Loading...
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