05/04/2004 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
May 4, 2004
Following a Special Meeting at 6:45 to interview an Architectural Design Board Candidate, the Edmonds
City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Plunkett in the Council
Chambers, 250 5`h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Michael Plunkett, Mayor Pro Tem
Deanna Dawson, Council President Pro Tem
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
APPROVAL1
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Brian McIntosh, Acting Parks & Recreation Dir.
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Meg Gruwell, Senior Planner
Frances Chapin, Cultural Resources Coordinator
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Linda Hynd, Deputy City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
AMEND THE AGENDA TO ADD AS ITEM 5A THE RESOLUTION PROPOSED BY THE
EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT REGARDING THE UPCOMING LEVY AND TO TAKE
PUBLIC COMMENT AND POTENTIAL COUNCIL ACTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
RUT I NO1101 1 ►1 lei I 1110'sa 9 11 151111 111 15111!11 : 111 ► \/_ 4
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Marin requested Items F and I be removed from the Consent Agenda and
Councilmember Wilson requested Item H be removed.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 1
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2004
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #70756 THROUGH #70907 FOR THE WEEK OF
APRIL 26, 2004, IN THE AMOUNT OF $241,405.60.
(D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JUAN VELASCO SAN
JUAN (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED)
(E) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PUBLIC WORKS TRUST FUND LOAN
AGREEMENTS
(G) SR-104 SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT — AUTHORIZATION FOR
THE MAYOR TO SIGN CHANGE ORDER #2 ($465,498.50, INCLUDING SALES TAX)
FOR ADDITIONAL WORK AND INCREASE THE CONTRACT TO $1,020,465.97,
INCLUDING SALES TAX
(J) PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER, MAY 6, 2004
Item F: Confirmation of Mayor's Appointment of Jim Elliott to the Architectural Design Board
Architectural. Design Board Chair Rob Michel introduced Jim Elliott who was selected to fill the vacant
citizen position on the ADB, noting Mr. Elliott's construction background.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM F. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item approved is as
follows:
(F) CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT OF JIM ELLIOTT TO THE
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Item H: Proposed Ordinance Adopting Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Rezoning Certain Property
Located at 23904 Edmonds Way from Single-Familv Residential (RS-8) to Community Business (BC)
Councilmember Wilson advised he pulled this item to abstain from the vote as he was not present at the
April 20 meeting when the vote was taken on this item.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM H. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1) COUNCILMEMBER WILSON
ABSTAINED. The item approved is as follows:
(H) PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW, REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 23904 EDMONDS WAY
FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8) TO COMMUNITY BUSINESS (BC)
Item L• Proposed Ordinance Adopting Procedures Governing the Lifting of DNR Moratoriums
Mayor Pro Tern Plunkett advised City Attorney Scott Snyder had done some further research and the
Council had been provided additional information.
Mr. Snyder explained the State Statute regarding the Forest Practices Art required that the City impose a
six year moratorium on property that was converted from forest use either in violation of a DNR permit or
when the individual did not apply for a DNR permit. Further, the City was required to have provisions in
place regarding the lifting of the moratorium. He referred to the considerable clearing done on the Unocal
site in violation of the City's codes and without a DNR application, explaining that the portion of the
property converted from forest use would be subject to a moratorium. He explained the concept behind
the proposed ordnance was to have in place an interim zoning ordinance so that the Hearing Examiner
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 2
could consider in one proceeding on May 20 whether conditions could be imposed on the permit and
coordinate conditions with the circumstances under which a moratorium could be lifted. He noted the
moratorium would cover only a small portion of the property but would provide the public an opportunity
for input and enact a zoning ordinance to address the absence of procedures regarding such a moratorium.
Mr. Snyder noted the proposed interim ordinance provided for the imposition of a moratorium, provide a
process whereby an applicant could appeal to the Council regarding the imposition, extend or lifting of
the moratorium when a proceeding was in process regarding consideration of conditions or revocation,
and combining the process to allow conditions to be coordinated. He noted following the adoption of the
interim ordinance, a public hearing would need to be scheduled. The process would then be considered
by the Planning Board and a recommendation made to the Council. He noted the Council would need to
insert a public hearing date in Section 3 of the ordinance.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether any moratorium would be only on the section that was converted
from forest use. Mr. Snyder agreed, explaining the Forest Practices Act governed property that had been
in forest use and had been deforested. The Act contemplates that those areas would be re -vegetated and
not harvested for a period of time. He noted the purpose of the act was to prevent clear cutting followed
by development. He noted that although there were exclusions for property in other uses, the majority of
the Unocal site had been in uses other than forest for 70-80 years.
Councilmember Wilson noted if the moratorium were applied to only the portion of the slope where
vegetation was cut, it would not impact potential development because that portion was intended to
remain in vegetation. Mr. Snyder answered there was some discretion in that deforestation of the hillside
could undermine the slope and potentially cause sliding, therefore, property at the top of the slope that
may be impacted by the development could also be within the moratorium.
"Corrected at the
10i19/04 City COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM
Council Meeting DAWSON, FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM 1, ORDINANCE NO. 3499, ADOPTING PROCEDURES
o add: GOVERNING THE LIFTING OF DNR MORATORIUMS, WITH A PUBLIC HEARING DATE
"THECARRIED
ON
CARRRIED OF JUNE 1, 2004. "Please see correction noted in the side margin."
NANIMOUSLY."
3. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FINE ARTS CENTER OF EDMONDS (FACE) — ECONOMIC
IMPACT ANALYSIS AND REQUEST FOR FUNDS ($6,000)
Mayor Pro Tern Plunkett referred to the Memorandum of Understanding and the revised proposal from
FACE that were provided to the Council tonight.
Ellen Gateau, FACE Board Secretary, explained the purpose of their presentation was to request
funding support. She explained FACE was established in 1998 as a 501(c)3 non-profit organization with
a goal of establishing an artists -in -action art center in downtown Edmonds. FACE's mission was to
create an innovative fine arts center where a wide range of professional artists create and exhibit their
work where the public can watch, meet and interact with artists and that offers educational and cultural
opportunities for children and adults. She noted FACE was an important element of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and quoted a statement from the Community Cultural Plan regarding arts as a way
for the city to realize significant economic and cultural benefits. She explained the FACE facility would
provide artists studio space, exhibition area, classrooms and community event space. She noted the artist
studios would be accessible to the public allowing artists to interact with the public.
Ms. Gateau explained the concept was patterned after several successful art centers including the Torpedo
Factory Arts Center in Alexandria, Virginia; the Armory Arts Center in West Palm Beach, Florida; and
the New York Mills Regional Cultural Center in New York Mills, Minnesota.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 3
Ms. Gateau explained an initial feasibility study was conducted in May 2000 that indicated a potentially
large benefit to Edmonds if FACE were to become a reality. She displayed a list of organizations who
have offered support for the FACE project. She noted the project has lost necessary momentum in recent
years and was now faced with the possibility of losing their lease with the Port at year end if project
viability could not be demonstrated. She described efforts to revitalize the project including recruiting
new board members and addressing key issues. She reviewed recent FACE activity including posters, an
informational kiosk at the proposed site on Port property, plans to offer regular updates to the Council,
negotiating for office space in downtown Edmonds and the first annual. Art of Our Mothers event on May
8 to which she invited the Council.
Ms. Gateau pointed out the need for a current detailed analysis of the economic impact Edmonds could
expected if FACE were to become a reality. She explained the analysis would detail composition of
visitors to the facility, amount of revenue to the local economy, added business benefits to local business
community, etc. She advised FACE would make the results of the analysis available to the City for use
by the new Economic Development Director and others. She requested the Council's support for their
request for $6,000 to assist in funding an Economic Impact Analysis.
Dick Van Hollenbeke noted what made a great city was people and amenities. He compared Edmonds to
New York, Paris, London, Rome, Vancouver, BC, noting per capita, Edmonds had more amenities than
most other cities and was known as the friendliest town on Puget Sound. Edmonds also had location,
beachfront, views, parks and culture. He pointed out Edmonds was an arts community; few other cities
Edmonds' size had a symphony, ballet company, live theater, movie theater, and one of the best art
festivals in the region. The City was only missing a year-round artist venue, a place to showcase one of
its best assets. He pointed out the economic benefit that could be realized via visitors to FACE and
encouraged the Council to demonstrate their vision, wisdom and courage by providing funds as seed
money to launch the FACE project.
Dwight Gee, Arts Fund, pointed out neighboring cities that have chosen arts as a way of revitalizing
their downtown including Tacoma, Seattle and Bellevue. He commented the economic impact studies he
has been involved in have been extremely useful for the policy makers, the public and the private sector.
He noted a past survey indicated that from 1997 non-profit arts and heritage organizations had the
following impacts, $373 million in aggregate sales, $100 million in new money to the economy, $220
million in patron spending, and 16,000 full and part-time jobs. He anticipated a survey currently
underway would report significantly higher impacts. He concluded FACE would provide a focal point for
visitors and encourage them to stay longer in the community as well as provide Edmonds a greater sense
of identity and community. He noted the Economic Impact Study would provide tangible information
regarding the feasibility of FACE.
Councilmember Wilson inquired regarding the final product from the study and how it would be useful
for FACE and for the public. Ms. Gateau advised a report would be generated after the analysis that
would provide FACE justification to provide to potential donors to the capital campaign. She noted the
outcome of the impact study would be useful to the City regardless of whether FACE became a reality.
Councilmember Wilson asked how the study would useful to the City. Michael Smith, FACE
President, commented the study would have three components, a baseline that focused on tourism/visitor
impact, the economic impact from ongoing operations, and the economic impact of development and
construction. He explained the consultant had done a study for the Paine Field Museum of Flight and
used Snohomish County Tourism Bureau information which could also be utilized in this study.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 4
Councilmember Wilson concluded one of the products would be a determination of whether this type of
activity generated new dollars in the community and whether there was sufficient support for this type of
activity in the community. Mr. Smith agreed.
Councilmember Wilson asked the timeline for providing information to the Port. Mr. Smith answered the
study was not a specific request of the Port but would be part of the information provided to them. He
noted the Port wanted assurance by August that FACE had a credible plan that would demonstrate the
facility could be a viable entity to build as well as sustain.
Councilmember Moore asked whether the intent was to have the study completed by the August deadline.
Ms. Gateau answered yes because they needed to launch the fundraising campaign as well as meet other
milestones by the August deadline.
For Councilmember Moore, Ms. Gateau advised that following the study, they anticipated the Port
continued support for the FACE project. She pointed out the need to ensure the public was aware of
FACE and address the boaters' concerns.
Councilmember Moore asked whether the consultant would provide analysis specific to this area and not
just generic art/tourism dollars. Mr. Smith answered the consultant would focus on this project and
elaborate upon the Snohomish County tourism information.
Mayor Pro Tern Plunkett opened the public participation portion of this item. He advised the Council had
received a letter from Terry Vehrs, Chair of the Edmonds Public Facilities District Board, in support
of the FACE project, stating the PFD Board viewed the development of FACE as a compliment to the
Edmonds Center for the Arts renovated auditorium.
Rick Bader, 835 12th Avenue N, Edmonds, recalled when they moved to Edmonds approximately 40
years ago, it was somewhat contained city. Then Edmonds entered a period of stagnation/economic
decline when most retail left Edmonds in the "march to the mall." An effort then followed to restore the
vitality of the downtown and the waterfront. He noted one of the reasons people visited the waterfront
was to look at artwork and it would be nice for them to watch art being made. He noted FACE would
enhance Edmonds' reputation as a City supportive of arts. He anticipated people who visited FACE
would also visit restaurants and retail, resulting in a tremendous economic benefit to the City. He
requested the Council's consideration of FACE's funding request.
Farrell Fleming, Executive Director, South County Senior Center, 1.520 W Casino Road, expressed
the Senior Center's support for FACE's request for funding for an economic impact analysis. He noted
the City's vision of establishing a facility for performing arts and a facility for performing visual arts was
good public policy, would have positive economic development benefits, and would enhance the City's
reputation for excellence in arts. He described the Senior Center's existing art programs and their interest
in partnership opportunities with FACE. He noted "boomers" demanded programming excellence which
partnership opportunities with FACE would provide.
Richard Asher, Edmonds Community College, 20000 68th Avenue W, Lynnwood, pointed out the
College's decade -long commitment to the arts which they have increased significantly over the last year,
considering art and culture one of their most important initiatives. He noted this was accomplished by
increasing college programs and bringing together the City, business and agencies in the area to work on
arts and civic engagement. He noted FACE fit with Edmonds Community College's commitment to the
arts and the College readily offered their support in whatever way possible.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 5
Ellen Kahan, Assistant Superintendent, Edmonds School District, 20420 681'' Avenue W,
Lynnwood, noted she had previously been a principal at an elementary school near the Torpedo Factory
Art Center and learned the value that an art center in close proximity can provide to the school. She
recalled a Native American artist who carved a totem in their courtyard over a year while she was a
principal at Edmonds Elementary. She envisioned FACE enhancing the school district's commitment to
the arts by providing a unique opportunity for students to explore their interests in arts as well as provide
role models for exploring art as a career. She concluded FACE would provide an opportunity to nurture
the whole child.
J.B. Halverson, 1042 3rd Avenue S, Edmonds, read a statement from Darlene McClellan, Edmonds
Arts Festival Foundation, 22615 92nd Avenue W, Edmonds, in support of FACE, noting this was a key
time in the history of the City due to the creation of the Economic Development Director position in.
recognition of the importance of furthering the economic vitality of the community. She noted arts were
and continued to be one of the reasons people came to Edmonds and economic development via the arts
and cultural tourism were vital to the community's future. Ms. Halverson also provided comment, noting
this was a great opportunity to direct the identity of Edmonds. She expressed her support for funding for
the economic impact analysis.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
EXTEND THIS ITEM FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Rowena Miller, 8711 182❑d Place SW, Edmonds, commented she loved art and it was wonderful there
was so much art in Edmonds. She would be supportive of this funding if the region were experiencing an
economic boom, if the City had not laid off several employees, if the pool did not have to be advertised to
draw sufficient users and if the City had retained the Floral Arts Center. She encouraged the Council to
think about the money involved. She questioned which artists had committed to renting studios, whether
there enough artists, and whether there were sufficient funds for construction as well as ongoing
operation. She pointed out Artworks was a newly created facility and the Edmonds Center for the Arts
was still campaigning for funds to renovate the auditorium. She urged the Council to proceed cautiously,
questioning whether the Economic Development Director could conduct this study.
Ron Cyborne, 9325 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, a member of the FACE Board, read a letter from
Gary Schmidt, President, Bank of Washington, 5901 196t" Street SW, Lynnwood, indicating the bank
had been involved with FACE since 2000 and believed FACE would enhance an already arts community
in Edmonds. The first step was always the most difficulty and FACE needed an economic impact
analysis to support their fund drive. Of the $8,050 needed for the study, FACE was requesting $6,000
from Edmonds. He expected the amount raised and invested in Edmonds' future to be many times the
cost of the study. He requested the Council's favorable consideration of FACE's request.
Next Mr. Cyborne read a letter from Ruth Arista, Arista Wine Cellars, 502 Main Street, Edmonds,
stating FACE created a key economic and quality of life opportunity for Edmonds. In addition to other
arts organizations, Mr. Arista asserted FACE would put Edmonds on the map. She encouraged the
Council to look into the future to understand the significance of this request, envisioning the return to the
community would be a thousand fold as visitors come to the City.
Don Kreiman, 24006 95th Place W, Edmonds, commented he did not know much about FACE or about
art but $6,000 seemed a small amount to spend on a $10 million project to determine whether it was
economically viable. If the study were an impartial impact analysis, he believed it was money well spent.
Inger Osterhaug, 940 Viewmoor Place, Edmonds, a Port tenant, commented FACE was a bad idea and
there were better locations. She pointed out the Port had limited access, was impacted by the railroad
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 6
tracks, and had limited parking for park and Port users She concluded the marina was for Port tenants;
locating FACE there would cause problems and she was uncertain whether it would be financially
feasible.
Mayor Pro Tem Plunkett closed the public participation portion of this item.
Council President Pro Tern Dawson asked staff to address Ms. Miller's question whether the study could
be conducted by the Economic Development Director rather than a consultant. Administrative Services
Director Dan Clements explained the Economic Development Director would not begin work until June
14 thus there was concern with the timing of the study as the intent was to have it completed by the end of
June. Further, the goal was an objective opinion.
At Mayor Pro Tern Plunkett's request, Port Commissioner Fred Gouge addressed the comment that FACE
would create a problem at the Port. He described the Port's consideration of FACE's proposal four years
ago and the Commission's incorporation of it in the Port's Master Plan and Strategic Plan. He did not
envision a problem would be created by locating FACE at the Port.
Mayor Pro Tern Plunkett remanded the issue to Council for action.
Councilmember Marin commented he was the Council liaison to the Port when the land lease with FACE
was approved and envisioned FACE as a brilliant addition to the City. He pointed out the bookends that
FACE and the Edmonds Center for the Arts would provide with the City between. He commented on the
opportunity FACE provided to bring year-round synergy to the City.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, THAT
THE COUNCIL APPROPRIATE $6,000 FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND AND
APPROVE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO
PROVIDE THE FUNDS.
Councilmember Moore agreed FACE was part of the vision of Edmonds, noting the Council retreat
included an objective regarding economic development to assist FACE. She agreed with Mr. Kreiman
who commented this was seed money to determine whether a $10 million project was viable. She
commented on the use of the funds as a way to drive Edmond's economy which FACE would do. She
supported providing the funds to FACE for the study.
Councilmember Wilson indicated his support for the motion. He clarified a statement by Ms. Miller,
explaining the Floral Arts Center was a private project whose ownership was transferred to Edmonds
Community College. With regard to concerns with FACE locating on Port property, he pointed out the
Council's action tonight did not determine the site, it only provided funding to generate useful
information for FACE as well as the City. He referred to comments regarding the public and private
investment in the Edmonds Center for the Arts, agreeing FACE would provide a south bookend for the
City and provide incredible opportunities for art. He concluded the study would provide information
regarding whether the community could support two art facilities as well as provide information to the
Economic Development Director for future economic planning. He pointed out the City was only
providing a portion of the funding for a study that the City would also benefit from. He noted that
providing funding for the economic impact study did not commit the City to any capital funding; it was
only an economic impact study to provide background information for FACE and the City.
Councilmember Olson expressed her support for providing the funds, noting this was an appropriate
direction for the City, to become known as an arts destination.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 7
Councilmember Orvis expressed his support and wished FACE good luck in their fundraising efforts.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO
REZONE 7023 AND 7025 — 174TH STREET SW FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RS-20
TO RS-12. (APPLICANT: LARRY D. DEISHER / FILE NO. R-04-18
Mayor Pro Tern Plunkett advised there were two parties of record in this matter, the applicant and Bill
Turner. He explained a rezone was a mix of legislative and quasi judicial issues and inquired whether any
Councilmember had had any ex parte communication or disclosures they wished to make. There were no
disclosures voiced.
Senior Planner Meg Gruwell recalled in 2000 the applicant proposed a rezone from RS-20 (20,000 square
foot lot minimum lot size) to RS-8 (8,000 square foot minimum lot size). That proposal was found not to
be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Board recommended denial which the City
Council upheld. She noted the parcel had two addresses, however, the City did not acknowledge them as
separate parcels as the owner sold a portion of the property without subdivision. When the City became
aware that the parcel had not been subdivided, no building permits could be issued until the legal status of
the lot was clarified.
The current proposal was a rezone to RS-12 which would allow two lots on the site rather than the three
lots that would have be allowed if RS-8 zoning had been approved under the previous proposal. She
described the physical characteristics of the lot, noting it was fairly level with a slight slope to the back,
an existing house on the east side, and a barn that had been demolished on the west side. She noted the
factors for a rezone had been considered by staff and were outlined in the staff report. She reported the
Planning Board held a public hearing on April 14 and recommended Council approval of the rezone.
Staff recommended the Council adopt the Planning Board's recommendation and direct the City Attorney
to prepare an ordinance.
Applicant
Larry Deisher,11.209 94th Street NE, Lake Stevens, recalled in 2000 the issue was complicated because
he owned only one of the parcels and the other owner wanted to create a third lot. He explained they had
now purchased the other lot and were requesting a rezone that the neighborhood appeared to favor as
illustrated by the lack of opposition to their proposal. He noted it was their intention to tear down the old
house and construct one house on each lot. He requested the Council adopt the Planning Board's
findings.
Parties of Record
The other party of record, Bill Turner, was not present to speak.
Rebuttal
Mr. Deisher indicated he had no further comment.
Councilmember Wilson inquired whether there was any discussion at the Planning Board regarding the
City's current efforts to amend the Comprehensive Plan with regard to GMA density requirements. Ms.
Gruwell answered the only reference was discussion regarding the prior use of RS-12 in landslide areas
and the current use of other methods to address that issue. There was no discussion regarding the
Comprehensive Plan update.
Hearing no further questions, Mayor Pro Tern Plunkett remanded the matter to Council for action.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 8
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
ADOPT THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED
REZONE, FILE NUMBER R-04-18, AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN
ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY'S ZONING MAP FOR CONSENT APPROVAL BY THE
COUNCIL. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Councihnember Moore left the meeting at 8:29 p.m.)
5. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMISSION ON SALARIES OF
ELECTED OFFICIALS
Bill Brougher, Chair of the Commission on Salaries of Elected Officials, introduced Vice Chair Ralph
Larson, and Commissioners Donn Wells, Janice Flaagan, Tony Baron and John Jordan; Commissioner
Jay Grant was not present.
Mr. Brougher provided a PowerPoint presentation describing the composition of the Commission — seven
members who serve staggered terms who meet every even year to recommend compensation adjustments
for City elected officials to the Council. He thanked the citizens who had participated in the process and
Administrative Services Director Dan. Clements and former Human Resources Director Brent Hunter for
their assistance. Mr. Brougher identified the 20 cities used in their comparison and identified elements
used in the comparison including population, assessed valuation, size of budget, number of staff, form of
government, position responsibilities and past compensation increases as well as citizen input. He
described how Edmonds compared with the 20 other cities, 501h percentile in population, 45`h percentile in
assessed valuation, 401h percentile in size of budget and 45`h percentile in number of staff.
Mr. Brougher described how Edmonds Mayor and Council compensation compared with the 20 other
entities, 50`h percentile in Mayor's salary, 15`h percentile in Council salary, 60`h percentile in Council
benefits, and 55th percentile for Council compensation. He displayed a graph illustrating the Mayor's
compensation 1988-2004 and the Council base pay history 1988.— 2004.
Mr. Brougher reviewed the monthly base pay, estimated meeting allowance, retirement and employer
paid medical benefits for the Mayor and Councilmembers. He noted some Councilmembers' salaries
were higher because the cost of the medical/dental benefits varied depending on the number of
dependents. He noted the Commission considered a cap on benefits but in view of rising healthcare
benefit costs did not pursue that issue, feeling it could be considered at a later date if the Council wished.
Mr. Brougher outlined the Commission's recommendations as follows:
• No adjustment to the Mayor's salary in 2004.
• Increase the Mayor's salary on July 1, 2005 by the same cost of living adjustment given to
Edmonds non -represented employees, not to exceed 2.5%. This recognizes that the current
Mayor's salary is comparable with comparative jurisdictions and will help the Mayor's salary
retain its current ranking and ensure future adjustments are small and more regular.
• No change recommended to the Council base bay or benefits. Because of escalating medical
costs, this action is anticipated to retain Council compensation rankings in two years.
Mr. Brougher encouraged the Council to change the name of the Commission from the Salary
Commission to the Compensation Commission as they considered benefits as well as salaries.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Commission and citizens supported an adjustment in the
Mayor's salary. Mr. Brougher answered yes, although there was feedback from citizens both for and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 9
against the proposed increase in 2005. Most citizens favored a flat or nominal increase and avoiding a
large increase.
Council President Pro Tern Dawson noted the Council could not bind a future Council to the 2005
increase in the Mayor's salary. City Attorney Scott Snyder suggested the increase be included in the
annual salary increase in 2005 which would require Council action at that time.
Hearing no further questions of staff, Mayor Pro Tem Plunkett remanded the matter to Council for action.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
ACCEPT THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
Councilmember Orvis thanked the Commission for the percentile graphs which he found provided a very
interesting analysis. Councilmembers commended the Commission for their efforts.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Moore was not present for the vote.)
Mr. Snyder inquired whether the ordinance should also include the proposed name change.
Councilmembers concurred with the recommended name change.
Mayor Pro Tern Plunkett declared a brief recess.
5A. RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT FOUR-YEAR
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AND TECHNOLOGY CAPITAL LEVY
Councilmember Wilson explained this item was added to the agenda at his request. He requested the
Edmonds School District provide a brief presentation regarding the levy and schedule opportunity for the
public to comment at the May 11 meeting. He read the resolution into the record to highlight the intent of
the levy:
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, as follows:
WHEREAS, public education is the hallmark of our American democracy, nurturing productive
and informed citizens; and
WHEREAS, public education contributes to the quality of life in the City of Edmonds by providing
skilled workers, attracting families to the community, and generating economic growth and
development; and
WHEREAS, partnerships between the City of Edmonds and Edmonds School District No. 15
provide shared use of recreational facilities for the citizens of Edmonds; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Edmonds School District No. 15 has placed before the
voters of the district a FOUR-YEAR EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AND TECHNOLOGY
CAPITAL LEVY, to be voted upon at a special election to be held May 18, 2004, to improve
classroom technology, make seismic and other safety improvements to schools throughout the
district, and improve outdoor recreation facilities enjoyed by students as well as members of the
community for recreational purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Edmonds recognizes the important connection between
quality schools and a strong and safe community;
Doug Fair, Edmonds School Board, referred to the Voter Information Guide regarding the school
election on May 18. He explained this was a 4-year capital levy; he distinguished between a capital levy
and a capital bond, explaining a levy was a pay-as-you-go program. In four years, the funds raised during
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 10
the four year period would have been spent on the items proposed. Unlike a bond, there were no interest
charges with a levy which resulted in a substantial savings. The reason this was being done now was the
Edmonds School District has experienced a great deal of increase in assessments due to increased
property values and increased construction, which reduces the tax rate. He explained the tax rate would
be lower than 2003 although slightly higher than 2004. He explained that over the next four years, the tax
rate was projected to decrease so that at the end of the 4-year levy, even if a maintenance and operations
levy were approved in 2006 (a replacement levy that did not increase taxes), the tax rate would be at its
lowest rate in 15 years.
Mr. Fair explained the proposed capital levy would fund $20 million in technology improvements. He
noted the Edmonds School District spent less than 1/3`d on technology as the nearest comparable school
district, causing the district to fall further and further behind. The proposed technology improvements
would not bring the Edmonds School District to the level of the nearest district but will substantially
improve the current situation. The capital levy would also provide $10 million for earthquake safety
improvements, $9.5 million for playground and field improvements including $1 million in community
partnerships, and $3.5 million for design and pre -construction of Lynnwood and Scriber Lake high
schools.
It was agreed the Council would meet at 7:00 p.m. prior to committee meetings on May 1.1 to take public
testimony and for the Council to consider adoption of the resolution.
6. OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE SEWER SPECIAL CONNECTION FEE
City Engineer Dave Gebert explained the objective of this item was to obtain Council concurrence and/or
guidance with regard to the staff s proposal to establish and implement a special connection fee on
Olympic View Drive. He noted this was very similar to the special connect fee established on 881h
Avenue near the 220`h Street. He explained in this instance, Lynnwood was planning a major street
improvement project on Olympic View Drive with construction planned to begin in 2005.
Mr. Gebert explained there were 13 private properties within the City of Edmonds that abutted Olympic
View Drive that were not currently connected to the sewer. He explained the 13 properties were divided
into two categories, A and B. He displayed a map of the Category A properties, 7101, 7109, 7115, 7327,
7333 and 7530 and a map of Category B properties, 17632 —17910 Olympic View Drive.
Mr. Gebert explained staff considered it in the best interest of the private property owners, the City and
the City utility to install sewer laterals and a sewer collector stub -out for the properties in the Olympic
View Drive right-of-way in conjunction with the Olympic View street improvements to avoid a future
project that would requiring boring or trenching into the new pavement, sidewalks, etc. It would also be
less expensive to install the connections now compared to post -construction.
Mr. Gebert explained the City's Sewer Capital Fund 412 would provide the funds for construction of the
laterals and the sewer stub -outs. The project to install the improvements was included in the adopted
2004 Capital Budget; however, the cost of construction should be recovered from private property owners
who benefit from the improvements. He explained a special connection fees were authorized by RCW
but special connection fees must be adopted by the City Council after construction was complete and the
actual costs were known.
As with the 2201h Street project, there were two issues that required further Council guidance, 1) whether
to establish and implement the special connection fee, and 2) whether to require the property owners to
connect within the timeframes contained in ECDC or allow property owners to defer connection to a
future time when they may otherwise be required to connect due to septic system failure, development,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 11
etc. With regard to whether to establish and implement the special connection fee, the City Attorney
advised there was no legal requirement that the City recover costs from private property owners, however,
in an effort to be consistent and in fairness to other rate payers, staff recommends establishing a special
connection fee so that the property owners pay for the cost of the improvement. Historically, the City has
required private property owners to pay for utility installations that served private property, typically via
LIDs or at the time of development.
Staff recommends the property owners pay the City back for the cost of construction of the sewer laterals
and stub -out. Mr. Gebert explained several methods for recovery the costs were evaluated including LID,
latecomers agreement and special connection fee. For the same reason as the 220th Street project, the
special connection fee was identified as the recommended alternative.
With regard to whether property owners should be required to connect within the timeframes contained in
ECDC, Mr. Gebert explained ECDC currently required properties within 200 feet to connect within 30 or
60 days. He again referred to the category of properties, explaining the difference was the Category A
properties, there was currently a Lynnwood sewer line along the frontage of the properties, therefore, the
only improvement that needed to be installed was a sewer lateral from each property to the sewer line
estimated to cost $3,000 - $6,000. Property owners would also need to install their own side sewer, the
line from the City's sewer lateral to their property, sewer connection fee of $730 and permit and
inspection fees.
Mr. Gebert noted the significant difference between a Local Improvement District (LID), such as the one
in Perrinville, was that a LID was a voluntary type of action; a majority of the residents signed a petition
and requested the sewers be installed. This proposal was a City -initiative; therefore, the Council had the
option of allowing property owners to defer connection. Staff recommended Category A properties be
required to connect to sewer because the cost was reasonably affordable or able to financed, since it was a
code requirement and it was preferred that properties be on sewer systems when available rather than
septic systems for environmental and sanitation purposes.
With regard to the Category B properties, Mr. Gebert explained Lynnwood's sewer line did not continue
along Olympic View Drive in that area, therefore, there was no sewer along the property frontages. In
order for these properties to connect, approximately 1200 feet of sewer collector would need to be
installed, estimated to cost $300,000 - $325,000. Staff recommends a small collector stub -out be
installed, similar to what was done on 220th to avoid the future necessity of cutting into the improvements
on Olympic View Drive and providing a point of connection when the property owners chose to construct
the collector and connect to sewer. Staff considers the $300,000 - $325,000 construction cost to be more
than current rate payers should absorb for these private properties and more than could reasonably be
expected for these property owners to be required to do immediately. Therefore, staff recommends the
Category B properties be allowed to defer their connection until their septic systems failed, development
occurred, etc.
Mr. Gebert displayed a construction schedule for the project, explaining it was anticipated construction
would begin in spring/summer 2005 and the sewer lateral and stub -out construction would be completed
in late fall/winter 2005 when an ordinance adopting the Special Sewer Connection Fee would be
presented to the Council for adoption. If the Council chose to require the Category A properties connect
in accordance with current code requirements, they would be required to connect and pay the Special
Connection Fee in the January/February 2006 timeframe. If the Council chose to allow Category A
and/or B properties, to defer connection, payment would be required when connection occurred.
Mr. Gebert advised this issue was presented to the Community Services/Development Services
Committee who endorsed staff s recommendation. Neighborhood meetings were held with affected
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 12
properties although the turnout was low. He noted the primary concern for Category B properties was the
high cost to construct the collector that would be required for them to connect. He noted a Category A
property owner contacted him subsequent to the neighborhood meeting, also concerned about the cost and
requesting that the Council allow Category A properties to defer payment of the Special Connection Fee.
He noted all property owners were notified of tonight's agenda item and several were present who wished
to address the Council.
Mr. Gebert relayed staff s recommendation that the Council direct staff to proceed with development and
implementation of special connection fees, including the following key elements: equitable fee prorated
among the private properties based on actual costs, special connection fee to be paid in full at time of
connection, Category A properties south of 180`h Street SW be required to connect within 60 days of
completion of the sewer laterals, Category B properties north of 180th Street SW be allowed to defer
connection (include in ordinance the ability to adjust the connection fee for inflation to account for the
City fronting the money from the time of construction to the time of connection), and special connection
fees to be in addition the City's normal sewer connection fee and all other applicable permit fees and
possible fees imposed by the City of Lynnwood. Staff also recommended when construction was
complete and actual costs were determined, an ordinance is presented to the Council adopting the special
connection fee.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the cost to install the lateral for the Category A properties in the
future if not installed prior to the street improvements. Mr. Gebert estimated up to 50% more. He
estimated the cost would be $3,000 - $6,000 per lateral with the excavation and installation done by a
contractor who was already mobilized and not cutting through sidewalks and pavement. He concluded
the cost to install after the street improvements were completed would be considerably more.
Councilmember Wilson noted the logic behind installing the laterals now was to reduce the cost via
economies of scale. Mr. Gebert agreed.
Public Comment
Matt Wood, 7333 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, a Category A property, pointed out $6,000 was a
considerable amount to his family. He pointed out not only would they be required to pay the $6,000 cost
of installing the lateral but the cost to decommission their septic system was unknown. He requested the
City provide a low interest payment plan versus citizens paying the entire cost at the time of connection.
Other than some preventative maintenance two years ago, there had not been any problems with their
septic system since the house was built in 1978.
Bill Spaulding, 7109 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, agreed with. Mr. Wood that the monetary issue
was a concern, pointing out LID participants were allowed 20 years to pay via an annual assessment. He
referred to a letter he possessed that indicated when the new LID was created and sewers were installed,
he would be allowed to defer connection until he sold his house. He pointed out in front of his house and
two neighbors' houses, there were green locate marks indicating laterals already existed. Although
Lynnwood denied the laterals existed, he questioned why the laterals were marked on the street in green
which indicates their presence not a proposed location. He requested assurance that existing laterals
would not be duplicated and questioned whether property owners would be allowed to determine the
location of laterals.
Bill Holloway, 17806 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, a Category B property, asked whether they be
allowed to repair a failed septic system if they deferred connection to the stub -out. He indicated he had
been told they could but was seeking verification.
Mayor Pro Tern Plunkett closed the public participation portion of this item.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 13
City Attorney Scott Snyder advised that the State Constitution prohibited the City from making loans.
LIDS were a special, authorized tool whereby funds were owed not to the City but private bond holders.
He explained staff had tried to duplicate that result by allowing deferral of hookups for Category B
properties with CPI increases in the hookup fee. With regard to whether property owners could repair a
failed septic system, he explained State Statute and City ordinance require properties with failing septic
systems to hookup when sewer was available within 200 feet. He noted there may be some room for
negotiation with regard to whether the septic system was failing or reparable.
With regard to the Perrinville LID and installment payments, Mr. Gebert explained the connection fee for
the Perrinville LID was $12,000 or $13,000 per connection depending on the LID. Although he did not
intend to imply that $3,000 - $6,000 was not a significant amount, it was a more reasonable amount than
$12,000-$13,000 for which to arrange financing. With regard to whether there was an existing lateral, he
assured staff would investigate because the information from Lynnwood and the City's sewer department
indicated there were no existing sewer laterals. He noted if it were determined that laterals existing, they
certainly would not install new ones provided the laterals met current code.
With regard to whether property owners could provide input regarding the location of the laterals, Mr.
Gebert assured there would be one-on-one contact with property owners to identify the best location.
Mayor Pro Tem Plunkett referred to staffs comment regarding "arranging financing," noting this referred
to private financing. Mayor Pro Tem Plunkett inquired whether there was any way for the City to assist
with financing. Mr. Snyder reiterated the City was constitutionally prohibited from making loans to
private individuals. The one authorized alternative was a LID; however, the reality of a LID was that due
to procedural requirements, appraisals, etc. the cost of the project was greatly inflated. He noted staff's
proposal was an attempt to keep the cost as low as possible. He acknowledged the Council could proceed
with a LID although it would take much longer to set up and although property owners would have lower
cost financing, they would be financing twice the amount. Mr. Gebert noted it also may take longer to set
up a LID than was available before construction began.
Mayor Pro Tem Plunkett concluded a property owner would need to obtain financing via the private
market. Mr. Gebert agreed, noting there were also other programs whereby low income property owners
could obtain assistance.
Council President Pro Tem Dawson observed that staff's experience with the Perrinville LID was the cost
was approximately twice as much due to the LID process. Mr. Gebert answered the Perrinville sewer was
much more expensive because there was much more infrastructure installed for that sewer system and the
administrative and legal costs of establishing an LID also increased the costs significantly. Mr. Snyder
noted overhead costs were the same regardless of the capital costs.
Council President Pro Tem Dawson observed the overhead costs such as legal costs, appraisal, process,
bond holders' profit, bond underwriters, fee, etc. were statistic regardless of the project size and for a
smaller project, there were few home owners to split the cost among. Mr. Gebert commented the effort,
time and cost to establish an LID for Category A and/or B did not make sense for this small amount.
Council President Pro Tem Dawson observed it was the reverse of economies of scale to do a LID for a
project of this size. Mr. Gebert agreed, noting the Perrinville LID was millions of dollars.
Council President Pro Tem Dawson pointed out the requirement to pay the special connection fee within
60 days was still two years away. Mr. Gebert agreed. Council President Pro Tem Dawson noted property
owners could potentially obtain a home equity loan for this type of project. Mr. Gebert advised the
Council could also choose to allow Category A properties to defer connection.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 14
Council President Pro Tem Dawson questioned why was the Council discussing deferral if there was a
requirement in the code that property owners connect with 60 days. Mr. Snyder answered staff was
attempting to identify a cost effective method with the least impact on citizens and the project. He noted
the 60 day requirement had been in State Statute for many years and was a health and sanitation issue.
Council President Pro Tem Dawson noted absent extraordinary circumstances, hookup was required
within 60 days; staff considers Category B properties to be an extraordinary cost. Mr. Snyder agreed.
Mr. Gebert pointed out that, to staff s knowledge, none of the septic systems were failing. He reiterated a
LID was a voluntary process and this was a City initiated process.
Councilmember Marin reported as a member of the Snohomish County Health Board he had participated
in septic inspections. He pointed out many homeowners were not aware their septic systems needed
regular maintenance or how the condition of the tank impacted the life of the system. He recommended a
distinction be made between a failing system and a system that could be extended via maintenance. Mr.
Gebert answered if this issue arose, staff would seek the advice of the Health District.
Hearing no further Council questions of staff, Mayor Pro Tem Plunkett remanded the matter to Council
for action.
Councilmember Marin noted this issue had arisen when he was the chair of the Community
Services/Development Services Committee and he tried to place himself in the property owner's position
of needing to raise the funds to pay the connection fee. Although he had hoped there would be a way to
lengthen the time before residents would need to pay the special connection fee, Lynnwood's delay of the
project provided some additional time to arrange financing.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, DIRECT
STAFF TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
SPECIAL CONNECTION FEES, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING KEY ELEMENTS:
EQUITABLE FEE PRORATED AMONG THE PRIVATE PROPERTIES BASED ON
ACTUAL COSTS, SPECIAL CONNECTION FEE TO BE PAID IN FULL AT TIME OF
CONNECTION, CATEGORY A PROPERTIES SOUTH OF 180TH STREET SW BE
REQUIRED TO CONNECT WITHIN 60 DAYS OF COMPLETION OF THE SEWER
LATERALS, CATEGORY B PROPERTIES NORTH OF 180TH STREET SW BE
ALLOWED TO DEFER CONNECTION (INCLUDE IN ORDINANCE THE ABILITY TO
ADJUST THE CONNECTION FEE FOR INFLATION TO ACCOUNT FOR THE CITY
FRONTING THE MONEY FROM THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION TO THE TIME OF
CONNECTION), AND SPECIAL CONNECTION FEES TO BE IN ADDITION THE
CITY'S NORMAL SEWER CONNECTION FEE AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE
PERMIT FEES AND POSSIBLE FEES IMPOSED BY THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD.
STAFF ALSO RECOMMENDED WHEN CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETE AND
ACTUAL COSTS WERE DETERMINED, AN ORDINANCE BE PRESENTED TO THE
COUNCIL ADOPTING THE SPECIAL CONNECTION FEE.
Mayor Pro Tem Plunkett assured residents that Mr. Gebert was available and ready to answer questions.
Recognizing that residents may be concerned about the financial burden, he encouraged them to consider
it an investment as spending $6,000 to convert from a septic to sewer would increase the value of the
home by at least that amount.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Moore was not present for the vote.)
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 15
Ron Wambolt, 504 6tn Avenue S, Edmonds, referred to a comment Mayor Haakenson made at the
conclusion of the April 20 meeting that Mr. Wambolt would be the first to jump on a budget that had an
employee on site at every construction site in the City checking on the proper treatment of trees. He
noted while the Mayor was correct, that was not his suggestion. His suggestion was that someone from
the City visit the Unocal site at least briefly each week considering that this was the largest construction
project done in Edmonds. He noted there had been a City employee at the site for the past few months;
however, by the time he was instructed to check on the area being logged, the trees had already been
removed. Mr. Wambolt noted his experience with City employees indicated they were confident,
courteous and anxious to be helpful but were not perfect. He referred to the Mayor defense of City
employees, questioning whether Mayor Haakenson realized the City's employees were not perfect. He
noted experience had taught him that the most expeditious way to deal with mistakes was to admit it,
learn from it, and not make the same mistake again. He noted if that approach were tried, everyone would
be pleased with how quickly the fuss would subside.
Carol Riddell, Edmonds, referred to Mayor Haakenson's remarks that were reported in the Everett 8� 6n-ded
Herald regarding the clear cut and the replanting of conifers on the slope making it better than it had ever
05
been. She pointed out what existed on the now nearly clear cut slope was a healthy forest with a variety
of native understory plants, approximately 70 years old which was fairly young in the northwest. She
noted the forest was comprised of primary of maples and alders, the first trees in the succession of the
forest that die slowly and return to the soil providing nutrients for the forest floor, creating snags for
wildlife habitat and eventually falling without destroying the understory or compacting the soil. She
pointed out Triad destroyed 70 years of a forest in the making, robbing the area of wildlife habitat,
harmed the value of the Edmonds Marsh as a natural filtration system and wildlife habitat, and left the
slope unstable once the area received its usual rains. She referred to the developer's offer to gift $100,000
to the City for the Edmonds in Bloom and Beach Ranger programs which were totally unrelated to the
slope. She pointed out the most important part of ethics and politics was the appearance of impropriety; if
the City accepted a gift for something unrelated to the slope from a developer who was in violation of
Edmonds' ordinances, it set up an appearance of impropriety and called into question the integrity of
monitoring and enforcing the City's ordinances. She urged the Council to consider rejecting any gift
from the developer.
Don Kreiman, 24006 95t" Place W, Edmonds, described how the Edmonds School District was formed
120 years ago. He explained the Edmonds School District levy would provide funds for earthquake
safety improvements primarily in elementary schools, science lab safety improvements in middle and
high schools and playground and field improvements for nearly all schools. He pointed out if the levy
passed, the tax rate would change from $4.60 per $1,000 of assessed value last year to $3.90 per $1,000 of
assessed value next year and would decrease in the future. He encouraged the Council to pass a
resolution endorsing the passage of the Edmonds School District levy and vote May 18.
Ray Martin, 18704 94t'' Avenue W, Edmonds, echoed Ms. Riddell's comments regarding Unocal. He
referred to his request for information at the last meeting regarding Edmonds Crossing, noting he had not
yet received any answers other than five endorsements of the project and a referral to where he could find
information. He inquired what would become of the properties that would be vacated when the ferry
terminal was relocated. With regard to Councihnember Moore's statement that she contacted the Public
Disclosure Commission regarding Councilmember Marin's violations, he asked who she talked to and
whether she had identified herself to the PDC representative.
Natalie Shippen, 1.022 Euclid, Edmonds, asserted the Edmonds Crossing was an unwanted orphan until
Edmonds adopted it and over the past 14 years Edmonds had collected approximately $1.5 million per
year from various agencies to pay consultants to keep the project alive. She questioned whether this
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 16
project would have survived if the Council had been asked to annually budget $1.5 million in consultant
fees for the project. She noted in November, Snohomish County voters would be asked to raise their
Motor Vehicle Excise Tax to provide $452 million in funding for the Edmonds Crossing project. She
pointed out the lack of information regarding the Edmonds Crossing project and requested information be
made available to voters. She requested consultants provide the reports that have been generated in the
past as well as an updated report on the pier alignment, a description of the access road including as it
crosses the lower yard, railroad tracks, Port property; the width, length and grade of the pier, distance
from the pier to the terminal; number of shuttle buses and cost to operate; number of cars held on the
access road and in parking lot; a description of the terminal building; a description of the methods to enter
and exit the property at Pine Street & SR 104; the number of ferries the terminal could eventually
accommodate.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
ORVIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Susie Schaefer, 1055 Edmonds Street, Edmonds, a boardmember of the Philchuck Audubon Society,
advised Edmonds' Discovery Program and the Philchuck Audubon Society were sponsoring International
Migratory Bird Day at the Edmonds Marsh. She expressed concern with whether the birds would return
and anticipated having to use the tree cutting as a negative example of what could happen. She explained
that although the Marsh was the first stop on the Washington State Birding Trail; next year they may have
to hold the event elsewhere.
Frederick Grimm, President, Triad Development, and Manager, Point Edmonds LLC, 2801
Alaskan Way, Seattle, read a letter of apology regarding the cutting of alder and maple trees on the
lower hillside of the western boundary of the Point Edwards property, admitting they made a mistake in
not following all the arborist's recommendations with regard to how and when certain trees could be cut
as part of a reforestation program. He apologized to City staff and the Council for their having to take
criticism wrongfully direct to the City as a result of their error. The letter described efforts to ensure there
were no immediate soil erosion problems and plans to replant over 100 conifer trees once permission was
provided by the City. He also wanted to repair the community's trust in them, assuring they had never
made a mistake like this before. To start rebuilding their relationship with the community, they
voluntarily contributed $100,000 to the Edmonds Beach Ranger program and the Edmonds Flower
program in hopes this donation would not only show the sincerity of their apology but also exemplify
their desire to be involved in the community.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, noted Mr. Grimm forgot one thing, to fire Ross Woods
which he felt would demonstrate the sincerity of Mr. Grimm's words. He objected to comments Mr.
Woods made via email and letters, blaming the City for this process and stating that only a few trees at
the bottom of the slope were cut. He suggested the staff enlist Ms. Riddell's aid and require another
review process via the ADB. With regard to the Salary Commission, he commended them on their
efforts. He recalled a majority of the public at the meeting did not support the Mayor's salary increase.
With regard to the Edmonds School District levy, he questioned the use of a levy versus a bond that
would spread costs over 20 years.
John Osterhaug, 941 Viewmoor Place, Edmonds, expressed support for Ms. Riddell's statement. He
noted that if the City allowed the developer to get away with this flagrant violation, it would perpetuate
the idea that anyone could get away with anything in the City. He recommended issuing a stop work
order.
Doug Fair, Edmonds School Board, 22051 98th Place W, Edmonds, with regard to Mr. Hertrich's
recommendation that the capital costs be funded via bond, pointed out this would mean funding computer
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 17
equipment that had a useful life of 3-5 years over 20 years which he noted that was not economically
prudent. He encouraged voters to vote yes on May 18.
Community Services Director Stephen Clifton responded to Ms. Shippen's request for information,
pointing out that although the City seemed to be the lead, the Edmonds Crossing project was a
collaboration between the Federal Highway Administration, Washington State Ferries and the City. With
regard to the $187 million cost of the project, he noted the RTID website referred to a value of $186
million which was the 2008-2009 value of the project; in 2004 dollars, the project cost was $165 million.
With regard to the $20 million paid to consultants, he agreed there was $20 million available for the
project via a number of sources. With regard to the project description and outreach to the public, he
advised a public open house and extensive outreach was done in January 2003 and approximately 120
people attended the meeting and a majority supported the project and its realignment. Another public
meeting was held in February 2003 where the same presentation that was made at the open house was
made. The presentation was provided at two Woodway Town Council meetings after which the Town
Council unanimously expressed their support for the project and its realignment. A presentation was
made at three Port of Edmonds meetings in February/March 2003 after which the Port Commission voted
unanimously to support the project and its realignment. An open house newsletter was also placed on the
City's website.
With regard to Ms. Shippen's specific questions, the width of pier is 114 feet, 89 feet for the holding
lanes and 25 feet for the pedestrian pier (a significant reduction since the Draft EIS), the length of pier is
1,300 feet from the ferry slips to the multimodal terminal (a reduction of 600 feet from the Draft EIS), the
grade of the pier from the railroad tracks to the ferry slips is 3% (well below the 8% allowed by ADA),
the elevation from the tracks is a 26 foot clearance, capacity of the holding lanes is 835 cars, 90 short term
parking stalls and 450 long term parking stalls, and the pier will be located on Port and City property.
Without objection from the Council, the meeting was extended for ten minutes.
City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the public should not expect the Council to comment on the tree
clearing. Due to the potential for appeal to the Council, it would be inappropriate for the Council to take
a position. He assured the City was pursuing all available ordinance remedies, the permit review hearing
on May 20 was an alternative to returning to the ADB, and staff was pursuing civil enforcement fines. He
noted these were the developer's trees on the developer's property; therefore, certain criminal remedies
such as trespass were not available to the City. He noted most development in Edmonds over the past 30
years had been via infill development and the City's remedies have proven historically adequate. He
noted for a development of this size, the penalties were not what they could be and staff was working to
tighten up the City's provisions and provide for greater remedies. He noted this would be presented to the
Council for review in the future but would not be applicable to this development.
8. MAYOR PRO TEM'S COMMENTS
Mayor Pro Tem Plunkett reminded that Council subcommittees would meet at 7:15 p.m. in May.
Beginning in. June, committee meetings would begin at 6:00 p.m.
Mayor Pro Tem Plunkett invited the public to the Frances Anderson Center open house, "Inspecting our
Digs" on May 13 with self -guided tours throughout the day and reception at 5:00 p.m.
9. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Pro Tem Dawson thanked Mr. Snyder for his reminder to the Council regarding not
speaking about Triad.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 18
Councilmember Wilson reported the Snohomish County Council held a public hearing yesterday
regarding amendments to the Snohomish County Tomorrow's (SCT) operating guidelines and policies
and via their amendments, effectively took away much of the ability for SCT to work with Snohomish
County on land use matters countywide and reducing SCT's input on long range Comprehensive Plan
policies in Snohomish County. The Snohomish County Council's action also would not allow SCT to
initiate its own review; they would only be allowed to review items referred to them by the County
Council. He noted what had been a very successful and collaborative planning process in Snohomish
County since the late 1980's seemed to be coming to a close and it would be difficult for cities to work
with Snohomish County on issues. He noted one of the main policies that would be affected was how the
County allocated populations to jurisdictions, now solely within Snohomish County Council's authority
and discretion to ensure cities accepted the population identified for their jurisdiction.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m.
C�ARrH6,KE&SON,• .
L.�-sew
"SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 4, 2004
Page 19
1
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5' Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
MAY 412004
6:45 p.m. - Interview Architectural Design Board Candidate
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order
Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
(A) Roll Call
(B) y Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2004.
(C) Approval of claim checks #70756 through #70907 for the week of April 26,
2004, in the amount of $241,405.60.*.
*Note: Information. regarding claim checks may be viewed electronically at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us.
(D) Acknowledge receipt of Claim for Damages from Juan Velasco San Juan
(amount undetermined).
(E) Authorization for Mayor to sign Public Works Trust Fund Loan Agreements.
(F) Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Jim Elliott to the Architectural Design
Board.
(G) SR-104 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project - Authorization for the Mayor to
sign Change Order #2 ($465,498.50, including sales tax) for additional work
and increase the contract to $1,020,465.97, including sales tax.
(H) Proposed Ordinance adopting Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
rezoning certain property located at 23904 Edmonds Way from Single -Family
Residential (RS-8) to Community Business (BC).
(1) Proposed Ordinance adopting procedures governing the lifting of DNR
moratoriums.
(J) Proclamation in honor of National Day of Prayer, May 6, 2004.
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
May 4, 2004
Page 2 of 2
3. (30 Min.) Public hearing on the Fine Arts Center of Edmonds (FACE) - Economic Impact
Analysis and request for funds ($6,000).
4. (20 Min.) Closed record review of the Planning Board's recommendation to rezone 7023
and 7025 - 174t' Street SW from Single -Family Residential RS-20 to RS-12.
(Applicant: Larry D. Deisher / File No. R-04-18).
S. (30 Min.) Report and recommendation from the Commission on Salaries of Elected
Officials.
6. (30 Min.) Olympic View Drive sewer special connection fee.*
*Public comment will be invited.
7. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
S. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
9. (15 Min.) Council Comments
ADJOURN
'arking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771-024:
vith 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations. The Council Agenda as well as a delayed telecast o
he meeting appears on cable television Government Access Channel 21.
1
!r�