05/16/2006 City CouncilMAY 16, 2006
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Dawson in the
Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Deanna Dawson, Mayor Pro Tem
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Council President Pro Tem
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Mauni Moore, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
David Stern, Chief of Police
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Debi Humann, Human. Resources Manager
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Rich Lindsay, Park Maintenance Manager
Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
Approve 5/9/06
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 9, 2006.
Minutes
Approve Claim
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #87889 THROUGH #88051 FOR MAY 11, 2006, IN THE
Checks
AMOUNT OF $470,047.21.
1Claims for
(D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM ERIC K. GOODNIGHT
13amages
($911.77) AND AUGUST P. PAGLIA ($20,000.00).
Purchasing
Agreement
(E) U.S. COMMUNITIES INTERLOCAL COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT.
Voice and Data
(F) APPROPRIATE $45,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF UP- GRADED NETWORK SWITCHES TO
Networks
HELP KEEP THE CITY'S VOICE AND DATA NETWORKS ON LINE.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 16, 2006
Page 1
Senior Center (G) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE SENIOR CENTER ROOF
RooPProject REPLACEMENT PROJECT.
Ord# 3592
Biennial (H) ORDINANCE NO. 3592 - BIENNIAL BUDGET ORDINANCE.
Budget
Ord# 3593 (I) ORDINANCE NO. 3593 - AMENDING THE PARKING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE
Parking FISHING PIER PARKING LOT AND RESTRICTIONS ON RESIDENTIAL PARKING
Ordinance PERMITS.
ora# 3594 1 Street Paving ( J ) ORDINANCE NO. 3594 - AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 18.80 ECDC
EXEMPTING STREET PAVING PERFORMED BY THE CITY FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE
OF STORM WATER CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FROM THE PAVEMENT WIDTH
REQUIREMENTS.
Res# 1125 (K) RESOLUTION NO. 1125 - DECLARATION OF AN EMERGENCY AND AUTHORIZATION
Senior Center OF A CONTRACT TO BE ENTERED INTO FOR REPAIR AND UPGRADE OF THE FIRE
Fire Alarm
System ALARM SYSTEM AT THE SOUTH COUNTY SENIOR CENTER WITHOUT THE BENEFIT
OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING.
Res# 1126 —
Preserve
America (L) RESOLUTION NO. 1126 - SUPPORT THE CITY'S APPLICATION AS A PRESERVE
Funding AMERICA COMMUNITY FOR FUNDING AND INDICATING WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT
Program FUNDING IF AWARDED THROUGH THE PRESERVE AMERICA PROGRAM.
Week National Police (M) PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF NATIONAL POLICE WEEK, MAY 14 - 20, 2006.
3. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE EXTENSION OF ORDINANCE NO. 3576 A ZONING MORATORIUM
ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD APPLICATIONS OR BUILDING
Zoning
Moratorium —
PERMIT APPLICATIONS NOT OTHERWISE VESTED PURSUANT TO STATE LAW PRIOR TO
Building Height DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS ORDINANCE WHICH SEEK TO UTILIZE MODULATED
DESIGN IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A BUILDING HEIGHT IN EXCESS OF THE TWENTY -FIVE
FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION ESTABLISHED BY ECDC 15.40.020(A)(2), AND PROVIDING FOR
EXPIRATION.
Planning Manager Rob Chave stated the Council previously adopted a moratorium on applications that
exceeded the 25 -foot height limit in the BC zone that sought to utilize modulated design. He advised tonight's
public hearing was required for the extension of the moratorium.
In the time since the moratorium was adopted, staff has received inquiries regarding heights above 25 -feet
utilizing a pitched roof which was the old regulation. In reviewing the minutes of Council discussions, it was
unclear if modulated design was intended to include pitched roofs. He requested clarification from the
Council regarding this issue. He advised the Planning Board's public hearing regarding downtown zoning was
scheduled for May 24; he anticipated the Planning Board would provide a recommendation to the Council
soon. At the Council's June 6 meeting, staff planned to report on the ADB's discussion regarding design
guidelines and the design review process.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Chave explained the moratorium on the existing BC zone regulations
addressed modulated design; however, a previous provision allowed building heights to extend to 30 feet with
a pitched roof. Staff was seeking clarification whether the current moratorium on modulated design was
intended to also apply to pitched roofs.
City Attorney Scott Snyder recalled the original 25 -foot height limit resulted in predominately flat roofs;
pitched roofs were then allowed to provide for some variation in design and that was extended to modulated
design. He clarified the question was whether eliminating modulated design left the former 25 + 5 foot for a
pitched roof as an acceptable building design. Next, Mr. Snyder relayed his concern with extension of the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 16, 2006
Page 2
moratorium. He explained a moratorium could be enacted for six months or for up to one year with a work
plan and could be extended. He relayed Development Services Director Duane Bowman's assurance that it
was not a perpetual extension but rather an extension to allow time for a product to be presented to the Council
for action at the earliest date possible.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether staff was seeking clarification from the Council tonight and whether
the issue raised by Mr. Chave was addressed in the staff report. Mr. Chave answered this question arose
recently and the record was not clear with regard to the Council's intent. Mr. Snyder commented the Council
could continue the public hearing if necessary. The only requirement was that the public hearing be held
within 60 days.
Councilmember Orvis questioned whether by pitched roofs staff meant "hats" would be allowed. Mr. Chave
answered yes, noting in order to extend above 25 feet, the pitched roof must have a pitch of at least 4:12.
Councilmember Orvis noted lowered first floors and sunken commercial was also allowed under the current
code. Mr. Chave agreed, commenting one person had expressed interest in a more steeply pitched roof that
possibly could be accomplished with a 30 -foot height.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether there had been any applications submitted for new building during the
moratorium. Mr. Chave answered no, but staff was beginning to receive inquiries. Councilmember Orvis
asked whether the moratorium could be changed to prevent any new buildings until the issues were resolved.
Mr. Snyder advised a moratorium could be passed on the acceptance of building permits in any given zone
pending the passage of permanent provisions. If that was the Council's direction, he suggested a motion to
instruct him to prepare such a moratorium for consideration at the Council's next meeting.
Councilmember Wambolt supported allowing 30 -foot building with a pitched roof as the use of modulation
was in dispute not pitched roofs. Mr. Chave agreed staff believed that was the tenor of the Council's
discussion but it was not clear.
Councilmember Moore asked whether there had been inquiries regarding buildings on sloped lots. Mr. Chave
answered no.
Mayor Pro Tern Dawson did not recall whether the existing code contained a reference to pitched roofs and
questioned whether the only way to achieve 30 -feet was via modulated design. Mr. Chave explained in the
1980s to early 1990s the only way in the BC zone to achieve a 30 foot building height was via a pitched roof.
His understanding was that modulation included pitched roofs and he questioned whether the moratorium
addressed some aspects of modulated design but left in place others such as pitched roof. He reiterated the
Council's intent was not clear in the record, whether it was to prevent buildings that used modulated design
beyond pitched roofs.
Mayor Pro Tern Dawson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Steve Bernheim, Edmonds, expressed concern with a reinterpretation of what had previously been
interpreted. He agreed with Mr. Snyder's concern regarding the multiple extensions of the moratorium. He
found the moratorium unnecessary, explaining it was a moratorium against a staff interpretation of a City
ordinance that was declared illegal in the court action they brought against the City for incorrectly interpreting
the code. The court ruled against the interpretation of the building code that allowed a 30 -foot building with a
modulated design. He noted the code states the height limit of 25 feet and a footnote states the roof may
extend above 25 foot height limit if the roof is designed as a hip, gable, arch, shed, etc. He cautioned against
adopting a new interpretation without adequate public notice.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 16, 2006
Page 3
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, agreed with Mr. Bernheim's comments. He expressed concern with the
continued use of the term "modulation." He noted modulation originally meant the roof was modulated and
was later interpreted by staff to mean building modulation could be used to achieve an additional 5 feet. He
suggested the Council clarify modulation before making a decision with regard to extending the moratorium.
Don Kreiman, Edmonds, asked whether the ADB could accept modulated design for building heights to
extend above 25 feet if the moratorium expired.
Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Pro Tern . Dawson closed the public participation portion of the
public hearing.
Mr. Snyder read the footnote referred to by Mr. Bernheim, roof may only extend 5 feet above the stated limit if
all portions of the roof above the stated height are modulated in design and are designed with a hip, gable,
arch, shed or other similar roof form (see illustration). Vertical parapet walls or flat roofs with pitch of less
than 3:12 are not allowed to protrude above the 25 -foot height limit unless they are part of an approved
modulated roof and/or building design. He clarified modulated was used in both sentences with regard to the
roof and the parapet walls. As the moratorium is currently written, it prohibits an application under either
sentence. As resolution was only weeks /months away, he suggested it may not be necessary to address the
issue raised by staff.
Mr. Snyder disagreed with Mr. Bernheim's comment that the judge ruled the ordinance was illegal, clarifying
the judge made a decision in a Land Use Petition Act case based on the facts and the parties specific to that
case. The only people bound by the judge's decision were the applicant, the City and the parties to that
particular set of facts; another developer under a different record might obtain a different result. The purpose
of the moratorium was for the City to remain consistent with the Bauer decision until such time as an
ordinance was adopted.
In response to Mr. Hertrich's comments regarding reference to modulation, Mayor Pro Tern Dawson clarified
the ordinance remained in place with a moratorium on its application until new regulations were adopted. Mr.
Snyder agreed, explaining the City had two tools — an interim zoning ordinance or a moratorium.
Mayor Pro Tem Dawson asked whether staff was asking the Council to clarify their original intent or state a
new intent. She pointed out the Council may not have considered whether pitched roofs would be allowed
during the moratorium, therefore, it was appropriate for the existing moratorium to remain. Mr. Chave
answered the reason staff was seeking clarification was because the question had been raised; absent further
direction from the Council, staff's answer would be that the height limit during the moratorium was 25 feet.
Mr. Snyder summarized the current ordinance required a modulated roof or exterior design to achieve building
height over 25 feet and the moratorium as written applied to any building over 25 feet.
Mayor Pro Tem Dawson remanded the matter to Council for action.
Councilmember Orvis commented on the difference between the old and new code; the old code allowed
"hats" — a pitched roof design from all perimeter edges of the building — which he felt did not provide much
light and a design he was tired of seeing. The new code would require the 30 -foot portion of the building be
setback from the street so that they were not as visible and would allow more light. He preferred any new
buildings downtown conform to the height provision in the new code which would also allow steep roofs. He
preferred not to allow any new buildings until the Planning Board and Council had completed their review and
the new was code adopted.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, FOR
APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3595.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 16, 2006
Page 4
Mayor Pro Tem Dawson clarified this would extend the current moratorium which prohibited acceptance of
applications for a building over 25 feet.
Ord# 3595 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved reads as follows:
Extend
Zoning AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXTENDING A ZONING
Moratorium —
Building MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD APPLICATIONS
Height OR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS, NOT OTHERWISE VESTED PURSUANT TO STATE
LAW PRIOR TO DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS ORDINANCE WHICH SEEK TO UTILIZE
MODULATED DESIGN IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A BUILDING HEIGHT IN EXCESS OF THE
TWENTY -FIVE FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION ESTABLISHED BY ECDC 15.40.020(A)(2), AND
PROVIDING FOR EXPIRATION.
4. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE EXTENSION OF ORDINANCE NO. 3577. A ZONING MORATORIUM
zoning ON THE APPLICATION OF ECDC 20.10.070 (C)(3) RELATING TO THE IMPOSITION OF SPECIAL
Moratorium - HEIGHT LIMITS TO PROTECT VIEWS AND ESTABLISHING AN EXPIRATION DATE.
Views
Planning Manager Rob Chave advised this was a companion to the ordinance discussed in Agenda Item 3. A
report would be provided to the Council on June 6 regarding the potential new process and Council would be
asked to provide direction to the Planning Board for development of a final ordinance.
Mayor Pro Tern Dawson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no
members of the audience who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Pro Tern Dawson closed the public
hearing and remanded to Council for action.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR
APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3596. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance
ord# 3396 approved reads as follows:
Extend
oning AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, EXTENDING A ZONING
Moratorium - MORATROIUM ON THE APPLICATON OF ECDC 20.10.070(C)(3) RELATING TO THE
Views IMPOSITION OF SPECIAL HEIGHT LIMITS TO PROTECT VIEWS, AND ESTABLISHING AN
EXPIRATION DATE.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REPLACING THE
Plan l scape EXISTING "PUBLIC URBAN DESIGN PLAN" WITH AN UPDATED "STREETSCAPE PLAN."
Pan
Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin explained over the past nine months the Public Urban Design Plan,
originally adopted in 2002, was updated as the new Streetscape Plan. Staff made minor revisions to the Plan
and consultants prepared new appendices. The plan addresses issues related to design of the public right -of-
way through the City. The updated plan expands on the original plan to highlight improvements in specific
target areas and establish implementation priorities. The original study or core document focuses on the
recommendation for the public right-of-way intended to improve circulation, enhance the pedestrian
environment and add elements of continuity. The focus of the original plan was on the downtown area but
most of the recommendations were applicable citywide.
Ms. Chapin explained the new appendices were developed by CREA Affiliates and expanded on specific
concepts that supplement the original studies including the 4th Avenue Art Corridor concept and the Hwy. 99
International District. The update process included three public meetings on 4th Avenue, a variety of
consultant meetings with City staff, meetings with the Planning Board, a Planning Board public hearing, and
draft review by Council.
Anindita Mitra, Project Lead, CREA Affiliates, provided an overview of the new elements added to the
Streetscape Plan. She explained their review included how to improve the pedestrian experience and public
space on Hwy. 99. Their focus was on pedestrian connections across Hwy. 99, landscape, art and signage
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 16, 2006
Page 5
opportunities on the corridor and creating a sense of identity on Hwy. 99. Their emphasis was the creation of a
continuous green pedestrian friendly environment on either side of the corridor, exploring opportunities for the
creation of a median and identifying opportunities to recover right -of -way for landscaping. One of the focuses
on Hwy. 99 was an International District. She displayed conceptual sketches of lighting elements, signage and
art for the corridor. She described opportunities for art, landscaping and a gateway at the "found ground" at
76th Avenue and provided sketches of potential street orientation and landscaping.
Ms. Mitra described how commercial intersections could be made more pedestrian friendly, displaying a
sketch of expanded landing space at intersections and bollards to protect pedestrians. She explained they were
also asked to consider how to incorporate landscaping into the SR104 median which has already been
accomplished. She also described opportunities for wayfinding signs such as aggregating directional signage
and easy to read wording possibly with icons.
Ms. Mitra described the concept Master Plan for 4th Avenue, noting the reference in the Downtown Plan to this
area as an Arts Corridor due to its termini at the Edmonds Center for the Arts and opportunity to draw visitors
into downtown. She described efforts to unify the corridor experience and celebrate the existing diversity and
pedestrian experience. She described the opportunity for a curbless street that would allow pedestrians to
dominate the corridor unencumbered by curbs during times of high activity and allowing vehicles to be guided
by trees and bollards. She described paving and lighting treatments for the corridor, cross block pedestrian
movements, and moving parking from the corridor to the alleys. She described how the streets were
aggregated into three amenities — the Arena (Bell to Daley), the Foyer (Dayton to Bell) and Forecourt (Daley
to 3rd). She noted lighting treatment and landscaping in these three sections would be distinct with open
spaces /art /park elements at two places in the corridor. She described the performing arts theme envisioned for
the corridor and methods of integrating art into the corridor.
Ms. Mitra described elements of each section of the corridor. In the Foyer, the buildings would have zero
setback, there would be signature trees, meeting areas, mid -block pedestrian walkways and possibly bioswales
for stormwater. She displayed the potential plaza area, explaining the intent was to create outdoor rooms.
She described the Arena in the center of the corridor. The distance from the Edmonds Center for the Arts was
approximately 1300 feet; therefore, it was important to create an experience to draw the audience to
downtown. She displayed a view of the Area and described the opportunity for a plaza at the intersection of
Edmonds and Sprague. She described the Forecourt that surrounds the Edmonds Center for the Arts where on-
street parking would be encouraged and where there were opportunities for creating broad sidewalks and a
boulevard experience. She displayed a view of the Forecourt.
Ms. Mitra stated short term strategies for implementation include exploring programs in the corridor that
established it as an Art Corridor, capital improvements such as lighting at the Edmonds Center for the Arts to
draw visitors to downtown, and wayfinding elements into and through downtown. Interim strategies include a
parking strategy for downtown such as rear access from alleys, reducing curb cuts on 4th Avenue, and
acquiring additional right -of -way for greenery. Long term strategies include full reconstruction of 4th Avenue
to tie in with Edmonds Center for the Arts, a new park to connect 5th Avenue to the art corridor, and a new arts
facility south of Main Street.
Councilmember Marm commented it appeared 4th Avenue was viewed as a park rather than a street. Ms. Mitra
agreed, pointing out 4th Avenue was not a major public street.
Councilmember Moore commented this was a visionary plan and she did not want it to become dormant. Ms.
Chapin commented staff was moving forward with implementing some of the strategies for the Hwy. 99
International District via the Transportation Enhancement Grant obtained by the Economic Development
Department. At the suggestion of CREA, a group of 4th Avenue residents would continue to be involved in the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 16, 2006
Page 6
planning process. She emphasized the Plan was a concept although there were some concepts that could be
implemented in the near term. Councilmember Moore clarified staff would bring pieces of the plan to Council
for approval of short term improvements.
Mayor Pro Tem. Dawson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Don Kreiman, Edmonds, a member of the Transportation Advisory Committee, expressed concern with the
concept of pedestrian friendly on Hwy. 99 when that roadway was owned by Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT). He envisioned conflicts between the Transportation. Committee's consideration of
safety issues on Hwy. 99 and the vision for the corridor in the Streetscape Plan. He cautioned if
inconsistencies were not addressed, the result could be similar to Shoreline where businesses and WSDOT
were in conflict. He recommended the Traffic Engineer and WSDOT review the Streetscape Plan to ensure it
complied with WSDOT's requirements.
Joan Archer, Edmonds, local artist and co- operator of the Artists Studio Gallery, commended the Streetscape
Plan, envisioning it would be beneficial to merchants, residents and visitors. She commented on the success of
visual arts and performing arts in the area. She requested consideration be given to additional lighting from
the fountain to the Frances Anderson Center particularly on the north side of the street.
Scott Chapman, Edmonds, commented the concepts in the Streetscape Plan were great but without funding,
few of them would be realized. He cautioned the Council against adopting a plan without identifying funding.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, questioned the new style of lighting shown in the Plan, recommending the
historical lighting used on 5th & Main be utilized instead. He suggested the hanging flower basket program
also be extended into the 4th Avenue corridor. He referred to the proposal for trees outside businesses, noting
the businesses may object due to the potential to block the public's view of their business. He encouraged the
City to include businesses in discussions regarding trees, signage, and medians which had the potential to
block access to businesses. He also requested the cost of installation and maintenance of landscaping
including irrigation be addressed. He pointed out the concept of a highway was to move traffic and cautioned
against impediments to moving traffic efficiently through the City.
Hearing no further public comments, Mayor Pro Tem. Dawson closed the public participation portion of the
public hearing.
Mayor Pro Tem Dawson relayed Councilmember Plunkett's and her agreement with the concern about
changing the lighting style. Ms. Chapin advised the existing lighting style was referenced in several areas of
the Streetscape Plan. Different lighting was envisioned for 4th Avenue to create a distinctive identity for that
corridor. She advised the lights that were shown were merely an example, cautioning this was a concept plan
and concepts may change over time. She noted lighting and the flower baskets were identified in the core plan
as items to be extended into the corridor.
With regard to Mr. Kreiman's comment about Hwy. 99, Ms. Chapin advised the City's new Traffic Engineer
was a former WSDOT employee and had been involved in the Plan as were all City departments. City
Engineer Dave Gebert advised the Streetscape Plan was being considered as part of the Hwy. 99 Traffic,
Circulation and Safety Study.
With regard to funding, Ms. Chapin advised staff would be considering various ways to fund items in the Plan.
One consultant provided several funding options; some improvements may be funded via a private /public
partnership and staff would continue to seek grants such as the $31.9,000 grant the Economic Development
Department obtained for enhancement of Hwy. 99.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 16, 2006
Page 7
Councilmember Moore requested staff comment on irrigation and maintenance. Ms. Chapin advised there had
been discussion regarding installing an irrigation system on 4th Avenue. She assured landscaping would not be
installed in areas where they could not be maintained. Park Manager Rich Lindsay recommended
underground irrigation on 4th Avenue as well as a drip system on the poles for hanging baskets.
Councilmember Moore referred to the request for lighting on the north side of Main Street. Ms. Chapin
recommended that be addressed by Public Works. With regard to the flower baskets, Ms. Chapin assured it
was envisioned the flower baskets would be expanded as part of the 4th Avenue corridor.
Councilmember Marin referred to page 6 of the Hwy. 99 appendix and the reference to 50% or more of the
building main fagade must parallel Hwy. 99 right -of -way and suggested adding "if possible" prior to "50% or
more..." He described his concern that there were a number of smaller properties where 50% of the building
parallel to Hwy. 99 may not be possible. Ms. Chapin was agreeable to the amendment.
Councilmember Moore referred to the statement on page 28 that flags, banners and similar items that detract
from the established character of downtown should be strongly discouraged unless part of an approved arts
program. She noted numerous merchants currently use flags/banners. Ms. Chapin explained this referred to
other than the established practice. City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested adding to the end of the sentence,
"and other permitted uses."
Mayor Pro Tern Dawson remanded to Council for action.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REPLACING THE EXISTING
"PUBLIC URBAN DESIGN PLAN" WITH THE UPDATED "STREETSCAPE PLAN" AND TO
INCLUDE THE AMENDMENT ON PAGE 6 OF THE HWY. 99 APPENDIX ADDING "IF POSSIBLE"
PRIOR TO "50 %" AND THE AMENDMENT REQUESTED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE ON
PAGE 28 REGARDING FLAGS AND BANNERS.
Councilmember Marin commended the vision in the Streetscape Plan, cautioning against being hampered by
funding.
Councilmember Moore agreed the Streetscape Plan was a great vision, pointing out the residents' willingness
to pay for things they wanted.
With regard to the comments about funding, Councilmember Plunkett recalled when the performing arts center
was nothing more than a vision, noting its inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan and the Council's endorsement
of that vision assisted in moving it forward. He assured the funds could be cobbled together if it was the
community's will.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
E6. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF THE 2006 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITIZENS'
ion - COMMISSION ON COMPENSATION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS.
ation d
Human Resources Manager Debi Humann recalled on May 2 the Citizens' Commission on Compensation of
Elected Officials presented their recommendations to the Council. Following their presentation, the Council
requested additional information regarding the Commission's compensation recommendation for the Mayor
and Council and the potential issue of compensation increases during the current term of Councilmembers.
With regard to compensation increases during Councilmembers' current terms, Ms. Humann noted a
recommendation was not provided by the Commission as this issue was not within their scope. She referred to
a memo from City Attorney Scott Snyder on this issue. Mr. Snyder explained the Constitutional principle was
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 16, 2006
Page 8
straightforward — legislative bodies cannot raise their salaries /compensation during their term of office. There
have been Attorney General opinions with regard to the State Legislature and CPI increases. The practice of
providing health insurance benefits to City Councilmembers was fairly widespread among cities although the
practice of providing increases in health insurance benefits mid -term to Councilmembers was under review by
the State Auditor and Attorney General's Office. The constitutional safe harbor would be to provide a fixed
amount to be used by Councilmembers for health insurance during their term and allow its use via a cafeteria
or Section 125 account.
Mayor Pro Tem Dawson observed if the compensation could not be changed during the current term, yet the
current practice may be legally questionable, how could it be changed now versus in 2 -4 years. Mr. Snyder
suggested a solution may be to cap compensation at a certain level. He noted the recommendation was to
bring Councilmembers elected to the Council at the next election into compliance. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson
summarized Mr. Snyder's recommendation was not to change the current practice but when a compensation
change was made, do it consistent with the Commission's recommendation. Mr. Snyder agreed, recalling an
attorney general who advises the State Auditor's department indicated in October 2005 that the Attorney
General was reviewing the authority for City Councils to approve mid -term increases in health insurance
benefits; a decision has not yet been issued.
Mayor Pro Tem Dawson asked the ramifications if an opinion were issued that the current practice was
incorrect. Mr. Snyder offered to brief the Council on the possible legal ramifications in Executive Session.
Mayor Pro Tem Dawson reiterated Mr. Snyder's recommendation was not to change the current practice but to
proceed consistent with the Commission's recommendations for all new Councilmembers.
Ms. Humann relayed the Commission's recommendation for a 2.5% increase in the Mayor's salary effective
July 1, 2006 and that the benefit package continue to mirror benefits offered to non - represented employees. At
the direction of the Council, she conducted an L -5 survey of comparable cities. As there were an insufficient
number of cities with a strong mayor form of government to complete an L -5 review, she utilized a
combination of strong mayor and City Manager positions. Utilizing that combination, Edmonds ranked 8th,
well below L -5. Adding the 2.5% increase as recommended by the Commission did not change the ranking
from the 8th position; an increase of approximately 15% would be required to bring the Mayor's salary to L -5.
For Councilmember Moore, Ms. Humann explained for cities with a ceremonial mayor (elected from the City
Council), she used the City Manager's salary for comparison.
Mayor's COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO
Salary ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITIZENS' COMMISSION ON COMPENSATION OF
ELECTED OFFICIALS WITH REGARD TO A 2.5% INCREASE IN THE MAYOR'S SALARY
EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2006 WITH BENEFITS CONSISTENT WITH NON - REPRESENTED
EMPLOYEES. MOTION CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT OPPOSED.
With regard to the health insurance restructure, Ms. Humann recalled the Commission's recommendation
included maintaining the current $600 /month base pay; adding an additional $800 /month in -lieu of health
insurance, bringing the salary to $1400 /month; no change in the meeting pay of eight meetings per month
maximum @ $50 per meeting; and allowing Councilmembers to continue participating in group health
insurance benefits on a self -pay basis. The Commission recommended the restructure become effective with
incoming terms beginning in 2008 and 2010. Ms. Humann noted the next Citizens Commission would be
convened in 2008.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM DAWSON, TO
APPROVE THE CITIZENS' COMMISSION ON COMPENSATION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS'
RECOMMENDATION WITH REGARD TO COUNCIL COMPENSATION.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 16, 2006
Page 9
Couneilmember Wambolt spoke against the motion, noting for him supplemental Medicare benefits would be
less than the proposed $800 /month. He referred to the Commission's finding that the benefits were applied in
an inequitable manner, with some Councilmembers receiving benefits for only themselves and others for their
spouse and /or dependants. He pointed out compensation surveys did not assess the extent to which benefits
were utilized, only what benefits were offered to each classification. It was customary for employers to grant
health benefits to their employees and to subsidize their dependents. The citizen who raised this issue operated
a very small business. The City's health benefits were an attraction to some past/present/future
Councilmembers and not offering that benefit may not attract some candidates. He pointed out the
Commission's recommendation did not include an increase in the base salary and there had been only one
Council pay increase in the past 19 years.
Couneilmember Orvis expressed his support of the proposed restructure. He described the benefit pool offered
by his wife's employer and the affect that benefits had on the hourly rate at his current job. He objected to the
amount of the in -lieu of health insurance, suggesting it be reduced to the cost of benefits for a Couneilmember
or $448 /month. He noted this would have the affect of lowering his salary and would lower the amount the
City paid for Council salaries.
Council President Pro Tern Olson commented many Council candidates who worked full -time already had
benefits. The benefits were an attraction for candidates who were retired or worked part -time. She noted one
of the advantages of Councilmembers who are retired or work part-time was their availability to attend
daytime meetings.
Couneilmember Moore agreed that the proposal would limit the pool of applicant for Council candidacy. She
remarked that with the amount of time this position required, Councilmembers should get paid a lot more and
have full medical benefits, although she acknowledged that would never happen.
Mayor Pro Tern Dawson expressed her support for the motion, commenting the commission's proposal
represented a compromise. She did not agree it would affect Council candidates as it paid for
Councilmembers benefits and allowed them to pay some of their family's benefits.
MOTION FAILED (2 -5), MAYOR PRO TEM DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBER MARIN IN
FAVOR.
Mayor Pro Tern Dawson suggested the current system remain in place and if the Attorney General rendered an
opinion, the Council could take action. Mr. Snyder agreed that would be appropriate. He also suggested this
be discussed again during the budget process.
Mayor Pro Tem Dawson declared a brief recess.
old woodway 7. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE OLD WOODWAY ELEMENTARY
Elementary SCHOOL PROPERTY
School
Property
Administrative Services Director Dan Clements provided an update on the status of the purchase of the two
parcels. The first, the north and east parts of the property, had a price of $3.2 million and total project cost of
slightly more than $5 million including development. The District plans to short plat the property and the City
agreed to pay for the survey. With regard to the second parcel, the west portion, there is not a firm per -acre
price as the District is negotiating with developers. The price ranges from $818,000 to $900,000 per acre for a
purchase price of $4.5 to $4.95 million and total development costs ranging from $7.7 to 8.2 million. The City
submitted a Purchase and Sale Agreement to the Edmonds School District for the first property today.
With regard to the purchase of the second parcel, Mr. Clements explained the District's terms are that the
purchase price be equal to the highest responsive bid per acre, the City would forfeit a $1.6 million deposit to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 16, 2006
Page 10
make up the District's lost cashflow and potentially increased construction costs in the event voters did not
approve a valid proposition and the City subsequently decided not to purchase the property, and closing must
occur by December 1, 2006.
Mayor Pro Tem. Dawson recapped the City had agreed to purchase 5.5 acres of the property at a cost of $3.2
million. The discussion tonight is possible purchase of the other 5.5 acres and an idea proposed by a citizen
for a revocable purchase and sale agreement if a ballot measure did not pass. However, the District has
indicated they were only interested in delaying the sale in exchange for a $1.6 million non - refundable deposit.
Councilmember Orvis' understanding was the City would basically loan the District the cash to maintain their
cash flow until the property was sold to the City or someone else and the City would get the money back via
the sale of the property. He questioned why the District required a non - refundable deposit. Mr. Clements
relayed issues of concern identified by the District include 1) potentially higher construction costs due to
delays if they were not able to sell the property and the sale to the City did not occur, and 2) potentially higher
financing costs if interest rates increased.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether the District could do short term loans from other funds to cover this. Mr.
Clements answered the District's finances are tighter and they would likely need to obtain interim financing.
For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Clements advised the District had a willing purchaser other than the City that
they did not want to lose.
For Councilmember Moore, Mr. Clements explained the price of the first 5.5 acres was $3.2 million and the
price for the second 5.5 acres ranged from $4.5 to $4.95 million. Councilmember Moore observed for
approximately $8.2 million, the City could acquire all 11 acres. She noted this was not much different than the
price the City discussed last year of $7.5 to $8 million.
Councilmember Plunkett suggested a District finance and/or facilities representative speak to the Council. He
opined the District could make this sale if they wanted to and he wanted them to explain to the Council why
they could not. Mr. Clements advised he could arrange that. He commented another option would be to
submit a Purchase and Sale Agreement with a refundable $1.6 million deposit which he acknowledged the
District could reject. Councilmember Plunkett preferred to ensure there was a "meeting of minds" prior to
submitting an Agreement. Mr. Snyder pointed out there were confidentiality provisions in the Purchase and
Sale Agreement. He cautioned the Council not to expect the District to discuss the other potential purchaser or
prospective price per acre, particularly in open session.
Councilmember Marin expressed his reluctance to continue to string this out, commenting the Council could
agree to purchase the second 5.5 acres but it would strap the City. He pointed out the Council was elected to
represent citizens of the entire City and he was not satisfied it was in the best interest of all citizens to strap the
City financially based on a perceived need in this area. He expressed concern with the District's process that
had allowed the price to escalate to this point.
Council President Pro Tern Olson asked staff to comment on the timing and cost of an election. City Clerk
Sandy Chase advised the cost was approximately $77,000. The deadline to submit an ordinance /resolution
calling for a September 19 election was August 4.
Councilmember Wambolt recommended the Council determine whether to place this on the ballot prior to
inviting a District representative to speak to the Council. Councilmember Plunkett suggested the Council
agree to place it on a ballot subject to the District agreeing to a workable scenario.
Councilmember Moore pointed out Agenda Item 8, funding of transportation projects, also needed to be
considered in determining where to place a proposition on the ballot. If the Council wanted to discuss a ballot
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 16, 2006
Page 11
measure, it needed to include discussion of what other items would be funded, anticipating a ballot measure
would fund other items in addition to this park acquisition. She pointed out a park in this area was not only for
the residents in that area, it was for all residents. She noted the Comprehensive Plan identified this number of
acres in the south end and there was no other available acreage in the southern portion of the City. She
concluded it was appropriate to acquire all 11 acres for all the citizens of Edmonds.
Mayor Pro Tern Dawson asked if funding for roads and parks could be combined in one ballot measure. Mr.
Snyder answered he would defer to the City's bond counsel. Mr. Clements recalled Snohomish County had a
neighborhood infrastructure improvement measure that included neighborhood parks, neighborhood roads, etc.
Mayor Pro Tern Dawson asked staff to address Councilmember Moore's comment regarding the acreage in the
south end referred to in the Comprehensive Plan and whether there were additional park properties in the south
end of the City. Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh responded the Comprehensive Plan identified a
neighborhood park in this area which the 5.5 acres would accomplish as well as a community park which was
being considered at the old Edmonds - Woodway High. School. Mayor Pro Tern Dawson asked if the 5.5 acres
and the old Edmonds- Woodway property meet the needs identified in the Comprehensive Plan or was it
insufficient. Mr. McIntosh stated it was not insufficient, assuming Councilmember Moore's point was the
more park land, the better.
Councilmember Wambolt pointed out the Parks Plan specified 3 acres for a neighborhood park in this area•, the
5.5 acres the City had agreed to purchase more than met that need. He noted Councilmember Marin's point
was not that this was a park only for that area of the City, but that there were other needs in addition to parks.
Councilmember Moore clarified the issue was whether to place a proposition on the ballot which could include
other projects such as the Meadowdale sidewalk and other neighborhood infrastructure needs.
Mayor Pro Tern Dawson recommended the Council first determine their interest in placing a proposition on
the ballot. Her view was that the District was not willing to proceed without a non - refundable deposit and she
found it unnecessary to have a District representative speak to the Council to make that point. Given that the
District wanted a $1.6 million non - refundable deposit as well as the $77,000 cost of an election and potentially
consultant fees, she was not willing to risk that amount of money on the chance a ballot measure would pass.
She did not believe having a District representative speak to the Council would change their viewpoint and
suggested it may be more effective to present the City's concerns in writing or lobby the School Board.
Councilmember Wambolt clarified he was not opposed to putting other items on a ballot but did not want to
put funding for the second 5.5 acres on the ballot.
Council President Pro Tern Olson expressed concern with the $1.6 million non - refundable deposit. She noted
the District was happy to sell the City the property for top dollar which would put the City in serious financial
straits. She agreed the Council represented the entire City and as much as she would like to buy all 11 acres,
the City was not in a financial position to do so.
Councilmember Moore commented she would never agree to a $1.6 million non - refundable deposit. She
supported allowing the citizens an opportunity to tax themselves to purchase this property, to construct a
sidewalk near Meadowdale Park, to pave roads, etc. Despite taxpayer initiatives, she believed taxpayers
wanted clarity regarding how their taxes were spent and their vote would state clearly whether they wanted to
purchase park property, improve roads, etc.
Councilmember Plunkett commented if the Council accepted that the District was not willing to negotiate
regarding the non - refundable deposit, the discussion was over. The only other alternative was to continue
discussions with the District in an effort to change their mind regarding the non - refundable deposit.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 16, 2006
Page 12
Mayor Pro Tem Dawson commented the representative the City had been talking with, Marla Miller, was not
the decision maker for the School Board. The School Board made the decision and they have provided a
response. She did not support inviting a representative to express the School Board's position when that
person was not able to change that position. Councilmember Plunkett commented possibly something
productive could result from a discussion with the District.
Council President Pro Tern Olson commented throughout the process the City had information from District
representatives and operated under the assumption that the District was willing to work with the City, which
was not the School Board's position.
Councilmember Orvis spoke in favor of pursuing a ballot measure.
Councilmember Moore commented this was the first time the Council had an open discussion regarding this
issue and she anticipated an open discussion between the City and the District might be helpful.
Councilmember Marin stated it had been clear from the beginning that the School Board wanted to get top
dollar and the process has been structured to allow the price of the property to escalate. He objected to the
Council reacting emotionally when the purchase would strap the City. Councilmember Moore responded an
election would allow the citizens to tax themselves to pay for the property and would not strap the City's
finances. With regard to the increase in the price, she noted it was $8.2 million; the City had discussed $7.5
million more than a year ago.
Councilmember Wambolt suggested determining whether there were at least four Councilmembers willing to
place this on a ballot. He noted the purchase may not strap the City but it would strap the taxpayers as there
were other taxing entities looking for increases as well.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO INVITE
AN EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE TO SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL NEXT
WEEK. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4 -3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM OLSON,
AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, MOORE AND PLUNKETT IN FAVOR; AND MAYOR PRO TEM
DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT AND MARIN OPPOSED.
Mayor Pro Tern Dawson requested Mr. Clements invite Marla Miller or another District representative to
attend the Council meeting to address the Council's questions and provide the District's position particularly
with regard to the $1.6 million non - refundable deposit.
REST 8. DISCUSSION ON POTENTIAL USE OF REST REVENUE TO FUND TRANSPORTATION
Revenue
Discussion; PROJECTS, AND ON A REQUEST TO ADD THE 75TH/76TH WALKWAY PROJECT TO FUND 125
"'
75t" X76 IN THE ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2006 -2011 SIX -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
Walkway; PROGRAM (CIP).
Capital
Improvement
Program City Engineer Dave Gebert recalled at the April 8 Council meeting, the Council approved the 2006 -2011 CIP.
At the May 2 meeting, the proposed ordinance to adopt the CIP was removed from the agenda for further
discussion. He referred to Councilmember Orvis' proposal that the Council add the 75th /76th walkway in the
Meadowdale area to Fund 125 of the CIP. Staff agrees that is a high priority project; however, it is also a very
expensive project. Staffs rough estimates are $125,000 for engineering and $825,000 for construction for a
total of $950,000.
Mr. Gebert reviewed options for including the 75th /76th walkway in the CIP, 1) direct staff to revise the 2006-
2011 CIP, or 2) adopt the 2006 -2011 CIP as proposed and direct staff to include the 75th /76th walkway project
in the 2007 and 2008 capital budget that will be presented to the Council later this year and to include the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 16, 2006
Page 13
project in the 2007 -2012 CIP. With either option, Council would need to state whether to include the project
in Fund 125 (Parks) or Fund 112 (Transportation). If the Council directed staff to include the project in Fund
112, Council would need to identify a funding source as there are insufficient funds in Fund 112 for that
project. If the Council wants to incorporate 75th/76`h walkway in the CIP, staff recommends option 2 above
and to include the project in Fund 112 and identify the funding source.
In addition to Councilmember Orvis' request, Mr. Gebert relayed Mayor Pro Tem Dawson's request that the
Council discuss the potential use of Real Estate Excise Tax (REST) for transportation projects. He explained
the City receives REET in two parts, the first '/4% (REET 1) and a second 1/4 % (REET 2). Current State
statute allow both REET 1 and REET 2 to be used for a variety of capital projects including streets, sidewalks,
roadways, bridges, traffic signals, park, etc. State statute also allows REET 1 to be used for parks acquisition.
The current Council policy dedicates REET 1 to Parks Acquisition. Fund 126 and REET 2 to Parks Capital
Projects Fund 125. Tonight's discussion is in regard to the possible use of REET 2 for transportation projects.
Mr. Gebert reviewed the budget versus actual REET 2 revenues for 1999 through 2006, noting the average for
1999 — 2003 was $725,000 /year. In the last few years due to the strong real estate market in Edmonds, REET
revenues have significantly exceeded projections; $1.02 million in 2004 and $1.4 million in 2005. He noted
2005 included one very large sale. As of April 30, 2006, REET 2 revenues total about $420,000 for one third
of the year. He displayed a summary of the REET 2 cash balance that has grown from $1.4 million in 1999 to
$4.5 million by April 2006.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the average REET revenue exceeded average project costs. Parks &
Recreation Director Brian McIntosh answered yes, noting that accounted for much of the accumulation in
recent years, for example unanticipated revenue in 2004 and 2005 totaled approximately $900,000.
Councilmember Plunkett asked the amount that REET revenues exceeded expenditures in an average year.
Mr. McIntosh displayed a list of budget versus actual project expenditures for 1999 — 2005, commenting the
average yearly expenditure from Fund 125 was $517,000. He displayed a Fund 125 summary, explaining the
average expenditure in years there were no large projects was $350,000 per year, the average revenue was
approximately $750,000, leaving an average of $400,000 per year accumulation. He noted years with large
expenditures increased the average.
Mayor Pro Tern Dawson commented the proposal to the Council was devoting $750,000 per year for parks
projects and funds in excess of that amount would be dedicated to road projects. She asked Mr. McIntosh
whether $750,000 was sufficient for current and future park projects. Mr. McIntosh answered it had been
sufficient up to this point. Mayor Pro Tern Dawson suggested gathering public input regarding this funding
proposal prior to determining whether to place a measure on the ballot. She advised staff did not recommend a
ballot measure if the Council approved this proposal as this funding would be sufficient for road projects. Mr.
Gebert commented if this approach were used to fund road projects, there were several additional potential
funding sources he recommended the Council consider prior to a ballot measure. Mayor Pro Tern Dawson
noted this funding option may not be enough to fund every project but would be enough to undertake some
major projects such as walkways, overlays, etc.
Councilmember Orvis advised it was his understanding REET 2 could not be used for overlays unless part of a
reconstruction. Mr. Gebert advised REET 2 may be used for repair or reconstruction but not maintenance;
overlays are considered a repair.
Councilmember Moore stated the average that could be allocated to road repairs from REET 2 each year was
approximately $500,000. She asked whether road overlays could be accomplished for that amount. Mr.
Gebert advised staffs recommendation in the past for Fund 112 was an additional $750,000 - $835,000 per
year. The current CIP has approximately $300,000 per year for overlays, primarily contributed by utilities. If
an additional $500,000 per year were devoted to overlays, the overlay cycle could be reduced to 30 years.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 16, 2006
Page 14
There are also a number of other high priority transportation projects such as the 75th /76th walkway and the
164th Avenue walkway project, ADA ramp repairs, etc. The packet includes examples of projects that could
be accomplished via various funding scenarios. For example, $250,000 per year could reduce the overlay
cycle from 75 to 45 years or if accumulated over six years, it could be used to fund the 75th /76th Avenue
walkway.
Councilmember Moore referred to outstanding Fund 125 projects such as the interurban trail, the old
Woodway Elementary School, old Edmonds - Woodway High School and asked how those would be
accomplished with only $750,000 per year. Mr. McIntosh answered the cash balance in Fund 125 would be
used to fund larger projects.
Councilmember Marin asked staff to explain the proposal to include the 75th /76th walkway project in the CIP.
Mr. Gebert explained the update to the six -year CIP was done in the beginning of each year; the Council was
now in the process of approving the 2006 -2011 CIP which is a planning document. He explained the funds
were then appropriated for those projects via the capital budget. The cycle for the 2007 capital budget will
begin this summer which appropriates the funds for 2007 and 2008. Councilmember Marin asked when staff
would recommend planning and construction of the 75th /76th walkway occur. Mr. Gebert answered if the
Council directed staff to include the 75th /76th walkway in the CIP, he recommended funds be provided for
design in 2007 and construction in 2008. He recommended it be programmed in Fund 1.12 and Council
identify a source for transferring funds into Fund 112; an option would be to transfer funds from Fund 125.
Another option would be to fund walkway projects from Fund 125
Mayor Pro Tern Dawson asked if amending the 2006 -2011 CIP as Councilmember Orvis proposed would
hasten completion of the project. Mr. Gebert stated the only way it would be accomplished sooner would be to
identify funding sources for design in 2006. If the process began today, a consultant could be hired in 3 -4
months and preliminary engineering completed in the latter part of the year. The amount that was devoted to
transportation projects would affect when the 75th /76th walkway project could be accomplished; if only
$250,000 were allocated, it would take more than three years to accumulate enough to complete the walkway.
Mayor Pro Tern Dawson noted whether or not the Council chose to devote REST 2 funds to transportation
projects, the Council could fund the 75th /76th walkway project from Fund 125. Mr. Gebert agreed.
Mayor Pro Tern Dawson advised staff's request was for the Council to determine whether to amend the 2006-
2011 CIP to include the 75th /76th walkway project and set a public hearing on the use of REET 2.
Councilmember Orvis explained his intent was to identify funding for the 75th /76th walkway project due to
safety hazards in that area. He noted the 75th /76th walkway project was similar to the interurban trail project
which was funded via Fund 125. His reason for amending the 2006 -2001 CIP was to include the project in
Fund 1.25 but he was agreeable to whatever way the Council chose to fund the project.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO ADOPT
THE 2006 -2011 CIP AS PROPOSED AND INCLUDE FUNDS FOR AN ENGINEERING STUDY FOR
THE 75lb /76th WALKWAY PROJECT VIA FUND 125 IN 2006.
Councilmember Moore commented she considered the 75th /76th walkway project a park, therefore, was
appropriately funded from Fund 125. Councilmember Orvis commented the walkway would provide access to
Meadowdale Park.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Pro Tern Dawson clarified the amount staff recommended for the engineering study was $125,000.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 16, 2006
Page 15
Mayor Pro Tem Dawson scheduled a public hearing on the potential use of REST revenue to fund
transportation projects on June 6.
9. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
16a' street Betty Scott, Edmonds, requested the 164tt' Street walkway improvement project as planned and designed by
walkway City engineers in July 2003 be added as a high priority project and completed with available funds before any
Pr °feet other walkway project. She advised residents were informed the 164th walkway project was delayed due to
lack of funds and that it would be completed when funds were available. Now that funds were available, she
questioned the funding for the 75th /76th walkway in lieu of improvements on the hazardous and equally high
priority walkway project on 164t1 Street that was significantly less expensive than the 75th /76d' walkway. She
described the hazardous conditions on 164th created by steep slopes, abrupt pavement edge and narrow or
nonexistent shoulders. She explained this route was used by numerous school children to reach the three
schools in the area.
164' street Jesse Scott, Edmonds, explained it was impossible to see the bottom when looking down from the top of
walkway 164th or the top when looking up from the bottom due to the steep grade, curves and brush. He noted children
Pr °sect were forced to walk with their backs to traffic where there is no shoulder. He reported seeing children fall
over the edge to avoid cars. He urged the Council to support the one -block 164th walkway, the sole pedestrian
access for 50+ homes to reach area schools and Meadowdale Park.
old w° °away Evan Pierce, Edmonds, thanked the Council for discussing the purchase of the remaining portion of the old
Elementaxy
sen °o1 site Woodway Elementary School site, noting the intent of his proposal was to find a workable solution that met
the needs of both parties. He expressed dismay at the Edmonds School District's request for a $1.6 million
non - refundable deposit, noting that while a 1 -3% non - refundable earnest money agreement may be reasonable,
a 25 -30% penalty was not and he planned to convey his disappointment to the School Board. He asked
whether anyone from the City or Council had discussed the non - refundable deposit with the School Board. He
noted a successful ballot measure could provide funding for this property, future waterfront opportunities, park
improvements, a covered structure for Yost pool and other community amenities, freeing up funds for road
improvements and sidewalks. He expressed his willingness to pay increased property taxes. He referred to the
comment that this park met the need of only local residents, advising the park purchase and ballot measure was
part of a long term vision that benefited all residents.
Purchase nom Don Kreiman, Edmonds, compared the City's need for money to the way a person needed their neighbors,
Neighborn °od commenting on the importance of keeping neighborhood businesses healthy to ensure services and products
Businesses
were available close to home. Observing a sizable portion of the sales tax was collected by the City, he urged
residents to purchase from neighborhood businesses instead of purchasing services and products outside the
City. He also urged the City to measure building heights from the sidewalk.
old w° °away Rob Trahms, Edmonds, thanked the Council for the open discussion regarding the old Woodway Elementary
Elementary School property. He agreed the $1.6 million non - refundable deposit requested by the Edmonds School District
scn ° °� sate was unreasonable and urged the Council to negotiate with the District regarding a refundable deposit. He
recommended the question whether to purchase the remaining property along with funding other
improvements be decided by the voters. He agreed this was not just a south Edmonds park but a City of
Edmonds park used by sports leagues in and outside the local area. He commented on park users that include
Little League in the Spring and soccer in the Fall.
Fwoodway Scott Chapman, Edmonds, expressed his appreciation for the frank discussion regarding the old Woodway
mentary Elementary School property, commenting it was the first time residents had heard Councilmembers' position
° °I site regarding the purchase. He noted seven months after a unanimous decision to purchase all 11 acres, there
were now only four in support of that position and some were wavering. He noted the increase in the price of
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 16, 2006
Page 16
the property in the past year represented approximately an 8.8% increase; property values in Edmonds had
increased 10 -15% over the past two years, concluding the property was not overpriced. He referred to the
Council's approval of a vision for the streetscape that had no funding, noting several Councilmembers referred
to the importance of vision with regard to that plan.
r m re: Ray Martin, Edmonds, relayed an incident where his daughter was stopped on 220th by a police officer when
Ticket
th leaving her boyfriend's mother's home on Sunday, May 15 and the 30- minute harassment that ensued. He
noted no construction was occurring and there were many cars traveling in both directions. When his daughter
asked why she was stopped, the officer referred to the signs on 220th and advised the Mayor ordered the Police
Department to clamp down on violators who used 220th who did not live there. When her boyfriend's mother,
a passenger in a vehicle stopped, she too was asked for her driver's license. Mr. Martin explained his
daughter's boyfriend is in Iraq, yet at home his girlfriend and mother were being harassed by the Edmonds
Police Department. He requested Police Chief Stern or his designee meet with his daughter, her boyfriend's
mother and the officer to discuss the incident and ensure mutual respect in the future.
Cost of Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, referred to the questions she asked a few weeks ago regarding the cost of
Edmonds
Crossing Edmonds Crossing and what would be built. She distributed materials regarding the RTID estimate along with
the estimate and project details contained in the WSF budget. She advised the RTID website listed projects
that would be on the 2007 ballot which included the Edmonds Crossing project. She requested a written
response be provided regarding the amount on the RTID ballot and what would be constructed with those
funds. She suggested the Council prepare a report regarding the Edmonds Crossing project including the cost
and when it would be on the ballot.
m ay Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to Councilmember Wambolt's comment that the Comprehensive Plan
only called for 3 acres at the old Woodway Elementary School site. He relayed his discussions with Arvilla
Ohlde who indicated 3 acres was included for each elementary school site, assuming the total would equate to
164` street the amount of park land needed in that area. This was the first elementary school closed in that area. With
walkwa regard to the 164th walkway, he suggested residents work with the principal of the local schools to obtain
SAFETEA -LU funds. He suggested the approximately $100,000 per year savings as a result of the vacant
Fond 125 Economic Development Director position be used for emergency road projects. He referred to funds in Fund
Projects 125 for improvements at the old Edmonds - Woodway High School and questioned what plans had been
developed for those improvements. He also requested further details on the large projects Mr. McIntosh.
indicated were planned for 2007 and 2009. He concluded his comments, stating his understanding that the
road overlays were the highest priority; however, staff's proposal for the use of REET funds included overlays,
sidewalks, road capacity, road stabilization, traffic signals, bikeways and traffic calming. He suggested the
Council consider a bond issue every five years to fund specific transportation projects.
10. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF MAY 9 2006
Finance Finance Committee
committee Council President Pro Tern Olson reported the Committee was provided with background information
regarding a US Communities cooperative purchasing plan which is intended to help reduce the City's cost of
purchasing various commodities. Next Mr. Clements briefed the Committee on the April network failure
along with a plan for redundant capabilities. The final item was a briefing from staff regarding a proposal to
move the City into a biennial budgeting process. At the Committee's recommendation, these three items were
approved on tonight's consent agenda.
E ]buildings Community Services /Development Services Committee
Councilmember Plunkett reported the Committee discussed addressing non - conforming provisions for historic
independent of the code rewrite. The Committee recommended the Historic Preservation.
Commission form a task force and begin reviewing amendments. Next the Committee discussed the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 16, 2006
Page 17
Economic Development Director position; the Committee made no recommendation other than to refer review
of the position to the full Council.
Public safety Public Safety Committee
committee Councilmember Marin advised Chief Stern provided the Committee an overview of parking enforcement and
philosophy. In response to a letter the Committee received, Chief Stern advised renewal notices were mailed
to permit holders near the end of their one -year term.
11. MAYOR PRO TEM COMMENTS
Police Dept. Mayor Pro Tem Dawson reported on the May 15 Edmonds Police Department Awards Ceremony,
Awards commenting it was inspiring to hear about the great things citizens and police officers have done. She
requested a link to the awards be provided on the City's website.
rExecutive son Mayor Pro Tern Dawson announced she had accepted a position in the Snohomish County Executive's office
ment as an Executive Director overseeing law and justice issues and human services. She looked forward to making
Snohomish County a safer community. She assured the Snohomish County Executive offered her the position
I I with the understanding she would remain on the City Council.
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Pro Tern Olson congratulated Mayor Pro Tern Dawson on her new position.
Councilmember Orvis thanked Mike Stark for setting up the laptop which enabled him to view current and
past Council packets, maps, etc.
old wooaway Councilmember Wambolt clarified he did not say the old Woodway Elementary school property was
Elementary overpriced or that it was for local use as reasons he was opposed to purchasing the additional 5.5 acres. He
sonool site was opposed to the purchase because for at least 30 years 5.5 acres had been adequate for a park in that
location and the City had higher priorities than doubling the size of that park.
g arking Councilmember Plunkett advised the Parkin Committee planned to return a recommendation to the Council
Committee
in early June.
Councilmember Moore reported on the Art of Our Mothers event this weekend. She also thanked citizens who
provided comment tonight and advised Mr. Clifton was preparing a report for Natalie Shippen in response to
Old Edmonds- the issues she raised a few weeks ago. Councilmember Moore requested an update regarding improvements
woodwa xs planned for the old Edmonds - Woodway High School site.
Cascade Land Councilmember Moore reported on the Cascade Land Conservancy breakfast she attended, explaining their
Conservancy message is the importance of open space in Washington, Western Washington as a region and in each
individual city which strengthened her commitment to parks and acquisition of open space. She advised the
Vision for Senior Center Executive Director Farrell Fleming will present financial information regarding the Senior
Senior center Center at the next Council meeting and she proposed the Council consider the 20 -50 year vision for the Senior
Property
Center property on the waterfront.
Puget sound Councilmember Marin reported on a Puget Sound Partnership meeting Councilmember Moore and he
Partnership attended, explaining the Partnership was organized by the governor to determine what could be done to
improve the health of Puget Sound. He noted the Partnership's polls indicate the public's perception is that
Puget Sound is healthy when in fact it is not. He noted a number of beaches from Picnic Point south to the
King County line were closed due to marine biotoxins. He learned many contaminants such as cleaning
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 16, 2006
Page 18
supplies, prescription drugs, and personal care items bypass the sewage treatment plant and stormwater
systems and enter Puget Sound creating these marine biotoxins. He suggested the Puget Sound Partnership
identify the contaminants and chemicals that the public is using that cause problems in Puget Sound and
encourage the public not to use those products. He noted flushing old prescription drugs was one of the ways
contaminants reach Puget Sound.
16 ' Waal street Councilmember Moore asked staff for a report regarding the 164th Street walkway.
Walkway p g g Y.
13. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 16, 2006
Page 19