2008.08.18 CC Special Workshop Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Special Workshop
Edmonds City Council
Brackett Meeting Room, Edmonds City Hall
121 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
______________________________________________________________
August 18, 2008
9:00 a.m.
Call to Order
1. Approval of Agenda
2. AM-1727 Financial Status of City
2009-2010 Budget Briefing
Requested by Mayor Haakenson
3. City Unfunded Priority Projects
Requested by City Council
4. AM-1720 Acquisition of the Old Safeway and Skippers Sites
Requested by Councilmember Dawson
5. AM-1723 Transportation Benefit Districts
Requested by Mayor Haakenson
6. AM-1722 General Priorities for the City
Requested by Councilmember Wilson
7. Parks Plan
Requested by City Council
Adjourn
Packet Page 1 of 47
AM-1727 2.
2009-2010 Budget Briefing
Special Workshop - City Council
Date:08/18/2008
Submitted By:Kathleen Junglov Time:
Department:Administrative Services Type:Information
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Financial Status of City
2009-2010 Budget Briefing
Requested by Mayor Haakenson
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
For information only.
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
Finance will update the Council on the latest financial information and a briefing about it's impact
on the 2009-2010 General Fund budget.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/13/2008 10:06 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/13/2008 10:23 AM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/13/2008 11:50 AM APRV
Form Started By: Kathleen
Junglov
Started On: 08/13/2008 09:12
AM
Final Approval Date: 08/13/2008
Packet Page 2 of 47
AM-1720 4.
Acquisition of the Old Safeway and Skippers Sites
Special Workshop - City Council
Date:08/18/2008
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Council Time:
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Acquisition of the Old Safeway and Skippers Sites
Requested by Councilmember Dawson
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
At the August 5, 2008 Council Meeting, the Council directed staff to return within the next two
weeks with a scope of work which would include ideas regarding potential consultants for the
Council to consider in regard to developing a vision for the Downtown Master Plan Area -
Waterfront Antique Mall, Harbor Square, and Skippers properties.
Councilmember Bernheim requested that his memo be attached to this agenda item.
Narrative
This item has been placed on the agenda for discussion.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: Bernheim RR-area memo
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/13/2008 02:37 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/13/2008 02:40 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/13/2008 03:29 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 08/11/2008 09:23
AM
Final Approval Date: 08/13/2008
Packet Page 3 of 47
Bernheim Antique Mall/Skipper’s Memo
Special Council Meeting August 18, 2008
1
PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN REDEVELOPMENT NEAR THE WATERFRONT
FACTS & FIGURES
Why should the city acquire the property?
• To control of the site for the greater good of Edmonds & its citizens. This parcel
is a key site tying downtown and the waterfront and is central for parking and
transportation coordination.
• Business & tourism development – acquiring & developing the parcels allows the
city to expand its sales tax revenues by creating more reasons for people to visit
Edmonds.
• If these parcels continue in the hands of private owners they can be developed
under existing development guidelines w/o necessarily any benefit to the greater
public, except for some marginal tax increase offset by marginally greater
government expenditures. Either the newcomers pay more than their fair share (in
which case the city benefits) or they pay simply their fair share (in which case the
added development is a wash for the city).
• Rather than a typical mixed use housing development, the area can be developed
as an integral part tying the downtown core to the waterfront, as well as
exemplifying some sort of lower-intensity resource use that will characterize
development in the future.
What are the potential property uses?
• There are many potential public uses available, e.g., open space, public market,
park, viewpoints, restaurants, shops, plazas, pavilions, open stage, walking & bike
paths, parking, transportation coordination, senior center, civic center, etc.
• Public use designation allows for grant funding to offset acquisition costs.
• The intent is to create on balance a public benefit overall, even though the
ultimate design has not been agreed upon. Many ideas have been presented but
nothing is firm. This design would be arrived at with major public input.
• Potential public/private partnership, long term land leases to development parties,
exploring possible exchanges of development rights... all options like these can
help offset public ownership & development costs.
What is the cost of acquiring these properties?
• Unknown. One property owner says $16 million dollars (for property assessed at
$9.7 million dollars). One owner says “no sale” for property assessed at $1.18
million. The true costs and a starting point of a purchase would be to have an
accurate appraisal performed.
Packet Page 4 of 47
Bernheim Antique Mall/Skipper’s Memo
Special Council Meeting August 18, 2008
2
• Appraisal costs - this should only cost the City between $7500 & $15,000 dollars,
without this everything is speculation regarding purchase costs. This step must be
taken now.
• The City’s method of purchase would be a general obligation bond issued for the
overall purchase of these properties for an assumed $12.1 million dollars. Due to
the unknown nature of the true costs of acquisition at this time the table below is a
representative of potential costs depending upon the total dollars of the bond.
Bond Measure costs to the public @ $ 12.1 million dollars
Assessed valuation
of home
Cost per thousand of
valuation
Annual cost Monthly cost
300,000 .13 (cents) 39.00 3.25
400,000 .13 (cents) 52.00 4.33
500,000 .13 (cents) 65.00 5.42
600,000 .13 (cents) 78.00 6.50
Bond Measure costs to the public @ $ 24.2 million dollars
Assessed valuation
of home
Cost per thousand of
valuation
Annual cost Monthly cost
300,000 .13 (cents) 78.00 6.50
400,000 .13 (cents) 104.00 8.66
500,000 .13 (cents) 130.00 10.83
600,000 .13 (cents) 156.00 13.00
*Cost projections are referenced from Edmonds City staff presentation to City Council –
May 27th 2008*
• Chart two represents a bond measure of $24.2 million dollars, to be allocated to
acquisition as well as either public development on the properties or under funded
city needs such as downtown street lighting, sidewalk & crosswalk maintenance /
construction, parks department maintenance & upkeep; seed money for
preliminary development on the site; community info kiosks; connections
between parks and schools via walkways/bikeway; or other city-oriented
transportation projects.
• All additional funding options (such as grants available for public use) need to be
explored, discussed & identified as a means of reducing cost to the public. This has not
been done.
• The intent of these costing charts is to show the affordability of a bond measure on an
annual basis. The percentage of the total annual tax bill is small – approximately 1.6%.
• Ask yourself what else you spend $100 to $200 dollars a year on without giving it any
thought at all – coffee, cigarettes, gasoline, sweets, drinks, dinners, entertainment, golf,
etc… and compare the return on investment of that spending verses a bond measure.
Packet Page 5 of 47
Bernheim Antique Mall/Skipper’s Memo
Special Council Meeting August 18, 2008
3
• Tax Facts, please: What is the real, historical tax burden in Edmonds since 2000? Are
taxpayers aware of the actual change in tax burden over the last eight years or are taxes
relatively higher now than ever in history?
A larger vision for Edmonds
• Invest in your children & grandchildren’s future, this is about them not us, not about right
now but 20 & 50 years from now
• Don’t allow short term financial pain to dictate long term gains, make Edmonds a real
world class city
Packet Page 6 of 47
AM-1723 5.
Transportation Benefit Districts
Special Workshop - City Council
Date:08/18/2008
Submitted By:Stephen Clifton
Submitted For:Noel Miller Time:
Department:Community Services Type:Information
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
Transportation Benefit Districts
Requested by Mayor Haakenson
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
During the February 1 and 2, 2008 City Council Retreat, the topic of Transportation Benefit
District was discussed. No action was taken at that time.
Narrative
See attached August 12, 2008 Memorandum and attached exhibits.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: August 12, 2008 Memorandum - Transportation Benefit Districts
Link: Exhibit 1 - January 28 Memoradum - Transportation Benefit Districts
Link: Exhibit 2 - AWC Information on Transportation Benefit Districts - Frequently Asked
Questions and Checklist
Link: Exhibit 3 - February 6 Letter to Executive Reardon
Link: Exhibit 4 - Snohomish County and Cities Transportation Benefit Districts Estimated
Revenue - $20 License Fee
Link: Exhibit 5 - Snohomish County Resolution 08-015 and May 6, 2008 Letter from Snohomish
County
Link: Exhibit 6 - City of Edmonds Unfunded Priority Projects
Link: Exhibit 7 - WSDOT Construction Cost Index, Consumer Price Index, and City of Edmonds
Fund 112
Link: Exhibit 8 - City of Edmonds Regional Roadway Network
Link: Exhibit 9 - City of Edmonds Potential Eligible Projects
Link: Exhibit 10 - Transportation Benefit District - Association of Washington Cities PowerPoint
Presentation Outline
Packet Page 7 of 47
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/14/2008 12:03 PM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/14/2008 02:58 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/14/2008 02:59 PM APRV
Form Started By: Stephen
Clifton
Started On: 08/12/2008 02:47
PM
Final Approval Date: 08/14/2008
Packet Page 8 of 47
City of Edmonds
Community Services Department
Economic Development Department
Date: August 12, 2008
To: Mayor Haakenson and City Council members
From: Stephen Clifton, AICP
Community Services and Acting Economic Development
Director
Subject: Transportation Benefit Districts
Attached you will find a January 28, 2008 memorandum (Exhibit 1) from me on the topic of
Transportation Benefit Districts (TBDs) which was included in the February 1 and 2, 2008 City
Council retreat packet. In the memorandum, I explain the purpose of a TBD and
implementation options. Also included in the retreat packet were documents titled Association
of Washington Cities Transportation Benefit District Legislation in Effect - Frequently Asked
Questions, and Transportation Benefit District Checklist (Exhibit 2).
Within the January 28, 2008 memorandum, I also highlight a request by Snohomish County
seeking an expression of cities’ interest in further exploration and evaluation of this financing
tool. During the City Council retreat, the City Council expressed general support for a collective
effort to explore and evaluate a county-wide option. A February 6, 2008 letter to Snohomish
County Executive Reardon (Exhibit 3) was sent to Executive Reardon, with copies sent to the
Edmonds City Council, Snohomish County Council, Snohomish County Infrastructure
Coordination Committee Chair Steve Thompson, and City of Edmonds staff.
In March of 2008, Snohomish County generated an Excel spreadsheet (Exhibit 4) listing how
much revenue could potentially be generated for various jurisdictions exploring whether to form
a TBD. The amounts listed are based on a $20 license tab fee for those vehicles subject to this
fee. As listed in the table, the estimated annual revenue for the City of Edmonds is $720,043.
On April 30, 2008, the Snohomish County Council adopted Resolution 08-015 (Exhibit 5)
expressing the County Council’s intent not to exercise their authority to create a county-wide
TBD for the purpose of imposing a vehicle fee without a public vote prior to May 22, 2008. This
being said, a related May 6, 2008 letter (Exhibit 5) from the Snohomish County Council
referencing resolution 08-015 stated that the County Council would be interested in continuing
to discuss possible options for the development of a regional transportation plan to address
much needed safety improvements and congestion relief projects with City officials through
Snohomish County Tomorrow or other avenues.
City of Edmonds Z Community Services
Packet Page 9 of 47
Included in the May 27, 2008 City Council packet was a table containing a list of unfunded
priority projects. An updated version of the table (Exhibit 6) was provided to the City Council
for review and discussion during the June 24, 2008 City Council meeting. One item referenced
within the table is titled Ongoing Transportation Projects. Related to this topic is Exhibit 7, a
graph which depicts the actual and projected Washington State Department of Transportation
Cost Index and Consumer Price Index in relationship to the City’s Transportation Fund 112. As
illustrated on the graph, Fund 112 experienced a significant decline in late 2007 and is likely to
continue on a downward trend through 2008. The Fund is expected to increase in 2009, albeit
at 2003 – 2006 levels. Formation of a City TBD will improve the ability to fund certain
transportation projects.
Since May 27, 2008, City staff has been working to prepare a list of potential projects that could
be partially or fully funded using TBD dollars over a multi-year timeline. One of the frequently
asked questions referenced in Exhibit 2 is “what transportation improvements can be funded by
a TBD?” Based on conversations with the Association of Washington Cities (AWC), TBD funds
can generally be used for projects related to the City’s regional roadway network (Exhibit 8).
Potential projects may include improvements necessitated by existing or reasonably foreseeable
congestion levels; projects or programs included in any existing state or regional transportation
plan; maintenance, operations & preservation of programs and projects supported by existing
state or regional plans – this includes roads, transportation demand management, etc.; and
transit agency and port district projects. Exhibit 9 contains a list of City of Edmonds projects
that may qualify for TBD funding; the estimated total of the projects is $31,480,000 in year of
expenditure dollars. Prior to any final decision on a list of projects, City staff would work with
the Regional Transportation Planning Organization and AWC to ensure that all projects chosen
to be funded using TBD dollars are eligible for funding. This is dependent on the City Council’s
desire to move forward on this issue.
If a TBD were formed by the City, the following potential scenarios could take place:
o Locally generated TBD dollars could be used to leverage or match other non local
transportation funds, thus increasing the City’s ability to file grant applications
o Accelerate construction schedule of certain projects
o Use TBD funds in lieu of other non TBD transportation dollars to pay for projects, thus
allowing non TBD dollars to be reallocated
o Increase in overall transportation dollars, thus positively affecting overall
City/Department budget(s)
o Accumulate TBD funds to help pay for larger projects
The TBD Checklist highlights many of the requirements that must be followed if a City, County
or multi-jurisdictional TBD is formed. Page 3 of Checklist also highlights revenue options that
are either subject to, or not subject to, voter approval. Please note that issuing a public notice,
holding a public hearing, and adopting an ordinance, etc. are all part of the overall process. In
order to provide further clarification on this issue, City staff has requested Ashley Probart, with
Association of Washington Cities Transportation, to attend the City Council Special Workshop on
August 18, 2008 to present a brief overview (Exhibit 10) and to answer questions.
2
Packet Page 10 of 47
Packet Page 11 of 47
Packet Page 12 of 47
Packet Page 13 of 47
Packet Page 14 of 47
Packet Page 15 of 47
Packet Page 16 of 47
Packet Page 17 of 47
Packet Page 18 of 47
Packet Page 19 of 47
Packet Page 20 of 47
Packet Page 21 of 47
Packet Page 22 of 47
Packet Page 23 of 47
TB
D
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
A
n
n
u
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
Ba
s
e
d
o
n
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Sn
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
a
n
d
C
i
t
i
e
s
-
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
-
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
0
8
Ci
t
y
/
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
i
t
y
20
0
7
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Es
t
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
Re
v
e
n
u
e
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
/
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ev
e
r
e
t
t
10
1
,
8
0
0
1
4
.
8
3
%
$
1
,
8
0
7
,
2
0
7
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
40
,
5
6
0
5
.
9
1
%
$
7
2
0
,
0
4
3
Ma
r
y
s
v
i
l
l
e
36
,
2
1
0
5
.
2
8
%
$
6
4
2
,
8
1
9
Ly
n
n
w
o
o
d
35
,
4
9
0
5
.
1
7
%
$
6
3
0
,
0
3
7
Mo
u
n
t
l
a
k
e
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
20
,
8
1
0
3
.
0
3
%
$
3
6
9
,
4
3
0
Mu
k
i
l
t
e
o
19
,
9
4
0
2
.
9
1
%
$
3
5
3
,
9
8
5
Mi
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
17
,
6
2
0
2
.
5
7
%
$
3
1
2
,
8
0
0
Ar
l
i
n
g
t
o
n
16
,
7
2
0
2
.
4
4
%
$
2
9
6
,
8
2
2
Mo
n
r
o
e
16
,
2
9
0
2
.
3
7
%
$
2
8
9
,
1
8
9
Bo
t
h
e
l
l
(
S
n
o
.
C
o
.
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
)
15
,
4
5
0
2
.
2
5
%
$
2
7
4
,
2
7
7
La
k
e
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
13
,
3
5
0
1
.
9
5
%
$
2
3
6
,
9
9
6
Sn
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
8,
9
7
0
1
.
3
1
%
$
1
5
9
,
2
4
0
Br
i
e
r
6,
4
8
0
0
.
9
4
%
$
1
1
5
,
0
3
6
St
a
n
w
o
o
d
5,
2
0
0
0
.
7
6
%
$
9
2
,
3
1
3
Su
l
t
a
n
4,
5
3
0
0
.
6
6
%
$
8
0
,
4
1
9
Gr
a
n
i
t
e
F
a
l
l
s
3,
1
9
5
0
.
4
7
%
$
5
6
,
7
1
9
Go
l
d
B
a
r
2,
1
7
5
0
.
3
2
%
$
3
8
,
6
1
2
Da
r
r
i
n
g
t
o
n
1,
4
8
5
0
.
2
2
%
$
2
6
,
3
6
3
Wo
o
d
w
a
y
1,
1
8
0
0
.
1
7
%
$
2
0
,
9
4
8
In
d
e
x
16
0
0
.
0
2
%
$
2
,
8
4
0
Un
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
31
8
,
6
8
5
4
6
.
4
4
%
$
5
,
6
5
7
,
4
6
4
To
t
a
l
E
s
t
.
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
68
6
,
3
0
0
1
0
0
.
0
0
%
$
1
2
,
1
8
3
,
5
6
0
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
24
of
47
TB
D
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
A
n
n
u
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
Ba
s
e
d
o
n
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
25
of
47
Packet Page 26 of 47
Packet Page 27 of 47
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
U
n
f
u
n
d
e
d
P
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Co
st
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
D
o
l
l
a
r
s
Priority
On
g
o
i
n
g
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Pu
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
/
p
e
r
y
ea
r
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
T
a
x
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
High
On
g
o
i
n
g
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Pu
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
$.
5
t
o
1
.
0
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
pe
r
y
e
a
r
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
Pu
b
l
i
c
V
o
t
e
?
High
4 th
A
v
e
n
u
e
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
Pa
r
k
s
/
P
u
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
$1
0
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Va
r
i
o
u
s
C
i
t
y
f
u
n
d
s
a
n
d
g
r
a
n
t
s
Aq
u
a
t
i
c
C
e
n
t
e
r
Pa
r
k
s
&
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
$1
0
t
o
$
3
0
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Pu
b
l
i
c
V
o
t
e
Ar
t
C
e
n
t
e
r
/
A
r
t
M
u
s
e
u
m
Pa
r
k
s
&
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
$5
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
p
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
Bo
y
s
&
G
i
r
l
s
C
l
u
b
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
(S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
)
N
o
t
a
C
i
t
y
B
l
d
g
$5
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
c
a
m
p
a
i
g
n
Ci
v
i
c
P
l
a
y
f
i
e
l
d
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
(l
e
a
s
e
e
x
p
i
r
e
s
2
0
2
1
)
Pa
r
k
s
&
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
Un
k
n
o
w
n
Pu
b
l
i
c
V
o
t
e
/
RE
E
T
1
/
G
r
a
n
t
s
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Pu
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
$2
5
0
,
0
0
0
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
Ta
x
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
28
of
47
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
Pu
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
an
d
P
a
r
k
s
&
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
Un
k
n
o
w
n
Pu
b
l
i
c
Vo
t
e
Fi
r
e
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
Tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
C
l
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
,
N
o
n
-
Bu
r
n
i
n
g
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
Fi
r
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
$1
.
1
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
+/
-
1
0
%
Es
p
e
r
a
n
c
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
Wo
o
d
w
a
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
20
1
5
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
2
0
D
e
b
t
P
a
y
o
f
f
EM
S
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
F
e
e
s
Va
r
i
o
u
s
C
i
t
y
F
u
n
d
s
Fo
r
m
e
r
W
o
o
d
w
a
y
H
.
S
.
(S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
.
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
)
Pl
a
y
f
i
e
l
d
s
Pa
r
k
s
&
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
$1
2
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
/
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
Ca
m
p
a
i
g
n
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
/
R
E
E
T
2
Pa
r
k
s
/
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Pa
r
k
s
&
P
u
b
l
i
c
Wo
r
k
s
$3
t
o
3
.
5
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
No
t
f
u
n
d
e
d
a
f
t
e
r
3
ye
a
r
s
No
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
Pu
b
l
i
c
V
o
t
e
Se
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
ng
Pu
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
$4
t
o
1
0
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
Pu
b
l
i
c
/
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
?
G.
O
.
B
o
n
d
L
e
v
y
Va
n
M
e
e
r
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
Fi
r
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Su
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
Ne
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
Es
p
e
r
a
n
c
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
Wo
o
d
w
a
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
20
1
5
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
2
0
D
e
b
t
P
a
y
o
f
f
EM
S
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
F
e
e
s
Va
r
i
o
u
s
C
i
t
y
F
u
n
d
s
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
29
of
47
Packet Page 30 of 47
Packet Page 31 of 47
Transportation Benefit District (TBD) Funding - City of Edmonds Potential E
Project Cost
Puget Drive Walkway Project $235,000
Interurban Trail $1,000,000
Traffic Signal Upgrades: OVD @ Puget Dr, Main St. @ 3rd Av., 238th @ 100th $500,000
Traffic Signal Coordination along major arterials (76th and 220th)$245,000
212th @ 76th Intersection Improvements $500,000
SR 99 @ 76th Intersection Improvements $2,000,000
Citywide Overlays along Arterials / Collectors $9,000,000
Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Intersection Improvements $700,000
Intersection Improvements along SR 99 (212th, 216th, and 220th)$2,000,000
84th St. Improvements from 212th to 238th St. SW $12,000,000
238th St. SW Improvements: widen to 3 lanes and add sidewalk $2,100,000
212th @ 84th Intersection Improvements (Five Corners) $700,000
Ninth @ Caspers / Ninth @ Walnut Intersection Improvements $500,000
TOTAL $31,480,000
Packet Page 32 of 47
Eligible Projects
Projected Year
2009
2010
2011
2010
2011
2010
every year
2011
2014
2013
2012
2012
2013
Packet Page 33 of 47
1
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
As
h
l
e
y
P
r
o
b
a
r
t
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
C
i
t
i
e
s
Au
g
u
s
t
1
8
,
2
0
0
8
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
34
of
47
2
Wh
a
t
i
s
a
T
B
D
?
Qu
a
s
i
-
m
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
&
i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
t
a
x
i
n
g
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
cr
e
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
o
l
e
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
o
f
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
Cr
e
a
t
e
d
b
y
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
l
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
(
c
o
u
n
t
y
o
r
ci
t
y
)
a
n
d
m
a
y
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
o
t
h
e
r
c
o
u
n
t
i
e
s
,
c
i
t
i
e
s
,
p
o
r
t
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
,
or
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
I
n
t
e
r
-
l
o
c
a
l
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Fo
r
m
u
l
t
i
-
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
T
B
D
,
t
h
e
g
o
v
e
r
n
i
n
g
b
o
d
y
h
a
s
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
5
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
1
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
e
a
c
h
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
n
g
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
.
Ca
n
a
l
s
o
b
e
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
a
n
e
n
t
i
r
e
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
(
c
i
t
y
o
r
c
o
u
n
t
y
)
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
35
of
47
3
TB
D
F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Un
t
i
l
M
a
y
2
2
nd
,
C
o
u
n
t
y
-
w
i
d
e
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
o
n
l
y
.
A
c
o
u
n
t
y
T
B
D
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
ci
t
i
e
s
,
m
a
y
b
e
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
b
y
i
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
a
l
a
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
6
0
%
o
f
c
i
t
i
e
s
p
l
u
s
75
%
o
f
c
i
t
y
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
to
i
m
p
o
s
e
u
p
t
o
$
2
0
V
L
F
.
Af
t
e
r
M
a
y
2
2
,
C
o
u
n
t
y
&
C
i
t
i
e
s
m
a
y
fo
r
m
o
w
n
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
a
n
d
/
o
r
I
L
A
’
s
i
n
an
y
c
o
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
.
(
C
o
u
n
t
y
-
w
i
d
e
$
2
0
V
L
F
c
i
t
y
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
s
t
i
l
l
ap
p
l
i
e
s
)
Cr
e
a
t
i
n
g
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
m
u
s
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
fi
n
d
i
n
g
o
f
p
u
b
l
i
c
’
s
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
,
bo
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
o
f
T
B
D
,
d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
on
o
f
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
ta
x
e
s
,
e
t
c
.
t
o
b
e
i
m
p
o
s
e
d
b
y
T
B
D
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
36
of
47
4
Ne
c
e
s
s
i
t
a
t
e
d
b
y
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
r
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
y
f
o
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
co
n
g
e
s
t
i
o
n
l
e
v
e
l
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
o
r
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
a
n
y
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
t
a
t
e
o
r
re
g
i
o
n
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
&
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
an
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
d
b
y
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
t
a
t
e
o
r
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
pl
a
n
s
–
t
h
i
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
r
o
a
d
s
,
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
m
a
n
d
ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
e
t
c
.
.
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
A
g
e
n
c
y
a
n
d
P
o
r
t
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
m
a
y
a
l
s
o
b
e
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
.
El
i
g
i
b
l
e
T
B
D
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
37
of
47
5
TB
D
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
RC
W
3
6
.
7
3
.
0
2
0
(
1
)
Im
p
r
o
v
e
d
s
a
f
e
t
y
Im
p
r
o
v
e
d
t
r
a
v
e
l
t
i
m
e
Im
p
r
o
v
e
d
a
i
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
i
n
d
a
i
l
y
a
n
d
p
e
a
k
p
e
r
i
o
d
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
Im
p
r
o
v
e
d
m
o
d
a
l
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
Im
p
r
o
v
e
d
f
r
e
i
g
h
t
m
o
b
i
l
i
t
y
Co
s
t
-
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
o
f
i
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
Ot
h
e
r
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
a
s
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
b
y
g
o
v
e
r
n
i
n
g
b
o
d
y
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
38
of
47
6
TB
D
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Pu
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
s
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
T
B
D
fo
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
TB
D
m
u
s
t
i
s
s
u
e
a
n
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
i
n
g
st
a
t
u
s
o
f
p
l
a
n
TB
D
m
u
s
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
c
h
a
n
g
e
p
o
l
i
c
y
-
2
0
%
th
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
TB
D
m
u
s
t
g
o
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
n
o
t
i
c
e
,
p
u
b
l
i
c
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
f
T
B
D
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
ex
p
a
n
d
e
d
b
e
y
o
n
d
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
T
B
D
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
TB
D
h
a
s
s
u
n
s
e
t
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
39
of
47
7
TB
D
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
O
p
t
i
o
n
s
Co
u
n
c
i
l
m
a
n
i
c
–
v
o
t
e
r
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
n
o
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
Up
t
o
$
2
0
a
n
n
u
a
l
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
F
e
e
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
&
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
TB
D
m
u
s
t
b
e
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
-
w
i
d
e
Vo
t
e
r
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
Up
t
o
0
.
2
%
s
a
l
e
s
a
n
d
u
s
e
t
a
x
(
1
0
-
y
e
a
r
l
i
m
i
t
)
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
T
a
x
,
a
n
e
x
c
e
s
s
l
e
v
y
f
o
r
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
o
r
a
1
ye
a
r
e
x
c
e
s
s
l
e
v
y
Up
t
o
$
1
0
0
a
n
n
u
a
l
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
F
e
e
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
T
o
l
l
s
TB
D
c
a
n
b
e
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
d
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
40
of
47
8
TB
D
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
$2
0
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
F
e
e
An
n
u
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
-
C
o
u
n
t
y
w
i
d
e
Un
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
(
4
6
%
)
=
$
5
.
6
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Ci
t
i
e
s
(
5
4
%
)
=
$
6
.
4
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
VL
F
2
0
-
Y
e
a
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
i
f
e
–
C
o
u
n
t
y
w
i
d
e
Co
u
n
c
i
l
m
a
n
i
c
$
2
0
V
L
F
C
o
u
n
t
y
-
w
i
d
e
Pr
e
s
e
n
t
V
a
l
u
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
S
t
r
e
a
m
=
$
1
7
3
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
(S
o
u
r
c
e
:
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
L
i
c
e
n
s
i
n
g
20
0
7
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
d
a
t
a
,
A
W
C
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
)
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
41
of
47
9
TB
D
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
A
n
n
u
a
l
Re
v
e
n
u
e
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
s
-
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
(H
y
p
o
t
h
e
t
i
c
a
l
)
Li
c
e
n
s
e
F
e
e
(
$
2
0
t
o
$
1
0
0
)
$
7
2
0
,
0
0
0
t
o
$
3
.
6
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Sa
l
e
s
T
a
x
(
0
.
1
%
t
o
0
.
2
%
)
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
t
o
$
1
.
2
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
T
a
x
(
$
0
.
0
5
t
o
$
0
.
1
3
/
$
1
0
0
0
)
$
3
8
0
,
0
0
0
t
o
$
9
9
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
R
a
n
g
e
o
f
A
n
n
u
a
l
R
e
v
s
$
1
.
7
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
t
o
$
5
.
8
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
B
o
n
d
i
n
g
A
m
o
u
n
t
$
2
0
m
t
o
$
7
0
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
(1
:
1
2
b
o
n
d
r
a
t
i
o
)
(Hi
g
h
e
r
a
m
o
u
n
t
i
s
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
o
n
o
v
er
a
l
l
b
o
n
d
i
n
g
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
o
f
T
B
D
)
(S
o
u
r
c
e
:
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
L
i
c
e
n
s
i
n
g
d
a
t
a
,
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
d
a
t
a
,
A
W
C
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
)
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
42
of
47
10
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
Qu
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
?
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
43
of
47
AM-1722 6.
General Priorities for the City
Special Workshop - City Council
Date:08/18/2008
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Submitted For:Councilmember D. J. Wilson Time:
Department:City Council Type:Information
Review Committee:
Action:
Information
Subject Title
General Priorities for the City
Requested by Councilmember Wilson
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Councilmember Wilson asked that this be placed on the agenda and has attached a memo
regarding this agenda item.
Fiscal Impact
Attachments
Link: DJW General Priorities
Form Routing/Status
Route Seq Inbox Approved By Date Status
1 City Clerk Sandy Chase 08/14/2008 11:28 AM APRV
2 Mayor Gary Haakenson 08/14/2008 02:59 PM APRV
3 Final Approval Sandy Chase 08/14/2008 03:00 PM APRV
Form Started By: Jana
Spellman
Started On: 08/12/2008 01:23
PM
Final Approval Date: 08/14/2008
Packet Page 44 of 47
Memo
Date: August 14, 2008
To: Edmonds City Council
CC: Mayor Haakenson
From: DJ Wilson
Re: A discussion on general City priorities for Aug 18th meeting
Summary: As the budget process begins, we know we’ll face difficult funding decisions. I believe the
more work we can do as a Council to highlight our relative interests and priorities as they relate to
community projects, the better. It may not be appropriate to fully address each of these items listed,
and I’m sure there are some that should be added that I’ve not included. However, rather than have
staff work on recommendations that we know we won’t support, or have them not understand the
importance of certain issues to this Council and thus overlook them in staff’s work, I think it is beneficial
to provide as much guidance from Council to staff as is possible regarding the following items.
Details: The budget questions we face as a City are daunting. The mayor and staff will be working to
bring questions to the Council about cuts and funding as the weeks progress. Councilmember Wambolt
and I will be working on the Budget Review Committee during some of that time, as well.
My question for Council discussion is essentially this: do we want to wait to see what the mayor/staff
bring to us, and react accordingly? Or, would we like to establish some clear priorities for City
government, as well as our community, to better guide the mayor and staff’s deliberations and
analysis? In other words should we be more reactive or more proactive?
The easier thing to do would be to wait and see what staff brings us, and respond accordingly. After all,
it’s their job to do so. As council members, we have daytime responsibilities which detract from our
ability to match staff’s time on this effort. They also have a broader expertise on the relative tasks and
challenges faced at the “1 foot level” of City operations. One consequence of waiting, however, will be
to reduce the time we as a Council will have to address larger questions about priorities and vision,
which in theory should be the guide of our spending and revenue generation.
I would argue that without those priorities and that vision, we as a Council risk adopting a budget
without a unifying thread or purpose throughout the document. Piecemeal cuts and revenue additions
may be little more than a band‐aid without a long term plan. This long term plan may be what we need
to ultimately put us solid financial footing, but this approach would make finding that footing difficult if
not impossible.
The more difficult approach would be to highlight to staff as many priorities – those higher and those
lower – as is possible as early as is possible. That would make their time far more efficiently spent, and
should ultimately get us a budget with which we as a Council would be more comfortable.
Packet Page 45 of 47
I believe, in other words, that we can put in time at the beginning of the budget process laying out our
vision, or we can put in more time later trying to adapt our vision to the budget developed by staff. To
paraphrase the adage, “pay now in time, or pay more later.”
That said, here are some areas where I think it may be appropriate to provide feedback to the staff and
mayor ahead of their major budget deliberations. Many of these we are familiar with as they were
discussed at our February retreat. We have discussed some of them in Council. We have yet to put an
order of importance to each of these relative to one another or to other unlisted possibilities. The
following are in no particular order.
• “Spinning off the fire department”: Do we as a Council want staff to spend time contemplating
this if we’re not really interested in doing it? Are fire and emergency services central to what
we do as a city, or can they be “out‐sourced?”
• Redevelopment of the senior center property: Do we want to elevate the importance of this
project? Are we comfortable with the current situation? Are we comfortable throwing “good
money after bad” (by spending money on parking lots or building retrofits when we know it may
be coming down soon)? Is this the best use of this property or should its use be more broadly
focused to include families, children and the community‐at‐large? Are we willing to go to the
voters to approve such a redevelopment? If so, how does this priority compare with other items
needing voter approval? Can we put it on a ballot with other items?
• Creation of a family recreation center and/or indoor pool: Is this really a priority in light of
developments in Lynnwood and Shoreline? If so, are we ready to go to the voters to approve
such a development? If so, how does this priority compare with other items needing voter
approval? Can we put it on a ballot with other items?
• Buying part of the Antique Mall/Skippers property: How best can we bring this to conclusion in
light of the budget situation? If we want to buy some piece of it, or all of it, how can we move
this forward? Is this responsible to do so in light of the fiscal situation without proposing a vote
of the citizens to fund acquisition and maintenance? Are we ready to commit to going to the
voters to approve such a development? If so, how does this priority compare with other items
needing voter approval? Can we put it on a ballot with other items?
• Sidewalk construction: Is the lack of sidewalks in many parts of our community a concern?
Does this inhibit our ability to attract new families or new businesses to our neighborhoods?
Should new sidewalk construction be a priority for capital spending?
• Transportation infrastructure: As a community, we have decided (based upon past budgets)
that transportation infrastructure is less a priority than parks. Should we re‐allocate some REET
II dollars towards transportation so that the “slow down” in the housing market hits both areas
equitably? Or, should we continue to allow parks monies to be shielded from the downturn
while transportation infrastructure takes the full brunt of the costs?
• Fiber‐optic cable: Is this appropriately less a priority today than it may have been envisioned a
few years ago? Is there interest in fostering the use of this backbone in other ways, like
requiring that all re‐development within a given area (like BD1 or downtown) connect to the
backbone? The waterfront properties, for instance, would be an example of this type of re‐
development.
• Business climate improvement: Do we want to allocate dollars to support business
development in Edmonds, particularly around the use of our fiber‐optic network? Do we want
to highlight this broadband capacity to the regional business community to attract new
Packet Page 46 of 47
businesses here? Should we spend resources on a business friendly brand campaign for the City
of Edmonds to attract new businesses?
• Parks acquisition, development, and maintenance: Do we want to aspire to be known as a
“community of parks?” Should we target a more ambitious acquisition and development
strategy, and ask the voters to fund it accordingly? As I understand it, Edmonds has opened 2
new parks in the last 35 years. Is that acceptable? How many do we want to open in the next
10 years?
I’m sure there are other questions that we might address. Again, I recognize the easier thing to do in
the near term is wait for staff and the mayor to bring us a budget for review. However, these types of
questions won’t go away until we address them, regardless of this budget process.
I recognize Council may want more time to consider some of these topics above. This Monday meeting
is not necessarily the time to make determinations about the future of each of these topics. However,
the more we can provide guidance on a few of these items, I think the better we as a City will be.
Packet Page 47 of 47