11/26/2002 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
November 26, 2002
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gary Haakenson in the
Council Chambers, 250 5`i' Avenue North, Edmonds, followed by the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Dave Earling, Council President
Jeff Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Deanna Dawson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Brandy Grout, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
Kevin Taylor, Assistant Fire Chief
David Stern, Chief of Police
Al Compaan, Assistant Police Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director
Arvilla Ohlde, Parks and Recreation Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director
Darrell Smith, Traffic Engineer
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Change to COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
he Agenda REMOVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM F (APPROVE AGREEMENT FOR TECHNICAL
SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD, AND
JAMES MERCER, M.D.). MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING,
FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
Approve
Minutes
inote(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2002
nut
prove (C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #59235 THROUGH #59358 FOR THE WEEK OF
NOVEMBER 18, 2002, IN THE AMOUNT OF $208,946.82. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL
ecks DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #34422 THROUGH #34616 FOR THE PERIOD
NOVEMBER 1 THROUGH NOVEMBER 15, 2002, IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,003,663.02
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 26, 2002
Page 1
Claims for
Damages (D) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM HARRY H.
SHELTON ($196.82), AND GARY SPENCE ($3,814.20).
Liquor (E) APPROVAL OF LIST OF EDMONDS BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF
Control THEIR LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL
Board BOARD
City Wide (G) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED NOVEMBER 5, 2002 FOR THE CITY WIDE GUARDRAIL
Guardrail REPLACEMENT (BELL STREET, 89TH PLACE WEST, NORTH MEADOWDALE ROAD
Replacement AND ALLEY LOCATION), AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO PETERSEN BROTHERS,
INC. ($58,834.45, EXCLUDING SALES TAX)
]aims for
Damages I (H) REPORT ON THE GENERAL FUND AND OTHER SELECTED FUNDS FINANCIAL
POSITION FOR THE MONTH ENDING SEPTEMBER 2002.
(I) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE FINAL PLAT OF ALEXIS'S
5 -lot Plat ADDITION, A FIVE -LOT PLAT AND PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
o PRD th (PRD) LOCATED AT 9014 — 240TH STREET SW. THE SITE IS ZONED SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS -8). (APPLICANT: LOVELL SAUERLAND & ASSOC.,
INC., FOR VIKING PROPERTIES, INC. / FILE NO. P-02-62 AND PRD -02-62)
State Rep. Introduction of State Representative Al O'Brien
1 O'Brien State Representative Al O'Brien explained due to recent redistricting, he now represents two precincts in
Edmonds. He indicated his telephone number was in the telephone book and encouraged the Council and
the public to contact him regarding any issues. He indicated his plans to work with Representative
Sullivan when the Brightwater bill is reintroduced in the next legislative session.
Establishing 3. CONTINUED COUNCIL DELIBERATION REGARDING THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD
Property NOVEMBER 19, 2002 ON ESTABLISHING PROPERTY TAX LEVIES FOR THE YEAR 2003
Tax Levies AND POTENTIAL ACTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION FINDING THE EXISTENCE OF
for 2003 SUBSTANTIAL NEED FOR A INCREASE BASED ON THE MAXIMUM LAWFUL LEVY
AND AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE PROPERTY TAX LEVIES FOR THE REGULAR
PROPERTY TAX LEVY, THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES LEVY AND PUBLIC
SAFETY COMPLEX BOND ISSUE DEBT SERVICE
Councilmember Petso referred to a fund in the Parks & Recreation budget for Frances Anderson Center
improvements and the inclusion of 1 % for Arts in that fund in the amount of $14,000. She noted the I%
for Arts was not charged for street projects or building repair items. She recalled Parks & Recreation
Director Arvilla Ohlde's indication that that amount should be zero. Administrative Services Director
Peggy Hetzler agreed, noting she would need to confirm this in the budget work papers.
Ms. Hetzler gave a presentation regarding what a levy lid lift could look like and the legal requirements
associated with a levy lid lift. She explained this information was provided in response to Council
discussion regarding a public safety levy lid lift or bond issue. With the passage of I-747, there were
only two ways for a jurisdiction to increase property taxes by more than 1%; one of those ways was if the
jurisdiction had banked property tax capacity which Edmonds does have. If the Council chose, the
property tax increase could be at least 6.1 % because the City has not taken advantage of its full property
tax increase capacity in the past. The only other way a City may increase its property tax levy is via a
levy lid lift. She noted a simple majority vote of the public was needed to accomplish a levy lid lift under
RCW 84.55.050. In order to be able to do a levy lid lift, the jurisdiction's current property tax rate has to
be below its maximum amount ($3.10); Edmonds' current property tax rate is $2.27. She explained a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 26, 2002
Page 2
levy lid lift could be put in place for specific programs but did not have to be; a levy lid lift could be put
in place for a limited amount of time or could be a permanent lid lift.
With regard to a public safety -voted bond issue, Ms. Hetzler explained a bond election could be held that
would authorize a dedicated property tax to pay the principle and interest on outstanding bonds; however,
she noted public safety bond issues were typically done for capital projects and the City's current need
was funds for operations.
Ms. Hetzler displayed a list of potential police programs (related to the cuts proposed in the 2003 budget)
that could be funded via a levy lid lift. In addition to the programs proposed to be cut, she added
additional retirement costs and 800 MHz radio replacement as potential programs to be funded via a levy
lid lift for a total of $815,019.
Ms. Hetzler displayed a list of potential fire programs (related to the cuts proposed in the 2003 budget)
that could be funded via a levy lid lift. In addition to the programs proposed to be cut from the 2003
budget, she added additional retirement costs and 800 MHz radio replacement for a total of $574,249.
She summarized the total police and fire potential funding was $1,389,268. She explained approximately
an 18% increase in the property tax levy would be required to fund these items. The impact on the
median homeowner would be an additional tax of $102.42 (an increase from the current City taxes of
$569 to $671.42 after the 18% levy lid lift). She noted approval required a simple majority by voters.
She clarified the levy lid lift could be structured to cover certain public safety programs such as those
outlined above. The tax rate would increase from $2.27 per $1,000 of assessed value to $2.42 per
$1,000, well below the statutory limit of $3.10. She noted this was significant to Edmonds as Edmonds
would no longer be able to collect the motor vehicle local option fee that was currently used for the
overlay program as Snohomish County has repealed that tax. If the City chose to propose funding to
make up that loss, the City would still have sufficient levy capacity.
Ms. Hetzler reviewed a list of proposed cuts to each Department and positions/programs that could be
restored via a levy lid lift including the Receptionist in Administrative Services; Police Patrol Officers,
Crime Prevention Enforcement Officer and Parking/Animal Control Officer in the Police Department;
Firefighters, Inspector, and Assistant Fire Chief in the Fire Department; Receptionist in the Development
Services Department; Beach Rangers in the Parks & Recreation Department, and a Custodian in Public
Works, reducing the proposed reductions to approximately $1,050,000. She summarized this would
allow restoration of 11 of the 35 positions originally proposed for elimination.
Ms. Hetzler reviewed a General Fund outlook for 2002 — 2007, explaining the assumptions in this
forecast included seeking a levy lid lift in 2004 for approximately $1.4 million and three new revenue
sources in 2003 — a property tax recapture of 1.9% and a utility tax on solid waste and stormwater. She
noted the combination of these three revenue sources would generate an additional $418,000. She
explained this would leave an ending cash balance in 2003 of slightly less than $500,000, well below the
target for the General Fund but still a manageable number. She noted the forecast then showed the
additional revenue from the levy lid lift in 2004, and pointed out the ending cash after 2004 continued to
be a manageable figure.
Ms. Hetzler recalled during public comments last week, a speaker commented on the amount I-695 saved
him and that it may be time for the public to give back some of those savings. To illustrate the impact of
I-695 on an average Edmonds resident, she used herself as an example. As the owner of 1991 and 1995
vehicles, prior to I-695 (1999), she paid a total of $1,200 per year to license the vehicles. In 2002, she
paid $115 per year to license the two vehicles, a savings of $970 per year. She compared this to the taxes
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 26, 2002
Page 3
that had been enacted since I-695, the library annexation tax ($100), property tax increase in 2000 ($62),
property tax increase in 2001 ($.00), property tax increase in 2002 ($21), for a total of new taxes post I-
695 of $183.00. Continuing to use her household as an example, the impact of a potential levy lid lift
would be $94.00, for a net savings of $693 per year.
Ms. Hetzler emphasized the information provided was only an illustration, there were a number of
different ways a levy lid lift could be structured.
Mayor Haakenson referred to the General Fund outlook 2002 — 2007, commenting that if the Council
chose the levy lid lift option, the election would occur in 2003 but the funds would not be collected until
2004. Ms. Hetzler agreed. Mayor Haakenson inquired how a failure of the levy lid lift would impact
projections from 2004 on, Ms. Hetzler answered approximately $1.5 million in additional cuts would be
required in 2004.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the General Fund Outlook 2004 — 2007, specifically the additional
$418,000 shown in 2003 from the revenue sources Ms. Hetzler outlined previously. He asked whether
those funds would cover the priority requests from the Fire, Police and other departments. Ms. Hetzler
answered $418,000 would not be sufficient. Councilmember Plunkett noted approximately $610,000
would be required to fund the priority requests from all departments. Ms. Hetzler agreed.
Mayor Haakenson inquired about the impact to the budget if the Council added $610,000 in new revenue
and added $610,000 in expenditures. Ms. Hetzler answered the City would run completely out of cash at
the end of 2004.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the proposed restorations included the Youth Services Department.
Ms. Hetzler answered yes. Councilmember Petso asked whether it would restore the D.A.R.E. program.
Ms. Hetzler answered it would restore everything the Police Department proposed as cuts.
Councilmember Orvis clarified the $3.10 maximum statutory property tax limit was with the library
annexation; without the library annexation, the limit was $3.60. Ms. Hetzler agreed.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Ms. Hetzler explained the 1.9% property tax increase generates $143,000
and 3% generates $226,000. Councilmember Plunkett inquired whether the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
was approximately 3%. Ms. Hetzler advised it was 1.9% this year but had been approximately 3% for
each of the past ten years.
Councilmember Dawson commented there could be other items funded via a levy lid lift. She inquired
about the revenue generated via a 1% property tax increase. Ms. Hetzler answered reducing the property
tax increase from 1.9% to 1% in 2003 would be a loss of $68,000 in revenue. Councilmember Dawson
noted there were other ways the Council could identify $68,000 such as reducing the Council
Contingency Fund for one year or reducing funding to the Alliance.
Councilmember Dawson commented it was her understanding that even if the cuts that were proposed
were made to the budget and revenues in the amount of $610,000 were identified, the City would still be
in a deficit in the next couple years and additional cuts would be required unless a levy lid lift were
approved. Ms. Hetzler agreed.
Mayor Haakenson asked if the levy lid lift failed in 2003 and the City began 2004 with $480,000 in cash,
would the City run out of cash in 2004. Ms. Hetzler answered yes.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 26, 2002
Page 4
Council President Earling explained that due to a timing issue, the Council needed to decide tonight on a
property tax increase for 2003 although the Council would not conclude its budget discussions for a
couple weeks. He noted a property tax increase over 1% required a super majority vote (five affirmative
votes).
For Councilmember Wilson, Ms. Hetzler explained City Attorney Scott Snyder recommended a super
majority vote for any increase in the property tax rate due to the vagueness of the law as a result of the
numerous amendments that have occurred via initiatives.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
APPROVE A 1% PROPERTY TAX INCREASE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Petso noted no one wanted to raise property taxes; the Council approved a 1% increase
because it was essential. She suggested the Council consider a further increase in property taxes,
expressing frustration that while she has voted against some of the City's funding habits and did not
agree entirely with how some funds were spent, those funds were spent and/or committed and the funds
to honor those commitments must be identified. She noted there were Councilmembers who voted in
favor of contracts that obligated the City to cost of living increases plus 1%. For the Councilmembers
who were willing to make that commitment, she urged them to also be willing to identify the funds to pay
for those contracts because the alternative was layoffs this year and in the future.
Councilmember Orvis indicated it was his intent to add approximately $410,000 back into the budget,
primarily to restore frontline police and fire positions. With regard to revenue choices, his least desirable
choice was property taxes as property values did not necessarily track with incomes and there were many
residents who purchased their homes at a low value and property taxes have escalated along with the
value. He summarized it was his desire to keep property tax growth at the rate of CPI and he would be
willing to approve an additional 0.9% increase in property taxes. He supported placing a levy lid lift on
the ballot.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO
APPROVE A 0.9% PROPERTY TAX RECAPTURE.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled the public testimony has been clear that the community wants frontline
fire and police positions protected. Further, there were other reasonable priorities identified in other
departments that needed to be funded. He urged the Council not to approve this motion and increase
property taxes according to the traditional CPI of 3%. He noted new revenue of approximately $610,000
would be required to fund police and fire and other departments' top priorities.
Councilmember Dawson noted the only way to preserve public safety programs in the future was via a
successful levy lid lift. A 1.9% versus a 1% property tax increase would generate an additional $68,000
per year which would not solve the City's budgetary problems. She reiterated there were other ways to
identify $68,000 such as reducing the Council Contingency budget, reducing funding to the Alliance, or
not restoring positions such as a custodian. She stressed the law allowed a 1% property tax increase or
the Implicit Price Deflator (IPD), whichever was less, and the ability to recapture banked capacity was a
loophole in the law. She was uncomfortable with raising property taxes more than the 1% allowed by
law, noting the way to solve the City's budgetary problems appeared to be via a successful levy lid lift.
Councilmember Petso suggested the Council not focus on how the funds would be spent but only
determine whether any banked capacity would be recaptured. She noted even if the Council approved
recapturing the full amount, the Council could identify good ways to spend the money. She reminded the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 26, 2002
Page 5
members of the Council, more than a super majority she ventured, who voted for many expenditures to
be willing to identify the funds necessary. She noted if the employees were lost this year and a levy lid
lift was successful next year, many of those employees may already be employed elsewhere. She
preferred identifying funding sufficient to retain some employees this year via approving a higher
recapture amount.
Council President Earling agreed there would be two additional weeks of budget discussions; the
Council's focus tonight should be on any property tax recapture.
Councilmember Wilson agreed regarding the need to consider a higher recapture amount. He
commented that the Council has historically taken a conservative approach in not taking the full 6%
increase allowed each year as well as a conservative approach in the way the City is staffed. He noted
the City could look toward a levy lid lift which would provide funds in 2004 but at this point he was in
favor of recapturing the full 5.3%.
Councilmember Marin commented that even though the latest initiative did not pass in Edmonds,
approximately four of ten people who voted in Edmonds voted in favor of the initiative. Part of what
those people were voting for was that elected officials are not listening/are not responsive to them. He
summarized that even though Edmonds voters have not passed initiatives, the initiatives passed in the
State. He preferred not recapturing the full amount.
Councilmember Dawson commented that even if the Council approved the full recapture and accessed all
the other potential revenue sources, not enough funds could be identified to save all the programs without
a levy lid lift. She noted the maximum that could be generated by raising property taxes 6.1% was
$375,000 in additional revenues and, as Ms. Hetzler pointed out, there were approximately $1.1 million
in cuts to Police and Fire alone this year. She summarized recapturing banked capacity would not solve
the problem. She expressed concern that if the Council approved an increase in property taxes by more
than the law allowed (1%), citizens may be resentful and not vote in favor of a future levy lid lift. She
noted this was a year when budgets were stretched in many citizens' homes and there were citizens who
were laid off or not getting increases. Further, citizens' property taxes increased dramatically last year,
approximately a 19% increase, due to the library annexation. She commented doing that again this year
by exercising this loophole to recapture banked capacity would hit citizens too hard and would not solve
the City's problems anyway and may mean the difference between a successful levy lid lift in the future.
MOTION FAILED TO ACHIEVE A SUPER MAJORITY (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT
EARLING, COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, DAWSON, AND MARIN IN FAVOR, AND
COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON, PETSO AND PLUNKETT OPPOSED.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed the desire that additional funds be used to fund departments' top
priorities and in the near future additional revenues be identified to fully fund Police and Fire.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
APPROVE A 2% RECAPTURE OF THE BANKED CAPACITY IN ADDITION TO THE 1%
PROPERTY TAX INCREASE ALREADY APPROVED.
Councilmember Wilson expressed his preference to recapture the full amount, expressing his
appreciation for Councilmember Plunkett's efforts to restore funding for basic services.
Councilmember Petso asked for clarification whether Councilmember Plunkett's motion was to approve
the property tax recapture solely to fund Police and Fire. Councilmember Plunkett answered technically
it was only to approve the recapture.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 26, 2002
Page 6
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED TO ACHIEVE A SUPER MAJORITY (4-3),
COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, MARIN, WILSON, AND PETSO IN FAVOR; AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, AND COUNCILMEMBERS DAWSON AND ORVIS
OPPOSED.
Council President Earling declared a brief recess.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
RECAPTURE 1.5% OF THE BANKED CAPACITY.
Councilmember Petso indicated she would vote in favor of this assuming this was the best the Council
could do.
Councilmember Orvis clarified the percentage was based on the total amount the City collected; the
assessed value of a citizen's home determined the amount they would pay. He pointed out the need to
consider how citizens were impacted by other taxing districts such as the library, school district, etc., thus
his reluctance to increase property taxes above the rate of inflation. From a personal viewpoint of
someone who may not have a job next year, he commented that two of every five of his co-workers were
laid off this year. Further, there were some companies in this area where all employees lost their jobs.
He pointed out those people lived in the Edmonds community and he must look at this situation from
their point of view. Likely they would want to retain public safety and he was willing to identify those
funds from other sources but not from property taxes. He summarized he did not favor increasing
property taxes higher than the rate of inflation.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the proposed increase was at the traditional rate of inflation and
would only keep up with the cost of living.
For Council President Earling, Ms. Hetzler explained a 1.5% recapture would generate $112,500 in
additional property taxes.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING,
COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, PLUNKETT, WILSON, AND MARIN IN FAVOR, AND
COUNCILMEMBERS DAWSON AND ORVIS OPPOSED.
Mayor Haakenson clarified the Council had approved increased revenues of $75,000 and $112,500 for a
total in new revenues of $187,500.
Ms. Hetzler provided a correction to the Resolution Finding the Existence of Substantial Needs that was
requested by City Attorney Scott Snyder to memorialize the Council's intent to recapture banked
capacity. Although it was not required, Mr. Snyder requested a new Section 2 be added that reads as
follows: "In establishing the tax levy set forth in paragraph 1, the City Council exercises its authority to
utilize banked levy capacity pursuant to RCW 84.55.015 and RCW 84.55.092 to the extent necessary to
justify increases that might otherwise be in excess of the tax limit factor. " She noted the remaining
sections would be renumbered.
Councilmember Dawson clarified there would need to be a Resolution Finding the Existence of
Substantial Needs for the Council to increase property taxes 1%; however, as she was opposed to the
additional 1.5% recapture, she would vote against the Resolution even though she agreed there was
substantial need for the 1% increase.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 26, 2002
Page 7
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AS AMENDED. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2),
COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, COUNCILMEMBERS MARIN, WILSON, PETSO,
PLUNKETT IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DAWSON AND ORVIS OPPOSED. The
Resolution approved is as follows:
Res# 1033 RESOLUTION NO. 1033 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
Finding WASHINGTON, FINDING THE EXISTENCE OF SUBSTANTIAL NEEDS AND JUSTIFYING
Bed for
Increasing INCREASING THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY FOR THE CITY REGULAR PROPERTY TAX AND
Property EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES LEVIES FOR 2003 AT A RATE OF 2.5% OVER THE
Tax Levy PREVIOUS YEAR AND JUSTIFYING INCREASING THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE
TAX LEVY FOR 2003 AT A RATE OF 1% OVER THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THIS INCREASE OF
CITY REGULAR PROPERTY TAXES OVER THE 2002 LEVY EQUATES TO A RATE EQUAL
TO 2.5% OR $188,379. THIS INCREASE OF THE CITY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE
PROPERTY TAX EQUATES TO A RATE EQUAL TO 1% OR $15,770.
rd#3426
Increasing COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, FOR
he Property APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3426. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2),
TaxRate
Levy COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING COUNCILMEMBERS MARIN WILSON PETSO
to for > > > >
003 PLUNKETT IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND DAWSON OPPOSED. The
Ordinance is approved as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 3426 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, MAKING CERTAIN
LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS, INCREASING THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY RATE FOR 2003, AND
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
Public
Baring on 4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2003 BUDGET
he 2003
Budget Mayor Haakenson opened the public testimony portion of the public hearing for those who had not
spoken at last week's public hearing regarding the 2003 budget.
Marcia Patience, 18716 94th Avenue W, Edmonds, indicated her family, friends, and neighbors found
it ludicrous for the City to consider reducing the two most vital functions of City government, the Police
and Fire Departments, as citizens needed the protection they provide. She pointed out the City's
population was growing, increasing the demand on the Police and Fire Departments. She would vote to
increase her property taxes if the funds were used to restore the Police and Fire to ensure all the functions
and personnel they currently have remain. She cited the need for the Fire Department's equipment to be
upgraded and the need to retain programs such as Blockwatch. She commented the holiday lights in the
community were great but when there were budget problems, the City could only keep what was
necessary such as the Police and Fire Departments.
Debbie Smith, 250 5th Avenue N, Edmonds, a 25 -year law enforcement officer and currently the Youth
Services Sergeant, Edmonds employee of the year, employee of the year for the Police Department, and a
recipient of a Distinguished Service Award from Snohomish County Sheriff and Police Chief
Association, explained she was considered a pioneer due to her gender and considered a success due to
her standards. She revealed the secret to her success was "plan" and "goal," explaining she planned how
to approach a problem, calculated the impact the plan will have on the problem, and executed the plan
with a specific goal in mind. She noted the Council embraced a different goal and philosophy that
impeded their ability to progress or be successful if "vote" was their only focus. She pointed out revenue
opportunities that have been lost primarily because Councilmembers felt it would impact their ability to
be re-elected such as the annexation of Aurora Village and gambling. When it was anticipated the impact
of I-695 and I-747 would take place two years from passing, she questioned why steps were not taken to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 26, 2002
Page 8
alleviate the impact by holding planning sessions before now. She pointed out the Council appeared to
have no plan or goal and without a plan and goal established by the Council, her and her personnel's
ability to do their jobs was impacted. She expressed concern with the request to reopen contract
negotiations, noting over 25 years her job has become more complex and technical and salaries are mid-
range in comparison to comparable cities within the area. Unless the Council learned the words "plan"
and "goal," they would learn a new word, "fail" and then at the next election, another word, "lose."
Kristy Eloranta, 5231 192"d Street SW, Lynnwood, urged the Council to retain the drop-in daycare at
the Frances Anderson Center. She noted the people using the drop-in day care generated funds via
classes they took at Frances Anderson Center as well as by shopping in Edmonds. She pointed out all
communities were enriched by supporting activities and programs for all age groups.
Cindy Farrell, 19525 86th Avenue W, Edmonds, explained she volunteered with the Beach Ranger
program from 1998 through 2001 as part of the community service requirement for her Campfire Wohelo
project. She described her experience volunteering with the Beach Ranger program, summarizing the
program was very important to many people and should be retained.
Matt Rinaldi, 855 Dayton Street, Edmonds, commented there were two major issues facing the City, a
long term solution and a short term solution. With regard to the short term solution, he noted everyone
he has spoken with is in support of essential services, maintaining the Police and Fire Departments as
they currently exist.
Bruce Nicholson, 9829 Cherry Street, Edmonds, commented City government was no different than
private business. He recalled significant reductions he survived in private business, noting the businesses
always came out healthier as a result of making those difficult decisions. He stated the levy lid lift was
only a band-aid because when the banked funds ran out, the City had the same problem and the City
needed a permanent fix. He urged the Council to do what was good for the community and not consider
their personal agendas. The number one problem in the City was revenue, there had to be an effort to
increase the revenue to make it a healthy community on a long term basis which would not occur by
continually finding ways to increase fees and permits. He urged the Council to keep expenditures in line
with revenue and if there were insufficient revenues, programs needed to be cut or the difficult decisions
made to increase revenues.
Doug Dahl, President of Firefighter Local 1828, urged the Council to consider Ms. Hetzler's
presentation in detail and in length as it showed a viable option for saving Police and Fire Department
positions as well as many other positions in the City. He agreed if a levy lid lift failed the City would be
in trouble, but placing a levy lid lift on the ballot placed the Police and Fire jobs in the citizens' hands.
As an employee of the City, he would rather hear from citizens that they did not want his services rather
than have the Council make that decision. He noted the Police and Fire Departments have historically
gotten things by shedding blood, noting he had heard it would be easier to pass a levy lid lift if Police and
Firefighters were laid off. He urged the Council not to shed blood on politics but rather allow the
citizens to make the decisions.
Kurt Campbell, 23908 Timber Lane, Woodway, owner of Campbell Nelson Volkswagen and a partner
with the Police Youth Services Department, commented he understood the budget cuts would impact the
D.A.R.E. program and Youth Services Department and he did not want that to happen. He urged the
Council not to cut the Youth Services program.
Kerri Bailiff, City Hall Receptionist, 19 Fern Road, Everett, indicated she loved her job and although
it was never fun to learn via the budget that people would lose their jobs, she was glad to hear citizens
speaking to the Council about the programs they cared about.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 26, 2002
Page 9
Kevin Taylor, Assistant Fire Chief, commented his actual job title was Assistant Operations and
Training, noting when he accepted the position, he was aware this was usually two positions in Fire
Departments half Edmonds' size. He explained he left a larger Fire Department to return to Edmonds,
his hometown. He currently earns the top of the Edmonds Fire Department Assistant Chief pay scale.
He recalled a Councilmember said to him that even if the Council saved his job, he would likely leave.
Assistant Chief Taylor acknowledged that was likely correct as Edmonds was not a very good employer
of exempt personnel; he received less COLA than union personnel and spent the first two years earning
less than the ten employees he supervised. Further, having an Assistant Fire Chief on a layoff list was an
anomaly in City government, sent the wrong message, and would hurt the City's recruitment and
retention. He pointed out eliminating his position and dividing the duties among other staff members
would result in a deterioration of the service excellence the Department strives to achieve. He noted
reducing the Administrative command staff from two to one would also lead to deterioration in service.
He encouraged the Council to listen to the public when they voted 84% in favor of the EMS levy and
when they spoke from the podium — maintain public safety services.
Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid, Edmonds, spoke on behalf of the flower program, commenting this was
a program that benefited the community as well as businesses. She noted the $21,000 for the flower
program could come from the funding for the Alliance or the Chamber or other private groups that
received tax funds. She commented public subsidy for private groups was a budget luxury and should be
the first area cut in times of budget difficulties. She referred to flower programs in Santa Fe and
Ashland, Oregon whereby the public could support a flower corner and receive a sign indicating their
support. Mayor Haakenson commented he had received offers to assist monetarily and physically with
the flower program.
Bruce Witenberg, 8725 Madrona Lane, Edmonds, recalled the effort to annex the Esperance area was
successful in 1995 and one of the primary motivators for annexation was improved police protection. He
acknowledged the proposed budget cuts would have a huge impact on public safety and urged the
Council to implement the Mayor's suggested revenue sources. He agreed no one wanted tax increases,
but balancing increases against the cuts to public safety, the choice was clear. He suggested the new
revenue sources be designated for public safety. He urged the Council to take up Mayor Haakenson's
challenge to seek short and long term revenue sources, noting there were members of the public willing
to serve on taskforces to research potential long term revenue sources.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the
public hearing. Mayor Haakenson read correspondence received by the City Clerk's Office, one from
Melanie Kelsey who indicated she agreed with the Mayor's proposed revenue sources as well as with the
reductions in the budget. She indicated she would support the City with additional revenue during this
time but wanted to ensure the revenue was used for necessary services. The second was a letter from
Olive Gourmet Foods urging the Council to do whatever was necessary to avoid losing valuable
employees and resources particularly the City Hall Receptionist.
Council President Earling indicated further budget discussion was scheduled on the December 3 agenda
and he anticipated budget discussions would be brought to a conclusion by December 10.
Councilmember Petso recalled one member of the public identified a levy lid lift as a temporary solution.
She asked what a levy lid lift could be used for and for how long could it be enacted. Ms. Hetzler
responded a levy lid lift could be permanent. Councilmember Petso commented if it were permanent, the
City could use it to pay salaries now and in the future. She asked how salary increases would be funded
as at some point, the salaries "purchased" via the levy lid lift would increase beyond the amount of the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 26, 2002
Page 10
levy lid lift. Ms. Hetzler commented once a levy lid lift was enacted, it added to the property tax levy
base forever and the 1% increases in the future would be greater due to the levy lid lift. At the point
expenditures increased more than property tax revenues increased via the 1% limitation, expenditures
would need to be reduced or a different revenue source identified or a change made to the levy lid lift.
Councilmember Petso clarified if the voters approved a $1 million levy lid lift to fund employee salaries,
cost of living increases could result in the levy lid lift providing insufficient funds for those salaries. Ms.
Hetzler recalled the five year forecast demonstrated the budget would be in balance through 2007.
During that time period, the Council likely would be considering and enacting other revenue options.
Councilmember Petso clarified if a levy lid lift were approved and used to retain $1 million in employee
salaries, it was expected those employees could be maintained for at least four years. Ms. Hetzler agreed.
Councilmember Petso commented that although the levy lid lift was a temporary fix, it was not a short
term fix. Ms. Hetzler advised it would keep the City's budget in balance for a five year period. She
acknowledged a levy lid lift would not solve the City's financial situation forever as there would be cost
increases, unforeseen expenditures, etc.
Councilmember Petso asked whether COLA and mandatory salary increases equated to approximately
$500,000 per year. Ms. Hetzler was uncertain. Councilmember Petso requested this information be
provided for next week's discussion.
Councilmember Petso asked how much revenue the casino in Mountlake Terrace generated. Ms. Hetzler
advised Mountlake Terrace's Finance Director indicated it was a net gain of $650,000 per year due to a
decline in pulltab and bingo revenues but the gross was approximately $750,000. Councilmember Petso
noted this would cover one year of salary increases. She asked how much would be generated by
development on the Unocal property. Ms. Hetzler was uncertain. Councilmember Petso inquired about
how much the Medic 7 transport fee generated. Ms. Hetzler recalled it was $250,000 - $300,000.
Councilmember Petso said if she really wanted to get votes, she would have voted in favor of all the
raises and against all the taxes. Unfortunately, because she knew she could not fund all the raises
without cutting employees, she voted against the raises and for all the taxes, likely not the right way
politically. She noted if the City did not have a long term growth of approximately $500,000 per year,
the City could not pay salary increases. She noted one option was identifying different revenues sources,
noting a new one would be needed each year. She asked whether there were any long term revenue
sources other than property tax increases. Ms. Hetzler answered one of the potential revenue sources was
a form of a B&O tax. Although that has never been seriously considered, she noted that would be a
significant additional revenue source for the City.
Mayor Haakenson referred to the revenue and expense projections for 2002 — 2007, asking whether the
expenses included COLA for all employees. Ms. Hetzler answered yes. Mayor Haakenson asked if
merit increases and/or step increases were also included. Ms. Hetzler answered yes. Mayor Haakenson
clarified the worse case scenario for salaries was reflected in the five year projection.
Councilmember Orvis requested staff indicate next week how the proposed reductions presented in the
PowerPoint presentation correlated to the proposed reductions in the budget book.
Councilmember Marin requested staff also provide information for next week regarding revenue
potential from a franchise fee with Olympic View Water District. Mayor Haakenson asked when
revenue for that source would be anticipated if that was deemed a viable venture. Ms. Hetzler it could be
mid -year 2003.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 26, 2002
Page i l
Council President Earling commented the Council could authorize staff to begin negotiations with
Olympic View. Mayor Haakenson commented the direction staff took from the Saturday budget
discussion was to proceed with negotiations with Olympic View.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Ms. Hetzler explained the Council could designate what funds from a levy
lid lift would be used for but did not have to. Further, a levy lid lift could be for a limited time period or
an indefinite time. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the Council designated the use whether the ballot
title would reflect that. Ms. Hetzler answered if the Council designated the use of the funds, the ballot
measure would reflect that designation.
Councilmember Wilson requested staff consolidate the potential revenue sources on one page, including
proposed sources as well as the sources already approved.
Mayor Haakenson commented the Council has heard impassioned pleas to save particular parts of the
budget. He noted Councilmembers would like to avoid all the proposed cuts, but there were $2 million in
cuts in the proposed budget, $885,000 in the Police Department alone. He noted the Council approved
new revenue tonight of $187,500 and the most available revenue left to the Council was approximately
$250,000. Therefore, the best case scenario, short of a levy lid lift which would not generate any revenue
this year, was approximately $430,000 in total new revenue which would not restore $2 million in cuts
and would not make the Police, Fire or any other department whole. He summarized the City had a
revenue problem that the Council could not fix this year as there were insufficient funds available. He
emphasized there would be cuts made this year and all departments would not be fully funded.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
udget Ray Martin, 18704 94th Avenue W, Edmonds, commented he would support a COLA for Mayor
Haakenson if the $25,000 pay raise was rolled back. He recalled Mayor Haakenson's indication that by
decision of the Council, only those who did not speak at last week's public hearing regarding budget
could speak tonight. Mr. Martin pointed out the Council did not make that decision, Council President
Earling made that decision. Mr. Martin indicated he would support a tax increase if there were no cuts
made to the Police or Fire Departments. He recommended cuts be made in the funding to the Alliance
and the contribution to the Edmonds Community College, as well as eliminating the Salary Commission,
and consider implementing a B&O tax.
Street Tree Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, referred to the Street Tree Plan and urged the Council to
Plan consider the cost, whether trees and people could actually be accommodated on the City's narrow
ransporta-
sidewalks, and whether medians would inhibit rather than enhance traffic flow. With regard to the
ion Plan j Transportation Element, he expressed concern with the traffic estimates, particularly the 90' & Casper
location where a signal was proposed. With regard to the budget, he indicated approximately $68,000
ua et between 2001 and 2002 were salary increases for Department Directors and the Mayor. He noted
increases for 2003 were projected at $50,000 which nearly used all the 1% increase in property tax
revenue. He recommended a freeze in salaries, noting most Directors earned approximately $111,000.
ransporta- Bruce Nicholson, 9829 Cherry Street, Edmonds, commented a rapid transit system, the Interurban,
ion Issues operated from Tacoma to Everett from 1905 to 1939. He noted the State had gone from that vision in the
early years to extremely poor leadership in the State and no funding to solve transportation issues. He
recalled the early history of Edmonds, from 1905 — 1940 when business grew rapidly and the City's
boundaries were established. From 1960 — 1975, manufacturing and retail businesses left the City,
resulting in a loss of revenue that was never replaced. There was limited retail in the City and the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 26, 2002
Page 12
conomie accompanying revenue, yet there were no economic plans,for getting out of this dilemma. He submitted
evelop- written materials and encouraged the Council to read the materials in their entirety. He urged the City to
ient make adjustments to plans, codes, etc. to enhance the business community and encourage businesses to
locate in Edmonds. He noted a B&O tax would not encourage businesses to locate in Edmonds.
Ron Wambolt, 530 Dayton, Edmonds, commented the impression the audience had was the only
Tax increase in revenues each year was the increase the Council approved. He noted there was also new
evenue
revenue generated via property taxes on new construction. He estimated approximately considerable tax
revenue would be generated by condominiums on the Unocal property.
With regard to Mr. Martin's comments, Councilmember Plunkett clarified the Council may make a
decision via affirmation action or tacit (silent) action. He noted the decision the Council made with
regard to public comment on the 2003 budget was via tacit Council action.
In response to Mr. Wambolt's comments, Councilmember Petso explained new construction generated
revenue of less than $100,000 per year. She acknowledged development on the Unocal property would
be an exception to the City's normal growth rate. She concluded the City could not build its way out of
its budget difficulties but needed to identify new revenue sources or raise taxes.
Public 6. WORK SESSION ON THE DRAFT PUBLIC URBAN DESIGN AND STREET TREE PLAN
Urban ELEMENT FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS. THESE ARE AMENDMENTS TO THE
Design and COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DEALING WITH DESIGN STANDARDS AND IMPROVEMENTS
Street Tree FOR THE PUBLIC STREETSCAPE IN DOWNTOWN, ALONG HIGHWAY 99, AND FOR THE
Plan
Element of GATEWAYS INTO THE CITY
e Compre-
'nsive Plan Parks & Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde explained that over the past 18 months, staff and she have
been working creating a Public Urban Design and Street Tree Plan for the City. She noted this was a
team approach that included Parks & Recreation, Public Works, Community Services, and Development
Services. She explained the plan identified improvements for the public streetscapes in downtown, along
Hwy. 99 frontage, and gateways into the City. The recommendations were sequential and would 'be
carried out over a long period of time. The Public Urban Design and Street Tree Plan Element would
become part of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Ohlde explained the documents had been developed via a series of meetings with the Chamber of
Commerce, merchants, and local businesses, referring to a letter of support from the Chamber of
Commerce. She noted the Draft Public Urban Design and Street Tree Plan was available on the City's
web page for citizens to review.
Terry Reckord, MacLeod Reckord Landscape Architects, explained the Street Tree Plan and the
Urban Design Study were a product of a single process. He explained the Street Tree Plan was an update
of a 1983 plan that categorized, described and selected streets that could be used in rights-of-way in the
community and suggesting methods of installation and maintenance and replacement. The Urban Design
Study was an attempt to identify and categorize the physical elements in the downtown corridor that
contribute to the positive character of Edmonds and expand upon those so that over time, as the City
evolves and development occurs, it was done in a cohesive way following recommended guidelines.
Mr. Reckord explained the assumptions in the plan including that the community would support making
the downtown commercial area safer, more convenient, and more pleasant to use. He reviewed goals
identified in the plan including enhancing the downtown environment for pedestrians thereby enhancing
the economic viability of the downtown essentially creating more of an urban village, establishing a
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 26, 2002
Page 13
stronger connection between downtown and the waterfront area and other attributes unique to Edmonds,
enhancing commercial areas outside the downtown core, recognizing gateways, and establishing the
City's presence more clearly on Hwy. 99. As there were insufficient resources to examine the entire
City, he explained their focus had been on the downtown core area. Tasks included identifying elements
downtown that affect how the downtown core would evolve including the identification of six categories
of issues having to do with safety, security, comfort, traffic, circulation and aesthetics. He briefly
described elements in each of these categories.
Mr. Reckord explained the Urban Design Study included a set of recommended design solutions that
identified the issue being addressed, the intent of the recommendation, and specific actions designed to
satisfy the intent. Issues addressed included the following:
• Traffic improvements: Developing potential service routes downtown and providing service
access to businesses downtown and commercial areas as a method of enhancing pedestrian
routes.
• Connections: Clarifying connections to the waterfront and other destinations around the
downtown area.
• Bikeways: In addition to the Bikeway Plan in the Comprehensive Plan, identify appropriate
routes for bicyclists in the downtown area. Perhaps offering incentives for alternative modes of
transportation.
• Corners: Expanding on the pedestrian environment, expanding the available space at corners
and intersections for signs, handicap access ramps, etc.
• Crosswalks: Enhancing the visibility of crosswalks.
• Medians: This could be applied over time as opportunities become available. Medians are
positive in that they assist in calming traffic, provide refuge for pedestrians crossing a busy
arterial, help direct traffic by limiting turning movements, etc. He acknowledged there were
space issues associated with medians.
• Parking: Identifying opportunities for consolidating existing parking in downtown, but no net
loss in parking.
• Pavement Markings: Similar to crosswalks, clarify traffic and pedestrian movements.
• Signing: Providing clear and consistent signage for motorists and pedestrians. As most signage
is designed to be visible from an automobile, improved signage would include inlaid street names
at street corners, kiosks, street names on the sides of buildings, etc.
• Landscaping: Expanding on existing plantings including street trees, plantings at corners,
hanging baskets, seasonable plantings, etc.
• Sidewalk Design: Includes curb extensions, paving materials, sidewalk widths, street furniture.
• Gateways: Recognize entry points into Edmonds and establishing a clear presence in the south
Snohomish County community.
Mr. Reckord referred to a Street Plan Matrix that identified the suggested improvements and their
application on various street types. He reviewed the Street Tree Plan, explaining this was an expanded
list of trees for use in the downtown area. He clarified the Plan did not suggest wholesale elimination of
trees downtown, only replacing trees as they died or as redevelopment occurred. The Plan contained
criteria for selection of tree species, a list of different sizes and types of trees for different applications,
as well as a list of prohibited trees. The Plan contained a map identifying potential locations for street
tree plantings, and also includes recommendations regarding installation and maintenance.
Mr. Reckord explained the intent of the Urban Design Study was that it be distributed to appropriate
departments for development of design standards as well as distribution to private developers as they
undertake projects that may include improvements in the public rights-of-way. He emphasized the intent
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 26, 2002
Page 14
was not that any of the recommendations in the Study be undertaken as proactive projects, only that these
could be used as sidewalks are replaced, etc.
Responding to Councilmember Petso, Mr. Reckord agreed there were areas where medians would not be
appropriate such as areas where turning movements would be severely restricted. Before installing a
median, consideration would need to be given to the physical and aesthetic environment.
Councilmember Petso inquired about Mr. Reckord's reference to consolidated parking. Mr. Reckord
explained this would apply only to on -street parking; for example, a street where there was a single stall,
then a wide driveway, a no -parking zone, another wide driveway, another single stall and another no
parking zone; the intent would be to realign the existing stalls. He emphasized there would be no net
reduction in the number of stalls.
Councilmember Petso noted the City already had a Bike Plan and asked how this related to that plan.
Ms. Ohlde answered whatever was in the Bike Plan was included within and complemented this plan.
Councilmember Petso inquired about implementation of these improvements. Ms. Ohlde explained
elements of the plan would be implemented along with other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, when
improvements were being made, then these concepts could be integrated into those designs. Further the
guidelines can be provided to private developers to use in their work in or adjacent to public areas. She
explained there were various ways to fund items like street trees such as the Memorial Street Tree and
Bench Program, grants, etc. She emphasized the intent of this document was to provide guidance.
Councilmember Petso inquired whether this would establish a requirement for private developers. Ms.
Ohlde answered no, this was not a requirement, and would only be applied in public areas. For example,
a developer who was required to do sidewalk improvements may choose to incorporate some element of
the guidelines in that public area.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether view protection was considered when selecting tree species for
downtown. Mr. Reckord answered tree selection would be on a case-by-case basis, taking into
consideration consistency with other trees on the block, views corridors, existing signs, etc.
Councilmember Orvis asked what recourse a resident had if a street tree impacted their view. Ms. Ohlde
answered Resolution 418 prohibits cutting trees for views. The intent in the Street Tree Plan was to
select species for view corridors whose growth pattern had a limited amount of height.
Councilmember Marin asked what percentage of the trees in downtown were on the prohibited list. Mr.
Reckord answered they did not do an inventory but he estimated less than 10%.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out the documents did not address undergrounding of overhead utilities.
He referred to a photograph in the document of 5tb Avenue which illustrated the benefits of underground
wiring. He noted a footnote referenced a fund that was established for undergrounding of overhead
utilities, yet the fund contained only $90, indicating the program had not been aggressively pursued. He
preferred the document contain more reference to that program. Traffic Engineer Darrell Smith
explained when the City did a street widening project, the PUD was required to relocate their utilities at
their own cost. For example on the 220'b Street project, the cost to relocate their power service was
estimated at $750,000. Their estimate to underground power in that corridor was $3.8 million. In that
instance, if the City wanted the wires undergrounded, PUD would provide $750,000 and the City would
be responsible for the remainder.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 26, 2002
Page 15
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO SET
DECEMBER 3 AS THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR THE DRAFT PUBLIC URBAN DESIGN
AND STREET TREE PLAN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
7. WORK SESSION ON THE UPDATE OF THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE
ransporta- COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ion Element
f the
omprehen- Traffic Engineer Darrell Smith explained under the Growth Management Act (GMA), the City was
sive Plan required to perform a major update to the Transportation Plan every 6-10 years; the last major update was
done in 1995. Mr. Smith explained the draft 2002 Transportation Element update contained additional
features such as an Executive Summary, a Traffic Calming Program, and Traffic Concurrency
Management (establishes traffic mitigation requirements).
Mr. Smith explained that as a result of the recent passage of I-776, the City could lose $8.6 million over
the next 20 years, requiring many projects and programs to be reduced or eliminated from the
Transportation Element or additional funding sources identified and implemented.
Ron Loewen, Bucher, Willis & Ratliff, explained changes had been made to the goals and objectives,
to the organization of the Plan and its content. The current goals and objectives were updated by
reviewing other municipalities and looking at Washington State Department of Transportation's goals
and objectives. There was material added to the goals and objectives with regard to circulation and new
development particularly concurrency. The sidewalk construction policy was expanded particularly with
regard to frontage improvements, and additional goals and objectives were added with regard to public
transit. Four new categories were added — streetscape, capital facilities, traffic claming and air quality.
Mr. Loewen explained an Executive Summary was added to the beginning of the Plan at the request of
the Planning Board. The introduction was improved, the inventory expanded, a travel forecasting model
was added, the system analysis was enhanced, and a recommended Plan was developed that includes
traffic calming as well as substantial additions to the walkway plan and the bike plan.
Mr. Loewen explained when 16 of the busiest intersections in Edmonds were analyzed, intersections with
a Level of Service (LOS) D, they found a number of the intersections were failing. Their analysis also
considered accident data to identify locations with the highest incidents of accidents. They also
developed a travel forecasting model that considered existing conditions and future growth on major
roadways. The model identified moderate traffic increases on a number of roads throughout the City. By
applying those traffic increases to the 16 intersections, they learned in 2008, nine of the 16 intersections
would be failing and in 20 years, 13 of the intersections would be failing absent additional
improvements.
Mr. Loewen indicated they considered a number of projects that would solve traffic difficulties, projects
that were gathered by staff, public meetings, and their own field investigation. By applying an evaluation
matrix with a number of subjective and objective criteria, they were able to develop a prioritized list of
projects including a number of signals on 9`h Avenue, improvements on 220'h from 91h to 84th, on 84th
from 212'h to 2381'', on 238"' from 84th to SR 104, and intersection improvements due to capacity
problems on 76th at the City limits, at 212th, and at 196"'. He identified intersections with the potential for
roundabouts which eliminated signal maintenance costs and provided a continuous flow of traffic.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 26, 2002
Page 16
Mr. Loewen explained they also considered the City's classification system and recommended a number
of changes. They compared the City's classification system to the federal classification system and
determined there were a number of roadways that should be considered for reclassification including a
number of residential streets that function as collectors/arterials.
Mr. Loewen stated that after they applied the classification changes and the proposed improvements over
a six year period, they were able to resolve nearly all the level of service conditions, with only the
intersection of Hwy. 99 at the south City limits remaining at LOS F. In 20 years, they were able to
resolve all level of service conditions, although intersections on Hwy. 99 and SR 104 continue to be
problematic. He noted improvements to bring those intersections above LOS E would be very
substantial, requiring major road widening, etc.
Mr. Loewen explained next they worked with a Citizens Advisory Committee on walkways and via that
process, a number of locations for potential walkways were identified. A matrix of these walkways was
established and the projects ranked to establish a list of recommended walkway projects. Mr. Loewen
explained one of the new sections in the document outlines a traffic calming program. This section
identifies the procedure that would be followed by City staff when they receive requests from citizens for
traffic calming devices.
Mr. Loewen highlighted the recommended Plan includes additional bikeways, transit guidance,
transportation management strategies, a capital program of over $36 million, asphalt overlay of $5
million in a 20 year timeframe, and traffic calming projects. He displayed a pie chart illustrating the
proposed distribution of capital funds. Mr. Loewen explained revenue sources included a motor vehicle
fuel tax as well as a number of other sources such as the motor vehicle registration fee and new
mitigation fee of approximately $600-$800 per PM peak hour trip.
Mr. Loewen concluded that by October a Plan had been developed that was comprehensive, was
multimodal, met GMA requirements, was balanced financially and then I-776 passed. The immediate
impact of the passage of 1-776 was a loss of $8.6 million to the City over 20 years. He displayed options
for rebalancing the plan such as increasing expected revenue, considering new revenue sources, reducing
capital improvements, and modifying the City's land use plan. In an initial effort to balance the Plan,
they reduced the overlay by $2.2 million, reduced traffic calming by $340,000, reduced the walkway
program by $1 million, and reduced/eliminated 13 roadway projects in the amount of $4 million. He
commented another consequence of the loss of $8.6 million was a loss of matching funds for grants.
Potential funding sources to compensate for the loss of $8.6 million over 20 years may include a levy lid
lift of $0.05 per $1,000 of assessed value, maximizing mitigation fees, exploring a street utility fee or
other mechanism, equivalent, and/or reducing capital programs.
Councilmember Petso inquired about concurrency, recalling in King County if an intersection was below
LOS E or F, no growth was allowed in that area. Randy Young, Henderson & Young, explained once
standards were established, a possible outcome of a developer exceeding the standards was to prohibit
growth; another solution was to have a plan that identified what the intersection looked like with and
without improvements and allow development to occur if funding was available to make those
improvements within six years.
(Council President Earling left the meeting at 10:27 p.m.)
Councilmember Petso referred to the intersection of SR 104 & Meridian which even under the new plan
would continue to be LOS F, asking how the City could continue to add growth in this area as well as
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 26, 2002
Page 17
ferry traffic when the intersection was already at LOS F. Mr. Smith answered that because SR 104 was a
highway of statewide significance, concurrency did not have to be applied to that route. The intersection
was allowed to be a mitigated LOS F which required development mitigate for their traffic impacts to the
system. He commented that even if the City did not allow any further growth, traffic volumes would
continue to grow due to pass through traffic on Hwy. 99 and from the ferry. Mr. Loewen advised the
Plan included improvements to help the situation at that intersection but substantial improvements would
be required to raise the intersection to LOS D.
Councilmember Petso inquired how mitigation fees could be increased. Mr. Young answered it would
begin with a policy decision and then staff would determine which projects were eligible.
Councilmember Petso asked what projects would be eligible for such a fee. Mr. Loewen answered
projects in areas where there was a level of service failure such as on 9t'' and projects on 76th. Mr. Young
clarified GMA allowed mitigation fees to mitigate the impacts from new development but to the extent a
problem already exists, those problems could not be funded via mitigation. Mr. Smith advised only
projects reviewed under SEPA qualified, however, there were a number of smaller projects that did not
contribute to transportation improvements.
Councilmember Petso asked whether Westgate was the type of intersection for which mitigation could be
charged. Mr. Smith answered the only signal/roundabout that would not qualify was at 212th & 80'b
because the focus of that project was auto/pedestrian safety issues. Mr. Loewen clarified mitigation was
not collected only for intersections; there were also roadway segments that may be eligible.
Councilmember Petso asked whether mitigation could fully fund improvements or only make a
contribution. Mr. Loewen answered they could only contribute; they could not fund a portion of a
project that represented an existing deficiency. Even if 100% was attributable to development, a
provision in the RCW prohibits funding 100% from mitigation.
Councilmember Petso commented the Westgate intersection did not function well on Friday afternoons
or on Sundays during the summer due to ferry traffic. She noted this intersection was also impacted
when ferries unloaded, and inquired whether Washington State Ferries could be required to stagger the
off-load. Mr. Smith suggested consideration be given to interconnecting signals on SR 104. He did not
support lowering the City's standards for level of service.
Councilmember Petso asked whether there was something that should be included in the Transportation
Plan that would require staggered release of ferry traffic. Mr. Smith answered he was uncertain and
could investigate the issue further. Mr. Loewen suggested including a policy regarding working with the
Washington State Ferries.
Councilmember Orvis expressed concern with upgrading local roads to collectors. In reviewing the roads
suggested to be upgraded, he preferred to discourage traffic on some of those roadways, yet in this plan
they would be reclassified as arterials. Mr. Smith used the example of 80th Avenue which although a
residential street was used quite heavily. Further, as a residential street, 100% of the burden for the
flows, safety, sidewalk improvements, etc. were the City's responsibility. If the street was reclassified as
a low-level collector, it would be eligible for federal and state funds. He clarified the intent was not to
put more traffic on streets such as 80t"; the streets identified for reclassification were streets that currently
had appropriate volumes.
Councilmember Wilson urged Mr. Smith to coordinate with planning and land use elements because if
intersections failed and residential development was not allowed to continue, this could impact the City's
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 26, 2002
Page 18
ability to accept its population growth under GMA. If the City did not comply with the requirements of
GMA such as accepting its population growth, the State could find the City was not in compliance and
deny all State funding. Mr. Young noted on paper, it appeared that could happen; in reality there were
jurisdictions that have proven that did not happen. He noted the State has given jurisdictions some of the
tools to accomplish GMA goals such as concurrency to consider the performance of cities' systems,
population and housing forecasts, but the State has not provided the money to pay for the fixes.
For Councilmember Wilson, Mr. Loewen explained there may be portions of a project that are eligible
for mitigation.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about level of service analysis for roadway segments. Mr. Smith
described challenges with determining level of service on roadways. Mr. Young answered the most
common practice in the region is to customize acceptable levels of service at different intersections.
Mayor Haakenson advised a public hearing would be held on December 3.
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving.
9. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEEBOARD MEETINGS
ort of Councilmember Wilson reported on the Port of Edmonds meeting he attended which included discussion
Edmonds of the Beach Ranger program. The Port has asked Parks & Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde to speak to
the Port Commission regarding that issue.
-althCouncilmember Marin reported he was instrumental in making a motion at the Snohomish County Health
District
District Board to include planning for control of the West Nile virus next year.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
VARY ENSON, MAYOR
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 26, 2002
Page 19
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5' Avenue North
7:00 - 10:00 p.m.
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order
Flag Salute
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Consent Agenda Items
(A) Roll Call
(B) Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of November 19, 2002.
(C) Approval of claim checks #59235 through #59358 for the week of November
18, 2002, in the amount of $208,946.82. Approval of payroll direct deposits
and checks #34422 through #34616 for the period November 1 through
November 15, 2002, in the amount of $1,003,663.02.
(D) Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Harry H. Shelton ($196.82),
and Gary Spence ($3,814.20).
(E) Approval of list of Edmonds businesses applying for renewal of their Liquor
Licenses with the Washington State Liquor Control Board.
(F) Approve Agreement for Technical Services between the City of Edmonds and
the City of Lynnwood, and James Mercer, M.D.
(G) Report on bids opened November 5, 2002 for the city wide guardrail
replacement (Bell Street, 89th Place West, North Meadowdale Road and alley
location), and award of contract to Petersen Brothers, Inc. ($58,834.45,
excluding sales tax).
(H) Report on the General Fund and other selected funds financial position for the
month ending September 2002.
(1) Authorization for Mayor to sign the Final Plat of Alexis's Addition, a five -lot Plat
and Planned Residential Development (PRD) located at 9014 - 240th Street SW.
The site is zoned Single Family Residential (RS -8). (Applicant: Lovell
Sauerland & Associates, Inc. for Viking Properties, Inc. / File No. P-02-61 and
PRD -02-62)
Page 7 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
NOVEMBER 26, 2002
Page 2 of 2
3. (30 Min.) Continued Council deliberation regarding the Public Hearing held on November
19, 2002 on establishing property tax levies for the Year 2003 and potential
action to adopt a Resolution finding the existence of substantial need for a
increase based on the maximum lawful levy and an Ordinance
establishing the property tax levies for the regular Property Tax Levy, the
Emergency Medical Services Levy and Public Safety Complex Bond Issue Debt
Service.
4. (20 Min.) Continued Public Hearing on the 2003 Budget.*
*Public comment will be received from parties who did not speak at the public hearing
on November 19, 2002.
5. Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings.
6. (30 Min.) Work Session on the draft Public Urban Design and Street Tree Plan Element
for the City of Edmonds. These are amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
dealing with design standards and improvements for the public streetscape in
downtown, along Highway 99, and for the gateways into the city.
7. (60 Min.) Work Session on the update of the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
S. ( 5 Min.) Mayor's Comments
9. (15 Min.) Individual Council reports on outside committee/board meetings.
ADJOURN
Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities.
Contact the City Clerk at (425) 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations.
The Council Agenda as well as a delayed telecast of the meeting appears on AT&T Cable, Channel 21.