01/15/2008 City CouncilJanuary 15, 2008
Following a Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m. to interview a candidate for the Arts Commission, the Edmonds
City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 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
Michael Plunkett, Council President
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Hilary Scheibert, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Bio Park, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PLUNKETT, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER WITH THE ADDITION
OF A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A UW NORTH SOUND CAMPUS AS ITEM 10B. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Dawson requested Item F be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO
APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 8, 2008.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #101383 THROUGH #101579 FOR JANUARY 10, 2008
IN THE AMOUNT OF $732,356.29. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL CHECKS #46111
THROUGH #46127 DATED JANUARY 10, 2008 IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,882.09 FOR
aaPOLICE DEPARTMENT'S UNIVORM ALLOWANCE.
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM JEFFREY BROWN
($979.04), MARNI MUIR (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND TAMI HERRICK
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED).
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 15, 2008
Page 1
E. EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT BROADBAND AGREEMENT.
G. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 2007 STREET OVERLAY
PROGRAM PROJECT AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT.
ITEM F. PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT CONTINGENT LOAN AGREEMENT
Councilmember Dawson asked staff to provide background on this item. Administrative Services
Director Dan Clements explained in 2005 the City guaranteed an interim construction loan for the
Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA) that assisted with the renovation of the facility. Community Services
Director Stephen Clifton subsequently secured an approximately $1 million grant that was used to pay
down the loan. Via the contingent loan agreement, the City guarantees the bond issue versus the short -
term, variable interest, interim loan. He anticipated the amount of the bond to be $3.3 - $3.5 million with
a lower interest rate than the interim construction loan.
Councilmember Dawson asked about the impact on the City's debt capacity. Mr. Clements responded it
would not affect the City's debt capacity because it was an ECA issue, and the City was only backing the
bond issue. Councilmember Dawson suggested establishing a policy for the issuance of contingency loan
agreements and a ceiling on the amount, anticipating other opportunities in the future for contingency
loan agreements such as for affordable housing.
Councilmember Dawson asked about eliminating the Bank of America as a party to the interim loan
agreement. Mr. Clements explained Bank of America was a party on the original interim loan agreement
as they issued the loan. As this would be a bond issue, Bank of America would not be a party to the
transaction. He summarized this would be a bond issue from the ECA backed by the City versus an
interim loan agreement. Councilmember Dawson asked how the City's backing assisted with the bond
rate. Mr. Clements answered it lowered it considerably and he was uncertain whether in the current
financial climate the ECA could issue bonds themselves.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM F. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. CONFIRMATION OF ARTS COMMISSION CANDIDATE JOANNE OTNESS.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON,
TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF JOANNE OTNESS TO THE ARTS COMMISSION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 5.60
GRAFFITI; DECLARING GRAFFITI A PUBLIC NUISANCE, PROHIBITING DEFACEMENT
OF PROPERTY WITH GRAFFITI AND POSSESSION OF GRAFFITI IMPLEMENTS WITH
INTENT TO DEFACE; IMPOSING CRIMINAL PENALTIES; REQUIRING THE REMOVAL OF
GRAFFITI; ESTABLISHING AN APPEALS PROCESS; ESTABLISHING A GRAFFITI FUND.
Police Chief Al Compaan explained the revised ordinance was the result of several meetings with the
Public Safety Committee and the full Council as well as the August 28 public hearing. He explained the
intent of the ordinance was to strengthen the ability to respond to the criminal aspects of graffiti as well as
public nuisance /abatement. The ordinance defines graffiti, defines the criminal acts such as defacement
and possession of graffiti implements, and outlines penalties for those violations.
Development Services Director Duane Bowman explained the revised ordinance was similar to the
original ordinance with minor revisions such as a letter to the public. He advised staff worked with City
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 15, 2008
Page 2
Attorney Bio Park to ensure all the Council comments from the August public hearing were included. He
noted there was recently a rash of graffiti along SRI 04; the same day it was reported, staff was in contact
with property owners who were preparing to remove the graffiti. He noted that was the way enforcement
with regard to graffiti usually worked; staff contacts the property owner and the property owner removes
the graffiti. The ordinance outlines a procedure for notification and pursuing compliance with a property
owner unwilling to respond.
City Attorney Bio Park reviewed the changes made to the original draft ordinance:
• The limitation and liability provisions on business establishments regarding to whom graffiti
implements could be sold, requiring age verification of purchaser's penalties, etc. were removed.
• Flexibility was added to allow the Director to establish the fine from a minimum of $25 and a
maximum of $250 and to provide more time for the abatement of graffiti.
• A provision was added that would allow the monies in the graffiti trust fund funds to be used to
clean up graffiti upon Council finding that abatement of graffiti on private property would, 1)
accomplish the fundamental government purpose, 2) serves the public interest and there is no
donor intent or 3) assists the poor and infirm.
Councilmember Dawson thanked staff for the revisions, noting they addressed the concerns expressed at
the public hearing, particularly the ability to assist with abatement under appropriate circumstances. She
also supported the addition of flexibility. She asked for clarification regarding the ability for the Director
to determine the fine, extend the period for abatement and require no fine if the property owner were
making a legitimate effort to clean up the graffiti. Mr. Bowman described the need for flexibility, for
example the current weather made it difficult to clean up the graffiti that occurred Monday. He noted as
long as a property owner was willing to work with him, he was willing to continue working with them. If
a property owner balked at abatement, the ordinance could be used as a "hammer." Councilmember
Dawson asked him to explain why it was necessary to have a "hammer." Mr. Bowman answered often
someone will begin clean up and not finish; to prevent future graffiti it was important to remove graffiti
immediately. He noted this was the same procedure practiced in code enforcement; he was very willing
to work with someone on reasonable timeframes, etc. The order to correct, notice of violation, and the
civil fine process was used when a property owner was not willing to work with staff on compliance.
Councilmember Dawson recognized the importance of necessary tools in the ordinance to rapidly remove
graffiti to avoid future graffiti, noting a property owner who failed to comply with removal often led to
further graffiti. Mr. Bowman agreed, envisioning the process in the ordinance would rarely be needed
because the code enforcement officer was very effective in working with property owners informally and
obtaining a commitment for removal. Councilmember Dawson noted the declaration of a public nuisance
and the definition of graffiti and when it becomes a public nuisance was important to allow the use of the
funds in the graffiti trust fund when appropriate.
Councilmember Wambolt asked whether the Police Department investigated graffiti. Chief Compaan
responded it was typically documented via a police report and photographs and the Police Department
followed up on any suspect or vehicle information. Unfortunately the majority of the time there was little
for the Police Department to work with unless a pattern was established. Councilmember Wambolt
referred to an internet article where another city's Police Department had difficulty investigating graffiti
because city workers removed it before the police had time to photograph it. Chief Compaan responded
this was not an issue in Edmonds as Parks and Public Works staff were aware the Police Department
wanted to document graffiti with photographs.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 15, 2008
Page 3
Karen Wiggins, Edmonds, reported their property downtown had been defaced by graffiti twice; she
reported it to the Police Department and removed it immediately. She referred to a letter she submitted at
the August 2007 public hearing, noting the proposed ordinance only addressed private property owners.
She recommended municipal properties should also be addressed in the ordinance. She also objected to
the ordinance's approach that made the victim the perpetrator and felt the ordinance was vague with
regard to what constituted a reasonable time period.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the
public hearing.
Council President Plunkett asked staff to address Ms. Wiggins' comment regarding municipal buildings.
Mr. Bowman answered graffiti on municipal buildings was handled by facilities and parks staff, as soon
as graffiti occurred, it was removed. Any graffiti on traffic signs was reported to Public Works who
removed it promptly. Mayor Haakenson advised in some instances graffiti was being cleaned up twice a
day from the same location. Council President Plunkett asked why municipal buildings would not be
treated the same as private property. Mr. Park answered language could be included in the ordinance to
make it applicable to government property. Mr. Bowman referred to Section 5.60.010 Declaration of
policy - Findings, that states, "The City Council finds that graffiti on public and private buildings,
structures and on personal property including motor vehicles creates a condition of blight..." noting the
ordinance recognized the problem of graffiti on public and private buildings. He pointed out staff would
not bring a civil enforcement action against the City. Mr. Park acknowledged the declaration of policy
referenced public and private property, however, the abatement procedures did not.
Councilmember Dawson commented it did not make sense for staff to fine the City for not removing
graffiti. It would be more appropriate for Mr. Bowman to direct staff to clean up the graffiti on public
property. She suggested as a companion to the ordinance establishing a reasonable time period for City
staff to clean up graffiti. She asked whether there was an internal policy with regard to the removal of
graffiti. Mr. Bowman answered there was no written policy but the practice was once staff was made
aware of graffiti, it was cleaned up. Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh advised the goal was to
clean up graffiti within 24 hours. Councilmember Dawson suggested establishing a written policy that
graffiti on City property would be cleaned up within 24 hours to send a message to the public and to
would -be vandals. Mr. Bowman assured staff cleaned up graffiti as quickly as they found it. He agreed
the Council could adopt that as a policy but did not recommend including it the ordinance.
Councilmember Bernheim inquired what portion of the ordinance exempted the City from the
enforcement procedures. Mr. Park answered the section regarding enforcement methods for the
abatement of graffiti on private property. Councilmember Bernheim referred to Section 5.60.050, Notice
of Graffiti Nuisance, pointing out the procedures appeared to apply to public property as well. Mr. Park
answered the intent was for the procedures to be applicable to private property but could be extended to
be applicable to government property.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether the City could issue a notice to the PUD if the graffiti were on
their property. Mr. Bowman answered that was possible. He agreed with Councilmember Bernheim's
interpretation of Section 5.60.050 that staff could issue notice to the City, school district, PUD, etc. He
noted in the past whenever staff contacted the school district regarding graffiti on their property, they
responded promptly.
Student Representative Seheibert referred to the statement regarding possession of graffiti implements
with intent to damage property in Section 5.60.030, Prohibited Acts, and asked how intent to damage
would be determined. Mr. Park answered it would depend on the circumstances; for example someone
found by the police carrying spray paint under a bridge at midnight would tend to portray intent to deface
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 15, 2008
Page 4
the bridge with graffiti versus a person found outside a hardware store after purchasing spray paint where
there would not be intent to deface property.
Council President Plunkett commented the police often determined intent; for example a person standing
outside a window with a sledgehammer, the police office observing this was likely to intervene,
concluding a crime was about to be committed. Chief Compaan commented there were other crimes with
regard to intent such as possession of burglary tools, possession of drug paraphernalia, etc.
Councilmember Orvis pointed out it was the City's responsibility to prove intent. Chief Compaan agreed.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT,
FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3677.
Councilmember Dawson expressed her appreciation for staff's efforts to address the concerns raised by
the public and the Council at the public hearing. She noted the ordinance did a good job of balancing the
City and the community's desire to take the crime of graffiti seriously and recognize the importance of
graffiti removal while not victimizing the victim. The ordinance provided flexibility for staff to work
with property owners on the removal of graffiti that often may be sexually denigrating, racially insensitive
or contain vulgar language. She noted graffiti was damaging to the community and made people
uncomfortable to be in certain places if the graffiti is allowed to linger. The ordinance allowed the City to
take that responsibility seriously, provide assistance to those that may be unable to remove the graffiti as
well as provide a "hammer" if a property owner was unwilling to cooperate. She urged the Council to
support the ordinance.
Council President Plunkett thanked Chief Compaan, Mr. Park and Councilmember Dawson for their
efforts with this ordinance. His preference was to try voluntary removal for six months, believing
Edmonds property owners would voluntarily remove graffiti. However, he would support the proposed
ordinance.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed support for the ordinance, noting he generally did not favor detailed
laws /ordinances that addressed an issue already covered in the general vandalism laws although he
acknowledged the difficulty enforcing vandalism laws against graffiti. He suggested revisiting this
ordinance in 3 -4 years to determine its effectiveness in curbing graffiti and if it were not effective,
consider repealing it. With regard to property owners paying for removal, he provided an example of a
vandal that burned someone's house down; the City would require the property owner to address the
problem.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved reads as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 3677 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADDING A NEW
5.60, GRAFFITI; DECLARING GRAFFITI A PUBLIC NUISANCE; PROHIBITING
DEFACEMENT OF PROPERTY WITH GRAFFITI AND POSSESSION OF GRAFFITI
IMPLEMENTS WITH INTENT TO DEFACE; IMPOSING CRIMINAL PENALTIES;
REQUIRING THE REMOVAL OF GRAFFITI; ESTABLISHING AN APPEALS PROCESS;
ESTABLISH A GRAFFITI FUND; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Jim Hills, President, Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, representing more than 400
businesses and individuals, referred to Agenda Item 7 on this evening's agenda and noted the Chamber
understood and applauded the City's efforts to explore the ramifications of park land in that area.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 15, 2008
Page 5
However, that work was already done by city staff and the Council less than two years ago in the form of
planning documents that call for a design driven master plan for the property and work done by the Port,
City and property owners this summer identified goals and values. He enumerated concepts supported by
the Chamber that could be used as a yardstick for any project proposed for this key property: promote
complimentary not competing economic development, make connections linking the downtown core and
the waterfront, look at unique opportunities for small business, mixed building use to accommodate a
variety of users, open spaces, supporting transportation choices, enrich the existing environment with
sensitivity to the surrounding areas, and appropriate size of development in relation to views. He
concluded it was likely a park on this property would not fulfill those values or the City's own planning
directives.
agenda Item �, Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed his thanks to Council President Plunkett for scheduling the issue
ola antique of waterfront development. He recommended any response by the Council should be done via an update
Mau Pr °perty of the Comprehensive Plan for the waterfront. He also recommended the Council gather public input via
the Comprehensive Plan process. He noted Edmonds was a bedroom community with an exciting
regional waterfront area. He thanked the Port and the property owners for the funds they had spent on
planning efforts which educated the public and provided examples of what could be built if the property
owners developed the site. Next, he noted an alternate position on the Planning Board was open and
Plauniug Board asked when the City would begin accepting applications for the position. Recalling there were five
Alternate
Positron applicants for the last Planning Board vacancy, he anticipated there would be at least five this time
including himself.
Strategic 16. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL DIRECTION REGARDING STRATEGIC
Planning PLANNING.
Council President Plunkett referred to a draft mission /vision, values and strategic plan document created
at a Council retreat in 2004. He recalled former Councilmember Moore's suggestion that the City needed
more strategic planning. He asked for Council input regarding whether the City needed more
mission /vision, values and strategic planning than what was developed in 2004.
Councilmember Olson commented she had reached the conclusion the City did not need to hire a
consultant to prepare a strategic plan for the future; her preference was to focus on increasing revenues
for the City.
Councilmember Dawson noted groups often used consultants at retreats to do visioning. She suggested
this year's retreat include discussion of issues discussed in the past to educate new Councilmembers. She
noted the difficulty with visioning was that everyone agreed in concept but the difficulty was in the
details, for example what vibrant small town feel meant. She concluded the Council had discussed its
vision; it was time to discuss strategies and implementation.
Councilmember Wambolt was not interested in producing a Council- driven strategic plan. He understood
staff had been working for the past year to develop a vision of the City for the next few years. He
suggested reviewing and clarifying /modifying that at the Council retreat rather than producing a new
plan.
Councilmember Orvis pointed out the City had a detailed Comprehensive Plan that identified sewer,
water, road, capital and park projects as well as the vision for various areas of the City. He preferred a
process via updating the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Dawson agreed, noting the Comprehensive Plan contained the City's vision and the code
implemented the Comprehensive Plan. She clarified it was the Council's responsibility not staff's to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 15, 2008
Page 6
establish the vision for the City; it was staff's responsibility to implement the Council's vision. It may be
necessary for the Council to provide staff better direction to carry out the Council's vision.
Council President Plunkett concluded it was the consensus of the Council to discuss the 2004
mission /vision, values and strategic plan at the 2008 retreat. Mayor Haakenson pointed out the
mission /vision, values and strategic plan, originally created by the Council in 2004, had been updated by
staff 2 -3 times.
7. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL DIRECTION REGARDING THE POSSIBLE
CREATION OF SOME PARK/OPEN SPACE AT WATERFRONT PROPERTY (OLD ANTIQUE
MALL).
Council President Plunkett advised this issue has been raised by a number of citizens and
Councilmembers. He clarified this agenda item was not for the Council to decide whether to purchase a
portion or all the property for park land. He referred to an email he received today asking where the City
would obtain $16 million and another email from one of the property owners identifying his terms. He
explained the goal was to ascertain whether there were enough Couneilmembers interested in
investigating whether to purchase a portion or all the property for park land. He noted the decision to
purchase property was a multi -step, several month process that included negotiations with property
owners, funding discussions including the potential for a park levy for a large piece of property, public
hearings, hiring a consultant, determining how much property to purchase, an appraisal, addressing
Comprehensive Plan issues, etc.
Council President Plunkett explained if a majority of the Council was interested in investigating the
possibility, the Council would discuss the multi -step process at the retreat. If the Council formulated a
plan of action /due diligence, it would be presented and discussed at a future Council meeting. He
concluded the question tonight was whether to investigate purchasing a portion or all the property for park
land.
Councilmember Wambolt stated he did not want to proceed with purchasing the property. He agreed with
the suggestion to update the Comprehensive Plan for that area, noting all the concepts Mr. Hill listed have
been incorporated into discussions by Work Group 33. Councilmember Wambolt noted the first question
when considering purchasing that land was whether the City needed another park in that area when within
a half mile radius there was Brackett's Landing North and South, Olympic Beach, Marina Beach North
and South, the underwater park, the fishing pier, the Edmonds Marsh, the Frances Anderson Center
playfields, City Park, Civic Center playfields and the recreational opportunities provided by the Port. He
concluded the answer to that question was a resounding no as the area was adequately served by a variety
of parks. If the opportunity arose to purchase more waterfront property the priority should be to purchase
property that made the existing sites contiguous.
Councilmember Wambolt enumerated the financial ramifications of establishing a park on the site; first,
the City did not have the funds to cover the purchase. The City could apply for whatever grants were
available, grants that nearly always required a match, funds the City did not have available. Second,
perhaps the City could issue bonds. He noted 15 -20 year bonds required repayment, funds the City did
not have particularly in view of the need for additional revenue to fund current operations. He noted
another park would also require further park maintenance resources when the City was already unable to
maintain existing parks. He concluded the remaining option was to raise property taxes, likely by a
double digit percentage which would require a public vote. He concluded funding another park in this
well served area lacked the priority to be a viable ballot issue.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 15, 2008
Page 7
Councilmember Wambolt pointed out the slowing of home sales, referring to a Seattle Times /PI article
that home sales in the Edmonds /Woodway area in December 2007 were down 48% from December 2006.
As a result of the overall economy slowing, REET funds used for park purchases as well as sales tax
revenue are decreasing. He acknowledged sales tax revenue would increase as a result of sales tax
sourcing legislation that would become effective in July 2008, noting those funds were already factored
into the City's 2008 budget. He emphasized the need for new economic development that would
supplement those sources, not an initiative that would remove a significant site from the tax rolls. He
concluded the current economic environment was not when the City should be taking on additional
discretionary obligations and incentives for developers was the only viable option for creating open space
in this area.
Councilmember Bernheim pointed out the proposal was not a new obligation. The issue was how to
incorporate everyone's ideas into a project at the waterfront. He envisioned this as another step along
with WG 33's which was organized by the property owners and produced a very expensive study partially
financed by taxpayers. The result of that study was a 5 -8 story, box -Like development that he felt was the
antithesis of economic development. He supported further investigation to bring more people into the
discussion of different options. He commented on the importance of open space now and in the future.
Councilmember Wambolt clarified he was not speaking in support of the development that had been
proposed, he did not support the City purchasing the property for park land.
Councilmember Dawson commented there had been a lot of discussion regarding the vision for that area
including a hotel, space for a public market, transit- oriented development, open space, low scale
development, etc. She concluded what she had heard from the public was not purchasing the property for
a park but considering what development could occur via some public investment into the project. She
noted the possibility of providing some affordable housing on the site, public open spaces, etc. via a
public /private partnership.
Councilmember Orvis supported the City purchasing a portion of the property. He pointed out open .
space would cost the City, either financially or in terms of loss of ambiance; either the City would
concede its codes or purchase all or a portion of the property. He noted if the City purchased the
property, it would not have to be developed as a traditional park, the open space could be used as a
festival area, etc.
Council President Plunkett recognized the property owner for his willingness to talk with the community
and being open to considering what the community wanted, noting he could have pursued a permit under
the existing codes. He noted the development had the potential to be any combination, from what had
been presented to 20 acres of park open space or something in between. He was willing to consider
opportunities and wanted to pursue further due diligence with regard to the City purchasing all or a
portion of the property.
Councilmember Wambolt pointed out Port Executive Director Chris Keuss would be making a
presentation to the Council at the January 22 meeting. He recommended the Council delaying a decision
on this issue until after Mr. Keuss' update regarding the existing plan, recalling the existing plan included
5 acres of open space.
Councilmember Olson agreed the Council should delay any decision until after Mr. Keuss' presentation.
Her understanding from the presentations that had been made was that this was the beginning of the
process and they were interested in the public's input.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 15, 2008
Page 8
Mayor Haakenson agreed with Mr. Hertrich's comment regarding the vision in the Comprehensive Plan
that was developed via public hearings that calls for exactly what was occurring on the site - a joint
public /private venture. If the Council wanted to change that vision, the Comprehensive Plan would need
to be amended. He urged the Council to delay any decision until they were presented information at the
retreat regarding the City's financial future as removing income- producing property from the City's tax
rolls would exacerbate the City's financial situation.
Councilmember Bernheim clarified the Comprehensive Plan stated this area was appropriate for a design
driven master plan development that provides for a mix of uses and takes advantage of the strategic
location between the waterfront and downtown. He commented the mix of uses had not been adequately
explored to his satisfaction by the present plan. He pointed out the inclusion of publicly available space
such as public markets, heritage space such as a museum, and gathering spaces and environmental
concerns justified further study. He objected to the inference that further study was wasting taxpayer
dollars, pointing out the City and the Port had already spent a great deal of public funds developing the
current plan.
Councilmember Wilson agreed with Councilmember Wambolt and Mayor Haakenson that the appropriate
process was via the Comprehensive Plan.
Council President Plunkett concluded the Council's direction was to present a multi -step plan of action at
the retreat for discussion that would lead to a conclusion. He assured any formal action would be taken at
a Council meeting.
8. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL DIRECTION REGARDING AUDIO TAPE
RECORDING THE CITY COUNCIL RETREAT.
Council President Plunkett recalled the Council used to tape the retreats and approximately 3 -4 years ago
ceased taping the retreat and began preparing summary minutes. He favored taping the retreat and sought
Council's direction regarding whether to tape the retreat.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO
TAPE THE COUNCIL RETREAT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING MAJOR INTERSECTIONS
INVOLVING STATE HIGHWAYS
Council President Plunkett recalled when the Council discussed the intersection of 196th/88th last year,
there was a suggestion to pass a resolution seeking assistance from the legislature. He recalled another
issue that arose as part of that discussion was how warrants were interpreted. He sought Council direction
with regard to the resolution and invited Councilmembers to attend a meeting with staff and WSDOT.
Development Services Director Duane Bowman referred to his email that outlined staff s position with
regard to the resolution. Councilmember Dawson summarized the resolution relayed the Council's and
citizens' concern with dangerous roadways and sought the legislature's assistance to ensure roadways
were safe. She also understood there was interest by some Councilmembers to work with WSDOT to
understand warrants necessary to install signals. She questioned the concern expressed by Mr. Bowman's
email. Mr. Bowman objected to the statement on page 2 of the resolution, "The Council also resolves that
it is their belief that a traffic signal is justified at 196th and 881h by at least two traffic warrants."
Councilmember Dawson assured it was not the Council's intent to install a traffic signal regardless of
warrants but that the issues at that intersection were not adequately addressed by the statistical analysis.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 15, 2008
Page 9
She suggested replacing "that a traffic signal is justified" with the Council was concerned with the safety
of the intersection.
Mr. Bowman pointed out the City hired a professional traffic consultant to analyze that intersection.
Their report using best engineering practices clearly indicated it did not meet the warrants; the wording of
the resolution contradicted that finding. Councilmember Dawson recalled the consultant said they
pleaded with WSDOT that the systems warrant was met and mentioned that perhaps the State legislature
could be of assistance with that issue. Mr. Bowman agreed whether the intersection met the systems
warrant was an issue and was one of the reasons for meeting with WSDOT. However, the report clearly
states what improvements should be made at that intersection. He noted signalizing the intersection
created more problems than it solved. Councilmember Dawson disagreed, recalling the consultant
indicated the recommended solution did not address all the issues at that intersection. Mr. Bowman
pointed out the resolution as currently worded did not conform with the consultant's recommendation.
Councilmember Dawson pointed out the intent of the resolution was to draw attention to intersections
where the statistical analysis did not capture the unique aspects of an intersection and where the accident
data did not reflect the danger. Mr. Bowman reiterated staff's position that the intersection did not meet
the warrants for a signal. He advised staff planned to arrange a meeting with staff, Council and WSDOT.
Mayor Haakenson suggested meeting with WSDOT before sending the resolution to the State legislature
requesting their assistance.
Councilmember Olson agreed, noting the City was seeking funding from the legislature for the Shell
Creek access road and she did not want to dilute that process. She was also concerned with asking the
legislature for help with a signal at the 196th/88th intersection when there had not been horrible accidents
at that intersection and there were other intersections where the conditions were worse. She supported
meeting with WSDOT first.
Councilmember Wambolt agreed, noting consultants were not infallible, recalling a consultant who
recommended reversing the traffic flow in City Park, a recommendation that was later rejected. He
pointed out the consultant's report regarding the 1961" /88th intersection stated the posted speed westbound
on SR524 was 35 mph, when in fact it was 30 mph. The consultant also stated at the hearing that the
uphill speed limit was 35 mph when it was actually 30 mph. He supported talking with WSDOT before
sending the resolution to the legislature.
Councilmember Orvis commented this resolution was a first draft and he was willing to wordsmith it. He
supported meeting with WSDOT before sending the resolution to the legislature. He commented on the
consultant's conclusion based on the warrants, questioning their determination that two of the six
accidents at that intersection were not associated with the intersection and therefore were not counted. He
recalled the consultant had tried to convince WSDOT that the intersection met the system warrant.
Council President Plunkett observed it was the consensus of the Council to delay sending the resolution
until the staff and Council met with WSDOT. Councilmembers Orvis and Olson volunteered to
participate in the meeting with WSDOT.
10A. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL DIRECTION IN REGARDS TO COUNCIL
POLICY ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS INTERVIEWS AND VOTING AT THE SAME
MEETING.
Council President Plunkett explained the practice has been for the Council to interview
Commission /Board members prior to Council meetings and then the Council confirms the appointment at
the meeting. He relayed the suggestion that a more deliberative process may be appropriate whereby the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 15, 2008
Page 10
Council would interview candidates one week and make a decision at the next meeting. He sought
Council direction whether to continue the current practice or change the process to interview candidates
one week and make a decision at the next meeting to allow a more deliberative process.
Councilmember Dawson suggested something more than interviewing candidates one week and making a
decision the next week. She noted the current practice was the Mayor received and reviewed
applications, conducted interviews and forwarded the candidate he selected to the Council for
confirmation. The Council then meets with the person and confirms the Mayor's appointment. She could
not recall a time when the Council did not confirm the person the Mayor selected. She questioned how
other jurisdictions with all at -large positions made their appointments. She suggested the Council may
want to explore having some positions on the Planning Board and /or Architectural Design Board be
Council appointments. She noted one option for further Council participation may be for the Council to
be involved in the interviews conducted by the Mayor.
Councilmember Olson commented implementation may be a challenge as it was often difficult to get
Councilmembers to commit the time to conduct interviews.
Councilmember Wambolt suggested another option may be for a group of Councilmembers, citizens,
Chamber and staff to interview candidates as was done with the Economic Development Director. He
was not interested in continuing the current practice as he objected to being a rubber stamp and would
abstain from future confirmations if the current practice continued. He also expressed concern with the
process for announcing the selection of the Police Chief. He emphasized his concern was not with the
person selected but with the process whereby the press release announcing the appointment of the Police
Chief preceded the Council's confirmation.
Council President Plunkett advised this topic would be added to the retreat agenda. In the meantime the
current process would continue.
Councilmember Orvis suggested Planning Board and ADB members who were directly involved in
permitting and rezones receive a per meeting per diem.
Councilmember Bemheim expressed support for the current process where the Mayor appoints a
candidate and Council confirmation, noting that process was dependent on an open selection process
including adequate opportunity for citizens to apply.
10B. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A UW NORTH SOUND CAMPUS
Councilmember Wilson advised the resolution before the Council was a result of the Council's discussion
at the last meeting of a resolution reaffirming support for a UW North Sound in Snohomish County
opening as soon as fall 2009.
Due to the indication that funding would be removed from the budget if the legislature could not agree on
a final location, Councilmember Dawson recommended the resolution include language that if the final
site selection was not completed by the end of the session, the funding would remain in place so that
classes could begin as early as 2009. She also suggested the resolution state the importance of a fully
trained workforce on the local economy.
Councilmember Olson agreed with Councilmember Dawson's suggestion that funding be retained in the
budget if a final site was not selected by the end of the session.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 15, 2008
Page 11
Councilmember Wambolt noted Mayor Haakenson had written a letter to the legislature today expressing
support for a UW North Sound Campus.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT,
FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1162 SUPPORTING A UW NORTH SOUND CAMPUS.
COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
AMEND THE RESOLUTION TO ADD A WHEREAS CLAUS REGARDING THE IMPORTANCE
OF A FULLY TRAINED WORKFORCE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF A 4 -YEAR UNIVERSITY
IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY TOWARD THE GOAL OF THE ECONOMY OF EDMONDS AND
SNOHOMISH COUNTY AS WELL AS ADDING A LAST SENTENCE REGARDING SUPPORT
FOR A CONTINUED COMMITMENT TO THE FUNDING FOR A UW NORTH SOUND
CAMPUS IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY IF THE LEGISLATURE WAS UNABLE DESPITE BEST
EFFORTS TO DETERMINE A SPECIFIC LOCATION DURING THE 2008 SESSION.
AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Wilson added "Coordinating" to the second WHEREAS clause between "Education" and
"Board."
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Plunkett expressed his thanks to the Council for reviewing several processes, noting it
was only via good processes that the public and/or Councilmembers felt they had been treated fairly.
Councilmember Wilson echoed Council President Plunkett's comments regarding Council discussion
occurring at Council meetings, noting this was particularly important for issues such as the waterfront
development where a great deal of discussion would be necessary before people felt comfortable.
Councilmember Dawson urged Councilmembers and the audience to attend Martin Luther King, Jr.
celebrations tomorrow including a breakfast and march at the Holiday Inn and a luncheon in Everett.
Councilmember Bernheim reported he attended a sustainable cities conference on Sunday in Port
Hadlock. He and several others planned to form a Sustainable Edmonds group, a grassroots citizens
organization, to develop policies /practices regarding sustainability.
Councilmember Olson thanked City Engineer Dave Gebert for setting up a meeting with WSDOT.
13. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 15, 2008
Page 12