The Edmonds City Council has approved a spending plan to address city infrastructure needs despite warnings that the plan doesn’t actually meet those needs and violates state law.
The plan, called a six year capital improvement program (CIP), was OK’d at the Tuesday, April 5, city council meeting.
“None of the policies, goals and objectives in the comprehensive plan are addressed in the CIP,” Jim Young, chairman of the Edmonds Planning Board told the council. The plan was previously reviewed by the planning board and forwarded to the council with a recommendation to not approve the plan.
“Here’s something laid out in black and white in the Revised Code of Washington and we’re not doing it,” Young said. He reminded the council that the state Growth Management Act requires cities to have a comprehensive plan and then adopt ways of achieving that plan.
The problem is that the city just doesn’t have enough money to do what the city’s comprehensive plan says needs to be done, Don Fiene, assistant city engineer said in a presentation to the council.
The city’s CIP is laid out in a series of numbered funds that address specific areas, from transportation to parks and recreation.
The problems arise in Fund 112, the transportation project budget, and Fund 116 which pays for building maintenance projects, Fiene said.
“There has been a big impact starting in November, 2002, with the passage of I-776,” Fiene said of the transportation fund. “The city lost about $350,000 a year.”
Fiene said because of the reduced funding, “The city is falling behind on the goals and objectives of the adopted comprehensive plan.” Some projects will be done, but Fiene listed many that, while needed, just couldn’t be done.
As for Fund 116, Fiene told the council, “We have some problems with this fund as well.”
Fiene said voter-approved statewide initiatives 695 and 747, limiting property tax increases have had an impact. While there was little money in the proposed CIP for Fund 116, Fiene said staff was calling for a greater allocation from the city’s general fund starting in 2007.
“Are you referring to the existing general fund monies or additional general fund monies?” Council member Michael Plunkett asked following the presentation. “Every year at the retreat, we talk about buildings but I don’t recall anything coming out of it.
“What have we done?”
City public works director Noel Miller replied: “Nothing. We’ve been living off the year-end cash balance.”
Council member Peggy Pritchard Olson noted a number of the CIP funds relied on matching funds.
“Do I read this right?” Pritchard Olson asked. “That much of the grants are matching funds and we don’t have the matching funds?”
Council member Richard Marin said, “I’m dismayed to see zero in the street overlay fund.”
Fiene pointed out that there is also no money for a number of other things, such as street lighting.
In the end, the council addressed the concerns raised by Young by committing to insert language acknowledging the gap between what the comprehensive plan calls for and what the city can afford.
A final ordinance is scheduled to come back to the council in coming weeks for adoption.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
