDOT's direction. Ms. Barnes explained SR 99 was not held to any standard in the previous Plan. Consistent with WSDOT's direction, a LOS E was also applied to SR 99 because the portion north of SR 104 is also a Highway of Regional Significance. With regard to local streets, the policy contains a LOS B for local access streets; however, none of the City's concurrency intersections are local streets, thus the LOS B has never been applied. The Traffic Calming Program proposed as part of the update was a more appropriate way to address traffic volumes and speeds. The result of applying concurrency standards would be a recommendation to increase capacity such as widening the roadway to accommodate increased traffic volumes. Councilmember Orvis recalled he voted against the Transportation Plan in 2002 due to the upgrade of local streets to arterials. He explained homeowners may have purchased their home on a street where Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 11 their children could safely play in the front yard; over time the street became what is effectively an arterial and now their grandchildren cannot safely play in the yard. If he were that homeowner, he would not want the street reclassified so that funds for sidewalks could be obtained, he would want it addressed via traffic calming, even paying more taxes via a vehicle license fee. He voiced his objection to any reclassifications. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE 2009 COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND BEGIN AN INVESTIGATION IN 2010 FOR ADDITIONAL REVENUE FROM THE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT. Councilmember Plunkett commented Olympic Avenue was a long, wide street that encouraged speeding. He was concerned that changing the classification of Olympic Avenue would allow future staffs to widen the roadway, increase the speed limit or add another lane. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO AMEND THE PLAN TO CHANGE OLYMPIC AVENUE FROM THE RECOMMENDED COLLECTOR BACK TO A LOCAL STREET. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Council President Wilson was not present for the vote.) Councilmember Orvis suggested changing the classification of all the proposed arterial upgrades to their existing classification. He advised a list of the proposed upgrades was contained on page 3 -8. Mayor Haakenson pointed out that change would affect grant funding. Councilmember Plunkett asked if there had been any public testimony regarding the other street upgrades. Councilmember Orvis questioned whether there would have been if the residents on those streets had been alerted. Mayor Haakenson pointed out this was the third public hearing on the Transportation Plan. COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, THAT ALL THE RECOMMENDED HIGHER CLASSIFICATIONS BE CHANGED BACK TO THEIR CURRENT CLASSIFICATION. Councilmember Bernheim commented the Council had not heard the same concerns from residents on the other streets. He pointed out this Plan could be amended in the future if necessary. Councilmember Plunkett commented the Council was not aware of how the residents on those streets felt about the change; some may be in favor of it. Councilmember Peterson clarified there was no plan to increase the speed limit on any of the streets where the classification would be changed from local to collector. Mr. Hauss agreed. Mayor Haakenson. advised Council approval was required to increase a speed limit. He did not recall any change in a speed limit in the years he had served on the Council or as Mayor. Councilmember Wambolt emphasized changing the classification did not change how the street was used. For example, the Plan proposes changing Dayton Street between 5th Avenue and 9th Avenue from a local street to a collector. A resident in that area, his observation was that section was a racetrack. THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FAILED (1 -5), COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS VOTING YES. (Council President Wilson was not present for the vote.) THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (5 -1), COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS VOTING NO. (Council President Wilson was not present for the vote.) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 12 7. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE 2008 PARKS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT OF THE 2001 PARKS PLAN. IN ADDITION TO A WIDE VARIETY OF MINOR CHANGES THE 2008 PARKS PLAN WOULD IMPLEMENT THE FOLLOWING CHANGES TO THE 2001 PARKS PLAN: (1) REPLACE RECOMMENDATION TO DEVELOP A YEAR -ROUND 50 -METER INDOOR POOL WITH AMENITIES AND RETENTION OF YOST POOL AS A SEASONAL OUTDOOR POOL WITH A FEASIBILITY STUDY TO EXAMINE YOST POOL AND OTHER COMMUNITY OPTIONS FOR AN AQUATICS FACILITY. THE PROPOSED FEASIBILITY STUDY WOULD PROVIDE INFORMATION ON WHICH TO BASE A FUTURE COURSE OF ACTION. (2) "CONNECTIONS" WAS ADDED AS AN UNDERLYING THEME FOR THE PLAN AND A NEW SECTION FOCUSES ON IMPLEMENTING CONNECTIVITY THROUGHOUT THE PLAN. (3) THE 2008 PLAN CONTAINS AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NOT CONTAINED IN THE 2001 PLAN. THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CONTAINS NEW LANGUAGE STRESSING THE BENEFITS AND IMPORTANCE OF THE PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL, RESOURCES AND ASSETS TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PHYSICAL HEALTH AND OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE OF THE CITY. (4) THE PLAN AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INCLUDE POTENTIAL ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES IN THE DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT ACTIVITY CENTER IN BOTH THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND AT OTHER PLACES WITHIN THE PLAN. (5) THE 2008 PLAN REMOVES CULTURAL SERVICES TO A SEPARATE ELEMENT IN ORDER TO RECOGNIZE AND BUILD ON EDMONDS' IDENTITY AS A CULTURAL DESTINATION. CROSS REFERENCES TO THE COMMUNITY CULTURAL PLAN AND STREETSCAPE PLAN ARE INCLUDED. (6) IN ORDER TO RECOGNIZE THE LACK OF LARGE TRACTS OF LAND AND THE EXPENSE OF ACQUIRING NEW LAND WITHIN THE CITY AS IT APPROACHES "BUILD OUT," THE 2008 PLAN PLACES A STRONGER EMPHASIS ON IMPROVING THE UTILITY OF EXISTING FACILITIES AND WORKING WITH PARTNERS IN OVERLAPPING AND ADJACENT JURISDICTIONS. (7) THE 2008 PLAN CHANGES THE METHODOLOGY AND PRESENTATION OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY FACILITY TYPE PRESENTED IN THE 2001 PLAN. CHANGES ALSO ADDRESS CURRENT FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS AND STATE THE CITY'S LONG -TERM ASPIRATIONAL GOAL OF REACHING RECOMMENDED NATIONAL STANDARDS. (8) THE 2008 PLAN REVISES AND UPDATES THE CITY'S PARK LAND INVENTORY TO REFLECT ACQUISITIONS AND DELETE EXPIRED OR TERMINATED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) remanded the City Council's approval of the 2008 Plan in order to have another public hearing and obtain a recommendation from the Hearing Examiner regarding an Interlocal Agreement termination. The matter was remanded to the Council because the prior generic notice did not conform to the GMH13's requirements. A more compete notice has been provided as shown on page 1 of the Item 7 packet. Mr. Snyder explained the Council's substantive decisions were upheld by the Board. If the Council . wished to make any changes after hearing from the public, the Council was free to do so but was not obligated to change the prior decision. Final action cannot be taken until a recommendation is provided from the Hearing Examiner regarding the Hickman Park, former Sherwood Elementary, Interlocal Agreement ballfield maintenance contract. Final action will need to be taken by early December in order to report to the GMHB. Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh explained although the GMHB found the City Council's unanimous decision to adopt the Plan valid within the Council's legislative discretion, the Board concluded that more effective notice of the amendments under consideration should be given. For that reason, notice of this hearing was published on October 4. The updated Parks Plan is a general plan with Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 13 input from citizens, staff, consultant, Planning Board and Council that was collected, analyzed and compiled between April 2007 and November 2008. In addition to a variety of minor changes made between 2001 and the end of the review process in 2008, the Plan implements the eight core changes identified in the agenda item title. He listed the eight changes contained in the agenda title, commenting the list was not inclusive of all the revisions but were the changes staff identified as major changes. For Councilmember Bernheim, Mr. McIntosh advised the study referred to in Item 1 had been completed since the plan was adopted in November 2008. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing Lora Petso, Edmonds, explained she was still concerned about the reduction of level of service in the Park Plan as well as that it was not properly noticed. There was still no notice of a reduction in level of service, only a claimed change in methodology and presentation of level of service. She explained there had been a change; level of service was previously identified via park acreage per 1,000 citizens, that methodology was still used, however now there was less park acreage per 1,000 citizens. She was concerned with giving away the Sherwood Park playfields. With regard to effective notice, she pointed out the GMHB's footnote contained a specific reference that the Plan generally reduced level of service. When the Council reconsidered the Plan after the Hearing Examiner's recommendation, she recommended the reduction in the level of service be included in the notice. With regard to the Hearing Examiner meeting, she advised there was a Land Use Sign on the property but it was blank. The GMHB also required the City to demonstrate consistency with its Comprehensive Plan policy on abandonment of public facilities. The policy specifically states no park shall be abandoned until the Hearing Examiner has reviewed and reported to the City Council. She disagreed the Interlocal Agreement was terminated by the City and referenced the March 20, 2007 Council minutes. Paragraph 1.5 of the contract provides the agreement may be terminated only upon written agreement of the parties, executed in the same manner as provided by law for the execution of this agreement. The law requires approval by the legislative body. The Board found by adopting this Plan, the City is abandoning a park; although she preferred the Council not abandon a park, if they were, that should be clearly stated. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, advised the eight changes described by Mr. McIntosh did not include the Hearing Examiner's decision regarding the lights at Meadowdale High School. He expressed support for a pool. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed concern with Item 6 (In order to recognize the lack of large tracts of land and the expense of acquiring new land within the City as it approaches "build out," the 2008 Plan places a stronger emphasis on improving the utility of existing facilities and working with partners in overlapping and adjacent jurisdictions), and questioned whether the park acreage to citizen ratio was less than the previous ratio. He recommended as the City became denser, there needed to be more park facilities. He expressed concern that no grant funds were sought for the $500,000 purchase of waterfront property. He advised the Plan did not identify an area in the mid - waterfront, the "blue dot" as a possible future park. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Bernheim asked about the abandonment of Sherwood Park. He recalled in 2007 the Council was presented an opportunity to ratify the cancellation of the Interlocal Agreement and the Council voted unanimously against it. Mr. Snyder clarified the vote was 3 -3. He explained the Board found no evidence in the record to show that the procedure in the Comprehensive Plan had been followed. They also noted the term "park" was not defined. The former Park Plan included a need for Neighborhood Parks, an inventory, and an Interlocal Agreement to maintain two playfields on the Sherwood Elementary site. The City Council over a period of years purchased a 5.5 acre park. The Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 14 Interlocal Agreement that obligated the City with Snohomish County to maintain the playfields expired. The County and School District terminated the Interlocal Agreement to maintain the two playfields, letting the City off its obligation and the Council chose not to act with regard to that Interlocal Agreement. The property is no longer owned by the School District, the City met the prior Park Plan's declaration of need for a Neighborhood Park. The Park Plan that the Council unanimously approved deletes the Interlocal Agreement and inserts the 5.5 acre Hickman Park. Mr. Snyder advised the Plan would be presented to the Council for a final public hearing and ratification of the prior adoption of the Parks Plan with the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. The Hearing Examiner will provide a recommendation regarding whether the termination of the Interlocal Agreement was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The new Plan has the new Neighborhood Park but the record does not indicate the Hearing Examiner provided a recommendation. Councilmember Bernheim asked why a reduction in the level of service was not announced. Mr. Snyder answered the notice states the 2008 Plan changes the methodology and presentation of level of service by facility type. Level of service as used in the Park Plan was not a concurrency level of service and the Board agreed. This was not a reduction in a level of service that results in a development fee or requirement. Councilmember Bernheim agreed park land should be increased as the City's population increased. He asked whether adoption of the Plan included an endorsement that parks were less likely to be acquired in the future. Mr. Snyder responded the Plan identifies needs for facilities and parks by acreage but does not designate specific parcels for acquisition. The Council retains the discretion to purchase land as it becomes available. Designating a parcel for park acquisition devalues the property and could force the City into a takings situation. Councilmember Wambolt referred to Item 6 mentioned by Mr. Hertrich, noting that language did not state the City would not purchase more land, it stated there was not a great deal of opportunity to purchase land. Rather than do nothing, the City would improve existing parks and if land became available the priority was to purchase land on the waterfront. Mr. McIntosh answered there were no restrictions on the purchase of property. The "blue dot" Mr. Hertrich referred to was a "starburst" that represents the Downtown Activity Center. Mr. Snyder requested the Council advise if there were any changes to be made to the plan. The Plan will be presented to the Council for a final public hearing and ratification after the Hearing Examiner's November 4 hearing and recommendation. 8A. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17.35.030 KEEPING OF DOMESTICATED ANIMALS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES TO ADD A NEW SUBPARAGRAPH D. RELATING TO FEMALE DOMESTIC CHICKENS. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Planning Board took testimony and considered input from the City Attorney as well as the Police Department. The Planning Board concluded it was appropriate to amend the code to allow keeping of up to three female chickens or hens on properties developed with single family residential uses. The proposed code amendment would accomplish that recommendation. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing Joan Bloom, Edmonds, expressed support for the proposed change. She recalled the origin of the cat ordinance was a complaint about a cat attacking quail that were kept by a neighbor. She anticipated residents would house their chickens in a manner that protected them from predators but feared this would Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 15 result in a complaint about a cat attacking a chicken. She recommended the Council revisit the cat ordinance since it was not being enforced. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3759 — AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 17.35.030 KEEPING OF DOMESTICATED ANIMALS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, TO ADD A NEW SUBPARAGRAPH D. RELATING TO FEMALE DOMESTIC CHICKENS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. Councilmember Wambolt expressed support for the ordinance, advising the only input he received from citizens was in favor of the ordinance. Councilmember Orvis expressed support for the ordinance, noting citizens were interested in keeping chickens and he had not heard any objection. Councilmember Peterson commented although this was not on the Council's Sustainability Agenda, it fit with the goal of making Edmonds a progressive thinking, environmentally aware and green city. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Council President Wilson was not present for the vote.) 8B. AUTHORIZE STAFF TO REMOVE FOUR TREES AT THE NORTH CORNER OF 5TH & D A VTON_ COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, THAT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE STAFF REMOVE THE FOUR TREES AT THE NORTHWEST AND NORTHEAST CORNERS OF 5TH & DAYTON. Councilmember Wambolt explained he was proposing this motion as a result of the damage that occurred Saturday afternoon when a 20 -foot section of tree fell, narrowly missing a car. He noted the tree did not appear to be rotten and there was only a slight wind at the time this occurred. If those trees broke in a slight wind, he was concerned with their stability this winter. He concluded he made a mistake by voting against this action on September 22 and the incident on Saturday resulted in his reconsidering their removal. Councilmember Peterson recalled there had been recommendations from staff as well as from outside consultants regarding these trees. He asked if the City was more liable for ignoring recommendations if another incident occurred and a person was injured or property damaged. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered a property owner typically had no liability for damage caused by a tree if they had no reason to believe it was damaged or diseased. When there was notice, negligence standards applied. With staff's recommendations regarding the limited area for roots, it was more likely the City would be held liable for damage. The City was provided information from WCIA regarding how they would approach liability in this situation. Councilmember Peterson asked if the City would be at risk for WCIA refusing a claim because the City did not heed the advice of experts. Mr. Snyder answered generally the City had a duty to participate reasonably in its defense. The Council had a great deal of discretion regarding street trees. The City has a solid claims history and it was unlikely this would trigger the City's expulsion. Councilmember Bernheim advised he would vote against the removal on principle. He was opposed to taking official Council action with inadequate input and sufficient notice. He did not have his materials and the only facts he had regarding the incident was the email from Councilmember Wambolt. He Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 16 referred to Councilmember Wambolt's comment that the tree did not appear to be diseased, advising tree branches falling in a windstorm were random acts of God and the City could not remove all the trees to avoid that happening. He questioned what would be planted as a replacement. The Street Tree Plan calls for incremental replacement of trees, not wholesale replacement. He was unconvinced that administration or staff recognized the value to the economy and the community of healthy, vigorous, replacement trees. Councilmember Bernheim commented the recently planted trees in front of Bank of America at 3rd & Main were spindly and pathetic looking. He recommended rejecting the principle of pre - emptive maintenance, identifying trees for removal that might become a problem in the future, advising there were other methods of enhancing pedestrian safety. He was in favor of taking care of the trees appropriately and was willing to consider the removal at a future meeting. Councilmember Wambolt advised the trees in front of Bank of America were on the bank's property. He questioned how many times the Council needed to discuss the trees to understand the issues. The Council was provided information on September 22 and the public provided their input. He recalled the two arborists said the trees were a species that was susceptible to this type of breakage. With regard to the size of the trees, he recalled staff had identified a replacement tree. Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh responded the trees would be replaced with the tree recommended for that intersection, Red October Glory. He advised staff would obtain the largest caliper tree that would fit in the hole. This would provide symmetry at the intersection; the other two corners already have Red October Glory trees. Councilmember Wambolt pointed out the trees planted at the corner near Bank of Washington last year have grown tremendously. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION TIED (3 -3), COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT, OLSON AND PETERSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, BERNHEIM AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED. MAYOR HAAKENSON VOTED YES AND THE MOTION CARRIED. (Council President Wilson was not present for the vote.) 9. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Al Rutledge, Edmonds, reported he attended former Councilmember John Nordquist's service along with three other former Councilmembers. Mr. Nordquist was a Lake Ballinger area resident for a number of years. Next, he encouraged the public to attend the Friends of the Edmonds Library Book Sale on Saturday at the Frances Anderson Center. He referred to the November 4 Hearing Examiner meeting and questioned whether the same Hearing Examiner could handle this case again. George Murray, Edmonds, commented Option l with regard to the Fire District 1 contract was not possible as there was an issue with the firefighters themselves that needed to be resolved. His understanding was Fire District 1 had approached the City; however, in Tim Hoover's presentation last week, it was apparent the firefighters want to leave Edmonds for Fire District 1. He recommended determining what the firefighters needed and what problem drove them to Fire District 1. He preferred the firefighters be in a neutral position which would allow the Council to make an informed decision. He questioned exactly what the firefighters' issues were, recalling Mr. Hoover stated Fire District 1 would provide stability for 20 years and better service. He questioned how Fire District 1 could operate cheaper than the Edmonds Fire Department. He recalled the City considered consolidation in 2000 and did not move forward due to cost. Mukilteo rejected Fire District 1's offer due to cost. The tax rate charged by Fire District 1 is $2.17/$1,000 AV; Mukilteo charges $1.75/$1,000 AV. Mayor Haakenson invited Mr. Murray to meet with him to discuss his concerns. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, advised the turtles he complained about last week had been built and painted. He was awaiting their removal after the first accident. He remarked the interaction with Fire District 1 last week was very mature and interactive. He found Mayor Haakenson's display last week offensive, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 17 alleging Mayor Haakenson grabbed his jacket. Mayor Haakenson disagreed he had touched Mr. Hertrich, pointing out he was on the opposite side of the podium. Mr. Hertrich responded Mayor Haakenson was a liar. Mayor Haakenson read a response from Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss regarding the pedestrian refuge island Mr. Hertrich addressed. In 2006 a pedestrian and bicycle safety grant was secured for the Puget Drive Walkway Project. The main purpose of the project was to improve pedestrian safety by adding sidewalks on one side of the street and pedestrian refuge islands in two uncontrolled crosswalks. The pedestrian refuge islands were incorporated into the design and their size and placement was approved by WSDOT in March 2008 since the roadway is a State Route. Pedestrian refuge islands and crosswalks are identified as a pedestrian safety feature in the WSDOT design manual. The benefits of pedestrian refuge islands are, 1) reduces the number of pedestrian - vehicle conflicts by allowing pedestrians to cross one lane at a time and judge conflicts with oncoming vehicles separately, and 2) eliminates the crossing of an open two -lane left turn that may have vehicles entering and turning either direction. The new pedestrian refuge islands do limit the deceleration distance and the storage for left turn vehicles at the Methodist Church parking lot and Hindley Lane. Both left turns have minor left turn demand on a daily basis and left turn queues are minimal due to low traffic volumes and low left turn demand. The location of the refuge islands was selected following a thorough evaluation of existing sight distances and maintaining access to driveways and streets. Mayor Haakenson advised Mr. Hertrich has brought his concerns to staff several times and staff has been unsuccessful in their attempts to reach him to discuss the matter. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Council President Wilson was not present for the vote.) Mayor Haakenson objected to Mr. Hertrich's uncivil behavior, calling him a liar. 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING THE NEGOTIATION OF THE PURCHASE OF REAL ESTATE. At 10:04 p.m., Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council to an Executive Session regarding negotiation of the purchase of real estate. He anticipated the Council would take action at the conclusion of the Executive Session. The meeting was reconvened at 10:1.0 p.m. COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, THAT THE CITY ACQUIRE THE PARCEL AT 939 MAIN STREET FOR THE PRICE OF $39,000 PAYABLE FROM THE 126 FUND. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Council President Wilson was not present for the vote.) Mayor Haakenson explained the Council authorized the purchase of two lots in the Shell Creek Basin off Main Street where the Council has acquired property previously with the hope that someday the City can acquire the entire wetland area. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson referred to news reports about banks failing and developer foreclosures. He explained last spring when the banking crisis was at its peak, he asked the Finance Director to look at the banks the City was using to ensure the City's investments were covered by FDIC. At that time the City withdrew most of its money out of one bank and deposited it into another bank. He requested both banks meet with him and the Interim Finance Director regarding how the investments are protected under the new bank industry rules. They met today with Pat Fahey, the Chairman of Frontier Bank, who assured the City's investments were protected by a number of guarantees. He also planned to meet with the Chairman of Cascade Bank. He happened to be meeting with Councilmember Wambolt, Chair of the Finance Committee, this morning on another matter and asked him to join the meeting with Mr. Fahey. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 18 Councilmember Wambolt advised this meeting was also prompted by the report in the Everett Herald that Frontier Bank was suing a prominent local developer for $40 million. Mr. Fahey assured that would not be a problem for the bank. Mayor Haakenson next reported the Edmonds Post Office property is on the market for $4.15 million. The lease for the post office runs through August 2010. The Post Office plans to find a location downtown to maintain a retail storefront. The vehicles have already been moved to Perrinville. Mayor Haakenson referred to the Council's reception with the Finance Director candidates prior to tonight's meeting and invited Council to forward him any comments. He planned to make a decision by Friday and confirmation of his selection would be on the October 27 agenda. Mayor Haakenson announced the Edmonds Shopping Center application for the waterfront parcel was withdrawn today. The article he wrote will be published next week; however, because it was written last week, it would not reflect that the application had been withdrawn. The applicant plans to reapply and start again. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Peterson referred to the tree removal at 5th & Dayton and the Council authorization to purchase property, reminding the public to see the forest through the trees. Although the City may have lost a couple trees, better trees would be planted for the long term. The parcels that the Council authorized the purchase of will add to the environmental strength of the community, a step to securing that entire stretch of land and a great investment for the future. Councilmember Orvis reminded the Snohomish County Health Board was working with its partners on flu shot clinics on Halloween. He advised the City's website now had a link to the SnoCoFlu website. Councilmember Bernheim reported he received his flu shot at Bartell's. He suggested using some of the $97,000 Council contingency that was discovered to fund internet access for the Council and public during meetings. Councilmember Bernheim expressed his sincere appreciation for the process that led to the selection of the three excellent Finance Director finalists. With regard to the trees, he looked forward to having trees on the 5th & Dayton corner that everyone could be proud of. With regard to civility, Councilmember Bernheim explained he was accused via email by the Planning Board Chair of stealing draft Planning Board minutes. He was hopeful such comments would not be repeated. Mayor Haakenson advised Mr. Hines was preparing documentation for the Council with regard to the $97,000 Council Contingency Fund and whether that amount was already included in the budget. Mayor Haakenson commented although he was not a party to the emails Councilmember Bernheim referred to, he urged the Planning Board and the Economic Development Commission to do their jobs and planned to send out an email to that effect. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:23 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 19