04/17/2001 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
April 17, 2001
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Gary Haakenson in the
Council Chambers, 250 51h Avenue North, Edmonds, followed by the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Dave Earling, Council President
Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Christopher Davis, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Greg Wean, Acting Police Chief
Duane Bowman, Development Serv. Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Peggy Hetzler, Administrative Services Director
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director
Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Mayor Haakenson welcomed Snohomish County Councilmember Gary Nelson who was in the audience.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Petso requested Item D be removed from the Consent Agenda. Council President
Earling requested Item I be removed.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
Approve
1/3/01 (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 3, 2001
IVinutes
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #47380 THROUGH #47536 FOR THE WEEK OF
Approve APRIL 2, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $104,530.81. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS
im #47537 THROUGH #47696 FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 9, 2001 IN THE AMOUNT OF
:cks
$594,153.00. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #1687
THROUGH 1006 FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 16 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2001, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $761,007.31
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 17, 2001
Page 1
(Regener-
ative Air
Street I (E) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR A REGENERATIVE AIR STREET
Sweeper ISWEEPER FOR THE STREET/DRAINAGE DIVISION
street (F) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 2001 STREET OVERLAY
overlay
Program PROGRAM
City Hall (G) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE CITY HALL ROOF
Roof Re-
placement REPLACEMENT PROJECT
'ransfcr (H) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
Boar, Trailer THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS — TRANSFER OF ZODIAC
and Motor
BOAT, TRAILER AND MOTOR
Ord #3356 (J) ORDINANCE NO. 3356 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15.05.000
ix -Year RELATING TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN ORDER TO
six-Year
ADOPT A NEW SIX -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE YEARS 2001
THROUGH 2O06
Ord #3357 (K) ORDINANCE NO. 3357 AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15.05.000
school RELATING TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN ORDER TO ADOPT THE
District EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 2000-2005 (DATED
Capital
Facilities APRIL 20� 2000) AS PART OF THE CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S
Facilities
Plan COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Item D: Report on the General Fund and Other Selected Funds Financial Position for the Period Endin
Report on December 31, 2001
General Councilmember Petso inquired about the amount of unexpended salaries and benefits for 2000.
Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler advised the Council packet included a comparison of the
budget to 2000 actual, which indicated the savings was approximately $475,000. Councilmember Petso
commented some of that amount was spent on other items. Ms. Hetzler answered a very minor amount
was spent on upgrading PCs and on network upgrades. As mentioned at the Council retreat, the Finance
Department did not monitor departmental budgets at the object code level and would not necessarily be
aware if salary savings were used for other purposes. As long as the total department budget was not
overspent, the department was in compliance.
For Councilmember Petso, Ms. Hetzler advised the remaining funds were in the ending fund balance and
was available for reprogramming via the budget process.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM D. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item approved is as
follows:
(D) REPORT ON THE GENERAL FUND AND OTHER SELECTED FUNDS FINANCIAL
POSITION FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000
Report on Item 1: uarterl Re ort Regarding Grants
'rants Council President Earling thanked staff for preparing the report regarding grants. He found the number
of grants staff has applied as well as the remarkable success rate enlightening. He requested Community
Services Director Stephen Clifton describe the program staff planned to establish to track grants. Mr.
Clifton explained City Engineer Dave Gebert, Development Services Director Duane Bowman and he
committed to Mayor Haakenson to establish a system to track grants to allow staff to respond to inquires
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 17, 2001
Page 2
regarding the status of a particular grant which currently could not be done. Council President Earling
indicated he would call individual department directors with specific questions.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM I. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item approved is as follows:
(I) QUARTERLY REPORT REGARDING GRANTS
Councilmember Marin commented before he was on the Council, he was puzzled about the concept of
the Consent Agenda. He explained items on the Consent Agenda have been carefully considered and
discussed by Council committee and forwarded to the Council for approval. He referred to Item F
(Authorization to Call for Bids for the 2001 Street Overlay Program), noting he had wanted to ensure any
opportunities to achieve economies of scale were identified and possibly have the Engineering
Department indicate any additional overlay work that could be accomplished as part of the project. He
discovered Engineering Project Specialist Jim Roberts, Construction Engineer Mike Linn and City
Engineer Dave Gebert had written that into the language of the bid. He commended them for their
excellent work.
IBrightWater 3. PRESENTATION ON THE PROPOSED BRIGHTWATER TREATMENT PLANT AT THE
Treatment UNOCAL SITE
IPlant
Mayor Haakenson explained the Unocal site was selected as one of the proposed sites for the
BrightWater Treatment Plant. He advised the presentation made to the Council tonight would also be
made at Edmonds-Woodway High School on Thursday at 7:00 p.m.
Pam Bissonnette, Director of King County Department of Natural Resources, representing King
County Executive Ron Sims, said Mr. Sims received the City's letter but was unable to attend tonight's
meeting. Ms. Bissonnette emphasized this was a major milestone in a very long process. She
commented it had taken six years to reach this point. She introduced Christie True, King County
Wastewater Treatment Division, who was also present to answer questions.
Ms. Bissonnette said citizens in the region have indicated water quality was of paramount importance.
She said appreciable new capacity had not been added to the system in many years, yet growth has
proceeded at a rapid pace, particularly in south Snohomish County. She explained an extensive
screening process resulted in the seven sites that had been identified which would eventually be
narrowed to one site. The Unocal property was one of the sites identified and also had an outfall zone.
She said the treatment plant intends to be a good neighbor; a great deal of research has been done on
building treatment facilities in communities so that they can be an amenity. She said their responsibility
in the next few months will be to become better acquainted with the sites and the surrounding
communities, do more technical analysis of each site, and to listen to elected officials and citizens.
Michael Popiwny, Siting and Mitigation Project Manager, King County Department of Natural
Resources, reviewed the process to date that resulted in the identification of the seven sites. More than a
year ago, land areas were identified through a community nomination process, using the services of a
commercial and industrial broker, and using GIS mapping which resulted in the identification of more
than 100 land areas. At the same time, a siting advisory committee was formed with representatives from
each community within the siting area and others interested in the site selection area. He noted
Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager Stephen Koho represented Edmonds on the committee.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 17, 2001
Page 3
Mr. Popiwny displayed a map of the site selection area, identifying the King County/Snohomish County
line and the current wastewater service area, which includes 26 square miles within Snohomish County.
He said the search area was northern King County and southern Snohomish County. With the help of the
advisory committee, public open houses and a stakeholder committee, 27 criteria were developed to
judge each land area. The 100 land areas identified were reduced to 38 and then to the 7 preliminary
sites.
Mr. Popiwny displayed photographs and described other well mitigated facilities:
• Daly City, California — an underground facility that was covered with lighted sports fields
• Vancouver, Washington —a covered facility with an odor control system. A water resource
education facility was established, a waterfront park developed and 100 acres of wetland
preserved as part of the mitigation.
• West Point — surrounded by 26 acres of parkland with a waterside trail providing access to Puget
Sound, and development of a fresh water wetland as part of the mitigation for the facility.
Although the facility was visible from the air, it disappears into the landscape when viewed from
the trail or the water. Mr. Popiwny commented the Edmonds Treatment Plant was a good
example of a facility in an urban area that was nicely mitigated.
• La Jolla, California — located within an office park and was designed to look like an office park.
The facility includes shared community meeting spaces.
Mr. Popiwny emphasized the intent was to mitigate the facility by working with the community
surrounding the proposed site. He identified the seven proposed sites that would continue to be
analyzed: Pt. Wells, Edmonds Unocal, Thrasher's Corner, Kenmore Gun Range, Gravel Quarry, Route 9
and Woodinville. He noted there were three areas of distribution, western, eastern and central sites.
Mr. Popiwny displayed an aerial photograph of the Unocal site, identifying the abandoned tank farm on
the hillside, the large wetland, a hatchery, the beachfront portion recently purchased by the City, and the
location of the Edmonds treatment plant facility. He advised the Unocal site would provide barge access
for construction, reducing truck traffic to the site during construction. The site also had rail access for
construction and for transportation of biosolids in the future. This site had also been identified as a
potential site for a Washington State Ferry (WSF) relocation. He said it was believed the treatment
facility and the WSF would be compatible uses on the site.
Mr. Popiwny said King County would consider sites in more detail between now and October. In
October, King County Executive Sims would announce 2-5 systems that would continue for further
study, a site, a conveyance route to and from and a marine outfall for each location. The King County
Council would approve the 2-5 systems before year end and an EIS would be prepared for those sites. A
final decision on the site, conveyance, and marine outfall would be made by the end of 2002 or early
2003. He identified the outfall for the Edmonds Treatment Plant, commenting there may be a possibility
of combining that outfall with a new outfall required for a facility at the Unocal property if it was
selected as the preferred site or if was selected as the outfall location. He said this would allow the
treated effluent to be taken further into Puget Sound.
Mr. Popiwny commented the BrightWater packet had aerial photographs of each site and a description of
the outfall locations. He explained as part of determining the seven sites, potential outfall locations were
also considered. He described the other six sites:
• Pt. Wells — a working asphalt facility on the Puget Sound south of Edmonds adjacent to
Woodway with access from Shoreline. The site has barge and rail access and is located in
unincorporated Snohomish County
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 17, 2001
Page 4
• Quarry — a working quarry with two adjacent undeveloped parcels. Half of the site is located in
Bothell and half in unincorporated Snohomish County.
• Kenmore Gun Range — approximately 80 acres which could allow a facility to be sited in the
center of the property and surrounded by a forested buffer. The property currently contains an
archery range, skeet shooting, rifle and pistol ranges, and an archery track through the forest.
• Thrasher's Corner — North Creek runs through the site and the two large parcels are owned by
the City of Bothell. A facility located on this site could be integrated with a wetland park and
possibly an education facility.
• Route 9 — one of two eastern sites, located in unincorporated Snohomish County. Fitz's Auto
Parts is located on the lower portion of the site and the Urban Growth Boundary on the upper
portion. The parcels above may be appropriate for mitigation parkland associated with the
facility. Little Bear Creek also runs nearby and would provide mitigation opportunities. This
site, like the Gun Range, Unocal, and Pt. Wells would likely require toxic cleanup.
• Woodinville — this site was considered early in the process as it was being developed for
affordable and standard housing. After the site announcement, it was learned permits for grading
and utilities for the affordable housing portion had been received and financing for the project
was imminent. Mr. Popiwny said if the affordable housing project continued, there would be
covenants applied by the State on the land by July that would eliminate the ability to use the site
for a wastewater treatment facility. Therefore, Executive Sims recommended to the King County
Council that this site be withdrawn from the seven sites under consideration.
Mr. Popiwny summarized the goal was to have the site, conveyance and marine outfall selected by the
end of 2002 or early 2003 and have the facility operational by 2010.
Councilmember Plunkett observed some of the sites were 20-30 miles from Puget Sound and asked what
would be done with the end product that far from Puget Sound. Mr. Popiwny said all sites would have an
outfall on Puget Sound, therefore, a central or eastern inland site would also have a much longer
conveyance route. He noted a long conveyance route of treated effluent would provide opportunities to
supply reused water for interested parties along the route. He pointed out several parties in the
Woodinville area including a nursery, a sod farm, agricultural uses and a golf course expressed interest in
reused water. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the ability to sell reused water eliminated the economic
advantage of siting the facility on the Puget Sound. Mr. Popiwny commented the length of conveyance
and the number of pump stations has been used to calculate the cost of each facility, making sites closer
to Puget Sound less expensive. All issues including the cost of construction, maintenance, operation and
distribution of reused water would be analyzed in the next phase.
Councilmember Plunkett asked how the siting of a treatment facility at Unocal would impact the
proposed multimodal facility. Mr. Popiwny said there was enough space to integrate both facilities on
the site, and one may foster the development of the other. He said 10% of the treatment facility project
costs would be set aside for mitigation. If the cost of the treatment facility was $350-400 million, the
mitigation would be $35-40 million. He said the mitigation would be used to address all impacts to the
community including impacts from construction and operation. He noted there were opportunities at
each site; the opportunity at the Unocal site may be to work with Edmonds and WSF to see how this
project could evolve.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether King County had had discussions with WSDOT regarding how
the treatment facility would impact a multimodal facility. He noted the preliminary drawings indicated
the multimodal facility used all the lower area of the site. Mr. Popiwny envisioned the treatment facility
could be located on the lower level and the multimodal on the upper level. He said he met recently with
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 17, 2001
Page 5
Acting Director of WSF Terry McCarthy who was interested in exploring this possibility as well as
discussing the possibilities with Edmonds.
Councilmember Davis observed once the Woodinville site was eliminated, the remaining six sites were in
Snohomish County. He asked what the long-term benefit was for Snohomish County citizens to house a
King County facility. Mr. Popiwny answered King County provides wastewater treatment in Snohomish
County and the new facility would accommodate growth in the region. He said the proposed facility
would take wastewater treatment 50-100 years into the future and was a system that operated irrespective
of jurisdictional boundaries. He noted benefits included mitigation to the community in which the
facility was located as well as potential for reused water.
Council President Earling noted the Unocal site had the smallest usable area of any of the sites. He
observed early analysis indicated the potential to integrate the wastewater facility with the multimodal
facility. He said another important component of the analysis would be to reserve park space for the
community as well as preserve the ecosystem in that area. He questioned whether a wastewater facility
could be constructed in this area and areas preserved. Mr. Popiwny said there were other opportunities
on the site besides the possible integration of the ferry terminal and treatment facility such as improving
the wetland and channelized stream and assisting the City in providing an even nicer park at the beach
edge. He commented development of the WestPoint facility included a grant that allowed preservation
and creation of additional shoreline access points.
Council President Earling asked how the City could leverage mitigation funds allocated for the
multimodal facility. Mr. Clifton answered grant applications would be submitted to WSDOT or the
Federal Highway Administration and mitigation funds used as a match to leverage 80% more in grant
funds. Council President Earling commented the mitigation could be used to leverage a major portion of
the funding for the multimodal project. Mr. Popiwny commented phase I was estimated at $80 million
and phase II at $85 million for a total of $165 million.
Councilmember Miller noted the Unocal site was located near the existing Edmonds treatment plant. He
questioned whether the BrightWater facility could eliminate the need for the Edmonds treatment plant
and, if so, would there be mitigation for that. Mr. Popiwny answered it may be possible in the future to
integrate the facilities if deemed appropriate. He said BrightWater was intended to address future
regional needs including assisting local facilities that may experience increased capacity. He said it
would be the choice of the City and community whether the facilities would be combined eventually.
Councilmember Miller pointed out in addition to the Edmonds treatment plant, Lynnwood also had a
treatment plant approximately two miles away. He asked whether the potential impact of three treatment
plants in that proximity had been considered. Mr. Popiwny answered that would be considered during
the analysis of the sites.
Councilmember Petso recalled citizen complaints have been received regarding odor and/or operational
concerns with the Lynnwood treatment plant, but because the plant was not within the City's jurisdiction,
there was little she could do. She asked how Edmonds or other Snohomish County communities would
have any control over the operational impacts of the treatment plant if it was owned and operated by
King County. Mr. Popiwny answered when there was a complaint at the Renton or WestPoint facility,
the person was contacted and provided an explanation of how and when the problem would be addressed.
He said they would not have neighbors around the Renton and WestPoint facilities who felt the facility
was an advantage to the community if they did not respond in that manner. He said it was their
responsibility to respond to any complaints regardless of the jurisdiction.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 17, 2001
Page 6
Councilmember Petso asked how citizens who were unable to attend tonight's meeting or Thursday's
public hearing could provide input. Mr. Popiwny advised the packet included a copy of their newsletter
which had the website, email address, and telephone number as well as a list of upcoming four public
meetings. He said another series of public meetings would be held in late summer or early fall. He said
citizens within the site area could also contact him, their Mayor, City Councilmembers, the County
Executive, and County Councilmembers.
Public 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED DRAFT ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A PUBLIC
Facilities FACILITIES DISTRICT TO STUDY THE MARKET DEMAND AND FEASIBILITY OF, AND
District POSSIBLY DEVELOP A CONFERENCE/CONVENTION/SPECIAL EVENTS CENTER AND
PERFORMING ARTS CENTER WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS
Community Services Director Stephen Clifton explained that at the February 27, 2001 Council meeting,
staff presented the City Convention Center, Hotel, Performing Arts Center (3CHPAC) committee's
recommendation/report to explore the feasibility of developing a Performing Arts Center for 800-1000
patrons and a Convention/Conference/Special Events Center for 500-600 patrons and, in order to
successfully attract attendees, a 200-unit private hotel will need to be built in close proximity. The
3CHPAC committee also asked the Council to consider forming a Public Facilities District (PFD). At
the February 27 Council meeting, the Council authorized development of a draft ordinance forming a
PFD, to perform a market demand and feasibility study for the downtown business district and to hold a
public hearing regarding the draft ordinance and the location of the study area. Mr. Clifton indicated the
packet contained a draft ordinance creating a PFD.
Mr. Clifton explained the ordinance was modeled after Lynnwood's PFD ordinance (South Snohomish
County PFD), and highlighted provisions specific to Edmonds including 1) blanks in the ordinance for
the name of the PFD to allow the Council or PFD to determine a name, 2) the PFD would be co -extensive
with the boundaries of the City of Edmonds as required by PFD legislation, 3) a question remains
regarding PFD operation costs and whether the City was willing to fund initial start-up costs. He pointed
out that Section 1, Item CA of the draft ordinance indicates the Council commits to provide a certain
dollar amount initially subject to approval of a specific board request for funds.
Mr. Clifton explained the State currently collected a 0.033 sales and use tax. PFD legislation allows the
State to return the 0.033 sales and use tax to the PFD, a credit against the State sales and use tax. These
funds were previously provided by the State on a quarterly basis, requiring start-up costs to be provided
until the PFD began receiving the 0.033 sales and use tax. He explained PFDs can now receive the 0.033
sales and use tax on a monthly basis, possibly resulting in the PFD needing less funds early to operate
and undertake due diligence activities. He noted Lynnwood provided their PFD with $25,000 although
additional funds were later allocated by the Council. Tacoma did not provide their PFD with start-up
funding, only staff time for performing due diligence. Vancouver used an annual consultant budget to
fund PFD activities until the City started receiving the sales and use tax from the State.
Mr. Clifton explained in order for the PFD to collect monies from the 0.033 sales and use tax, the amount
of sales and use tax collected must be matched from other public and private sources to 33% (1/3) of the
amount collected. Therefore, a matching source must be identified if a PFD were created. He noted the
cities of Lynnwood and Vancouver used a portion of their Hotel/Motel Lodging Tax to meet the 1/3
match requirement. Tacoma used the 2% Hotel/Motel tax, miscellaneous assets and parking revenues.
He said Edmonds currently collected $68,000 in Hotel/Motel tax; of this amount $38,000 was allocated
to the South Snohomish County Tourism Bureau and the Edmonds Alliance for Economic Development,
and $25,000 to miscellaneous services and other groups. Section 1, Item CA of the draft ordinance
authorizes the City to provide matching funds but conditions the receipt of the matching funds on the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 17, 2001
Page 7
PFD pursuing a regional facility only within the general downtown business district. Section 1, Item C.5
states the PFD shall perform a market demand and feasibility study for the downtown area prior to
forwarding a decision on whether to move forward with construction of a regional center within the City.
The Council could then determine whether to authorize continued or new matching funds for the purpose
of moving forward with planning and construction of a regional center. These provisions were added to
encourage the PFD to stay focused on the area requested by the Council but he noted there was not a
guarantee this would occur.
Mr. Clifton noted the amount received from the 0.033% sales and use tax could vary from year to year
depending on the economic climate, therefore, the necessary matching funds vary proportionately to the
amount collected.
Mr. Clifton explained another issue for consideration was the utilization of staff time. A PFD Board of
Directors would need assistance for a variety of activities. Lynnwood, Vancouver and Tacoma utilize
existing staff. Tacoma's legal department works extensively with their PFD and all legal work is done
in-house but their Finance Director does not dedicate a significant amount of time to PFD activities.
Finance Directors in Vancouver and Lynnwood play a key role in PFD activities including reviewing
documents (both cities) and participating as an ex-officio PFD board member (Lynnwood). Section 1,
Item CA of the ordinance states the City should make available and the PFD should use the services of
the City's Finance Director as a Treasurer and that the Finance Director should be an ex-officio member
of the PFD board and that the City provide incidental assistance to the PFD in the form of routine legal
services for organization and routine matters for at least the first year. He noted Lynnwood, Vancouver,
and Tacoma have dedicated Economic Development staff who assist the PFD. As Edmonds does not
directly employ staff dedicated to economic development, it was unknown what additional staff would be
necessary to assist the PFD.
As discussed in the 3CHPAC recommendation/report, prior to taking action on whether to develop a
regional center, it was necessary to perform a market demand and feasibility study. As directed by the
Council, the focus of the study would be the downtown business district. Section 1, Item C.2 states every
effort should be made to locate the regional center within that portion of the central business district,
zoned Community Business and located generally north of Dayton Street, west of Oh Avenue, south of
Edmonds Street and east of Railroad Avenue in addition to property currently occupied by the Puget
Sound Christian College. The report should contain an analysis of existing and future supply of and
demand for similar facilities and should contain a full financial assessment, including construction costs.
Mr. Clifton said construction of a regional center must begin by January 1, 2003 in order for any PFD to
continue receiving the 0.033% sales and use tax beyond that date. As it will take some time to choose
PFD board members and for the PFD to begin operations, if the City desires to see the results of the study
more quickly, it could oversee the process of selecting a contractor to prepare a study and recover costs
via an interlocal agreement with the PFD (up to 2/3 of the cost of the study).
Councilmember Petso asked whether consideration has been given to extending the deadline for
groundbreaking by one year. Mr. Clifton answered he heard recently that many Legislators wanted to
terminate the provision, therefore, it was unclear whether the deadline would be extended or the
provision abolished. He said many legislators wanted to terminate the ability to return the 0.033 sales
and use tax to cities as there were currently 22 cities considering forming a PFD, resulting in the State
returning a great deal of the sales and use tax to PFDs.
Councilmember Plunkett noted the Council was being asked to form a PFD and staff has posed four
questions (initial start-up costs, matching funds, utilization of staff time, and the feasibility study). He
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 17, 2001
Page 8
noted the Council could form the PFD and the Finance Committee could consider the questions while the
PFD was being formed. Mr. Clifton agreed the Council could form the PFD without having answers to
the issues he raised. He explained he raised the four issues due to the short timeframe (one year and
eight months) and the need to move incredibly fast in order for the PFD to begin construction prior to
January 1, 2003.
Councilmember Orvis inquired how many sites there were in the proposed study area for the PFD to
consider. Mr. Clifton answered there was the area between SR104, the railroad tracks and south of
James; the area to the east, the Public Works site; the Puget Sound Christian College; and other
undeveloped sites for a total of 4-5 sites. He explained in order to receive matching funds from the City,
the PFD must perform the market demand feasibility study within the general downtown area.
Councilmember Orvis observed the PFD could study any area they wanted. City Attorney Scott Snyder
noted the City also had the ability to designate other specific areas to broaden the study area but only the
one area was specified in the draft ordinance.
Council President Earling disclosed at one time an agent in his office wrote a Purchase and Sale
Agreement for the property commonly known as the Sakler property. The Purchase and Sale Agreement
has since expired as the terms and conditions were not agreed to by the parties. Mr. Snyder said the
Appearance of Fairness Doctrine did not apply to legislative decisions of the Council, therefore, there
was no restriction on Council President Earling's participation. Council President Earling advised he did
not disclose this information when the Council discussed this issue previously because at that time the
Council was considering a larger area.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He summarized a letter
provided to the Council from Dick Beselin who stated a Cultural Arts facility and Convention Center
would be a positive addition to the area but he had concerns with access, competition, trains, public
support, height limitations, and funding sources. Mr. Beselin requested these issues be addressed prior to
beginning the development.
Ray Albano, 20916 76th Avenue W, Edmonds, spoke in opposition to a Cultural Arts Center, citing the
40% increase in medical costs for seniors, the proposed 250% rate increase from Bonneville Power, and
the proposed $0.23 gas tax. He was also opposed to having board members who did not live in Edmonds
appointed to the PFD board, to having the 0.033% tax taken away from Edmonds, and to paying start-up
costs. He questioned where those funds would come from. He doubted the required 60% positive vote
would be achieved.
Gary Nelson (Snohomish County Councilmember), 9710 Wharf Street, Edmonds, urged the Council
to pass the proposed ordinance. He said many citizens have wanted a regional center for many years. He
had supported a regional center since 1981 but there was never the right source of funding for it. He said
it would benefit Edmonds to use the 0.033% sales and use tax already being collected to give this
opportunity a chance. He noted Lynnwood and Everett have formed PFDs and Snohomish County was
considering establishing a PFD for the purpose of the parking facilities associated with the Everett
facility. He said both a regional center and the parking associated facilities were needed in the area
described for study. He said the ordinance was a logical approach that would undoubtedly attract private
partnerships with the City and the PFD.
Shari Nault, Executive Director of the Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, 121 5th Avenue,
Edmonds, on behalf of the Chamber Board, spoke in support of the formation of a PFD to study the
market demand and feasibility of a Conference/Convention/Special Events and Performing Arts Center in
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 17, 2001
Page 9
the City. The Chamber recommended the study not be limited to the bowl area but include the entire city
limits and that the consulting firm selected for the study have current regional experience in this
discipline.
Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, representing the Kiwanis Club, spoke in support of
the proposal to establish a PFD and recommended a representative from the Kiwanis be included on the
board.
Terry Vehrs, 11023 Totem Pole Lane, Woodway, said planning, studying, and information gathering
for a Convention and Arts Center had been ongoing for too many years. He supported seizing this
opportunity to establish a PFD but encouraged Councilmembers not to approve the ordinance if they
were not prepared to embrace the outcome of the study as Edmonds citizens did not need another study
for study sake. He urged the Councilmembers to vote as if voting on a proposed project.
Darlene McLellan, 22615 92"d Avenue W, Edmonds, said a feasibility study provided an opportunity
to have issues resolved for the community. The development of a PFD to implement a study was the
most reasonable format for the community. She noted the possibilities for visual arts became very real
with the establishment of a Convention Center/Performing Arts Center merged with retail spaces. She
urged the City to use this opportunity to address issues in a timely manner. She said approval of the
formation of a PFD should be with a view of the long-range potential of a project, not just the results of
the feasibility study.
Susan Kostick, 760 Hemlock, Edmonds, representing Edmonds Community College, urged the Council
to create the PFD as ECC believed the facility as proposed was needed in the community and would
improve the quality of life as well as the economic community.
Quentin Clark, 19423 861h Avenue W, Edmonds, described his wife's and his involvement in the
community and his background in engineering and management. He noted this was a rare window of
opportunity because there was a supportive property owner and there was the availability of a PFD. He
urged the Council to approve the ordinance.
Edwina Baxter, 2214 98th Ave W, Edmonds, as an Arts Commissioner, referred to the requirement and
recommendation regarding matching funds and clarified historically the Council dedicated (by
ordinance) 25% of the total Hotel/Motel tax revenue to the Edmonds Arts Commission to promote
cultural, tourism and arts throughout the community. The Arts Commission requested preservation of
this historic commitment in the amount of approximately $16,000. As a citizen, she viewed the PFD as a
win -win situation, allowing the City to retain a portion of its sales tax dollars and to use those funds to
further the lifestyle of the community and to live up to the vision as a community of the arts. She urged
the Council to move forward, noting the longer the City waited, the sooner artists and athletes would be
lost. She summarized the price was right, the need was great and the time was now.
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, expressed concern with the limitations the ordinance
proposed, and recommended the PFD consider the entire City not just one area. He said the PFD was
currently based on a project on Mr. Dykes' property where he proposed high rises, hotels, and gambling
although the City had an ordinance that prohibited that use. If the Council supported this specific
proposal, Mr. Hertrich said they were in a sense arguing against the ordinance on gambling as well as
higher building heights. He supported the concept of a PFD if it was feasible in the City, noting it was
determined not to be feasible in Lynnwood.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 17, 2001
Page 10
Rob Morrison, 250 Beach Place, Edmonds, submitted written comments. Mr. Morrison recommended
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) be considered as an alternative consideration for utilizing the Al
Dykes & Associates properties at Dayton Street to James and Sunset Avenue to the Railroad parking lot
which adjoined the Amtrak station. He described study of this concept that had occurred since 1996. He
summarized the proposed project for the Dykes property would be an excellent answer for TOD at the
Edmonds rail station.
Dick Beselin, 1108 121h Ave N, Edmonds, citizen and owner of Edmonds Harbor Inn, spoke in favor of
the formation of a PFD. He recalled he requested a year ago that the Council consider creating a quiet
zone for Edmonds in conjunction with the Sound Transit proposal. He recommended the Council
provide funds to expedite the Federal Rail Administration's approval for Edmonds to become a quiet
zone. He pointed out the unlikelihood of a Convention Center, Performing Arts Center or hotel next to
the railroad tracks with the current requirement for trains to blow their whistles at public crossings. He
commented the noise from trail whistles was the single largest complaint at Harbor Inn, which is located
2'/z blocks from the train tracks.
Carol Hahn, 1031 2"d Avenue South, Edmonds, echoed the Chamber's request not to limit the study to
the bowl area as there was a large portion of Edmonds not included in this area. She expressed concern
with building a facility with liciglits in excess of the allowed height and supported maintaining the
current height limit. She recalled the traffic jams created by 41h of July fireworks in the least and
suggested consideration be given to similar congestion that would be created by events at a regional
center.
Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, commented the minutes of the previous presentation
reported Mr. Clifton stated a possible rezone of the property to Public so that a 50-70 foot conference and
exhibit center could be built. Mr. Demeroutis commented the 200-unit hotel, a private enterprise, would
also likely be constructed to that height. He was concerned this would open the City to liability due to
view obstruction or preventing others from developing their property to 50-70 feet. He was also
concerned with the cost of sharing the City's Finance Director and legal staff. He questioned how the
City could fund this project when the Council and Mayor have indicated there would be a shortfall in the
next 3-4 years. He questioned the cost of operating and maintaining such a facility as well as the cost of
the debt service. He recalled Councilmembers Plunkett and Miller, who participated on the 3CHPAC
committee, were focused only on the property between Dayton and Main Street. He suggested the City
consider a joint venture with Lynnwood.
Bruce Nicholson, 928 Cherry Street, Edmonds, agreed one of the City's struggles was lack of revenue;
pointing out the creation of an environment that drew people to the City to spend money and generate
revenue would be good for the City. He recommended the Council move forward with this proposal.
Betty Mueller, 205 Caspers Street, Edmonds, noted a casino was planned in the hotel, a use she said
did not belong there. She said a large condominium was also planned for the site and questioned whether
the City would construct the extension of James Street as the property owner requested.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing.
In response to Mr. Albano's comment regarding composition of the board and tax revenue, Mr. Snyder
said both were a function of State statute regarding the creation of a PFD. PFDs were intended as
regional centers, therefore, the board may include members from outside the City.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 17, 2001
Page 11
Councilmember Plunkett recalled a question from the public regarding the PFD costing the City money.
Mr. Clifton said the sales and use tax was not an additional tax nor did it take money away from the City.
The State currently collected the 0.033% sales and use tax; by forming a PFD, the State returned the
0.033 sales and use tax to the PFD.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled comments made by the public regarding building a casino and asked
whether the Council's action to form a PFD would have any impact on zoning. Mr. Clifton explained the
PFD only had the ability to develop a Conference/Convention/Special Events Center, not a casino.
Regarding zoning, should a market demand and feasibility study determine a market existed for a
Conference/Convention/Special Event Center, that it was financially feasible, and decided to move
forward, the Council would then need to address the granting of a possible rezone, Conditional use
Permit, and an increase in the existing height limit.
In response to Mr. Demeroutis' comment regarding increased height limits, Mr. Clifton said one of the
issues that must be addressed as soon as possible was the existing height limit as, during the preparation
of a market demand and feasibility study, the existing height limit would be an important parameter for
any consultant considering the feasibility of a Convention or Performing Arts Center. As discussed on
February 27, the existing height limit is 25 feet (+5 feet for pitched roofs) and structures would be
allowed up to 60 feet in height if the proposed Community Facilities ordinance was adopted and a
Conditional Use Permit approved. He said the Shoreline Master Program restricted heights to 35 feet;
therefore, any construction within 200 feet of the shoreline must adhere to that height limit. He said the
estimated height of a regional facility could be 50-70 feet and a consultant who participated on the
3CHPAC committee indicated that height would be necessary to accommodate tall ceiling heights for
Convention/Conference Centers and also the stage for a Performing Arts Center.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the PFD and/or City staff could begin work on Mr. Beselin's
suggestion to establish a quiet zone. Mr. Clifton recommended that issue be considered during the
feasibility study. He noted the City applied for and received a $250,000 grant to match Sound Transit's
$250,000 for improvements at Dayton and the railroad tracks. The improvements in that project would
give the City the ability to petition for a quiet zone. The City was unsuccessful in acquiring a grant for
improvements at Main and the railroad tracks.
Councilmember Orvis inquired about the comment regarding the percentage needed for voter approval of
bonds. Mr. Clifton advised if the PFD was formed and there was a desire to increase the sales and use
tax .2%, an election would be required. Councilmember Orvis summarized any funding in excess of the
0.033 sales and use tax would require voter approval. Mr. Clifton agreed, with the exception of taxes on
parking and ticket surcharges to the events. Mr. Snyder referred to Section 1, Item C.3, which states
"...the Council declares the new taxes will not be utilized by the District in connection with a regional
facility without prior consultation and approval of the Edmonds City Council."
Councilmember Davis asked how much was collected via the 0.033 sales and use tax. Mr. Clifton said if
the PFD received the 0.033% for 2001, it was estimated a total of $168,000 would be received from the
State. A match would be required for $56,000 of those funds. Councilmember Davis clarified those
funds were currently being collected by the State but not provided to the City. Mr. Clifton agreed.
Councilmember Davis asked whether the cost of the market demand and feasibility study had been
estimated. Mr. Clifton stated the closest estimate was the market demand and feasibility study performed
for the South Snohomish County PFD, which cost $44,000 and focused on the downtown area of
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 17, 2001
Page 12
Lynnwood. Councilmember Davis asked the cost of a City-wide study. Mr. Clifton estimated the cost
would be double.
Council President Earling asked if the cost of the City Attorney's involvement had been estimated. Mr.
Clifton said Tacoma utilized in-house counsel, Vancouver utilized bond counsel and had not calculated
the cost to date, and Lynnwood, who used their City Attorney as well as outside legal counsel had not
calculated the total spent on legal services. Mr. Snyder said he was also unable to obtain the total
amount Lynnwood had expended on legal services.
Council President Earling asked whether there had been any discussion with the Edmonds Alliance for
Economic Development, Tourism Bureau and other local performance and art groups regarding the
impact on their future funding via the Hotel/Motel tax. Mr. Clifton answered no, noting the utilization of
the 2% Hotel/Motel tax was an issue for the Council to consider.
Councilmember Petso said the ordinance stated City matching funds would "be limited to hotel -motel tax
receipts." Mr. Clifton agreed, noting the ordinance also stated, "unless otherwise approved by the
Council" which allowed the Council to utilize other funds. He said the hotel -motel tax was included as it
was a source utilized by other cities and provided a fairly consistent source of revenue.
Councilmember Petso asked what would occur if the 0.033% sales and use tax exceed the amount the
City was capable of matching from the hotel -motel tax. Mr. Clifton said the increase in matching funds
was proportional to the amount of sales and use tax collected by the PFD. This was an issue for the
Council to discuss when considering whether to provide matching funds. Mr. Clifton explained the PFD
must receive a matching source from some entity for the 0.033 sales and use tax collected. He noted
there was no other identified source for the matching funds other than the City but the PFD would be
responsible for identifying the matching funds. Other cities have indicated they provided matching funds
to show they had a serious commitment to the project.
Councilmember Petso asked what would occur if the City was unable to provide sufficient matching
funds. Mr. Snyder said either the PFD would need to identify another source or it could not expend the
funds that did not have a match.
Councilmember Petso asked what would occur once the market demand and feasibility study was
completed. Mr. Clifton answered the PFD would determine whether to move forward with planning and
construction of a regional center. He clarified the PFD would make that decision, not the City Council.
Councilmember Petso recalled at least one member of the public urged the Council not to proceed if they
were not willing to embrace the conclusion of the PFD. She asked whether the process could be halted if
the PFD decided to move forward and the citizens did not support the project. Mr. Snyder said the PFD
could proceed, perhaps without public approval but also potentially without matching funds because the
City must approve matching funds each year. Councilmember Petso asked if the same would apply to
height limits and, if the Council chose not to change the height limits, the PFD would be required to
abide by that decision. Mr. Clifton agreed.
Councilmember Petso said height limits were not discussed a great deal at the 3CHPAC committee,
however, Mr. Clifton indicated tonight that a facility must be 50-70 feet in height. She said that height
was not consistent with the discussion at the 3CHPAC committee and there were other convention
facilities in Ocean Shores and Yakima that were less than 50-70 feet in height. She questioned whether a
smaller scale facility was no longer being considered. Mr. Clifton answered he indicated a height of 50-
70 feet was necessary due to the type of Convention/Conference Center and Performing Arts Center
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 17, 2001
Page 13
recommended by the 3CHPAC committee. He said a theater of up to 800 patrons would require a stage
of 50-70 feet high. If the study determined only a Conference/Convention Center were feasible, the
height limit could be lower.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the PFD could study a hotel and Conference Center project that did
not include condominiums, gambling or performing arts. Mr. Clifton said the legislation did not enable
the PFD to develop condominiums and/or casinos. Councilmember Petso said if the project design
ultimately included condominiums, could the PFD sell that portion of the property and allow a private
developer to develop that aspect. Mr. Clifton answered yes, the parcel would need to be segregated and
privately financed and developed and not operated as part of the PFD.
Council President Earling said although public comment referred to "the subject property," there were a
number of potential sites throughout the general downtown area. He was interested in considering other
sites including the old Edmonds High School.
Councilmember Davis asked whether the Special Events Center could include a swimming pool. Mr.
Clifton referred to a memo from Foster Pepper & Shefelman, Attorneys at Law, that suggested the
Legislature add sports facilities, entertainment facilities and museums to the definition of regional center.
He said this could be interpreted that Foster Pepper & Shefelman did not feel sports facilities,
entertainment facilities or museums met the current definition.
Mayor Haakenson said if the Council chose to proceed with the formation of a PFD tonight, he was
concerned with the amount of staff time this would require. If the Council chose to move forward, he
recommended they address how staff would be used and how staff time would be funded. Mayor
Haakenson remanded the matter to Council for action.
Councilmember Marin urged caution in proceeding, recalling the 3CHPAC committee recommended the
Council consider a concept to utilize the area between Dayton and Main Street and SR104 to Railroad
Avenue in addition to possibly other properties in the vicinity for the purpose of developing a Performing
Arts Center for 800-1000 patrons, a Conference/Convention/Special Events Center for 500-600
attendees. Although he could envision an impressive structure on that site, further study and a meeting
with the general partner of the property (Mr. Dykes) resulted in some alarming facts that were different
than what he envisioned on the site. Mr. Dykes had described a 60-foot Performing Arts Center, a 60-80
foot hotel with conference facilities, a 70-foot parking garage, 30-40 foot condominiums and a 4,000
square foot cardroom inside the hotel. Councilmember Marin said he was not interested in allowing
buildings that exceeded the existing height limit or allowing a cardroom. He was also concerned with
moving extremely fast due to the lack of a clear focus regarding what should be built. He recommended
delaying a decision until the Council had a better focus.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the City's Downtown Plan, the Hyatt Palma study, and the
Comprehensive Plan called for tying downtown to the waterfront and for economic development in this
general area. He commented the Council had as much focus as could be provided; a study was needed to
determine whether any of these uses was viable. He said the ultimate decision would be made by the
voters when they made a decision whether to finance construction of the center.
Councilmember Miller recalled there had been a lot of discussion in recent years about economic vitality
including the Hyatt Palma study that linked the downtown waterfront area to the economic vitality of the
community. The 3CHPAC committee leveraged the recommendations from the Hyatt Palma study by
using the 0.033 sales and use tax already being collected to fund a market and feasibility study of the
downtown business district. He suggested the Council move forward with creating the PFD and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 17, 2001
Page 14
appointing the PFD boardmembers and refer the questions raised by Mr. Clifton regarding staff time,
how to provide the matching funds, etc. to the Finance Committee.
Councilmember Orvis liked the idea of creating a PFD which allowed the City to use State funds to study
a project that would ultimately need voter approval to proceed with any capital project and would require
the PFD to request matching funds from the Council. He suggested the study area be expanded to the
entire City to allow the PFD maximum flexibility for siting a facility. He said it appeared there were
adequate funds to study the entire City.
Council President Earling noted he was supportive of arts in Edmonds and wanted to find a way to move
forward but did not have enough information tonight to tell a citizen what the cost to the City would be
until the PFD was established. He suggested the public hearing be continued to next week, have staff
with the assistance of the EAED develop a budget so that citizens could be informed of the financial
obligation that would be required.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO NEXT WEEK (APRIL 24).
Councilmember Marin clarified he was in favor of a PFD but wanted to ensure there was a clear focus
regarding what was to be accomplished.
Council President Earling advised it was the consensus of the Council to accept public comment at the
continued public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Zen$ 5, REPORT FROM CITIZENS COMMISSION ON SALARIES OF ELECTED OFFICIALS
ommissinn
n Salaries
1'Elceted Human Resources Director Brent Hunter explained the Citizens Commission on Salaries of Elected
ffscials Officials was created by Council ordinance in 1999 to review Council and Mayor salaries and benefits
and prepare recommendations on appropriate compensation for the future. He said in every other year
(odd numbered years), the Commission makes a report to the Council. During the preparation of the
report, the Commission held two public hearings on April 2 and 4 to seek public comment on elected
officials' salaries. Commissioners include Kevin Clarke (Chair), Ellen Ernst, Ruth Clark, Don Bakken,
James Braun, Robert Novak and Chris Fleck.
Commissioner Ellen Ernst, 702 7rh Avenue S, Edmonds, read the report from the Citizens Commission
on Salaries of Elected Officials. The report stated the Commission reviewed the salaries and benefits of
Councilmembers and Chief Executives from 15 Puget Sound cities comparable to Edmonds in
population, assessed valuation, size of the general fund, and number of employees. A copy of the
comparative data was attached to the report. She summarized information provided from a survey of
current Councilmembers to gather information on Council positions:
• The average Councilperson worked approximately 16.5 hours per week performing their Council
duties. The Council President worked approximately 24 hours per week.
• The primary benefits enjoyed by Councilmembers were helping the community accomplish
major tasks and developing good public policy and legislation.
• Councilmembers did not seek reimbursement for most Council related expenses which they
incurred such as mileage, telephone and postage. Although expenses for out of area travel were
reimbursable, few Councilmembers sought reimbursement.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 17, 2001
Page 15
Councilmembers stated their present pay and benefits were fair. Some Councilmembers
expressed concern over the compensation rate for meetings that lasted all day such as budget
meetings and retreats.
a The primary obstacles that prevent citizens from seeking public office as a Councilmembers were
the time commitment and interference with their "real job." Other reasons include the election
expenses and loss of family time.
Ms. Ernst extended the Commission's appreciation to the Councilmembers who responded to their
questionnaire. She explained the Commission held two public hearings on April 2 and 4 to gather public
input on the elected officials' salaries. Although the public's participation was less than the Commission
hoped for, those who provided comment stated the elected officials were adequately compensated at the
present time. The public expressed concerns about limited resources and other higher priority needs.
There were also comments about the Commission's methodology of reviewing salaries of elected
officials from other cities including those cities with higher sales tax resources and assessed valuation.
There was a general concern that salary increases for public officials would trickle down to other public
employees whose salaries the public felt were already too high.
The Commission also discussed their role in minimizing the political aspects of the elected officials'
salary considerations. Although other options were reviewed, the Commission recommends changing the
date when their report is made to the Council. Currently, the Commission's report is due by the first
Monday in May in odd numbered years which, coincidentally, is also the election years for municipal
offices. The Commission believes that changing the date to even numbered years would help remove
some political pressure.
The Commission recommends that the current salary and benefits for the City Councilmembers and
Mayor be retained as is. The Mayor's salary and benefits are approximately equal to other full-time
Mayors in comparable cities in the region and Council salaries are also approximately equal to other
cities. However, the Councilmembers also enjoy a health insurance benefit that most other city councils
do not currently have. The Edmonds City Council has received this benefit for several years and the
Commission recommends retaining all Council benefits as is. The Commission also recommends
amending ECC 10.80.060 to change the date when the Commission's report is to be submitted to the City
Council from the first Monday in May of each odd numbered year to the first Monday in May of each
even numbered year.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
town Al Rutledge, 7101 Lake Ballinger Way, Edmonds, urged all Councilmembers to attend the Town
Meeting Meeting regarding library annexation on Saturday, April 21.
Public Al Dykes, 9792 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, in response to Councilmember Marin's comments, said
(Facilities either he described his vision poorly or there was some miscommunication. He offered to have another
District meeting and to be more specific. He emphasized he had no capability to determine what a PFD did. He
said he did not want to present his ideas to avoid the focus being on his property when the purpose of the
PFD was to independently, impartially address the issue.
Rich Demeroutis, 921 Pine Street, Edmonds, referred to his earlier comment made during
Councilmember Marin's commentary, noting he found it offensive to have Councilmembers talking
amongst themselves during public deliberation or while another Councilmember was speaking. He said
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 17, 2001
Page 16
this was disrespectful to the person speaking as well as to the public. He wanted to hear the questions
Councilmembers asked of each other during a public hearing.
mph Elaine Yard, 9209 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, commented it was difficult to hear the Council's
peed Limit discussion in the back of the room. She commended the Police Department for their efforts to reduce
View Drive motorists' speeds on Olympic View Drive from the often -traveled speeds of 45-50 mph to the posted
speed limit of 25 mph. She hoped the City could identify funding for 1-2 more 25 mph speed limit signs
along Olympic View Drive as the signs seemed to disappear. She also suggested the City apply the 25
mph speed limit on the pavement from Perrinville to Puget Drive.
Public Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, recalled Mr. Dykes' comment that the focus should not
Facilities be on his proposal, yet in the February 27 minutes, Councilmember Miller stated he was the driving force
District behind the 3CHPAC committee and that this was an opportunity to explore a partnership with a private
property owner in the area. Mr. Hertrich recalled Councilmember Marin described a number of over -
height buildings in the proposal that he [Mr. Hertrich] did not feel belonged in Edmonds, yet
Councilmember Plunkett wanted everyone to believe the proposal to form a PFD had nothing to do with
that. Mr. Hertrich assured the public was aware that the proposal would include higher than normal
building heights, gambling, etc. He recommended the study be expanded to include the entire City.
7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Public
'iafety Mayor Haakenson announced the Open House and Public Art Dedication for the Maxwell-McGinniss
Complex Public Safety Complex on Friday, April 20 from 3:00 to 7:00 p.m.
'it 21 Mayor Haakenson reminded the public of the Town Meeting on Saturday, April 21 at the Edmonds
vn Theatre at 9:00 a.m. to discuss library annexation. He said speakers in favor of annexation and speakers
....-aing I opposed to annexation would make presentations followed by audience comments.
8. COUNCIL COMMENTS
'Live I Council President Earling advised the City now had the technology to have live Council meetings. He
Broadcast of requested Councilmembers provide their input regarding this option and the matter would be placed on a
Council
(Meetings future Council agenda.
Obscene Councilmember Miller referred to a letter he received from Mr. and Mrs. Lamusga regarding obscene
(Programs on programming on the public access channel that they had inadvertently discovered at 8:00 p.m.
(Public Councilmember Miller said he found extremely disturbing and contacted the Lamusgas, AT&T and local
Access and State Legislators. Councilmember Miller said AT&T had not yet responded regarding canceling the
Channel
public access channel and/or obscene programming. He said AT&T's standard response to customers
who objected to the material, is that they could request a channel block. He invited others in the
community who were concerned about this issue to contact him, noting he planned to bring public
pressure on AT&T.
Regarding Mr. Rutledge's comment about Councilmembers' attendance at Town Hall meetings,
Councilmember Miller stated he has been at all previous Town Hall meetings but could not attend this
Saturday due to a family wedding in California.
Mayor Haakenson commented he received a telephone response from AT&T regarding the letter he sent.
AT&T will provide a letter to the Mayor and Council but the news wasn't good.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 17, 2001
Page 17
Councilmember Petso said she has attended previous Saturday meetings but would be unable to attend
this Saturday's Town Meeting as she will be out of town. While she was out of town, Councilmember
Marin would be attending the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee meeting. She encouraged him to advise
the committee of the ordinance under consideration that would use Lodging Tax funds for the PFD
match.
F
s Councilmember Petso asked whether the Council would act on the Citizens Commission on Salaries of
riesnElected Officials' recommendation to change the date their recommendation is submitted from odd
ted numbered years to even numbered years. Council President Earling advised this would be on a future
Dfficials I Council agenda.
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:59 p.m.
G - Y HA ENSON, MAYOR
SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 17, 2001
Page 18
AGENDA
r EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5t" Avenue North
7:00 -10:00 p.m.
APRIL 17, 2001
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 APRIL 3, 2001
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #47380 THROUGH #47536 FOR THE WEEK OF APRIL 2, 2001, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $104,530.81. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #47537 THROUGH #47696 FOR THE
WEEK OF APRIL 9, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $594,153.00. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT
DEPOSITS AND CHECKS #1687 THROUGH #1006 FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 16 THROUGH MARCH
31, 2001, IN THE AMOUNT OF $761,007.31.
(D) REPORT ON THE GENERAL FUND AND OTHER SELECTED FUNDS FINANCIAL POSITION FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000
(E) AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR A REGENERATIVE AIR STREET SWEEPER FOR
THE STREET/DRAINAGE DIVISION
(F) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 2001 STREET OVERLAY PROGRAM
(G) AUTHORIZATION TO CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE CITY HALL ROOF REPLACEMENT PROJECT
(H) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
LYNNWOOD AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS — TRANSFER OF ZODIAC BOAT, TRAILER AND MOTOR
(1) QUARTERLY REPORT REGARDING GRANTS
(J) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15.05.000 RELATING TO THE
CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN ORDER TO ADOPT A NEW SIX -YEAR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE YEARS 2001 THROUGH 2O06
(K) PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15.05.000 RELATING TO THE
CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN ORDER TO ADOPT THE EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL
FACILITIES PLAN 2000-2005 (DATED APRIL 20, 2000) AS PART OF THE CAPITAL FACILITIES
ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
3. (30 Min.) PRESENTATION ON THE PROPOSED BRIGHTWATER TREATMENT PLANT AT THE UNOCAL SITE
4. (90 Min.) PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED DRAFT ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A PUBLIC FACILITIES
DISTRICT TO STUDY THE MARKET DEMAND AND FEASIBILITY OF, AND POSSIBLY DEVELOP, A
CONFERENCE/CONVENTION/SPECIAL EVENTS CENTER, AND PERFORMING ARTS CENTER
WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS
5. (10 Min.) REPORT FROM THE CITIZENS COMMISSION ON SALARIES OF ELECTED OFFICIALS
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3 Minute Limit Per Person)
Page 1 of 2
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
APRIL 17, 2001
Paae 2 of 2
7. ( 5 Min.) MAYOR'S COMMENTS
8. (15 Min.) COUNCIL COMMENTS
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.