Loading...
20160209 City Council Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES February 9, 2016 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Kristiana Johnson, Council President Michael Nelson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT S. Gagner, Police Officer Phil Williams, Public Works Director Carrie Hite, Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Shane Hope, Development Services Director Scott James, Finance Director Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Frances Chapin, Arts & Culture Program Mgr. Rob English, City Engineer Carolyn LaFave, Executive Assistant Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator Jeannie Dines, Recorder Mayor Earling announced the City closed on the purchase of Civic Field today. 1. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Mesaros. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ADD AS ITEM 4A FOR 7 MINUTES AN ORDINANCE ON REESTABLISHING THE CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND LIMITATIONS PLACED ON VOLUNTEERS. Councilmember Buckshnis explained she provided each Councilmember, the Beacon and My Edmonds News with an agenda memo she prepared on Saturday. She anticipated the item could be discussed and action taken with seven minutes. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 2 COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 2, 2016 B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #218372 THROUGH #218509 DATED FEBRUARY 4, 2016 FOR $251,567.08. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT #62055 THROUGH #62063 FOR $518,345.07, BENEFIT CHECKS #62064 THROUGH #62071 AND WIRE PAYMENTS OF $482,483.86 FOR THE PAY PERIOD JANUARY 16, 2016 THROUGH JANUARY 31, 2016 C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JEANETTE NYMAN ($150.00) AND FROM GARY D. ATKINSON ($3,604.98) D. CONFIRMATION OF ATHENE TARRANT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD IN POSITION #3 - LAYMAN E. CONFIRMATION OF LESLY KAPLAN TO THE ARTS COMMISSION IN POSITION #7 - LITERARY F. FISHING PIER REHABILITATION PROJECT CONTRACT AWARD 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Jerry Tays, Edmonds, relayed his support for the Sunset Avenue project, but said he is concerned about two elements of the project. First, parking, as the most dangerous way to drive a vehicle is in reverse. Yesterday he had his fourth near miss since the street as restriped. Second, he was more concerned with the way the project is funded. As a former federal and state employee, he knew this project could not be funded with federal funds as they would not spend taxpayer dollars on a project of this cost with only a one year right of renewal; that is not sufficient time to protect the public’s investment. He recommended identifying either a different way of funding the project or guaranteeing citizens will be able to keep the project once it has been implemented. Two Councilmembers have asked questions about this in the past and a current member of the Council asked on his behalf, but it has never been answered. Vivian Olson, Edmonds, thanked the Council and staff for the opportunity to weigh in regarding Sunset. After reading all the survey results, she felt this process had given clarity on what the main purpose of Sunset should be beyond its status as a residential street. There are many parks and public spaces in Edmonds to hang out and two such as Brackett Landing and Marine Beach are waterfront. Therefore Sunset does not need to be a place to hang out but rather it should provide what other parks and public spaces do not, a scenic thoroughfare for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. She suggested all decision related to this project would be easier to make when put through that filter. Thalia Moutsanides, Edmonds, submitted 2 copies of the 1,091 signatures she collected against the proposed walkway and copies of 2 surveys done on EdmondsBeacon.com asking whether the City should go forward with the Sunset Avenue walkway project. The March 12, 2014 survey had 17 yes votes and 97 no votes and the October 18, 2014 survey had 18 yes votes and 104 no votes. She summarized there has been strong support from the beginning for shutting this project down. The new survey did not state how much has been spent to date or how much it will cost to complete the project. This information s hould have been included because many would feel the money could be better spent elsewhere. When speaking with the young man on Sunset gathering information for the new survey, he twisted all her statements to say she was in favor of the project. She has never supported this project and questioned whether her Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 3 comments or the comments of anyone else against the project were included in the survey or had he neglect to write them down. The initial grant proposal said there were no negative comments although there had been a lot. Those who are against the walkway have said all along that bikes, skateboards, Segways and scooters do not belong on the walkway, a sentiment confirmed by the new survey. She questioned why BNSF, another huge player in the project, was not brought up in survey. From the beginning the public did not get all the facts or the whole truth and she questioned whether the public was now. She felt Sunset had turned into a three ring circus; not everyone is there to enjoy view, people look into their houses and last week she had a package stolen off her porch, the first time in 30 years. She believed if this occurred on a Councilmember’s street, they would also be upset. This street was perfect the way it was before; the right amount of people, cars and park and she wanted it restored to its original beauty. Sandy Olson, Edmonds, proposed the angle parking on Sunset be eliminated as the 21 angled spots block views for motorists, sidewalk pedestrians and homeowners and create hazardous driving conditions. Previously drivers could get a glimpse of the view while driving but not anymore; it is hazardous, narrow and impossible. Sunset now looks like a parking lot. By comparison Brackett’s Landing has 38 parking spaces, Sunset Avenue has 32 and Marina Beach has 40 on the south and 21 on the north. She was also concerned for the residents of sunset and questioned whether they were considered at all; they have cars backing onto their property emitting fumes, and likely have challenges getting into their driveways. She recommended Sunset be returned to the way it was. Janet Henry, Edmonds, commented she found it difficult to trust the integrity and results of Sunset Avenue survey because they are so contrary to the 1200 signatures on the petition. She pointed out although the City has 30,000+ residents, only 764 were interested enough to take the survey and out of that, half or more of the comments were negative, leaving about 300 people who use Sunset for the purpose the changes were intended. From reviewing the materials, it appears nearly $200,000 was spent on the project by the end of 2014 and later in 2015 many of the plants died and were replaced, more bark was added and more man-hours were spent tweaking the initial changes and even special accommodation promised one resident but not others. She found the grant funding aspect of the project deceptive and troubling; the taxpayer grant dollars were obtained by telling the PSRC it would be a multipurpose pathway but after this yearlong trial, it obviously cannot be because there is not enough space for wheeled devices, pedestrians, dogs, etc. Only three people can walk abreast with many of those walking partially or fully between the yellow lines that designate the curb; that danger must be acknowledged. She suggested these comments may be moot because the survey indicates even bicyclists do not feel comfortable using the pathway. Therefore she assumed the multipurpose path grant dollars could not be used for the project and would need to be returned and the City’s funds written off. She recommended no further funds or man-hours be spent on this controversial and unfortunate idea proposed several years ago by one person and the street returned to its original condition. 4A AN ORDINANCE ON REESTABLISHING THE CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AND LIMITATIONS PLACED ON VOLUNTEERS Councilmember Buckshnis thanked everyone who contacted her about this. She apologized for not catching that the ordinance regarding the EDC was not status quo. She recalled growing up in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, competing with others, having qualifications that did not match or being put in a box. She referred to her memo, suggesting the Council consider removing Section 5 which states members should exhibit experience in fields such as private or nonprofit business, economics, real estate, finance, development, education or other similar fields. She referred to Section 7 which states a commissioner that fails to maintain his/her eligibility can be removed. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO REMOVE SECTIONS 5 AND 7. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 4 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reiterated comments she made last week that limiting who was allowed to participate in the CEDC disqualified people who would be beneficial to the City’s economics such as bus drivers, nurses, artists, etc. For example a writer would not qualify for the EDC. She expressed support for the proposed change. She has been told that the language will not exclude anyone because the Council has the ability to appoint whoever they want. If that is the case, this language is still unnecessary. Councilmember Tibbott expressed support for the wording, finding it very broad. Using Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ example, an author has at least some organizational and economic capacity to carry out that activity. He did not view the wording particularly narrow. If the language were removed, he asked what language would be inserted to help inform the community what skill set or knowledge base the City was seeking to promote the mission of the EDC. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas responded having no statement would be the most beneficial. She reminded the EDC is a Council commission and she hoped Councilmembers would be able to appoint citizens who were interested in economic development and worked well in a group. To the question of what problem this sought to address, she relaying her belief it was to address some people appointed to the EDC during the last two years who had been disruptive. She understood the EDC needs more focus and purpose but she trusted Councilmembers to make the right decision. She was elected by the voters to make those decisions and if she could not make a good decision regarding who to appoint to the EDC, she should not be a Councilmember. She was sorry if some people had been appointed who perhaps did not have the best interest of EDC in mind; that was not her; she has the best interests of the EDC in mind and would like the ability to appoint who she thinks would be best. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Section 5 which is now 6, that previously only stated members of the commission must be residents of Edmonds. Councilmembers are all intelligent, business minded people and she felt the new language was discriminatory. Councilmember Teitzel appreciated the concern and the passion and assured he did not want the language to be exclusionary. In considering what the City was trying to achieve via the EDC, he felt it was to gather people who are creative at bringing new businesses to Edmonds, helping grow the economic base and tax base, so that the City can provide the services citizens want without raising property taxes. There previously were 17 members which allowed for a broad mix of people; because the new commission will only be 9 members, they need to be qualified and have demonstrated expertise in marketing, running a business, etc. He read the language in Section 6, Members of the commission mu st be residents of the City of Edmonds. Members should exhibit experience in fields such as private or nonprofit business…” To him, anyone who has had anything to do with business has demonstrated experience, creativity in attracting customers and growing their business are welcome to apply. For example, an immigrant who settled in Edmonds and operates a dry cleaner business is thriving, attracting new customers but may not have formal education in the US; he would like that person to apply to be on the EDC. The language accepts that type of person as an applicant. The language also states experience in economics, real estate, finance, development, education or other similar fields. He felt the language was sufficiently broad and not exclusionary. The intent was for applicants to be qualified and to bring a certain skill set to this important position. Ultimately the EDC will help the City and the taxpayers by keeping property tax rates low. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the list of qualifications includes realtors. She asked Councilmember Teitzel to explain how a realtor benefits economic development. Councilmember Teitzel responded realtors have formal training and expertise in business, know the economics process related to financing, etc. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas responded her sister is a realtor and has had no business training; she is a sales person. She felt the language was very subjective; for example, Councilmember Teitzel may view a realtor as appropriate because he saw the business end of it but she did not. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 5 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas felt the language eliminates women; in the US, 23% of businesses are run by women and 18% of CEOs are women, the majority are men. The language discriminates against women who have equal abilities but may not have had the opportunity to run businesses or be CEOs. It has only been in the last 20 years that women have had the ability to get out of the house and the caretaking role. Councilmember Teitzel said he was sensitive to the concern with being discriminatory or inclusionary but the language states members should exhibit experience in fields such as private or nonprofit business, he emphasized “should,” stating anyone was eligible to apply, male, female, minorities, etc. The intent was to screen applicants to ensure the best qualified pool of applicants to appoint. Council President Johnson pointed out EDC applications are due on February 19. In order to encourage both the arts community and the local business community, she forwarded the announcement about the application process and the forms to the Chamber of Commerce to broadcast it to the Chamber members and to Arts & Culture Program Manager Frances Chapin who has contacts in the arts community. Given there is a short time amount of time to submit application, she encouraged Councilmembers to extend the invitation to people in the community. Although she had some initial qualms about the requirement language, she did vote in favor of the ordinance reestablishing the EDC which was approved by the Council. If the motion is approved, the positions will need to be re-advertised and an additional two weeks added to the application deadline under the new criteria. Councilmember Nelson said he had heard some very important, enlightening and persuasive comments. Although he supported the ordinance reestablishing the EDC, he did not want to be viewed as discriminatory, particularly toward women. In reality Councilmembers will appoint whomever they want but if it made some Councilmembers feel it would not exclude women, he would support the proposed change. Economic Development & Community Services Director Doherty said Section 7 (formerly 6) only refers to residency. Councilmember Buckshnis said the requirement that commissioners be residents would still apply, only the qualifications would be removed. MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL AND TIBBOTT VOTING NO. Council President Johnson requested City Attorney Jeff Taraday provide a new version of the ordinance for approval on next week’s Consent Agenda. Mr. Taraday relayed his understanding of the motion was to remove the second sentence from new subsection 6 and no change to subsection 7. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested section 7 state the commissioner would become ineligible if he/she moved out of the City. She offered to email Mr. Taraday her suggested language. Mayor Earling pointed out this now backed up the process three weeks; his primary concern was getting the EDC up and running and now it has been stalled until mid-March. Council President Johnson pointed out the City Council will make decision regarding the ordinance on February 16. The current application period runs until February 19, the application deadline can be 2 weeks from February 19, allowing the process to be concluded by March 1. 5. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS A. EDMONDS SISTER CITY COMMISSION PRESENTATION ON THE 2015 STUDENT EXCHANGE TO HEKINAN, JAPAN Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 6 Karyn Heinekin, a teacher at Edmonds Elementary, 2015 ESCC student exchange chaperone and ESCC Commissioner, introduced Robert Allen, the other 2015 ESCC chaperone. She displayed a video of the Edmonds-Hekinan Student Exchange which included Edmonds area students who visit famous sites, beautiful locales, and local landmarks; taste new foods; make new friends; and experience Japanese traditions. After the two week stay in Japan the students host a Hekinan delegation in Edmonds, showing them the sights and sounds of the NW. Because students stay in host family homes, the only cost is airfare. Harold Williams (Dar), Lynnwood, said the opportunity to go to Japan was a dream come true and gave him a clear sense what he wants to do in his life. He was nervous before the trip but once they arrived he was worry free and welcomed by the families. Spencer Montanari, Edmonds, said visiting Japan was a great experience; he had never visited an Asian country before. It was amazing how the ESCC set up the exchange program, allowing the delegation to meet a lot of people and to travel with friends. He liked staying with a host family because he was less a tourist and more like someone living in Japan. Thomas Watridge, Edmonds, said he had a great time visiting Japan with friends as part of the delegation. He realized the importance of maintaining a healthy relationship with Edmonds’ Sister City. The Sister City exchange program allows students who may not have the opportunity to travel to visit Japan. He encouraged students to participate and the City to continue the ESCC exchange program. Graham Hefford appreciated the opportunity to visit Hekinan. He loved the excitement of the journey and the unique experience of staying in the home of his host family; he always felt at home and was never uncomfortable even though he cannot speak Japanese. A short time ago he n ever would have conceived getting to know a Japanese family so closely and the opportunity of the ESCC exchange program opened a window for him into the life of Hekinan family. An avid skier, even in the sweltering heat of a Hekinan summer, his host parents took him to a ski jump facility built for off season use. He thanked the City for opportunity for the opportunity visit Hekinan. It was an honor to be an ambassador of Edmonds and the United States and he would one day like to spend more time with his host family. Robert Allen, 2015 ESCC student exchange co-chaperone, a teacher in the Edmonds School District, reported these are 4 of the 8 students in the delegation that visited Hekinan. The students were engaging with their host families and the entire city of Hekinan. Wherever they visited, people were amazed to meet the Americans. He encouraged the Council to assist the ESCC with funding, explaining when they visit Japan, they visit beautiful temples and restaurants; when the students visit Edmonds, they are given cold sandwiches, salad, and pizza. Ms. Heinekin said she joined the ESCC following her visit to Hekinan, a life changing experience she brings to her classroom and she found it a joy to work with the high school student delegation. She expressed appreciation for the opportunity to visit Japan. She left a gift for the Council with the City Clerk. Mayor Earling commented it was fabulous to have the student and adult exchanges take place. He was hopeful an adult exchange trip could be organized in the next couple years. 6. STUDY ITEMS A. UPDATE ON PLANNING FOR HIGHWAY 99 AREA Development Services Director Shane Hope reported this effort began in late 2015. The consultant team has been doing research and meeting with property owners on Highway 99. Alex Joyce, Project Manager, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 7 Fregonese Associates, introduced team members Scott Fregonese and Irene Kemp. Mr. Joyce explained this is an opportunity to look comprehensively at land use and transportation by:  Incorporating past plans  Engaging the public, business community, stakeholders  Land use and transportation scenarios He described plans for outreach and education:  Community Visioning Workshop o March 24 – big public event  Engaging and hands on  Project open houses  Translated materials  Engaging tools o Hands on workshops o Instant polling  Online outreach and social media o Tailor your outreach to how people get information today  Create a brand  Web and social media  Videos  Email blasts  Fun, in-person events for major milestones Mr. Joyce described scenario planning software, Envision Tomorrow, that allows them to sketch future land use and transportation ideas for Highway 99 based on the public workshop process and direction from staff and Council and to understand how public and private improvements and investments influence things like:  Housing production  Housing affordability  Housing capacity  Employment capacity  Fiscal impacts  Sustained investment He displayed a map of existing conditions and described “hot spot” analysis identifies real estate and land use hot spots, opportunity for infill and redevelopment, opportunity to connect to adjace nt neighborhoods and amenities. He explained team members will:  Analyze real estate trends: o Regional perspective of market drivers o Leverage local, unique market conditions  Hospital  International community and food o Conduct regional development community interviews for PSRC o Understand future housing needs o Determine feasible building types o Understand impact of transportation and pedestrian improvements and real estate market  Zoning Audit o Understand how the current policies impact financial viability in the Highway 99 area and how the zoning and development regulations can be crafted to get what the City wants and is feasible. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 8  Identify Transportation Schemes for Scenario Planning o Transit emphasis/walkable streets o Activity Center emphasis  Integrate land use and transportation strategies for scenarios o Districts  Land use, street activity and transportation function  Community (culture, history, economy, values) o Street typologies  Compatibility  Local vs. regional function o Design overlays  Specialized function  Distinctive place  Scenario Visualizations o Visualization for key sites along the Highway 99 corridor o Compelling before and after photomorphs o Pedestrian scale or birds eye He provided several photomorphs of a suburban movie theater and parking lot and a suburban arterial. He explained this process will also include a Planned Action EIS which will:  Leverage existing information  Thorough documentation  Accessible document  Foundation for the future Mr. Joyce summarized the goal is a graphically rich, easy to understand and quickly implementable plan for the Highway 99 corridor. Councilmember Nelson expressed appreciation for a range of visual alternatives. He asked how many workshops were planned in addition to the March 24 workshop. Mr. Joyce responded the public workshop on March 24 was intended to get big ideas from as many people as possible. Those will be distilled into themes over 1-2 months that will be presented at an open house for further refinement and prioritization. There will also be an online survey. He summarized there will be two public check-ins but periodic online check-ins to gather broader public input. Councilmember Buckshnis asked for a copy of the PowerPoint. With regard to the economic feasibility and zoning study, she asked whether affordable housing was part of their analysis, noting Highway 99 was one of better areas for affordable housing due to transit. Mr. Joyce answered connecting with people who do affordable housing well in this region is a big part of this process as well as playing matchmaker with property owners and nonprofit and private sector people who do affordable housing and workforce housing really well. Councilmember Buckshnis remarked Ms. Hope is also a rock star in terms of affordable housing. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas looked forward to the continuing process. She met with the team this morning and felt this planning would give a lot of hope to a lot of people along this corridor. Council President Johnson reported when she and Councilmember Fraley-Monillas met with the team today, she did not reveal that she is a planner and a transportation planner and is very engaged in the visual and overlays. She recalled Mr. Joyce’s description during their meeting regarding how they plan to engage the international district and the people who live and own property in the area. Mr. Joyce said they are committed and excited about the potential of this process helping to further establish the identity of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 9 the International District. The economists have said it is a good idea for Edmonds to leverage this unique position in the market and to create and support a destination food and cultural district in this area of Highway 99. A member of their team, Irene Kim, who is Korean, will be involved in this aspect as well as ensuring engagement materials are translated and approachable and will engage directly with the business owners. Councilmember Teitzel expressed support for the “try-it-on” concept that allows people to visualize how things might look. He asked whether a moratorium should be adopted on any zoning changes in the Highway 99 area until the study is completed or whether there are zoning changes that could be done now to attract new businesses without waiting until the study is complete. Mr. Joyce responded the zoning audit is an early task and will be shared with the Council as soon as it is complete. Councilmember Teitzel referred to an area of Esperance between 228th and 232nd that borders Highway 99 and suggested having consistency in that area with the rest of Highway 99. He asked whether there has been any coordination with Snohomish County. Ms. Hope answered yes, there has already been some communication with Snohomish County and the adjoining cities. They plan to do a mailing to every address in the area, whether Edmonds or Esperance. B. PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO 1 SNOHOMISH PUBLIC DEFENSE ASSOCIATION Parks & Recreation/Reporting Human Resources Director Carrie Hite requested the Council consider a proposed amendment to the City’s agreement with the Snohomish Public Defense Association (PDA). She recalled the Council awarded a contract to Snohomish PDA for the next 3 years (2006-2018). Bob Boruchowicz, whom the City hired to provide oversight of the public defense services, recommended minor language changes to help clarify the contract. These include replacing supervisor with assessor and adding a requirement for Snohomish PDA to include in their quarterly report information on the use of expert witnesses. Ms. Hite explained the other change is an additional $16,500 for Snohomish PDA as a transition fee. Snohomish PDA received a tremendous number of cases from the previous public defense attorney which is driving their costs up. She explained the contract awarded to Snohomish PDA includes a caseload adjustment clause that allows them to bill the City more or less depending on caseload changes. If Snohomish County PDA used that caseload adjustment clause, it would cost the City $9,000 a month for the next 3-4 months versus the $16,500 that Snohomish County PDA proposed which would be used to hire a temporary attorney for the next 3 months. Kathleen Kyle, Executive Director, Snohomish PDA, commented the transition has gone fairly well; it was a lot of work to transfer from one law firm to another. When they negotiated this contract, the City was interested in ways to reduce the referral rate through the criminal justice system via this clause; if the referral rate goes down, attorney compensation goes down and vice versa. That contract clause was not anticipated for the purpose of the transition and there had not been a discussion regarding how many cases would be transferred from the prior provider but in the context of 650 new criminal referral cases in a calendar year. When she realized they received more than 200 cases from the prior provider and considered how that impacted their referral numbers for the first quarter of 2016, the cost would be $9,000/ month. She reported they have opened 306 files to date; of the cases they received, two-thirds of the investigation requests are from 2015 cases that were referred to them in 2016. The additional funding covers only attorney compensation and does not increase administrative, investigative or social worker expenses due to the new criminal rule that requires them to report quarterly what the lawyer are doing. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this for approval on next week’s Consent Agenda. C. UPDATE ON THE EDMONDS WATERFRONT ACCESS STUDY Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 10 Mayor Earling explained the task force he appointed includes Co-Chairs Mike Nelson (City Council) and Jim Orvis (Port of Edmonds Commissioner). Councilmember Nelson identified the members of the task force and thanked them for their diligent efforts:  Edmonds Residents Kirk Greiner, Cadence Clyborne and Phil Lovell  Representatives from Community Transit, BNSF, WSDOT, WSDOT-Ferries, and Sound Transit Rick Schaefer, Tetra Tech, relayed the purpose of the study:  Alternatives to street-level rail crossings at Main Street and Dayton Street  Provide access between downtown Edmonds and waterfront for: o Emergency responders o Driving o Moving freight o Walking o Transit o Biking He relayed the task force has met eight times since September and will soon be doing Level 1 screening. He reviewed the study schedule including study milestones, technical analysis steps, opportunities to be involved and accomplishments to date:  Prepared study purpose and need statement  Submitted required status report to the legislature on December 1  Compiling data on existing conditions  Drafting baseline condition report  Conducted information meetings with ferries, BNSF, Fire District 1 and mee tings are being scheduled with Sound Transit and Community Transit  Assembled and characterized over 40 initial concepts He displayed a map of initial concepts developed by the consultant team, prior studies or ideas suggested by the community and task force and their locations. Approximately 60% of the concepts were suggested at the November community meeting. The initial concepts are grouped into roadway over and under passes, onsite solutions, operational solutions, railroad modifications, and ferry facility modifications. He described the two stage screening/evaluation process: CONSIDERED SOLUTION CONCEPTS (from public, study team, prior studies)  LEVEL 1 SCREENING → Document Decisions  HIGHEST RATED CONCEPTS  LEVEL 2 EVALUATION → Document Decisions  HIGHEST RATED ALTERNATIVES  PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS → Document Decisions Mr. Schaefer described the Level 1 Screening Process:  Screen the initial solution concepts o Eliminate concepts that do not meet purpose and need o Compare remaining concepts using Level 1 screening criteria Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 11 o Concept ratings for criteria used in Level 1 screening:  Most Positive  Least Positive  Between Green and Red (in some cases neutral) o Use best available information to rate how each concept meets individual criteria o Advance highest-rated concepts for Level 2 evaluation o Details on the results of Level 1 screening and the Level 2 evaluation process will be shared at the 3rd public meeting He reviewed the Level 1 screening criteria: 1. Does the concept improve reliable emergency response to the west side of the railroad?  Provide continuous emergency access?  Reduce emergency response delays?  Improve emergency evacuation? 2. Does the concept reduce delays to ferry loading/unloading of vehicles? 3. Does the concept reduce delays and conflicts at street/railroad crossings for people walk, biking or driving?  Reduce delays for pedestrians?  Reduce pedestrian conflicts with vehicles / trains?  Improve connections to destinations? 4. Does the concept provide safe and efficient passenger connectivity between available modes of travel? o Rail o Ferry o Vehicle o Pedestrian o Bicycle 5. Is the concept feasible to implement? o To construct? o To fund? o To permit? 6. Does the concept avoid negative environmental effects? o Natural resources o Historic/ cultural/ archaeological resources o Visual aesthetics o Noise levels o Sites containing hazardous materials o Use of park lands o Air quality o Soils and groundwater 7. Does the concept avoid creating social and/or economic impacts? o Effects on neighborhoods and businesses? o Compatible with positive urban design? o Avoid conflicts with parks/recreation assets? o Avoid creating safety hazards? o Improve freight mobility? Mr. Schaefer reviewed the schedule: November 2015: Begin study; understand existing conditions December 2015 – February 2016: Identify concepts Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 12 March – April 2016: Screen concepts May – July 2016: Evaluate alternatives August – September 2016: Recommend preferred alternatives Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she was amazed at how much work this was and was glad it included a great deal of public input. She asked whether visual appeal would be a consideration. Mr. Schaefer answered aesthetics is a big issue; an urban planner on the team is providing input at Level 1 and on Level 2 including identifying ways to soften the impact and take advantage of opportunities. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the initial concept location map and asked what the ferry options are. Mr. Schaefer responded several ideas were developed by Ferries as they were developing options that were later narrowed to Edmonds Crossing as well as a later effort in 2009 that identified minimum build approaches. These range from different places to store vehicles, queuing vehicles west of the railroad so a full boat of vehicle storage would not be interrupted by the train during loading. That may/may not be a priority for the City; it is an operational issue for Ferries. Councilmember Teitzel relayed his understanding WSDOT has a purchase a sale agreement for the Unocal property below Pt. Edwards. That is a significant investment so on some level they must be seriously contemplating Edmonds Crossing. He asked where Edmonds Crossing was in WSDOT’s long range plan and his best guess for the time horizon for Edmonds Crossing. Public Works Director Phil Williams agreed that was an $8 million purchase when they were pursuing Edmonds Crossing approximately 8 years ago. WSDOT is in the process of updating their long range ferry plan for all locations. The alternatives analysis will include contact with the State about their plans for the Edmonds terminal and WSDOT may seek input from the City regarding alternatives to Edmonds Crossing. If the property was not necessary to implement the consensus solution, the State could dispose of it. Councilmember Teitzel commented if Edmonds Crossing were to happen in 15 years, he did not want ferry blockage to be the major driver of a solution. Mr. Williams responded if the State and Edmonds agreed an option other than Edmonds Crossing was preferable, he did not envision two major projects such as Edmonds Crossing and a major under/over pass or other solution. Councilmember Buckshnis commented a number of citizens are amazed by all the materials and ideas and appreciated the transparency of the process. She did not think Edmonds Crossing would ever happen due to the cost. Council President Johnson commended Mr. Schaefer’s efforts to keep the lines of communication open. She appreciated his inclusion of the PowerPoint in the Council packet and suggested making it available on the City’s website. She asked whether the 50 concepts could be found online. Mr. Schaefer advised the information is available via the www.edmondswaterfrontaccess.org or via the link on the City’s website. The website includes materials from the public meetings, task force meeting materials, ongoing opportunity to comment online, and comment via online open house until February 12. Council President Johnson reminded the public they have until February 12 to comment via the online open house. Mayor Earling declared a brief recess. D. PRESENTATION OF THE SUNSET AVENUE WALKWAY PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS Public Works Director Phil Williams reported on the survey on the pilot project:  Dates of Survey: October 19, 2015 – December 31, 2015 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 13  Response: 764 total (677 of which were unique) o Of the 87 duplicates, 22 were from City of Edmonds, 14 of those were handwritten surveys entered into the City’s database and 8 were surveys completed by employees  1,546 individual comments were recorded during the survey  Graph of response volume over time He commented on the survey integrity:  Survey was set up to deny repeat responses*  Survey questions were randomized  Response trends were reviewed to identify potential irregularities  Survey conducted so that all could be heard *This feature can be circumvented by various means by sufficiently motivated individuals. The survey software employed records the Internet Protocol (IP) address of every respondent. When those repeat responses were identified and excluded from the survey, the overall results did not change. The survey included questions related to:  Residency  Pathway Use Type  Parking Availability  Angled Parking  Bicycles on Shared Pathway  Additional Amenities  Making Pathway Permanent  Usage Frequency  How Best to Keep Informed  Describing any Usage Changes  Respondent Contact Info  Additional Comments Mr. Williams reviewed selected survey responses: Q3: The availability of parking on Sunset Avenue is:  More than is needed: 9.81%  Adequate: 42.10%  Somewhat inadequate: 21.93%  Completely inadequate: 16.62%  Parking should be removed: 9.54% Q4: The angled parking on Sunset:  Is not that difficult to navigate: 44.60%  Is difficult to navigate: 10.80%  Should be moved further west:11.77%  Should be removed: 32.83% Q5: Regarding bicycle use on the shared pathway:  Safe bicycle use should be encouraged: 23.60%  There are not enough bikes to make any difference: 29.33%  A separate bike path should be considered: 14.87%  Bikes should not be allowed: 32.20% Q7: I would like to see the current temporary pathway improved and made permanent:  Strongly agree: 43.35%  Somewhat agreed: 13.18% Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 14  Neither agree or disagree: 5.14%  Somewhat disagree: 6.19%  Strongly disagree: 32.15% Additional survey questions:  Residency: 91.9% of respondents identified as Edmonds residents.  Primary use of Sunset: 83.2% of respondents identified as pedestrians, 47.2% as motorists, 8.0% as bicyclists, and 5.6% as adjacent residents.  Walkway usage: 76% of respondents would use the walkway at least several times per month.  280 respondents left contact information for further updates. Mr. Williams commented the cost to join Survey Monkey was $300/year. Although not a statistically significant survey, 764 responses were provided to this survey, approximately $0.39/response. A statistically significant survey would cost approximately $20,000 to survey 400 citizens for an approximate cost of $50/response. He summarized Survey Money is very cost effective and has provided good information, particularly the comments. He also provided a before/after comparison of results for the above questions when repeat responders were deleted from survey, advising the duplicate responses did not affect the results. He provided a summary of the results:  764 people responded and 1,546 written comments were received  Responders tended to have strong opinions  Survey Monkey is a great way to gather comments but does have limitations and is not necessarily a statistically valid measurement of public opinion but neither is a public hearing or any other non-random effort to gather opinions  81% of responders thought available parking was adequate or should be increased  76% of respondents said they would use the walkway at least several times per months  57% of responders thought the walkway should be improved and made permanent or “somewhat agreed” with that statement. 38% either “strongly” or “somewhat” disagreed.  The written comments collected were thoughtful, comprehensive and really highlight the usefulness of the Survey Monkey tool. See page 85 where 658 people commented on the before vs. after question. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she read everything and found it fascinating. With regard to randomized questions, she asked whether everyone was asked the same question. Mr. Williams answered yes. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed concern with the number of Edmonds residents who took the survey, noting she has heard from a lot of people who do not live in Edmonds and did not know about the survey. She asked how the City could reach out to citizens from Canada, Mukilteo, Lynnwood and other areas outside Edmonds who have strong opinions but did not know about the survey. Mr. Williams said a number of respondents, 8%, self-identified as not living in Edmonds. He has talked to people who visit Sunset from Mukilteo, Shoreline, Lynnwood but was uncertain the draw was beyond that. Several respondents indicated they take out of town visitors to Sunset but, of course, they did not fill out a survey. He was uncertain a more regional survey would be warranted. Councilmember Buckshnis remarked it was an anomaly that so many residents took the survey. She observed some of the comments were very interesting and enlightening. She asked whether this was just an informational presentation. Mr. Williams responded it was to deliver the results of the survey but he was open to hearing Council’s reaction. Councilmember Teitzel found Survey Monkey a very useful tool. He asked what has been spent so far on this project and what would be spend if the project were completed, making all the changes permanent. Mr. Williams answered $70,000-$80,000 has been spent of the $159,000 available from the grant. No more was spent awaiting the results of the pilot project. The Council provided a separate budget for the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 15 pilot project; approximately $18,000-19,000 was spent not including labor. The cost of a permanent project depends on what is constructed. The amounts in planning documents were $1.5-$2.5 million depending on the project. He did not personally believe it would reach that size, due in part to the railroad property. If a project includes more than 6 inch vertical construction, the City is obliged to get BNSF’s approval which would require a lease agreement which would only be for a short term. A short term lease agreement would not acceptable to granting agencies so it would be necessary for the portion on BNSF property to be paid for via funding source other than a state agency grant. The remainder of the project would be eligible for grant funding from one of many state sources. Councilmember Teitzel commented one of the highest priorities in the Strategic Action Plan (SAP) which cost $100,000 and involved 2500 residents, was maintenance and improvement of streets. With the City’s limited budget dollars and if Sunset Avenue improvements were not identified in the SAP, he questioned whether the City should be investing funds in street improvements to catch up with street maintenance that was let go during the recession. The SAP is a touchstone and the Council needs to prioritize how to spend the City’s budget dollars. Mr. Williams agreed that is one of many policy questions raised by the project. He added the project would be attractive for grant funding; a major City outlay for the project was never intended. There are few grants available for street maintenance and they would not compete with this project. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas viewed this as a citizen amenity, similar to buying a park and improving a street such as Main Street. With regard to multiple responses, she noted some household may have only one email address. If there were two responses from the same address, she asked whether the input from the second was not be recorded. Mr. Williams answered Survey Monkey was not instructed to deny duplicate responses. He agreed one household with three adults using the same computer would be reflected as duplicate responses due to the same IP address. He reiterated the duplicate responses did not affect the outcome of the survey. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was uncertain that anything better could be done and questioned what other tools were available to assess the pilot project other than spending $100,000 on a statistically accurate survey of citizens and users. Mr. Williams agreed, commenting a statistically valid survey would likely be $20,000-30,000. After five years of talking about Sunset Avenue, the Council has heard a lot of opinions, thoughts and suggestions; it will soon will be time to determine whether to go forward and if so in what form. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented it has been six years; it was discussed at her first Council meeting after being vetted by the Council. She still does not like the angle parking. Mr. Williams commented there would be options available in the detailed design to address some of the concerns that have been identified. The 1500 comments include people reacting negatively to the project based on appearance and features of the pilot project as if it was the finished project and missing the point that it was intended to be an example of what could done such as walking on the west side near the water. There is only so much real estate and there are competing needs. For example, the angle parking could be moved further west and the curb on the east where the planter strip is could be moved in the area of the angle parking to provide another three feet for a total of 6-7 feet of pavement behind the angle parking. He assumed that would make people feel more comfortable driving behind the angle parking and backing up. There have not been any accidents related to the angle parking since the project was installed in September 2014. Mr. Williams agreed there was an element of additional risk when pulling in and backing out of a parking space but people do it worldwide. The number of angle parking spaces could be reduced to create additional sight lines; there were 12 previously, there are 21 now. Other people commented on the lack of parallel parking; there were initially nine with two more at the north end. The only reason the parallel Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 16 parking was designed that way was because it was a pilot project and the returns on the driveways were too sharp to access driveways with parking across the street. A permanent project could fix those driveways to eliminate that problem and provide additional parallel parking if the Council wants to add parking. Some people support reducing the parking. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented this was done by a previous Council as a public amenity for the citizen to walk on Sunset and look at the views. She was hopeful the Council would reach a quick resolution to this one way or another; it had been dragging out for six years. Councilmember Tibbott relayed he enjoyed reading the comments. When talking with people this summer on the pathway, he was surprised by the number out of town visitors, much higher than was reflected in the survey, indicating Sunset Avenue is not only an amenity for City residents but also a tourist attraction. He asked whether the survey included a question regarding how bicyclists use the pathway. Mr. Williams agreed bicycles are a hot topic. Sunset Avenue is one-way northbound past Edmonds street; bicycles could be in a northbound sharrow and many responded they were comfortable sharing the road with cars northbound. With regard to a southbound option, bicycles cannot ride the wrong way on a one-way street so either they are allowed on the pathway or not. He recognized the concern of high speed bicycles mixing with pedestrians on a 10-foot wide pathway. A 10 mph speed limit was posted; if everyone obeyed that speed limit, there would be minimal problems. If the public was not comfortable with bicycles on the pathway, bicycles on the path could be limited to those with training wheels and accompanied by an adult and bicycles could ride southbound on 3rd Avenue. He recognized there is a difference between bicyclists trying to reach their destination in a hurry and slow, recreational riders. The solution for recreational riders may be to walk their bike on the pathway. Sunset Avenue is not a major commuter route. Based on comments and survey results, Councilmember Tibbott supported allowing bicycles on the path to see how it goes. He agreed serious bike riders would be on the street in a sharrow and not bothering with the path. He asked about the grant funding sources and where and how the project would be pitched. Mr. Williams answered PSRC provided the original grant funds, spending was halted over a year ago until the design is clarified. The pilot project was intended as a way to either move forward or stop the project. The Recreation Conservation Office (RCO) and the Transportation Improvement Board may also be a sources of grant funds. With a good project that meets the granting agency’s requirements, there is no reason this project would not compete well for funding. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the CIP and CFP were revised to reflect the name of the project as a walkway and not a multiuse pathway. Mr. Williams agreed the title of the project is no longer a multiuse pathway. The reason the project qualified for the initial funding was the idea of multiuse. It is possible that due to the research, design, and further understanding of the limitations of the street and property ownership and the year-long pilot project, if the Council wants to conclude bicycles are not compatible there may be enough compelling information to explain to the granting agency how and why the needs have changed. Councilmember Buckshnis said she finds the street very claustrophobic; she cannot walk her dog there due to the cars and everything. If it was changed to a pathway or walkway, she asked whether the width could be reduced from 10 feet to 8 feet. Mr. Williams answered it could but he was not sure it would be necessary. If the City were pursuing a permanent project, there is 30 feet of pavement available in the narrowest section, 10 feet for the walkway and 2 feet for the shy distance, leaving 18 feet of pavement. Depending on how much and the location of parallel parking and driveways that are fixed, the 10-foot walkway would not be a problem. Staff has discussed with the Fire Department solutions that could be included in the design to meet their needs for available pavement for setting up an emergency response. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 17 Councilmember Buckshnis commented when she drives her large car on Sunset, she is not looking at the view, she is watching to avoid being hit. In her opinion the angle parking needs to be eliminated or the pathway reduced. She felt the roadway is pretty narrow and she questioned how emergency vehicles can drive there. Mr. Williams answered there is nearly 14 feet of clear pavement behind the angle parking to the curb on the east; many people have commented that feels uncomfortably tight. There have not been any accidents; most people back up slowly. He concluded the width of the roadway could be increased without reducing the pathway by moving all the angle parking 2 inches west. Mayor Earling cautioned the Council is now designing the project; tonight was intended to be a presentation. Council President Johnson referred to the petition that was submitted during Audience Comments and requested the City Clerk distribute it to the Council. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the next step. Mayor Earling responded further conversation at the staff level. E. PRESENTATION OF BID RESULTS FOR THE SW EDMONDS - 105TH/106TH AVE W STORM IMPROVEMENTS City Engineer Rob English advised this project was advertised last June; the bids received were high and staff recommended rejecting the bids and re-advertising the project in the winter. The City received nine bids when the project was re-advertised in January. The low bid of $492,275 was submitted by Rodarte Construction, $55,000 lower than lowest bid last year. The engineer’s estimate was $487,500. The project will install approximately 1500 feet of 12-inch diameter pipe along with a gravel bed infiltration facility in southwest Edmonds on 105th/106th Avenue West and 228th Street near Sherwood Elementary. A review of the low bidder’s record for responsibility and responsiveness has been completed. Rodarte is currently working on the 228th Street improvement project. A construction budget has been developed of $660,600 including a 15% management reserve which is within the established budget of $716,800. He recommended the Council schedule award of the contract on next week’s Consent Agenda. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this for approval on next week’s Consent Agenda. F. PRESENTATION OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE BLUELINE GROUP FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, ENGINEERING & INSPECTION SERVICES City Engineer Rob English explained this professional services agreement is for inspection and construction and administration services for the City’s capital program. An RFQ was issued last November, and six statements of qualification were submitted. Staff’s evaluation identified Blueline Group as the most qualified based on their qualifications and experience. The services they will provide will include in-field inspection, inspection reports, monitoring materials, coordinating material testing and documenting contractor activities, preparing field quantities to pay the contractor each month, monitoring traffic control, as built drawings, etc. They also provide administration, developing pay estimates, reviewing contractor schedules, requests for information, material submittals, etc. as well as overall project management. The proposed fee is $128,400. The three projects identified for Blueline’s services are:  2016 cured in place pipe program o Project budget: $1 million in 2016 o Allocation of Blueline services: $17,000  2016 watermain contract o Project budget: approximately $2 million o Allocation of Blueline services: $47,000  2016 sewer main replacement program Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 18 o Project budget: $1.9 million o Allocation of Blueline services: $63,000 Mr. English anticipated approximately half the effort in 2016 compared to 2015 due to the Council’s approval of a new inspector position in the Engineering Department. Recruitment for that position was underway and he was hopeful it could be filled within the next month. He expected the amount of services to decrease again in 2017. Councilmember Tibbott asked how the contract compared to hiring an employee with regard to cost and availability of resources for inspections. Mr. English answered a consultant costs approximately $200,000 for one FTE; and employee cost about half that. Last year’s contract was $290,000; this year’s contract is $128,000 and hopefully next years will be even less. Councilmember Tibbott inquired about the flexibility and service level that provided. Mr. English answered the consultant is on-demand time and material; the consultant is available when needed but does not bill when there are no services provided. He summarized the inspector position in the budget will not address all the inspections needs due to the significant increase in the City’s workload and capital program in recent years. It was the consensus of the Council to schedule this for approval on next week’s Consent Agenda. G. INTRODUCTION TO PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ECDC 20.03.002 REGARDING NUMBER OF DAYS FOR PUBLIC NOTICE Development Services Director Shane Hope explained State law requires a 15-day notice period before open record decision hearings and the City’s code states 14 days. The City has been using 15 days, recognizing State law but the code needs to be consistent. The City Attorney prepared an ordinance to change 14 day to 15 days. A public hearing is required because it is a zoning amendment. The Planning Board will hold a public hearing tomorrow night and the draft notes from their meeting will be provided to the Council for its public hearing. 7. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling encouraged Councilmembers and citizens to attend the State of City presentation Thursday 8:30 a.m. at Edmonds Theater. It will include guest presenters, Ruth Arista, Arista Wine Cellars; and Pastor Barry Crane, North Sound Church. 8. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Nelson relayed he read in My Edmonds News about the harassment of a harbor seal. The primary objective of the 1972 Marine Animal Protection Act was to promote the health and stability of the marine ecosystem. Why people care about the harbor seal; nearly 500,000 on the British Columbia coast and approximately 17,000 in Washington State were killed for their furs. It is one of the few species that is coming back and doing well but it needs continued protection. Harbor seals hang out to regulate their temperature, rest, feed, etc. and it is a federal crime to disturb them. He urged citizens to give harbor seals a wide berth and as Edmonds Seal Sitters recommend, keep 100 feet away. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported last week she and others on King County Executive Dow Constantine’s Save Energy Alliance (SEA) had an opportunity to meet with the Native American Tribes in Snohomish County and the Spokane Tribes. Everyone, whether on tribal or non-tribal land, have the same concerns with the dangers of oil explosions and damage from coal on environment and humans. She was hopeful negotiations will continue with federal groups and that the Tribes will discuss coal and oil trains under their treaty rights. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 9, 2016 Page 19 Councilmember Buckshnis said she has enjoyed phone conversations she has had with citizens; the Critical Area Ordinance is being fast tracked and anyone with questions is welcome to contact her at her phone number on the website. Councilmember Teitzel reported on the open house he attended at SNOCOM in Mountlake Terrace that included a presentation and a tour. It is a first rate facility, very professional, and the members are fortunate to have it. When walking his dogs during today’s gorgeous spring weather, he was reminded why he lives in Edmonds; it is the best place to live. Council President Johnson reminded the public they have until February 12 to comment via the online open house on the Edmonds Waterfront Access study. She encouraged anyone interested in serving on the Economic Development Commission to submit an application. 9. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) This item was not needed. 10. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION This item was not needed. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:44 p.m.