05/27/2008 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED 1
May 27, II:
Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. for setting negotiation parameters for real estate acquisition, the
Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5`" Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Michael Plunkett, Council President
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Approve COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
Agenda APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Wambolt requested Item J be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember
Bernheim requested Item H be removed.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
Roll Call
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
A.
ROLL CALL
Approve
5/20/08
B.
APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 20, 2008
Minutes
C.
APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #104402 THROUGH #104565 FOR MAY 22, 2008 IN
Approve
THE AMOUNT OF $706,197.67. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND
Claim
CHECKS #46539 THROUGH #46592 FOR THE PERIOD OF MAY 1 THROUGH MAY
Checks
15, 2008 IN THE AMOUNT OF $792,476.96
Approve
D.
ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM MICHAEL PALMER
Claim for
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED)
Damages
E.
POLICE DEPARTMENT MULTIYEAR PLAN 2008 -201.2
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 1
Police Collective
Bargaining
Agreement F. APPROVAL OF POLICE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT -
COMMISSIONED MEMBERS
Local Union No.
763 Collective G. APPROVAL OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF
Bargaining EDMONDS AND THE PUBLIC, PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE- CLERICAL
Agreement EMPLOYEES AND DRIVERS LOCAL UNION #763 (TEAMSTERS)
License for Low I. APPROVAL OF 2008 TAXICAB OPERATOR'S LICENSE FOR LOW FARE AIRPORT
Fare Airport Taxi AND LOCAL FOR HIRE VEHICLE
ITEM H: APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO.
3622 TO INCREASE THE SALARY OF THE MAYOR, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2008 AND
- Mayor's Salary JULY 1, 2009
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED TO TABLE THIS ITEM. MOTION DIED FOR
LACK OF A SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON,
THAT THE SALARY INCREASE FOR THE MAYOR TAKE EFFECT JULY 1, 2012 AND JULY
1, 2013.
Councilmember Bernheim commented this would result in $25,000 in savings by not increasing the salary
of the current Mayor who was elected knowing what the salary was and who did not ask for this increase.
Councilmember Wambolt explained the Salary Commission considered a great deal of relevant data and
correctly concluded the Mayor's salary was in the 391" percentile; the City's policy has been to pay at the
50"' percentile. The Salary Commission's recommendation was to increase the Mayor's salary by 3.5%
on July 1, 2008 and 3.5% on July 1, 2009; at that rate the salary would never reach the 501'' percentile.
For that reason, five Councilmembers approved the proposed salary increase last week. He summarized
accepting the Salary Commission's recommendation was a rubberstamp and not doing what the Council
was elected to do - assess issues and make their own judgment.
Council President Plunkett expressed support for the motion, cautioning against personalizing the salary
increase by stating this Mayor knew what the salary would be. He explained the discussion had nothing
to do with Mayor Haakenson but with the position of Mayor and that position should be paid comparable
to Mayors in comparable cities.
Councilmember Dawson agreed the discussion was the appropriate salary for the office of the Mayor and
not specifically the current Mayor. She noted the proposed ordinance would result in Edmonds' Mayor
being paid higher than any other elected Mayor for a City of Edmonds' size in the region and place the
Mayor's salary closer to cities such as Everett or Seattle. She noted the Salary Commission's
recommendation, a 3.5% COLA and $400 per month in deferred compensation, would put the Mayor's
salary in the 50the percentile for elected Mayors and City Managers. She noted the salary proposed by
Councilmember Wambolt and contained in the ordinance would pay the Mayor similar to a City Manager.
Although she acknowledged there were similarities between Mayors and City Managers, the increase
contained in the ordinance would place the Mayor's salary so far ahead of other Mayors in the region as
to be "out of whack."
She agreed elected officials did not get paid what they should for the work they do, however, that was the
nature of being an elected official; their salaries were not comparable to the private sector. As compared
to the fulltime Mayors of Lynnwood or Marysville, the proposed salary would be vastly higher. She
suggested if the Council was inclined not to accept the Salary Commission's recommendation, the issue
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 2
be referred to the Finance Committee for further consideration of what other Mayors in the region are
paid. She noted this increase, if approved, would make Edmonds Mayor the fourth highest paid Mayor in
the State. She indicated she would not support the proposed ordinance.
Councilmember Bernheim explained the plan was to increase the Mayor's salary by $12,000 in July 1,
2008 and another $12,000 the following year and the Mayor would not be assuming any additional
responsibilities as a condition of this gratuitous increase. He noted one of the few arguments offered by
the supporters of this increase was it would attract qualified people to run for Mayor during the next
election. He emphasized an additional $25,000 was not needed to attract people to the position because
people ran for the office of Mayor not for the health benefits or the salary, but because they wanted to be
Mayor. He commented he considered running but decided not to and plenty of other competent people
did run and it was unnecessary to offer a salary of $150,000 per year.
He explained this was a step for responsible government; to hold salaries of elected officials in times of
economic belt- tightening. He disagreed the Council was rubberstamping the Salary Commission's
recommendation; the Council rejected the Salary Commission's recommendation and offered a gratuitous
wage increase that was not requested and not conceived of by anyone else other than Councilmember
Wambolt prior to the meeting. He pointed out the intent of the L5 policy, paying salaries at parity, was to
keep employees happy; there was no need to keep the Mayor happy as his salary was what he expected to
receive when he ran for election. He preferred to spend the additional money on developing a native
plant garden at the Arts Center. He agreed the discussion was not personal and did not see a need for a
salary increase in this instance. He noted the Salary Commission would meet again in two years and
could change their recommendation at that time. He concluded the salaries paid by comparable cities was
not a consideration in times of economic belt- tightening.
Councilmember Wambolt commented this did not need to be returned to the Finance Committee; the
Council received all the materials reviewed by the Salary Commission and had ample time to study them.
He reviewed the materials and based on his experience reached the conclusion that led to his motion. He
relayed that people have asked him if he planned to run for Mayor in four years and was that why he
proposed the salary increase. Councilmember Wambolt assured he would never run for Mayor. He noted
Councilmember Bernheim had no experience in the industry. Even when times were tough, organizations
set their pay scales at an appropriate level to ensure fairness. He learned early in his career that it was not
the amount of money people were paid that motivated them; it was the level of fairness to other
employees. Twelve of the Mayor's staff have higher salaries than the Mayor. He agreed this discussion
was not regarding Mayor Haakenson but the position of Mayor.
To Councilmember Dawson, he pointed out when comparing the salaries of Mayors and City Manager in
comparable cities, Edmonds' Mayor's salary was in the 391" percentile and 3.5% or approximately $3,500
and an additional $400 in deferred compensation would not bring that salary near the 50'h percentile.
Councilmember Dawson emphasized government was different than the private sector; there were many
staff members whose salaries were higher than the County Executive, the Governor, etc. That was the
nature of the position because those officials must live within their jurisdictions versus City Managers or
Directors who could be recruited on the open market. She anticipated the salary of every Director in
Snohomish County was higher than the County Executive's salary. The proposed salary increase would
put Edmonds' Mayor's salary out of whack with other elected officials in the region and would pay the
Edmonds Mayor more than the Lieutenant Governor, more than virtually all elected officials in
Snohomish County. She did not object to a reasonable salary but did object to establishing the Mayor's
salary at a level far above any other elected official. She noted that information, what other elected
officials were paid, may not have been before the Council when they made their decision last week.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 3
Councilmember Dawson explained the L5 policy did not average salaries; it compared salaries and
established a rate that was in the middle. The Salary Commission's recommendation would place the
Mayor's salary at the median of the other cities. She urged the Council to reconsider the increase for the
office of the Mayor.
Councilmember Bernheim assured his challenge of the 25% increase in the Mayor's salary was not an
attack on Mayor Haakenson and assured he felt Mayor Haakenson was a great Mayor. With regard to
fairness, he questioned the argument that it was fair to increase the Mayor's salary because a majority of
the Council felt he deserved it. He summarized the proposed increase was an unrequested, gratuitous
donation of public taxes in an era of belt - tightening and urged the Council to support his amendment.
Councilmember Wambolt referred to Councilmember Bernheim's comment that the salary increase was
not appropriate due to the City's tight financial situation, commenting that philosophy had not been
applied to any other employee's salary.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3 -4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT AND
COUNCILMEMBERS BERNHEIM AND DAWSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS
WILSON, OLSON, ORVIS AND WAMBOLT OPPOSED.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM H. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5 -2), COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PLUNKETT AND COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, WAMBOLT, WILSON, AND
ORVIS IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DAWSON AND BERNHEIM OPPOSED. The
item approved is as follows:
APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 3622 TO
INCREASE THE SALARY OF THE MAYOR, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2008 AND JULY 1, 2009
ITEM J: ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 341.0 TO
PROVIDE FOR THE COMPENSATION OF COUNCIL MEMBERS ELECTED AND
TAKING OFFICE ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2010
Councilmember Wambolt pulled this item to vote against it.
Compensation COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
of council PLUNKETT, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM J. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED ((4 -3),
Members COUNCILMEMBERS BERNHEIM, ORVIS, DAWSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PLUNKETT IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT, WILSON AND OLSON
OPPOSED. The item approved is as follows:
J. ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 341.0 TO
PROVIDE FOR THE COMPENSATION OF COUNCIL MEMBERS ELECTED AND
TAKING OFFICE ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2010
3. PRESENTATION ON THE DALE TURNER FAMILY YMCA
Dale Vern Chase, YMCA Executive Board Member, introduced incoming YMCA Board Chair Michael
Turner
YMCA Schultz, Executive Director Courtne y Whitaker, Development Director Stacy Segal and Da breaker
Rotarian Marisa Gallier.
Mr. Chase explained the $19.5 million family YMCA located on Hwy. 99 south of the Snohomish County
line was scheduled to open this fall. He participated on the Search Committee for a new YMCA for over
seven years to find the right site for a family YMCA that would meet the needs of their service area -
north Seattle to Lynnwood to Edmonds to Lake Forest Park. To ensure they were meeting the needs of
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 4
the community, gaining the financial support of the leaders in the area and were a true partner with the
public and private groups in the area, the site needed to be visible and in a convenient location. He
provided a brief fly- through video that highlighted the key programmatic spaces in the new YMCA that
include an aquatic center, family center, and total health center.
Incoming YMCA Board Chair Michael Schultz commented on the positive impact of YMCA
programs on youth in the Edmonds community. He recognized that no one organization or City program
could support the diversity of community needs. He described YMCA school -based programs that serve
more than 200 elementary and 50 middle school students each day. In addition, over 40 teens participate
in leadership clubs each month. The new facility will allow further development of these programs and
provide opportunities for children, teens and adults to gather in one location. He summarized they were
proud of the impacts the YMCA was having in the area and hoped Edmonds residents would find a place
for themselves in the new YMCA's wellness, family and aquatic programs. He looked forward to
working with Edmonds staff and elected leadership to determine if there were collaborations and joint
ventures to better serve the residents of Edmonds.
Executive Director Courtney Whitaker displayed a rendering of the outside of the building located on
Hwy. 99 south of the County line between Sky Nursery and Costco. They broke ground July 2007 and
expect to be open by fall 2008. She displayed floorplans, identifying the aquatics center that includes
recreation and place space, fitness space, a therapeutic hot tub, and is handicap accessible. She identified
the youth development center, open and free to teen members of the community that offered leadership,
computer technology, health, etc. as well as designated teen /youth exercise space. The facility includes a
21 -foot climbing pinnacle, a family center offering a variety of activities for all ages and a total health
center. She concluded although the building was nearly complete, they had not yet finalized
programming. She looked forward to discussions with Edmonds Park and Recreation staff to identify
needs they could partner on to ensure a broad base of programming was available to the community.
Mr. Chase commented they had raised a great deal of money and were well positioned to meet the unique
needs of the community. As a member of the Chamber of Commerce's Economic Development
Committee, he recognized the new YMCA would enhance Edmonds' quality of life and add to Edmonds'
attractiveness as a great place to work and live. He looked forward to collaborating with the City of
Edmonds.
Councilmember Olson expressed her pleasure that the facility was named after Reverend Dale Turner,
one of the most amazing people she has every known. Ms. Whitaker commented they were excited to be
able to honor the memory of the late Reverend Dale Turner, a Minister at the University Congregational
Church, and religion columnist for the Seattle Times for 19 years, resident of the service and a lifetime
board member of the YMCA of greater Seattle.
Councilmember Wambolt asked the size of the pool. Ms. Whitaker answered it was 25 yards.
Councilmember Wilson commented the facility was very impressive and he wished it could have been
constructed within Edmonds. Ms. Whitaker assured they tried to site the facility in Edmonds.
Mayor Haakenson echoed Councilmember Olson's comments regarding Reverend Whitaker.
11 1 D1014 _ 1 V
Lora Petso, Edmonds, referred to Councilmember Wilson's comment last week regarding whether the
Aua�en °� revised Park Plan was less ambitious than the previous Plan and provided the following as evidence it
Comments
clearly was less ambitious.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 5
Item
2001 Plan
2008 Plan
Pool
Develop a pool, fixed
location
Strong interest, maybe
Neighborhood Park acres/ 1,000 pop.
.95
.71
Neighborhood Park size
5 acres
1 -5 acres
Planned Acquisition
7 sites, average size 3 acres
6 sites, average size 2 acres
Community Park acquisition
3 sites, 2 -mile service area
1 site, 5 -mile service area
Community Park service area
2 miles
5 miles
Community Park acres /1,000 pop.
2.61
2.03
Regional Park acres /1,000 pop.
1.08
1.96
Special Use Area /1,000 pop.
.98
.71
Open Space /1,000 pop.
6.1
5.86
Virginia Redfield, Edmonds, commended the Council for listening to the input from the community
regarding the redevelopment of the waterfront property and submitting the idea for a bond issue to
purchase the property. She expressed her support for that effort.
Jim Lockhart, Edmonds, expressed interest in the modernization of the waterfront property. He pointed
out the City had a unique opportunity to create an attractive, enduring, signature development as a
gateway to the City that would also serve as a neighborhood destination for citizens. He expressed his
support for the Council's effort to submit a bond proposal to finance the purchase of the waterfront
property.
Jim Hills, Edmonds, President, Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, representing the 430 members,
expressed the Chamber's support for a process guided by reasoned standards that represent the best
interest of the City, residents and businesses and ensured the best and most sustainable uses. They urged
the Council to develop specific criteria to address the long term fiscal feasibility of any project, noting the
economic realities of any proposal must be careful considered in light of the City's current financial
standing and potential impacts on residents, businesses and taxpayers. For example, should the City
pursue purchasing the site for any eventual use, it was important to consider both short and long term
costs including the initial purchase price, demolition of existing structures, construction costs and future
annual maintenance. Further, if the City purchased the property, there must be assurance that future
needed/desired infrastructure improvements could be funded. He pointed out revenue should also be a
factor in the Council's discussion should any future use preclude or reduce the tax revenue from the site.
He summarized the Chamber's position was not opposition to any proposal, rather they supported
establishing and applying reasonable guidelines for each proposal considered by the Council.
David Arista, Edmonds, Downtown Edmonds Merchants Association, expressed the Association's
support for the Chamber's statement. In response to comments that the merchants did not support a
mixed use /commercial /retail space on the Harbor Square /Antique Mall properties, he assured the
merchants felt such a development would not be competition but help draw visitors to Edmonds.
Roger Oliver, Edmonds, expressed concern with dangerous sidewalks, lack of curb cuts, and dangerous
curb cuts, citing the area from 3`a & Howell, north to Walnut, east to 5`h, south to Howell Way and to the
Port was an example. He noted many of the hazards would not be obvious to an able- bodied person but
presented a danger to him while traveling in his motorized chair. He invited two Councilmembers to
accompany him to view the hazards. Mayor Haakenson suggested Public Works Director Noel Miller
accompany Mr. Oliver.
Fred Bell, Edmonds, President, Edmonds Historic Society, described efforts to save the 107 -year old
building at the corner of 6`t' & Main including articles /editorials in the Edmonds Beacon and a display ad
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 6
asking for help /suggestions for moving and a location for the building. He explained the City did not
have sufficient funds to relocate or maintain the building. He suggested siting the building on the Civic
Stadium property, leased by the City until 2021, noting the Edmonds School Board has expressed
willingness to discuss that location. He suggested a Museum fund drive to move the building and place it
on a foundation and work out with the City and other entities how to maintain it.
Cliff Sanderlin, Edmonds, thanked the City Council and Mayor for allowing more citizen input in the
process than in the past. He assured the people of Edmonds were willing to help in any way possible. He
offered to assist with fundraising via private sources to purchase all or part of the waterfront properties.
He noted private fundraising from individuals, foundations and businesses could be very helpful in
providing seed money, early studies, etc. as well as funding elements of the project.
John Reed, Edmonds, Alliance for the Citizens of Edmonds (ACE) referred to a memo they provided to
the Council with facts and ideas developed via several ACE meetings and encouraged the Council to
review the presentations Dick Van Hollenbeke and he made to the Council on April 1. He relayed ACE's
recommendation that the City acquire the Skipper's and Antique Mall parcels, commenting acquisition
was the best option as it would led to the development of a combination of public amenities and revenue -
producing attractions that would draw residents, visitors and additional revenue. Leadership by the
Council, Mayor, staff and the Port would be necessary throughout the development process as well as
community involvement. He referred to the list of needs that would be presented by staff, noting they
should be viewed was an opportunity not a warning. He referred to staff's projection that bonding for the
$12 million cost to acquire the property would cost the owner of a home valued at $500,000
approximately $63 per year. He suggested consideration be given to larger bond issue to fund public
amenities at the Waterfront Activity Center as well as develop playfields, sidewalks and fund other needs.
He anticipated an additional $10 -$20 million could be raised for a total cost of approximately $190 /year
for the owner of a home valued at $500,000. He summarized the members of ACE were ready, willing
and able to assist the City in whatever way possible.
In light of the recent decision by the owners of the Antique Mall property to withdraw the prize money
for the design contest and not reward the Edmonds - Woodway High School students who worked many
hours on their design and presentation, Mr. Reed invited the community to contribute to a fundraising
campaign established by ACE to replace the prize money. Donation could be sent to ACE - EWHS
Design Fund, POB 1793, Edmonds, Washington, 98020.
Karen Wiggins, Edmonds, expressed her support for the City's purchase of the old Safeway /Antique
Mall property and Skipper's property, noting it was her understanding there were many types of grants
available. She supported placing a bond measure on the November 2008 ballot. She agreed with Mr.
Oliver's comments regarding curb cuts and sidewalks, noting there were many inadequate curb cuts
including one at 3rd & James as well as near the cemetery.
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, expressed support for public ownership of the property between Main and
Dayton, the railroad tracks and Sunset Avenue. She preferred the land be used for public purposes rather
than commercial uses. She asked whether public land could be used for commercial purposes, and urged
the City to obtain the answer to this question before moving forward. It was her understanding a
municipality could not serve as a landlord.
George Murray, Edmonds, recognized the Garden Club for their efforts, noting they have an
arrangement to maintain the park across from Tully's. Next, he expressed support for a bond issue for a
park. With regard to the Mayor's salary increase, he was disappointed the City Council authorized this
salary increase due to the message it sent to staff. He envisioned it would now be difficult for the Mayor
withhold increases and /or cut staff if necessary. He pointed out there were other methods of providing the
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 7
Mayor an increase such as an annual bonus for excellent service. He relayed that the Mayor of San Diego
vetoed an increase approved by the Council and asked they reconsider the matter, finding it put him in an
untenable position with his staff.
Betty Larman, Edmonds, commented the Council was able to make a momentous decision by voting on
the future of the waterfront. She expressed her support for purchasing the property for everyone to enjoy.
She inquired about the purchase of the Old Milltown courtyard. Mayor Haakenson advised the Council
and Mr. Gregg were still in negotiation.
Brian Larman, Edmonds, commented in the past five years there had been an erosion of Edmonds'
character and unique ambiance. The City's codes and Comprehensive Plan seemed to be interpreted in a
manner that did not meet the intent of the policy makers. He supported purchasing the waterfront
property and developing something that was a designation for the community rather than just residential.
He questioned the legacy Councilmembers wanted to leave — a legacy of Edmonds as a jewel of the
northwest or just condominiums on the waterfront.
Robert Deigert, Edmonds, supported the City's purchase of the waterfront properties. He pointed out
the importance of not allowing a few builders to control various political entities. He urged the Council,
after purchasing the property, to allow the people to determine the uses. He urged the City to be careful
with development downtown to avoid another Kirkland that had only condominiums and 5 -story
buildings. He suggested converting Harbor Square to a personalized work area that would create income
for the City as well as bring people into Edmonds. He summarized the decisions the Council made with
regard to the waterfront property would affect the City for the next 100 years.
Larry Pauls, Edmonds, echoed the previous comments regarding purchasing the waterfront property,
commenting it was unfortunate the most aggressive building approach was on the Skipper's site which
was immediately adjacent to the waterfront park. He suggested researching a way to allow the developers
to build in an area that was not as critical as the area between Main & Dayton.
Linda Bontecou, Edmonds, expressed support for purchasing the Antique Mall and Skipper's properties.
She recalled the saying — location, location, location — noting everyone knew this was the perfect location
in Edmonds. She pointed out the Edmonds - Woodway High School students' presentations eliminated
negativity and made people think about possibilities — a jewel for all. She encouraged the Council not to
miss this opportunity and to have the vision to make this a wonderful place for Edmonds.
Joan Bloom, Edmonds, relayed 10 members of ACE met to discuss a vision for the Waterfront Activity
Center; a summary of this vision was entailed to the Council. Their review of the two scale models
created by the Edmonds - Woodway High School students and the committee's discussion led to many
commonalities including a low level design within current height limits; an innovative and progressive
design throughout the properties; environmentally sensitive and attentive to the properties' constraints
such as regular flooding and proximity to the railroad tracks; easy to reach by foot, bicycle, or shuttle;
easy to reach downtown and the Arts Corridor and connected to the neighborhood by shuttle, walkways,
bike paths; a lot of indoor /outdoor areas; services and activities that appeal to all age groups and interests;
welcoming and accessible; draw visitors from throughout the region and country; and provide so much to
do, see and purchase that it would generate a great deal of revenue, and a place everyone wanted to come
because it was so much fun. She noted many of the ideas they developed were in the notes of the WG33;
it was the designs by LMN Architects that the community objected to, not the ideas they were based on.
She encouraged the Council to embark on a visioning process to create a world class Waterfront Activity
Center and assured it could be done.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 8
Richard Senderoff, Edmonds, supported development of the waterfront area for public use, comparing
the possibilities and financial benefits to the recreational uses available on the Jersey - Delaware shore. He
envisioned development could occur in three ways, 1) a developer driven Master Plan, 2) a City- driven
Master Plan, and 3) the City purchase all or part of the properties. He found it unreasonable to allow a
developer to purchase property and only develop it if the zoning were changed to meet their needs which
held the City and community hostage. Although he found a City - driven Master Plan more acceptable
than a developer -driven Master Plan, he was concerned it would put the Council and Mayor between the
community's interests and the developer's interests and lead to a costly and extended debate. The only
reasonable solution was for the Council to find a way to purchase the property and develop it using citizen
input in a manner that attracted visitors and generated revenue.
Bill Angle, Edmonds, commented this decision was critical as it would impact the physical space and
sense of community for 50 -10 years. He observed there was no ongoing support for the plans that arose
from the earlier planning process. In earlier comments he raised the question whether the City should
purchase all or a portion of the properties and had concluded along with many others that acquiring the
property was the best option to ensure the properties were developed for the long term benefit of the
citizens of Edmonds. He noted the first step was an appraisal; he was not overly concerned about the
property being too expensive in view of the height limits, setbacks, parking requirements, etc.; physical
constraints such as the high water table, adjacent railroad tracks and Puget Sound; ferry lines on SR104,
etc., as well as the political constraints with regard to increase building heights and greater density. Due
to these constraints, he anticipated the appraisal would find they were significantly less valuable than the
owners believed them to be. He concluded the City had the elements necessary to create a great future for
the City and community; acquiring these properties was critical for community building. He looked for
the Council and its strong leadership in making this public /private approach a reality.
David Page, Edmonds, commented things either grew or they died; the idea of a waterfront development
was growing daily. He recognized there were problems on Lake Ballinger, Meadowdale, Hwy. 99 and
suggested creating a bond issue large enough to fix many of the problems in Edmonds. He recalled the
uproar over the $9.5 million bond to construct the Public Safety Complex and $4 million to purchase the
City Hall building. He noted today, 13 years later, those buildings were worth approximately $50
million. He recalled the Public Safety group had to raise $9,000 to put the bond issue on the ballot and
expressed his willingness to donate to this effort. He pledged $500 toward replacing the prize for the
waterfront design competition.
Jack Jacobson, Edmonds, commented when the property owners purchased the waterfront property,
they knew there were restrictions; when their efforts to change the building heights were unsuccessful,
they offered the property for sale. He expressed dismay with the property owners' withdrawal of the
prize from the design competition.
John Hall, Edmonds, expressed his faith in the Council and urged them not to give the developers the
ammunition to shoot the golden goose.
Brian Pettoletti, Edmonds, a business owner in Edmonds, commented change was enviable and people
either watched it or were part of it. Now was the time for change and he urged the Council not to let the
Downtown process get in the way of progress.
Master
Plan- 5. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING THE DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN
Waterfront
Antique AREA - WATERFRONT ANTIQUE MALL, HARBOR SQUARE AND SKIPPERS PROPERTIES
Mall,
Harbor Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton described the series of events that
Square,
Skip pers tonight, led to s ecificall the continued effort by the Council to explore options for redeveloping the
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 9
Downtown Master Plan Area as identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan, the area also known as the
Port of Edmonds Harbor Square, Antique Mall and Skipper properties and the WSF parking lot.
Following discussion at the 2008 City Council retreat, the Council conducted two public meetings on
March 25 and April 1, 2008. During the March 25 meeting City staff presented information on the
existing redevelopment framework as established by the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code.
Following presentations by City staff, Mark Hinshaw, LMN Architects, presented information on the
national and regional phenomenon of people choosing to move into and near downtowns. He also spoke
about the redevelopment opportunities and/or constraints of subject area. The next group of presentations
were given by the owners of Harbor Square, the Antique Mall and Skipper's properties.
On April 1, 2008, the public was invited to share comments or ideas on the potential redevelopment of the
subject area. The City Council then discussed possible next steps following the public comment period
and at the conclusion of the meeting, the Council asked the Council President to work with staff to bring
the issue of Downtown Master Plan redevelopment back to the City Council.
After meeting with the Mayor and City Staff, the City Council President requested City staff present the
following information at the May 27, 2008 City Council meeting:
1. The necessary steps if the Council wanted to control all or a portion of subject properties with a
city driven master plan
2. Council control over all or a part of subject properties with an applicant driven master plan
3. The necessary steps if the Council wanted to control the property by buying some or all
Additional information requested included City Staff's recommendations should City Council decide to
purchase all, or a portion of the subject properties (Antique Mall, WSF parking lot and Skipper's
properties), as well as information on unfunded high priority projects.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the Downtown /Waterfront Activity Area was a much larger area
in the Comprehensive Plan, from Pine Street to 9"' to Caspers, primarily the bowl area and the hill. The
"Downtown Master Plan" area was part of the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Area and defined as three
properties - Harbor Square, the old Safeway /Edmonds Shopping Center and the Skipper's property. The
current Comprehensive Plan differentiates the downtown district and emphasizes the importance of
master plane -based redevelopment. The current Comprehensive Plan direction includes, 1) linked open
space /public areas along waterfront "esplanade," 2) view corridors and downtown /waterfront pedestrian
connections east -west and north - south, 3) master -plan based redevelopment of key areas, and 4) support
compatible design of regional facilities (transit, parks and walkways, port).
Development Services Director Duane Bowman reviewed Comprehensive Plan implementation choices
under the existing Plan versus a changed Plan. Utilizing the existing plan, one of the available process
options was zoning unchanged; implementation would be a either a Master Plan or Contract Rezone
utilizing the existing zoning that was publicly or privately driven or developing under the existing zoning.
The second available process option utilizing the existing plan was a zoning amendment; implementation
could be via a new zone, creating an overlay zone, or a minor zoning amendment.
Under a change to the existing Comprehensive Plan, there were three options, planned action, subarea
plan or modify /clarify existing policies. He explained implementation of a planned action would require
a Master Plan and SEPA. He explained the planned action was the most expensive and most detailed of
the options. It involved developing a master plan for the subject property that considered all the
environmental issues, traffic, stormwater drainage, building design, etc. as well as SEPA. Once that
process was complete, someone could propose a development and would not be required to complete the
detailed review process as it would already have been done. Implementation of the subarea plan for the
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 10
property was a zoning change and /or design overlay. Modifying /clarifying existing policies would
require a Zoning Code amendment /design standards to implement the changes.
He reviewed options for implementation of the existing Comprehensive Plan:
• Develop subject properties under existing zoning
• If there is a desire to provide flexible development standards, other than what current exists, a
new zoning district could be established which includes new development standards
• An applicant could initiate development of master plan and proposes related zoning code
provisions, followed by a request for a contract rezone to implement the proposed plan.
He noted master plans must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and polices for the area.
Opportunities under the no change to the Comprehensive Plan:
• Focus on implementation
• May be easier to accomplish redevelopment within a shorter timeframe
• Minimal out of pocket costs to City /public
• Flexibility of master plan option allows for creativity
• Individual entities may proceed at their own pace as they are willing /ready
• Voluntary partnerships are possible, but optional.
Weaknesses of a no change to the Comprehensive Plan approach:
• Only as good as existing regulatory framework
• General plan language provides for many options but less certainty of acceptance /approval
• Current zoning and ownership pattern may nota result in what the public or City ultimately wants
Opportunities with a Comprehensive Plan amendment:
• Very public process; implementation predictability
• City can serve as "glue" holding interests together and provide link between Comprehensive Plan
and implementation
• Opportunity to involve major public interests who own property in the area: Sound Transit,
WSF, Port
• Provides potential to look at options not current on the table: land swaps; transfer of development
rights; property mix of private and public development options
• Opportunity to develop key environmental information and public /private funding options needed
for an overall master plan implementation program
Weaknesses with a Comprehensive Plan amendment:
• Must have willing participants
• Takes time
Administrative Services Director Dan Clements commented one of the problems was the property
acquisition costs were unknown but a voter - approved bond issue would be required to acquire the
properties. He displayed an aerial photograph and provided the Snohomish County assessed value of
each property:
Skipper's property (owned by Bob Gregg): $ 1,181,000
WSF parking lot: $ 1,180.400
Antique Mall/old Safeway (owned by Al Dykes): $ 9,738,900
Total assessed value: $12,100,300
He described property tax impacts of a 20 year bond @ 5% annual interest, explaining for a principal of
$12,100,000, the annual payment would be $970,959 and the impact on a $500,000 home approximately
$64 /year. He clarified these were not the costs that would be included in a bond issue as they did not
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 11
include demolition, environmental or maintenance /operational costs. He reviewed potential project
caveats:
• How does this rank with other projects?
• Is this the most important issue to take to voters? Election costs of $80,000 - $125,000. Purchase
and Sale agreement would be based on voter approved bond amount to fund the purchase
• Use not yet determined: affects type of bonds, interest rates, and budget. Difficult to determine
the type without a determined use
• Owners have not agreed to sell for assessed value
• Significant issues with condemnation; condemnation requires a public purpose
Mr. Clements reviewed the path to purchase:
1. Determine use which determines type of bonds and ballot title
2. Determine what parcels to buy
• Triggers appraisal and environmental assessment
• Determine property owner expectations
3. Determine funding: voter approved
a. Bond Issue: 60% approval required
b. Levy lid lift: 50% approval plus one
4. Purchase and Sale /First Right Offer
• Contingent on voter approved funding clause
5. Place before voters
Mr. Clifton reviewed City staff's recommendation should the City Council decide to purchase all or a
portion of the subject properties:
1. Determine how purchase of property fits within the City's high priority needs. He
highlighted examples of unfunded high priority projects, estimated costs and possible funding
sources including ongoing building maintenance projects ($200,000 /year), ongoing
transportation improvements ($500,000 - $1 million/year), aquatic center ($10 -$40 million),
parks and facilities maintenance building ($3 -3.5 million), Senior Center building ($4 -$10
million), civic playfield acquisition (cost unknown), former Woodway High School
playfields ($12 million), Fire Station 16 (cost unknown), 4`" Avenue Cultural Center ($10
million), Boys & Girls Club Building ($5 million), Wade James Theater ($5 million), etc. He
summarized if a bond issue to purchase the waterfront properties were placed before the
voters, a decision would need to be made whether to have it be a standalone item or with
other unfunded, high priority needs.
2. Include within 2009 -2011 budget process
3. Conduct due diligence activities
• Clearly define public purpose basis for purchase at the earlier possible point
• Vet use with bond counsel prior to election
• Perform environmental review
• Conduct appraisal
• Prepare "planned action" (outlined in May 22 memo from City Attorney Scott Snyder)
Councilmember Dawson referred to public comment and staff's question regarding combining this
purchase with other high priority unfunded needs including an aquatics center. She asked whether the old
Woodway High School or the waterfront properties could be sites for an aquatic center. Mr. Clifton
answered they could be potential sites; however, a preferred site had not yet been identified.
Councilmember Dawson commented improvements to the Senior Center would be an appropriate item to
combine with a bond for the purchase of the waterfront property as it was adjacent to these parcels. She
noted several of the options required a willing property owner and asked whether the property owners had
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 12
been approached regarding selling their property or partnering with the City. Mayor Haakenson advised
he emailed Mr. Gregg and Mr. Dykes 10 -14 days ago asking if they were interested in selling their
property and neither had responded.
Councilmember Dawson commented transfer development rights or land swap may make the property
owners more willing to sell their property or partner with the City. She asked whether that topic had been
broached with the property owners. Mr. Clifton answered it had not. Councilmember Dawson asked
whether development with the Port via land swap of Harbor Square had been broached with the Port. Mr.
Clifton answered in concept that was a possibility and conversations had been held with the Port but no
decision had been made with regard to pursuing that option.
If it was decided the existing Comprehensive Plan met the community's needs, Councilmember Dawson
asked whether there was a way to pursue a master plan /SEPA process under the existing Comprehensive
Plan or would it be better to change the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bowman answered it was likely that a
change to the Comprehensive Plan would be required. The current Comprehensive Plan policies were
quite broad and gave a wide range of opportunities for development. If the Council had an idea regarding
what they wanted to see on the site, it would be preferable to modify /strengthen the policies to reflect that
direction.
Councilmember Dawson commented the next steps could not be determined until the City ascertained
whether there were willing property owners as all the processes depended on that or the developer
submitting a proposal under the current regulations. Mr. Bowman advised if the existing private property
owners wanted to develop under the existing code, there was little the City could do as long as they
followed the existing code.
City Attorney Scott Snyder commented via a partnership, public money could be used for public purposes
and the City could partner with a private developer to accomplish a mixed use project. If the City utilizes
its condemnation powers, it can only be for a public purpose and private uses could only be incidental.
The City would be required to show very refined plans to illustrate it was purchasing exactly what it
needed and if there was some land left over, the courts were somewhat forgiving if there was a strong
plan. Before contacting the property owners, he noted it was essential to determine the use and purpose.
Councilmember Dawson commented the City could purchase the property and then partner with a willing
developer or pursue a joint purchase with a private developer other than the current property owner.
Whether the Council intended to pursue condemnation or a bond, Mr. Snyder emphasized that staff
needed to know the use of the property. Councilmember Dawson suggested contacting the existing
property owners to determine their interest in selling the property and then determine what uses the public
wanted on the properties. If the Council was interested in pursuing condemnation, the property could not
be used for restaurants and/or retail because those uses were not defined as a public purpose. Mr. Snyder
agreed, noting some incidental use was allowed.
Councilmember Dawson emphasized if the public's interest was in revenue - generating uses,
condemnation was not an option. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting the uses would also determine the type of
bond financing. Councilmember Dawson commented with a willing seller, commercial uses would be
possible, depending on the type of bond used to finance the project. Mr. Snyder agreed that was true for a
portion of the cost; to estimate the other costs such as environmental, infrastructure, transportation, etc., a
use must be determined. Councilmember Dawson summarized depending on how the property was
acquired, the uses may be more limited. Mr. Snyder explained condemnation was a complicated and
involved process and did not result in any deals as the City paid costs; a negotiated sale was almost
always preferable. He acknowledged condemnation was the City's "hammer" for acquiring property for
purposes the Council deemed appropriate. He noted there were defined public purposes and the
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 13
Washington State Constitution was more restrictive than the federal Constitution with regard to public
purpose.
Mr. Snyder preferred to have as much of the work done in term of environmental assessment,
infrastructure assessment and purpose before the bond issue because significant delays in the form of
environmental appeals could result in construction cost escalation and could kill a voter - approved project
because there would be insufficient funds available. Therefore it was important to get as much of the
process completed via planned action and review. He reiterated the recommendation in his memo that the
City review its Critical Areas Ordinance and SEP provisions.
Councilmember Dawson asked whether review of critical areas on private property required a partnership
with the property owner. Mr. Snyder answered many Puget Sound communities were using scientific
data to review critical area maps. He noted there had been four flooding events at the intersection of
Dayton &SR 104 in the past ten years; if the global warming reports are even moderately correct, greater
frequency of flooding could be assumed. Councilmember Dawson asked whether flooding would impact
the price of the property. Mr. Snyder agreed it could, noting it could also affect some of the uses
currently allowed in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Snyder explained his focus was on public
infrastructure costs so that it was clear this process was not intended to deflate the value of the property
but to adequately assess what the City's cost would be.
Councilmember Dawson inquired about a city on the east coast that condemned property for private
development. Mr. Snyder advised the U.S. Constitution permits condemnation for a broad public purpose
that can include redevelopment; purchasing blighted areas with resale to a private developer for
redevelopment because without the use of condemnation powers, it was difficult to acquire large blocks
of parcels that may be necessary for private development. That is not possible in Washington State. For
example, when Seattle was purchasing Westlake, their initial plan was to buy 100 acres and resell it to
private developers. The Supreme Court struck down that project, stating while there could be some
incidental, private use of property acquired via condemnation, but it must be incidental.
In a later case, Washington State Trade Center, the Center had a very specific public purpose but ended
up with 20% of the property resold to private developers. The Washington Trade Center was designed to
have a large, unimpeded display space which allowed them to show the court they did not acquire
anything more than they had to acquire and what was left over was available because of the topography
and how the ownership was divided among private property owners. He summarized if the intent was to
use condemnation, the City should not enter into the project assuming they would sell a portion. He in
condemnation, the public use must be carefully defined. The first step was passage of a condemnation
ordinance; the second step was a public use and assessment hearing. At both stages, it was important to
have the public purpose clearly identified. The public purpose would also determine the type of bond.
Councilmember Dawson asked about renting. Mr. Snyder answered concession agreements were a
common part of many park projects and could be considered an incidental use in support of a park.
Councilmember Dawson recognized a use could be incidental to a park but condemnation could not be
used if the primary purpose was shops and restaurants. Mr. Snyder agreed that would be very difficult to
justify. Councilmember Dawson referred to the River Park Square Development in Spokane which
although it did great things for Spokane, was found not to be a public purpose.
Mr. Snyder advised there was a list of public purposes in the statutes that controlled local government
condemnation powers. He referred to a recent case in Cowlitz County where the County attempted to
condemn a culvert for salmon recovery. Although required by federal law, counties do not have the
ability to condemn for salmon habitat. Councilmember Dawson pointed out the uses on the site would
not be limited with a willing seller.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 14
Council President Plunkett commented the steps appeared to be, 1) determining the public purpose and 2)
appraisal, environmental and construction costs. With regard to the public purpose, Council President
Plunkett read the following from the Comprehensive Plan, 1) in Edmonds the economic benefit of the
parks systems element include attracting tourism, highlight cultural elements of the downtown shopping
core, accessibility, pedestrian friendly, design of waterfront parks, public art, development of cultural
facilities, 2) the community has expressed an interest in enhancement of new multiple purpose arts facility
for visual arts, support also expressed for public gathering spaces that may be used for visual art forms,
and 3) identified as a cultural designation. He asked whether the existing Comprehensive Plan would
meet the first step of determining the public purpose. Mr. Snyder responded the sections Council
President Plunkett cited were true and valid public purposes but were general public purposes; the
question was what would be located on the site. In order to determine the cost, the City must have some
idea of what would be on the site and in what priority; otherwise, the numbers would be very soft. He
envisioned a public process to define the public uses while the preliminary environmental assessments,
etc. were being conducted. He summarized a lot more detail would be necessary before a bond issue was
prepared, before the bond council drafted an ordinance, and before a condemnation ordinance could be
drafted. Council President Plunkett asked whether a cultural center would be a valid public purpose. Mr.
Snyder answered it was; further detail would be required before a bond amount could be determined.
Councilmember Wambolt pointed out of the property taxes residents paid, the City received only
approximately 20 %. There were other entities with demands on taxes including the Hospital District who
would soon be seeking a great deal of money to upgrade their facility either via partnership with another
hospital or voted taxpayer debt. He noted that was likely to be more costly than any other item on the list
of unfunded high priority projects.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether the funds from a levy lid lift could be allocated specifically to this
project. Mr. Clements answered the City would be required to do so; the levy must be lifted for a specific
purpose. Councilmember Orvis clarified a future Council would be bound to maintain those funds for
that purpose. Mr. Clement agreed. Councilmember Orvis asked whether a levy lid lift would allow the
City to raise funds for maintenance. Mr. Clements answered a maintenance levy would be required.
With regard to determining uses, Councilmember Orvis asked whether at this stage it would be
appropriate to identify major uses and staff could provide details regarding the elements. Mr. Snyder
answered precision was not necessary at this level; he assumed a list of uses would be refined via a public
process in conjunction with unfunded projects to determine a bond amount. Mr. Bowman advised a
public master plan could be developed that defined the public uses for the site. Another option if there
were willing sellers was a master plan/planned action that would identify the amenities the public wanted
as well as recognize the desires /needs of the private property owners. The advantage of a planned action
was once it was completed, a developer could submit a development proposal and proceed through the
process without SEPA, etc. and the property could be developed in accordance with the planned action.
Councilmember Bernheim agreed the Council needed a general idea of what they wanted to accomplish
before conducting any preliminary negotiations with the property owners. He found the Washington
Trade Center example interesting as a it approximated in many relevant ways one of the plans developed
by the students, covering the property entirely with a park on top and office and commercial space
beneath that could be used for parking, municipal offices, farmer's market or indoor park space all of
which were permissible purposes under the terms of the condemnation statute. His review of the
Washington Trade Center case led him to believe it would be easy to justify the space under a park for use
by the City or leased to restaurants, etc. Mr. Snyder agreed that may be possible with careful planning.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 15
Councilmember Bernheim asked the cost of the EMS levy election. Mr. Clements estimated the cost was
$80,000 - $125,000; the City shared the cost with Edmonds School District.
Councilmember Bernheim asked whether the appraised value of the Antique Mall property could be
lower than the assessed value in light of the commercial impact of the railway, traffic circulation and the
flood proneness of the area. Mr. Clements answered it was possible but unlikely. Councilmember
Bernheim asked whether there had ever been any objections by the property owner to the $9 million
appraisal. Mr. Clements recalled the property owner indicated last year they would sell the property for
$1.6 million. He noted a great deal of study would need to be done before a lower appraisal was a
possibility. Further, the railway could be considered a transportation advantage to residents in a
development. In Kent, the proximity to the railway has raised property values. He acknowledged the
flooding may impact the property's values. Councilmember Bernheim recalled in discussion with the
Port regarding structured parking, they indicated pumps would be required to remove water from the
lower floors. Mr. Clements commented even if the appraised value were lower, the net would be nearly
the same due to the amount of environmental study that would be required.
Mr. Snyder explained staff's intent was to use current scientific data to reevaluate critical areas provisions
and the SEPA map and those regulatory efforts would provide a generalized framework, the critical area
ordinance, and a specific tool, the SEPA process, to evaluate specific projects. Those would provide a
better framework for discussion with an appraiser than flood history.
Councilmember Bernheim asked about how the condemnation process and voter approval of a bond
would coincide. Mr. Snyder answered there were some steps that could be conducted parallel. He
suggested getting the work done and if the bond issue passed, proceeding with condemnation. The first
steps in condemnation were, 1) passage of condemnation ordinance by the Council and 2) a use and
necessity hearing before the court. If a valid public purpose was determined, in most cases the court gave
possession of the property to the City with the value to be determine in the court proceeding. The first
steps, physical acquisition of the property, come quickly; the determination of value may take longer.
Thus the importance of ensuring the amount of the bond measure was the amount necessary.
Councilmember Bernheim referred to the estimated cost of the 4`h Avenue Arts Corridor on the unfunded
high priority projects list. Mr. Clifton answered that amount was an estimate; that streetscape project
included subgrade and infrastructure work.
Councilmember Dawson asked what would happen if the bond measure passed and a use and necessity
hearing failed. Mr. Snyder answered he hoped that would not happen; however, the Council could pass
another condemnation ordinance and redefine the purpose. Overall he did not see anything in the
Comprehensive Plan that was not doable as long as it was properly planned; the only controversial items
were the potential resale or public /private partnerships. The basic purposes in the Comprehensive Plan as
cited by Council President Plunkett had counterpart public uses in the condemnation statute.
Councilmember Dawson agreed a public use could be determined for the site; however, the difficulty may
be proving the necessity of that public use on these particular parcels. Mr. Snyder replied the court gave a
great deal of deference to the Council's selection of a site for a park. For example public open space
should be included as a use in any condemnation ordinance for that area because the City may find they
did not have sufficient funds for development and it may require a phased development plan.
Councilmember Dawson emphasized part of the issue was that this location was key to the City. She
questioned whether the City needed to acquire the property or if transfer development rights could
accomplish the same goal without the City acquiring the site.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 16
Councilmember Dawson agreed with Mr. Snyder's recommendation that the Council review its Critical
Areas Ordinance, SEPA provisions, flood maps and other City planned policies based on global climate
change and inquired about the cost for that review. Mr. Snyder estimated $200,000 to $400,000 over a
two year planning horizon. Councilmember Dawson noted that was the first step before pursuing any of
the paths and asked if the Council should budget for that in the next budget cycle. Mr. Snyder answered
many Puget Sound cities have begun this review and due to Edmonds' topography and location, the City
needed to conduct this review. If the Council was moving ahead with a purchase plan for an area that
may be affected, the City could get double duty from the investigation by building it into the process.
Councilmember Dawson summarized the City needed to conduct this review regardless but it was an
important first step in this process as well.
Councilmember Dawson also agreed with Mr. Snyder's recommendation that the Council adopt the
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) provisions for planned action review. Mr. Snyder noted the
SEPA provisions were included by reference; the Council could have the Planning Board hold a public
hearing and forward a recommendation to the Council or they could be adopted via an interim zoning
ordinance.
Councilmember Dawson commented a planned action with a wiling participant may negate the need for
the city to purchase the property. Mr. Bowman agreed, noting the private property owners and other
public entities such as WSF, Sound Transit or Port could work with the City on transfer of development
rights as part of a master plan. Councilmember Dawson commented there were a number of possibilities
via transfer development rights whereby the City would have more input on the development of the
waterfront property due to its importance and the developer could develop another site whose features
were not as key to the City. Mr. Snyder pointed out Parcel 2 was a state owned parcel and would require
negotiation as it could not be condemned. Councilmember Dawson agreed the City would not acquire
that parcel but there was the possibility of a joint development.
Councilmember Dawson agreed the appropriate first steps were to review the Critical Areas Ordinance
and SEPA provisions, noting many of the issues could be double - tracked. If the primary goal was to have
private development in conjunction with open space, perhaps a planned action was more appropriate due
to the difficulty with condemnation if part of the primary purpose was revenue - generating. Mr. Bowman
agreed, noting at the conclusion of a master plan and a planned action process, the private property
owners knew what could be done on the property and they could submit a proposal in accordance with
that process. Councilmember Dawson noted another option was the property owner could develop
elsewhere via a land swap or transfer development rights.
Councilmember Dawson expressed interest in determining whether the property owners were willing
participants because if they were not, that limited the paths the City could pursue. Mr. Bowman agreed it
would be intriguing to determine whether they were interested in any of the options discussed tonight. He
explained a master plan process was a very public process as was a public /private partnership.
Councilmember Dawson posed a scenario where the property owners were interested and the process
proceeded and did not work out. She asked whether the Council could still pursue acquisition via a
willing seller or condemnation. Mr. Bowman agreed they could.
Mayor Haakenson commended staff for the information provided in their presentations.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Dawson expressed interest in staff returning with a proposal for the ordinance updates as
recommended by Mr. Snyder as well as determining whether there was any funding available this year
rather than waiting until the budget process to identify funding. She also requested Mr. Snyder bring the
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 17
WAC provisions to the Council for adoption. She asked staff to enter into a dialogue with the property
owners and report to the Council regarding their interest in partnering with the City because without that
information, the Council was constrained in their next steps. Mayor Haakenson advised Mr. Gregg
indicated he would provide a response but assumed he was waiting until after tonight's meeting; Mr.
Dykes did not respond.
Councilmember Dawson was intrigued by the idea of transfer development rights or land swap which had
the potential for a win -win situation where the City did not have to invest millions in a project and could
still achieve what the public wanted. She acknowledged it may not be possible but it was a route worth
exploring as well as determining the private property owners' interest in selling the property. That
information would help determine uses on the properties. She observed most of the public supported a
development with some retail component and not just a park, a use that would be very challenging via
condemnation or low interest bonds. She preferred a partnership with the private owners which would
provide more of what the public wanted than could be achieved via condemnation. She was not a fan of
condemnation unless it was strictly necessary.
Councilmember Bernheim agreed it was important to get the owners' cooperation and it was appropriate
to have staff explore that with them. He suggested a Councilmember accompany staff. Mayor
Haakenson suggested two Councilmembers meet with the property owners. Councilmember Bernheim
found it premature for the Council to make any decision tonight regarding how to proceed as there was a
great deal of information to digest. Mayor Haakenson asked Mr. Gregg and his attorney to respond to
him at their earliest convenience.
Councilmember Wilson commented the transfer of development rights was a tricky issue. He suggested
inviting Cascade Land Conservancy to discuss that option with the Council. He noted there had been a
great deal of public engagement on this topic and he was at a loss what to do with all the great feedback.
He questioned when the Council would make a decision and preferred to take some action soon. He
suggested asking for an appraisal and/or conducting a commissioned survey to determine what amenities
the public wanted on the site. He supported including funds for a number of projects in any future bond
issue. He estimated the cost of a bond to purchase the three waterfront parcels ($12 million),
development costs ($20 million), maintenance and operation levy ($1.7 million), and additional capital
projects ($16 million) would cost taxpayers approximately $29.50 per household per month. He asked
whether the Council felt that was a reasonable number that the citizens would support. If the citizens did
not support that additional amount, the Council could skip the acquisition process and pursue a master
plan process.
Councilmember Wambolt pointed out the numbers staff provided were based on the average cost of a
home in Edmonds, $461,000; the amount would be significantly higher for homes with higher values. He
preferred to determine the private property owners' intentions before proceeding further. He noted Mayor
Haakenson, Mr. Clifton and he were meeting with the property owners this Thursday.
Council President Plunkett agreed with Councilmember Wilson's interest in making a decision. He
pointed out the Comprehensive Plan addressed what the citizens wanted and had been developed with
years of effort and public input. He did not need a survey because he knew what the people of Edmonds
wanted and felt the people of Edmonds would support something akin to what was described in the
Comprehensive Plan. He concluded a gathering place that drew people from downtown would be a good
economic engine and would create the synergy that the City needed. He envisioned that could be
accomplished by acquiring the property and supported giving the people of Edmonds an opportunity to
vote on a bond to acquire the property.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 18
Councilmember Orvis was encouraged by the numbers staff provided which opened the possibility of
considering an aquatics center. He agreed it was in the City's best interest to work with the property
owner to reach an agreement on the price and what portions of the property would be used for private and
public purposes. He agreed with staff that the Council needed to identify the uses before the bonding
phase. He favored an aquatics center, open space, and commercial on the site and urged the Council to
reach a decision with regard to the uses to allow the process to move forward.
Councilmember Wilson expressed interest in an aquatics center, a family recreational center, commercial
and open space on the site.
Councilmember Olson emphasized the need to develop specifics before presenting a bond measure to the
public.
Councilmember Orvis agreed elections were expensive but elections were a post -Eyman reality. If a large
bond issue was proposed and failed, he would be in favor of scaling back the project and presenting it to
the public again.
Councilmember Dawson inquired about the timing for the aquatics center feasibility study. Park and
Recreation Director Brian McIntosh anticipated a consultant would be hired by the end of August and
depending on the scope of the study, it could be completed in late fall. Councilmember Dawson
commented there was interest in an aquatics center but the results of the feasibility study were needed
before a bond measure was proposed to the voters. Mr. McIntosh noted the size of an aquatics facility
was also a factor.
It was agreed staff would provide further information at the June 24 meeting as three of the seven
Councilmembers would be absent from the June 17 meeting. Councilmember Dawson suggested staff
provide Councilmembers updates in the meantime.
Councilmember Wilson suggested the Council pass a resolution indicating the Council was serious about
considering the purchase of these properties. Mayor Haakenson commented it was pointless to pursue the
matter further until the property owners' intentions were known.
Council President Plunkett advised he was prepared to pass a resolution stating that intent, due to his
belief that the people of Edmonds wanted the Council to purchase this property. He expressed his thanks
to staff for the information they provided.
Councilmember Dawson observed a majority of Council had given fairly clear direction to staff regarding
their interest in doing something that would result in master planning of the properties and either a purely
public development or a public /private partnership. She noted the lack of knowledge regarding next steps
had the potential to drive a wedge between Councilmembers, a dangerous possibility at this stage.
Councilmember Wambolt commented he was not convinced the people of Edmonds wanted the Council
to purchase the property. Clearly the people who have provided public comment want the Council to
purchase the property but he questioned what percentage of the City's total population those people
represented. He recalled at the recent community meeting held by Mayor Haakenson at Edmonds
Elementary, attended by approximately 24 people, none of them had any interest in purchasing these
properties. He concluded it was premature to assume that a super majority of City residents (60 %)
wanted to purchase these properties.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 19
Mayor Haakenson suggested if there was interest in pursuing an aquatics center, open space and
commercial on any of the properties, the Council also include a new Senior Center or at least $4 million
for renovations.
6. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEEBOARD MEETINGS
Council President Plunkett reported the Outreach Committee had several new members. One of the
Committee's ideas was to have a Question of the Month on the City's website.
Councilmember Wambolt reported the Port had a presentation from the Edmonds- Woodway High School
students regarding their designs for development of the waterfront property. He noted although their
designs were excellent, there was no economic analysis. The Port also discussed the high vacancy rate at
Harbor Square and ways to attract tenants. The Port reviewed their first quarter operations of the marina
that indicated the financial results were very good given the state of the economy. At tonight's meeting,
the Port was considering a resolution similar to what the Council adopted regarding Stevens hospital not
relocating. The Port also reported their May 23 retreat was the best one ever.
Councilmember Wilson reported a Snohomish County Cities and Town's meeting that Councilmember
Olson, Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman and he attended included a presentation
regarding affordable housing and tools cities could use to support that type of development. Today's
meeting of the Lake Ballinger Work Group was well attended and there was broad agreement on an
Interlocal Agreement that would allow the group to access the funds provided by the State. He noted
there was also the potential of some funding from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. The Group's next
meeting will be held on July 15. He advised the Interlocal Agreement would be presented to the Council
soon.
Councilmember Olson reported SeaShore was provided an update from Sound Transit.
Councilmember Dawson advised she attended Sound Transit's open house last week on behalf of the
Sound Transit Board. She relayed that recent polling indicates citizens want something done faster which
was the reason for the 12 year plan. However, via the 12 year plan, light rail only reaches Northgate.
People at the open house learned insufficient revenue was raised in Snohomish County to pay for light
rail to Snohomish County in that 12 year period because state law limits Sound Transit's taxing authority.
It was also explained at the public hearing that light rail was phased over 12 -20 years. In response to her
question at the public hearing regarding how many would support a ballot measure that would bring light
rail to Snohomish County, all but one person raised their hand. When asked how many would support a
measure that bring light rail only to Northgate, only three people raised their hands. She noted people
wanted a light rail package that brought light rail to Snohomish County and did not want to mix increased
bus service. She noted 95% of the cost of the 20 -year proposal that brings light rail to Ash Way was light
rail, the remainder for Snohomish County was Sounder stations in Edmonds and Mukilteo.
She advised a presentation on the proposals would be made to the Sound Transit Board on June 3 and the
Board would accept public comment at that meeting. She encouraged the residents of Edmonds to attend
the meeting and provide input. The Sound Transit Board would be provided all the feedback from the
public meetings at their June 27 meeting; staff did not anticipate the Board would be voting on whether to
have a 2008 ballot measure until the end of July.
With regard to the Cities and Town's presentation on affordable housing, Councilmember Dawson
advised Snohomish County was doing a great deal of work on affordable housing measures to support the
work of the Housing Consortium. The Affordable Housing Action Plan will be unveiled at the Housing
Consortium's June 5 meeting and she encouraged Councilmembers and the public to attend. She noted
the Plan relied on cities taking part in the production of affordable housing.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 20
Councilmember Orvis displayed a graph of deaths per 1,000 from infectious diseases in the United States,
noting the Public Health Board has played a major role in the downward trend of deaths from infectious
diseases. For example the Public Health Board enforces the regulations that force a property owner to
clean up their property; the Public Health Board inspects septic systems to ensure they were not spreading
disease; and the Health Board tracks infectious diseases such as tuberculosis to ensure people with the
disease were taking their medication and to ensure anyone exposed was treated. He referred to a spike in
deaths from infectious diseases on the graph from pandemic influenza, noting it was important for Public
Health Boards to be prepared for those events. He advised the Health Board was anticipating a $4.4
million shortfall next year.
Councilmember Orvis reported WRIA8 had funded conservation projects via the King County
Conservation District.
Councilmember Bernheim reported the Economic Development Committee meeting would be
considering programs /projects to increase economic development of the downtown area and
neighborhood centers.
7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson reported he attended last week's Senior Center Board meeting, noting many citizens
Mayor's had already reported their interpretation of the meeting to Councilmembers. He summarized there
comments appeared to be consensus on the Board that they needed to change their bylaws. An Edmonds attorney
rewrote the bylaws and presented them for the Board's consideration. The Board has a retreat scheduled
where they plan to take care of some of the issues. He provided the Council a copy of his notes from the
meeting.
8. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council
c °mments Council President Plunkett advised he would be absent from next week's meeting; Councilmembers could
contact Councilmember Dawson regarding the agenda during his absence.
Councilmember Wambolt reported Mayor Haakenson, Councilmember Olson, Fire Chief Tomberg and
he had a very productive meeting with the CEO and CFO of Stevens Hospital last Friday and they agreed
to come to a Council meeting in June.
Councilmember Bernheim encouraged Mayor Haakenson to consider exercising the veto power with
regard to the Mayor's salary increase. He invited the public to contribute to the fundraising campaign
hosted by ACE to replace the prize money for the design competition by mailing donations of any amount
to POB 1793, Edmonds, Washington 98020. He committed to donating $100 to the fund. He recognized
the students' hard work, noting in many ways they were single handedly responsible for what had been
accomplished so far.
9. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:47 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
May 27, 2008
Page 21