03/22/2011 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
March 22, 2011
At 6:00 p.m., Mayor Cooper announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
potential litigation. He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately one hour and
would be held in the Police Training Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. Elected officials
present at the executive session were: Mayor Cooper, and Councilmembers Peterson, Plunkett, Fraley -
Monillas, Buckshnis, Petso Wilson and Bernheim. Others present were Phil Williams, Public Works
Director; Rob English, City Engineer; Jaime Hawkins, Capital Projects Manager; Carrie Hite, Parks and
Recreation Director; Rich Lindsay, Parks Manager; Jeff Taraday, City Attorney; Sharon Cates, Attorney,
Lighthouse Law Group; Geoff Bridgman, Attorney, Ogden Murphy Wallace; and City Clerk Sandy
Chase.
At 6:58 p.m. Ms. Chase announced to the public present in the Council Chambers that an additional 15
minutes would be required in executive session. The executive session concluded at 7:13 p.m.
The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:20 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council
Chambers, 250 5`h Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Cooper, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley- Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Peter Gibson, Student Representative
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
STAFF PRESENT
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Council President Peterson requested the T. E. Briggs Settlement Agreement be added to the agenda
following the Consent Agenda.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2A. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY - MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 22, 2011
Page 1
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 15, 2011.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #124369 THROUGH #124513 DATED MARCH 17,
2011 FOR $262,604.70. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS
#50294 THROUGH #50319 FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1, 2011 THROUGH MARCH 15,
2011 FOR $650,113.35.
D. YOST POOL AWARD OF BID FOR REPAIRS.
2B. T.E. BRIGGS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Councilmember Bernheim advised he would abstain from the vote due to a conflict of interest.
Mayor Cooper relayed staff's recommendation that the Council accept the mediator's proposed
settlement.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
ACCEPT THE MEDIATOR'S PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.
Councilmember Wilson explained this is a $95,000 settlement; $95,000 the City had not planned to
spend. He noted the Council also spent $185,000 on another settlement a few weeks ago. In his opinion, it
seemed the City was getting hit a lot.
MOTION CARRIED (6 -0 -1), COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM ABSTAINING.
3. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: INTRODUCTION OF NEW EDMONDS
COMMUNITY COLLEGE PRESIDENT JEAN HERNANDEZ.
Community Services /Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained Dr. Hernandez was
named President of Edmonds Community College January 1, 2011. Dr. Hernandez has nearly 30 years
experience in higher education. She was previously the vice president for instruction at South Seattle
Community College, where she recently served as the interim president and vice chancellor from March
to July 2010. As vice president for instruction, she increased the diversity of the tenure track faculty by
ethnicity, religion, and age; collaborated with faculty leadership to create a tenure handbook and tenure
orientation sessions; and received six grants through the Workforce Development Council of Seattle -King
County totaling more than $500,000.
Dr. Hernandez began her community college career at Shoreline Community College as a multicultural
studies teacher and promoted to Dean of Health Occupations and Physical Education. She then joined
Cascadia Community College as the executive vice president for student learning, where she served as the
Accreditation Liaison Officer to the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities. She has also
served in numerous leadership roles with the Washington state community and technical college system.
In addition, she has worked in university environment in the areas of human resources, admissions, and
career services.
Dr. Hernandez received her Doctorate of Education degree in Educational Leadership & Policy Studies
from the University of Washington and her Master of Education in Counselor Education and Bachelor of
Science in Secondary Education degrees from the University of North Texas.
Edmonds Community College President Jean Hernandez recognized the amazing job done by former
President Jack Oharah and her hope that she could take the College to the next level. She introduced
Trustee Board Member Dick Van Hollenbeke, a former Edmonds Councilmember who also served 10
years on the Edmonds Community College Foundation and is in his fifth year on the Board of Trustees.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 22, 2011
Page 2
Dr. Hernandez provided several facts regarding Edmonds Community College (ECC):
• Served over 20,000 unduplicated students over the last year
• Average student age 29
• Diverse student population including students of color, veterans, homeless and learning English
as a second language
• 42% of students who earn a bachelor's degree transfer from a community college
• 14% of students already have a bachelor's degree
• 48% work either part or full time
• 31% care for children or dependents
Dr. Hernandez referred to the misconception that students do not receive as good an education at a
community college compared to a university environment; in her experience students receive a better
education in a community college setting because they are in smaller classrooms, engaged with faculty
and have the opportunity to develop strong skills and build self esteem.
Dr. Hernandez described ECC's job creation efforts that include 27 professional /technical programs,
worker retraining program, and receipt of $645,000 in financial aid to assist those students. ECC is proud
of their entrepreneurial culture; for example the Washington Aerospace Training and Research Center at
Paine Field that opened last year has served over 70 students, grant writing and contract employment, and
their allied healthcare program that started in 2002. She explained developing a new program at a
community college requires a formal application process to the State board to prevent competition with
other community colleges in the area. The allied healthcare program offers 10 certificates that include
nursing assistant, pharmacy technician, phlebotomy, LPN, etc.
ECC has received a number of National Science Foundation grants and considers themselves a hub for
science and math. The NSF funds are used to develop math curriculum, expand the materials science
program, and to continue math, technology, engineering, science programs with high schools.
Dr. Hernandez described FCC's online learning, explaining that approximately 25% of students take
online courses and often earn better grades due to the ability to work at their convenience. FCC's online
enrollment is second only to Bellevue College in the Washington in offering online courses. Bellevue
serves 10,000 student FTEs; ECC serves approximately 6700 FTEs.
Dr. Hernandez explained ECC is very committed to being green and take great pride in the ESCO grants
they have received that allowed replacement of equipment. The changes the grant funded will save
approximately $1 million in energy costs over the next ten years. Edmonds Community College's most
recent building, Meadowdale Hall, was certified LEER Silver. With their energy management program
and construction program, Edmonds Community College will continue teaching students to be green.
ECC serves approximately 1600 international students. The international program helps the College in
many ways, including adding $2 million to the general budget and allows the College to offer more
classes. Approximately 150 students will tutor international students and interact with them, developing
friendships and possibly traveling abroad in the future. Approximately $9 million is brought into the
community by international students via room/board, shopping, entertainment, etc. She noted a number of
ECC students also travel abroad and a faculty member recently took a group of students to Vietnam.
She invited Councilmembers to subscribe to the College's monthly newsletter at www.edcc.edu /update.
She provided Edmonds Community College's contact information: 425 - 650 -1459 or www.edcc.edu.
Dr. Hernandez' vision for the college is to work closely with industry and she hoped this summer to
develop employer roundtables to learn of employers' needs to assist with building new curriculum as well
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 22, 2011
Page 3
as to partner with industry. She was also interested in continued outreach regarding the programs offered
at ECC.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why Edmonds Community College is a magnet for international
students. Dr. Hernandez answered one of the reasons international students choose ECC is the residence
halls as well as the strong partnerships on the campus with Central Washington University and
partnerships that have begun with University of Phoenix and City University. Those partnerships allow
international students to start at the community college and pay lower tuition and transfer to a 4 -year
program.
Councilmember Wilson explained he used to teach at Edmonds, Shoreline, Bellevue and Green River
Community Colleges as well as the former Henry Cogswell College in Everett. He commended the
Edmonds Community College staff members who were very helpful and a tremendous resource.
Councilmember Petso pointed out the availability of the Running Start Program that her high school -aged
son participated in during the last two years. He will graduate from Edmonds - Woodway High School and
Edmonds Community College this spring. Dr. Hernandez explained the College serves about 650
Running Start students per year.
Mayor Cooper congratulated the College on their role in the community, educating and preparing people
for the workforce, particularly the Aerospace Training Center at Paine Field. The work being done by
Edmonds and Everett Community Colleges in partnership with the aerospace industry is preparing the
workforce so that this area can continue to build tankers and other aircraft at Paine Field instead of in
another country or state.
!� C�11►(11�►I I �I DII Yi►[l"1�i�/ go so 901001111•/ 2119 By 11619 413 to lffIX130104_1 [. 311 1 9
Snohomish County Fire District #1 Commissioners present: David Chan (Chairman), Richard Schrock,
Bob Meador, and Jim Kenney.
Mayor Cooper explained the City's contract with Fire District 1 (FD1) requires an annual joint meeting be
held prior to April 1.
Commission Chair David Chan expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to meet with the Council.
The past year has been a good experience for FD 1. Not only was FD able to join forces with Edmonds,
Edmonds' staff brought a great deal of talent to FDL He referred to efforts to strengthen service to
Edmonds including the after- the -fire neighborhood meetings such as the one held early this year
following a fatal fire in Edmonds, training offered by FD1, and the new technical rescue unit housed at
Fire Station 16.
Commissioner Jim Kenny commented the transition has gone well. He hoped to hear Councilmembers'
thoughts regarding the transition
Commissioner Bob Meador thanked the City for the staff they transferred to FD1, noting they had added
a great deal of experience to FD1's staff.
Commissioner Richard Schrock recognized the fine workforce transferred from Edmonds who made an
outstanding addition to FD1's workforce. The former Edmonds personnel seemed to be happy with the
transition.
Mayor Cooper advised the contract also requires the Fire Chief to provide an annual Report. Fire Chief
Ed Widdis presented his annual report, advising they prepare an annual report for the entire district as
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 22, 2011
Page 4
well as Brier and Mountlake Terrace. He reviewed operations including responses in Edmonds 2006 -2010
and calls by type. He noted the number of calls was down in 2010 from 2009 but that figure often
fluctuates. He commented on the new equipment including a technical rescue unit that was partially
funded by a federal grant. The unit was ordered a year ago and when it arrived, staff evaluated FDI,
Brier, Mountlake Terrace and Edmonds and determined the appropriate location was Fire Station 16
because it can reach the entire area FD covers and there are more rescue calls in that area due in part to
the proximity to the water. FDI also purchased an air, light and rehabilitation unit that is equipped with
an air compressor, power plant and other equipment to provide support on a fire scene. The air, light and
rehabilitation unit is housed at Station 10 at 1.56`" & Hwy. 99.
Chief Widdis commented on FD1's fire prevention efforts. FD1 held two Smoke Alarm Saturday events
in Edmonds in 2010 where they go door -to -door and replace batteries and install new smoke alarms as
needed. He referred to the Fire Marshal's report regarding inspections and fire investigations. He advised
FDI instituted bike medics again who rode in Edmonds 4`'' of July parade. He also commented on FD1's
community outreach and public education efforts such as fire station tours, car seat safety checks, and
after- the -fire neighborhood meetings. He commented on the FDI Honor Guard that participates in
community events.
Chief Widdis provided training highlights, explaining the FDI headquarters station at 128h & I -5 has a 4-
story tower that is used for smoke exercises. Other training includes hazardous materials decontamination
and multiple - casualty incidents. FD took in the members of Edmonds' volunteer program a year prior to
consolidation as well as volunteers from Lynnwood and other cities that have discontinued their volunteer
programs. Volunteers work in support functions, such as staffing the air, light and rehabilitation unit.
Assistant Fire Chief Mark Correira explained the contract for service requires FDI provide the annual
(RCW) 35.103 Report, the Response Time Standards Report. The Council adopted standards in 2006.
1. Turnout time for all emergencv incidents
Standard: 2:45 minutes /seconds
Actual 2010: Standard met with a turnout time of 2:31. minutes /seconds
2A. Response time of the first - arriving, Engine Company to a fire suppression incident
Standard: 6:30 minutes /seconds
Actual 2010: Standard not met with 6:31 minutes /seconds of response time
2B. Response time for the deployment of full first -alarm assignment to a residential fire suppression
incident
Standard: 7:45 minutes /seconds
Actual 2010: Standard not met with full deployment response time of 10:1.0* minutes /seconds.
( *total of eight incidents)
2C. Response time for the deployment of full first -alarm assignment to a commercial fire suppression
incident
Standard: 9 minutes
Actual 2010: Standard met with 08:41 * minutes /seconds of response time. (* total of two
incidents)
3. Response time of the first- arriving unit with a first responder (BLS) or higher level capability to
an emergency medical incident
Standard: 5:15 minutes /seconds
Actual 2010: Standard met with 5:14 minutes /seconds of response time
4. Response time for the arrival of an advanced life support (two Paramedics) unit to an emergency
medical incident
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 22, 2011
Page 5
Standard: 6:45 minutes /seconds
Actual 2010: Standard exceeded by 3 seconds or 6:48 minutes /seconds of response time
5AL Response time of the first - arrivina apparatus with appropriately trained and eauipped Hazardous
Materials Operations level personnel onboard to a hazardous materials incident.
Standard: 6:30 minutes /seconds
Actual 2010: Standard met with 2:46* minutes /seconds of response time. ( *one reportable call)
5A2. Response time of the first- arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Hazardous
Materials Technician level personnel onboard to a hazardous materials incident.
Standard: 12 minutes
Actual 2010: No reportable incidents
5B1. Response time of the first- arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Technical
Rescue Operations level personnel on board to a technical rescue incident.
Standard: 6:30 minutes /seconds
Actual 2010: Standard met with 4:44* minutes /seconds of response time ( *total of three
incidents)
5B2. Response time of the first- arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Technical
Rescue Technician level personnel on board to a technical rescue incident.
Standard: 12 minutes
Actual 2010: No reportable incidents
6. Response time of the first - arriving apparatus with appropriately trained and equipped Marine
Rescue and Firefighting personnel on board to a marine incident.
Standard: 6:30 minutes /seconds
Actual 2010: Standard met with 4:44 minutes /seconds of response time.
Assistant Chief Correira highlighted the Council- adopted standards that were not met:
2A. Response time off the first - arriving Enaine Companv to a fire suppression incident.
Established: 6:30 minutes /seconds
Actual: 6:31 minutes /seconds
2B. Response time for the deployment of full first -alarm assignment to a residential fire suppression
incident
Established: 7:45 minutes /seconds
Actual: 10:10 minutes /seconds
4. Response time for the arrival of an advanced life support (two Paramedics) unit to emergency
medical incident
Established: 6:46 minutes /seconds
Actual: 6:48 minutes /seconds
Assistant Chief Correira explained the predictable consequences are difficult to determine because the
times are so close. Corrective actions for the standards include:
Continue to pursue single- district regionalization as it provides more flexibility with deployment
models and may realize more shared resources. With contract for service, deployment options are
somewhat limited. A group at FD is considering this.
Work more closely with automatic aid partners as they make up the three -plus additional
members needed to be assembled on the residential fire ground.
Continue to pursue technology options that may expedite response. The new CAD system is
expected to improve response times within the next 1 -2 years.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 22, 2011
Page 6
Councilmember Wilson explained when he first joined the Council, 5 minutes was the national standard.
Then Fire Chief Tomberg said that may be an acceptable response time but Edmonds adopted more
realistic standards given funding, topography and station allocation. He was heartened to see that the
EMS response was approximately at the 5 minute national standard but was concerned that 2B, residential
fire response time, does not meet the standard and is significantly above 5 minutes. Recognizing that the
City's contract with FD1 states the City will need to pay if any of the response times are lowered, he
asked whether the adopted standards were appropriate with a more regionalized approach to deployment.
If the standards are not comparable to standards for the rest of FDl, what changes are recommended such
as a new fire station location. Assistant Chief Correira commented this is a 1 -year picture of compliance
with standards; there are 4 other years that are compared to. Since Edmonds joined FD1, responses are
done in the same way; the medic unit is still at Fire Station 17 and units are cross staffed (aid calls utilize
the aid unit and fire calls utilize the fire engine). He noted times have fluctuated over the last four years.
There are few structure fires and the district relies on automatic aid partners for such incidents. He
referred to 2B, advising staff does not wait until all 15 people are on fire ground; the first arriving unit
begins tasks such as walking around the building, rescuing anyone trapped inside, etc. The numbers are
used as a guideline and they are an important measurement tool. Although the time in 2B appears to be
significantly outside the norm, the last unit arriving is from an automatic aid partner such as Lynnwood
and their arrival time cannot be guaranteed.
Assistant Chief Correira explained one of the challenges is that the busiest area, 212`" near the Public
Works building where there are nursing homes, skilled nursing facilities and a medical clinic, is the
furthest for all stations in Edmonds. When responding to that area, geography is the biggest enemy.
Unless a fire station is relocated to that area, it is unlikely the response times will change dramatically.
There are other options such as when FD1 has an extremely busy station, they dedicate the units such as a
staffed fire engine or ladder truck supported by a transport EMS unit. When they do that it improves
response times for fire events because the unit is available and not out of service at the hospital. There is a
joint labor /management group, the Service Delivery Group, who are looking at ways to improve service,
from deployment to ways to better utilize resources. Another challenge is that via the Interlocal
Agreements, each city's Fire Department is operated the way that the city operated the Fire Department.
Councilmember Wilson invited Chief Widdis or Assistant Chief Correira to offer suggested updates to the
standards at the May 10 Public Safety & Human Resources Committee meeting, specifically 2B. If that
standard is only met when Lynnwood arrives, he suggested a different standard that is not the full
contingent on site but perhaps the first half of the contingent so that success can be measured based on
FD1 and not another agency. Assistant Chief Correira agreed, advising the Strategic Planning Group is
considering additional benchmarks such as the time to reach the patient's side, how fast water is put on a
fire, amount of time spent on scene at certain calls, how fast units get back in service, etc.
Commissioner Meador commented on "EMS creep," explaining EMS calls continue to rise at a faster rate
than fire incidents. By cross - staffing fire companies, the consequence is longer response times or out of
service times. He expected time would continue to be a problem and likely would not improve with
staffing of 3- person companies and cross - staffing. There may need to be changes in staffing and they will
approach the City with that recommendation when it is appropriate.
Councilmember Petso commented shortly after FD1 took over Edmonds service, there was a call to her
neighborhood near the Shoreline border which admittedly is geographically challenged. She followed up
on the response time because it seemed they heard sirens for hours and there was concern that emergency
personnel got lost on the way. She discovered the responding station to her neighborhood is not the
geographically closest station, Esperance, but the downtown fire station. The downtown fire station was
out so the response was from the fire station on 196`" which explained the extended response time. She
asked whether FD1 had the ability to enter into an agreement with Shoreline to improve response time.
Assistant Chief Correira responded one of the challenges is technology; when a 911 call comes in, the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 22, 2011
Page 7
address appears, dispatch enters the information and the units identified. The two dispatch agencies in
Snohomish County, SNOCOM and SNOPAC, have the ability to send the call to the appropriate dispatch
agency, reducing the transition time. A 1 -2 minute delay was built in between King and Snohomish
County because there is paging notification followed by a phone call. The new CAD system should have
improved interoperability; King County will be using the same CAD system, allowing the call to be
transferred more quickly. When he researched that call, he learned everyone in the fire station had been
working in Edmonds for a long time and knew how to reach that neighborhood.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas inquired about current staffing, 3 firefighters per station. Assistant Chief
Correira advised that was the current staffing other that at the 196"' fire station that has a Battalion Chief
and the downtown fire station that has three firefighters -EMTs and two additional paramedic - firefighters.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas asked whether the Edmonds Fire Department had those same staffing
levels. Assistant Chief Correira answered the staffing levels and deployment models are the same.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas referred to Standard 2B where the standard is 7:45 minutes /seconds and
the actual is 10:10 minutes /seconds, noting that was for the deployment of the full response. According to
Standard 2A, the first fire engine arrives within 6:31 minutes /seconds. Assistant Chief Correira agreed.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas clarified the first engine arrived in an average of 6:31 minutes /seconds;
the full deployment took 10:10 minutes /seconds. Assistant Chief Correira explained the way FDl
responds to a residential structure fire is to send two fire engines, a ladder truck, an aid unit, a medic unit
and the Battalion Chief. Response could be delayed depending on what other calls are occurring at the
time; the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. are very busy regionally particularly in Lynnwood around
Christmas. He noted a longer response time for one call could sway the numbers dramatically due to the
limited number of calls.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas referred to corrective action and the statement, "Continue to pursue
single- district regionalization as it provides more flexibility with deployment models and may realize
more shared resources." She asked whether regionalization would allow personnel to reach
Councilmember Petso's neighborhood faster for example. Assistant Chief Correira responded the biggest
challenge with that area is the breakdown of the dispatch center. Reducing the technological issues
between Snohomish and King Counties will reduce the response time. That language refers to one
regional fire department for Southwest Snohomish County which may provide some opportunity and
flexibility to expand footprints. For example, the footprint of Lynnwood's aid car could be expanded to
better serve the region, allowing other resources to be in service. Consideration could also be given to
moving the medic unit located at the downtown station closer to Stevens Hospital or other busy grids.
Regionalization would essentially provide better service to the public.
To Councilmember Petso, Mayor Cooper commented neither of Shoreline's fire stations are closer than
the Esperance or downtown Edmonds station. Response times would likely be much longer due to
geography and dispatch delays. He referred to the relationship between Standards 2A and 2B, explaining
that even though FD1 was doing a really good job getting the first engine company to the scene,
personnel can only perform certain tasks when the first three people arrive on scene.
Mayor Cooper asked FDI. staff to explain the difference between turnout time and response time.
Assistant Chief Correira explained RCW 35.103 identified specific times and definitions. Dispatch time is
from the time a call comes into dispatch, information entered and the button pushed to send units. Turnout
time begins when the bell rings at the fire station until wheels begin rolling in route. Response time is
drive time from when wheels start rolling to arrival on scene. Other benchmarks being considered are the
time it takes to reach the patient's side or time to get water on a fire.
Mayor Cooper asked FD1 to address how long it takes dispatch to answer the call and tone the bells in the
fire station and time to get water on the fire after the first engine arrives. Assistant Chief Correira
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 22, 2011
Page 8
answered SNOCOM does a phenomenal job and have changed the way they do dispatch. Instead of
gathering a lot of information from the caller, they now only ask 2 -3 questions before deciding which unit
to send, reducing dispatch time to 1 minute. The national standard for dispatch time is 1 minute. There is
also a national standard for turnout time of 1 minute. FD compares itself with a number of agencies such
as Bellevue, Seattle, Tacoma; many of them have established a 1 minute turnout time but found they were
only meeting it 20 -30% of the time. They may decide that standard needs to be revised because it is
unrealistic and at some level unsafe because personnel are rushing.
With regard to getting water on the fire, Assistant Chief Correira explained there are numerous tasks that
must be accomplished first such as tying into the hydrant, pulling hose to the front door, the company
officer walking around the building to assess the incident. Edmonds added a Battalion Chief to the 2
in/2out to provide that functionality while waiting for additional resources to arrive. Once there are
enough people on the fire ground, personnel can enter the building, find the fire, locate any people and
put out the fire. Depending on how long it takes for the second unit to arrive, the time to get water on the
fire is upwards of 3 -5 minutes.
Chief Widdis explained when the agreement with Edmonds was negotiated, it was agreed to keep
everything the same at least for the first year. He referred to the memo in the Annual Report regarding
EMS Transport Billings and Collections.
Student Representative Gibson referred to Chief Widdis' comment that it was agreed not to change
anything for the first year and asked if there were plans to make any changes in the future. Chief Widdis
answered discussions are occurring with a deployment group. Within the district, there is a transport unit
with two EMTs that transports patients, freeing up the other crews. For example, the medic unit was
removed from Station 10; the engine has all the capabilities and equipment; they respond to the scene, the
next unit does the transport and the crew is back in service. There is a 2- person medic unit and EMTs
elsewhere, consideration is being given to whether it would be better to have medics everywhere and a 2-
person EMT unit that does all the transports.
Councilmember Wilson referred to Appendix B, Transport Billings and Collections for 2010, asking
whether Esperance was withdrawn from the amount billed in 2010. FD1 Finance Director Kathleen
Junglov responded the number for 2009 was the amount billed by the City of Edmonds. The number for
2010 does not include Esperance which was included in billings for FD1.
Councilmember Petso referred to Transport Billings and Collections, noting billings are $1.4 million but
collections are only $869,000. She asked about the difference and whether the City could always expect
to collect that low a percentage. Ms. Junglov answered many of the transports are billed to Medicare and
DSHS; Medicare does not reimburse at the full rate. For example, if Medicare is billed $800 for an ALS2
transport; they are currently paying $583. The City could always expect to have a fair amount that was
not collected.
Councilmember Petso commented the percentage that was missing was greater than the disparity caused
by Medicare reimbursement. She asked if there were other explanations for low receipts. Ms. Junglov
answered the balance that is not paid by insurance or Medicare or a resident without insurance who
cannot afford to pay is not pursued by collections and considered to be paid by the EMS levy.
To the question of the advantage of a larger organization/regionalization, Commissioner Meador
answered it was a more efficient use of staff. Regionalization is better in that respect.
When considering the deployment policy, Mayor Cooper asked whether consideration was given to where
personnel were stationed within the boundaries of the FD1 and all contract cities. Chief Widdis explained
in 2004 -2005, FD1 hired a consultant who modeled the SNOCOM area. That information was used to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 22, 2011
Page 9
identify fire station locations and stations have been remodeled, replaced or sited based on that model.
With regard to a larger organization, one of the problems with the response time in Standard 2B is the
time for the last engine to arrive. Under regionalization, resources can be better controlled. For example
the agency would know what stations are out for a drill /training and provide backup staff for that station.
Councilmember Wilson commended the Commission for hiring good staff; Chief Widdis has been a
pleasure to work with and has provided whatever information he has requested. In October the Public
Safety Committee hosted a public session regarding what regionalization could look like. He asked
Commissioners their thoughts about timing of a Regional Fire Authority (RFA). Commissioner Chan
answered the Commission is sensitive to Edmonds needs; at the last RFA meeting there was a comment
that joining an RFA would allow more control. He explained under the current contract FDl responds to
cities more quickly. The Commission wants to ensure all cities, agencies and citizens are well represented
in the RFA discussions.
Commissioner Kenny relayed the Board's support for moving forward expeditiously with a RFA and
looked forward to working with Edmonds and the other cities. There are a lot of details and issues to
resolve and how quickly it can happen is unknown. The current monthly meeting schedule will result in a
longer process. It will be important after an initial interim period for the entities that are serious about
moving forward to be on board and began taking action to move toward a RFA.
Commissioner Schrock explained he chairs FD1's planning committee. A RFA is one of 3-4 ways to
regionalize. Edmonds joining FDl is actually regionalization. The benefits of regionalization are better
service delivery. A RFA may be a way to expand regionalization and it makes sense only if the public is
better served, if service can be delivered better, faster and more efficiently. Other methods include
annexation, revising the terms of the contract, etc. He summarized FDl was open to anything that
improved service.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed Chief Widdis has been very helpful. She commented typically
regionalization resulted in economies of scale and reduced costs. Regionalization actually increases the
taxpayers' cost versus the current structure. She asked why regionalization would not spread costs
throughout all jurisdictions, saving taxpayers money. Chief Widdis answered FDl pays for everything
including vehicle replacement, building fund, etc. The City's contract cost does not include station
replacement, SNOCOM, SERS, etc. Another issue is the assessed value per square mile; land values are
considerably less in unincorporated Snohomish County and growth is occurring at a rapid rate compared
to Edmonds. One of the advantages of a RFA is taxes are be collected in the same manner.
Commissioner Chan asked what the Council thought about a RFA. Council President Peterson echoed
previous comments about FD1 staff. After attending the RFA meetings, he was excited about the idea
particularly if it provided better service. He was excited about Edmonds being involved early in the
process. He thanked Councilmember Wilson and Mayor Cooper for spearheading the RFA effort. He
summarized this is a great opportunity for cities to discuss solutions. Fire costs are not going down and
regionalization may provide a way to maximize dollars as well as maximize public safety.
Mayor Cooper explained the Council expressed its interest in a RFA by passing a resolution and
appointing three people to represent the City on the RFA Planning Committee. The first goal is continue
to provide the highest possible level of service in the most effective manner and give the taxpayers the
best deal possible. He cautioned it was important not to approach a RFA from the point of saving money
but as a way of providing the best level of service. The ultimate decision will be made by the voters. It is
important for the Committee to look at all options to determine whether the RFA model is the best fit and
whether Lynnwood, Mukilteo and Mill Creek belong in that model. He was hopeful that in six months the
interested parties would be identified. Kent took 18 -24 months to put a RFA on the ballot; Kitsap County
met for 2 years and did not put a RFA on the ballot.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 22, 2011
Page 10
Mayor Cooper declared a brief recess.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Don Hall, Edmonds, referred to the report submitted by attorney John Chun regarding his investigation
of the complaint by Lorenzo Hines against Councilmembers Plunkett and Buckshnis. The conclusion
states, "granted certain communications and comments at issue may be construed as rude or uncivil and
such conduct may violate a city employment policy if committed by an employee but as Councilmembers
are not employees, this was not investigated." Mr. Hall expressed concern that Councilmembers are not
subject to the conduct code for city employees and are not considered employees of the City, yet they
receive W -2s, employee health benefits, retirement, much like a City employee. He and others are tired of
elected officials playing by different rules and regulations. He noted this is not the first time a
Councilmember has been treated differently, citing the removal of signs on Sunset Avenue by
Councilmember Bernheim. He envisioned the outcome of that incident would have been much different if
that action been taken by a citizen. He cited the nation -wide movement to stop elected officials from
being treated differently or having special privileges. The taxpayers are elected officials' employers and
every four years they have an opportunity to fire them. As Councilmembers' employer, citizens expect
the highest standards from Councilmember and in his opinion, the three aforementioned Councilmembers
have not lived up to those expectations.
Todd Cloutier, Edmonds, referred to Agenda Item 6, emphasizing solar power does work in Edmonds
as one Councilmember who has solar panels can attest. The City does not need another small
demonstration project as proposed by some; there are already small demonstration projects such as the
demonstration arrays at the Snohomish County PUD facility. The Frances Anderson Center is a historic
site; the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the proposal and overwhelmingly endorsed putting
solar arrays on the building. It is time to stop talking about solar like it is some future technology and start
generating clean power with made in Washington components. Having the array at the Anderson Center
is a statement of where Edmonds stands. Edmonds is a quaint little town that wants to stay that way but is
also a regional leader in planning for sustainability. Unlike any other nearby city, Edmonds'
Comprehensive Plan has a sustainability element that emphasizes sustainable energy sources and energy
efficiency as goals. The Anderson Center is undergoing significant upgrades for efficiency; co- locating a
solar array would only highlight that great work and help keep the building operational and efficient for a
longer period of time. The City is also a signatory to an international agreement regarding sustainability
and pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. A key part of reaching that goal
is local generation of clean power to replace coal power and this project is clearly aligned with the stated
goal and plans. Numerous children visit the Anderson Center and a solar array is a clear statement to them
of the City's commitment to honor its promises, keep its eye on the past and plan for the future.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to Fire District 1's report, pointing out FDl may have a rate increase in
2013. Next, he referred to his comments at the last Council meeting regarding earthquakes and a City
report that Public Works Director Phil Williams indicated will be updated. He suggested the updated
report be distributed to all residents. He referred to last week's closed record review of the Hearing
Examiner's recommendation, explaining the Hearing Examiner summarizes the comments made at the
hearing.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to Agenda Item 6, pointing out the City will only receive $249 /year
for 10 years in exchange for the use of the roof at the Anderson Center. The savings are $31,000 for 10
years or approximately $3,000 /year with full subscription. He questioned the percentage that represented
of the City's total energy usage and if it was enough money to make the project worthwhile. He
commented the $249 /year lease was selected to avoid the 12% leasehold excise tax. With regard to signs,
he questioned whether the Architectural Design Board would review signs. With regard to trees, he noted
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 22, 2011
Page 11
6 feet would be removed from a tree located 10 feet from the building, 4 feet would be removed from a
tree 4 feet from the building, and 3 other trees 17 feet from the budding need to be maintained at their
current height. He pointed out there was no species listed or any requirement for an arborist report. He
questioned if the City or the Co -op would be responsible for repaying the tax credits and the grants if the
project failed. If the project is shut down for a period of 48 hours, the City must reimburse for lost
income. He was also concerned with locating equipment on the roof of a City building for ten years with
such a small payback and obligating the citizens for that length of time. He summarized the liability was
too great when compared to the small payback.
John Dewhirst, Edmonds, referred to Agenda Item 6, explaining it was reviewed by the Historic
Preservation Committee at the Council's request and they were very enthusiastic about the proposal. It
will not harm the historic aspect of the building. He encouraged the City Council to approve the project.
Robert Freeman, Edmonds, referred to Agenda Item 6, commenting many people appreciate Edmonds'
quaint beauty. The solar project will do nothing to destroy Edmonds' beautiful quaintness and will take
Edmonds in the direction of 21'a century technology which may also attract visitors. He urged the Council
to vote in favor of the solar project.
6. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF A SITE LEASE FOR ROOF SPACE ON THE
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER AND AN ENERGY SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE
EDMONDS COMMUNITY SOLAR COOPERATIVE TO FACILITATE THE CONSTRUCTION
AND OPERATION OF A COMMUNITY SOLAR PROJECT.
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained this project was first presented to the Council in October
2010 to determine if the Council wanted to explore the idea of a community solar project at the Frances
Anderson Center (FAC). After receiving a fairly enthusiastic response from the Council and direction to
further develop the idea, staff returned in January 2011 with draft agreements. There are two major
agreements between the City and Edmonds Community Solar Cooperative who is the sponsor of the
project. First, the Site Lease where the City will lease at least five identified roof spaces on the lower flat
area of the FAC roof where 18 inverters and up to 375 panels could be erected in modules as investment
money is available and hopefully reaching the full size project as quickly as possible. He noted there are
no major roof penetrations; the ballasted panels will sit on the roof. The second agreement, also with a 10
year term, is an Energy Services Agreement where the City is a customer of the new solar facility, buying
the electrical power it generates for use at the FAC. The City will pay a discounted rate for that power;
the City currently pays 8 cents /KWh; the power from the solar project would start at 5 cents /KWh. That
price will escalate at 3% /year over the 10 year period, another benefit to the City. That 3% /year escalation
is expected to be noticeably less than increases by the local utility over that 10 year period. As a result the
$31,800 estimated savings to the City in power costs over the ten years is likely to be higher.
Mr. Williams acknowledged the lease payment was not a great deal of money but that was not the focus
of the lease agreement. He agreed with Mr. Cloutier's comments regarding the benefits of the project that
cannot be measured monetarily and said that is one of the primary reasons staff recommends approving
the agreements.
Mr. Williams acknowledged not all the issues have been resolved and cannot be resolved until the project
is designed. Once the Council approves the Site lease and the Energy Service Agreement, the Cooperative
will know they have a home for the project and can justify spending the considerable amount of money
necessary to prepare a detailed design. It would be ill- advised to spend a great deal on a project before a
site lease was secured.
He introduced Stanley Florek, Tangerine Power, who represents the Cooperative and will be assisting
them with the project. He also introduced Chris Herman, Mark Mayes, and Carlo Voli, Sustainable
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 22, 2011
Page 12
Edmonds and Edmonds Community Solar Co -op. He noted there were several other members of
Sustainable Edmonds and /or the Solar Co -op in the audience.
Mr. Florek displayed a rendering of the 375 panels on the south and southwest facing roofs of the FAC,
noting the rendering did not account for roof obstructions. If there are roof obstructions, it is their
preference to use this space and not other wings of the FAC which may result in a slightly smaller system.
Mr. Florek explained 3 out of 4 Board Members of the Solar Co -op live in the Edmonds community and
are the ones who brought Tangerine Power to the table; Tangerine serves at their direction and the Board
serves at the direction of and has fiduciary responsibility to the cooperative members. He identified
members of the Co -op in the audience.
He displayed a photograph of a young child, noting that was what he cared about. He also displayed a
photograph of the nuclear plants damaged in Japan's earthquake and pollutants entering the atmosphere.
He reviewed the benefit of the solar project to Edmonds:
• The City saves 30% on electricity generated by the solar power system. There is no initial cost to
the City; the capital investment is borne by the Co -op. He provided a graph of the 3% /year
increase versus the anticipated 5% /year utility increase and the 30% initial discount.
• The equipment has been tested to last up to 60 years and there are options after the ten year
period that allow the City to purchase the equipment at a significantly discounted rate or simply
receive the system with a nominal transfer fee.
• The City receives a $249 /annual lease payment
• There are no maintenance or operating costs. Insurance will cover damage to the FAC as well as
any injuries resulting from the presence of the equipment, likely more coverage than the current
rooftop warranty.
With regard to who else has done a community solar project, Mr. Florek advised there are three
completed solar projects in Washington located in Ellensburg, Winthrop and Poulsbo. In addition,
projects are in the works in Seattle and Whidbey Island; and Bainbridge Island, Bellevue and Bellingham
are considering rooftop leases. Mr. Florek reviewed milestones since the last presentation to the Council:
• Efficient contract discussions with Mr. Williams, Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite and
City Attorney Scott Snyder that resulted in the roof lease agreement and Energy Services
Agreement
• Positive response from the FAC roof contractor and the manufacturer. Steps to be taken were
identified and with an inspection, the manufacturer will honor the warranty for the FAC roof.
• Positive response from the Historic Preservation Commission on March 10 and hopefully a
Certificate of Appropriateness will be granted for the project
• Signed a letter of intent with the most experienced solar installer in Washington, Synergy
Systems. The CEO /founder is here tonight.
Mr. Florek reviewed changes made in response to Council concerns expressed at the January 18 meeting:
Lease agreement:
• Cooperative consents to a bond or cash reserve to cover in event of default or removal of the
system from FAC and the roof returned to original condition. An estimate of the removal cost
will be developed and funds set aside.
• In the event of default, the City will either take possession of the equipment and operate it or
have it removed based on the above bond /cash reserve.
• Construction must begin by October 2011 and end by December 2012 or the contract is
terminated.
• Added specifics regarding tree trimming to keep the panels unshaded.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 22, 2011
Page 13
Energy Service Agreement:
• Removed any monetary penalty or reclamation of federal or state tax credits for early
termination. The City is not a party to those tax credits. He requested the system remain in
place for the required five years to avoid recapture of taxes.
• Cooperative will obtain liability insurance in the amount of $2 million aggregate and $1
million incident and confirmed the potential installer carries the same insurance.
• Removed all language regarding a lender as no lender is involved in the project.
• Added estimated fair market value buy -out schedule for each of the years through 16 and
beyond.
Mr. Florek displayed photographs of the following:
• Woodland Park Zoo solar system
• Shoreline City Hall 20 KW system paid for via stimulus funding
• The underside of solar panels that can serve as skylights and overhangs
• Poulsbo Middle School
• Several street views of FAC as it exists today
• Proposed location of the 10 degree solar panels on the FAC roof
• Top view of the FAC roof
Mr. Florek also provided renderings of the 10 degree solar panels from the south, north and west. He
noted one of the photographs of the FAC included power lines; one aspect of solar power is that with
appropriate storage technology, power lines could be undergrounded or eliminated.
Councilmember Plunkett advised the statement made under Audience Comments that the Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC) supported the project was incorrect. The HPC said they were excited
about the possibilities and sees no negative effects. The HPC's approval will be provided via a Certificate
of Appropriateness.
Councilmember Petso referred to Mr. Florek's statement that the City's savings were modeled assuming a
5% annual PUD power increase. Her research of her own PUD bills for the past four years revealed
increases of zero, zero, 4 %, zero per year. Mr. Florek answered the average national annual increase over
the past 30 years according to the Department of Energy is 6 %. Mr. Williams advised PUD will have an
8% increase in October.
Councilmember Petso referred to modest returns for investors and asked what return investors would
receive. Mr. Florek answered this is a break even affair, the Co -op members are interested in more green
power and anticipate they will recoup their investment in the 10 year timeframe. Councilmember Petso
pointed out the Poulsbo project and State law allows up to $75,000 /year return to investors in addition to
the 30% federal tax credit. Mr. Florek advised the capital cost of the system is estimated at $750,000 over
10 years. Councilmember Petso observed 1/3 would be federal energy credits so investors would need to
contribute $500,000. Mr. Florek advised the 30% rebate is a post construction rebate so the funds will
need to be contributed at the beginning of the project.
Councilmember Petso advised the Council packet included a hotlink to the Poulsbo project. The return to
investors for that project is $250,000 compared with the Poulsbo School District energy savings of
$41,000. If Edmonds' experience is similar, the return is better for the investor than the City. Mr. Florek
explained the organizers of the Poulsbo project found 16 high net worth individuals with significant tax
burdens who are able to use part of the tax code, accelerated depreciation from the equipment, that the
investors on this project do not have access to. There is a limited subset of the population that is able to
absorb those credits, typically sheet corporations or high net worth real estate investors. One of the
decisions the Co -op made early on was they wanted to make this project accessible to a wide range of the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 22, 2011
Page 14
general public. As a result that depreciation benefits is not available to them and that is the major
difference between the projects.
Councilmember Petso explained when this was first proposed there was a $6,000 net metering credit. Mr.
Florek answered that is the full market value of the electricity at current PUD prices. That was suggested
by Sustainable Edmonds in October. Between October and December, Sustainable Edmonds contracted
with Tangerine to run the numbers and develop the proposal. Tangerine found some unexpected expenses
such as property tax which could be up to $12,000 in the first year, sales tax, insurance costs, etc. He
explained this project is primarily to produce green energy in Edmonds and to break even. In the
conservative budget they have outlined, they cannot afford to give away the entire amount of electricity.
Councilmember Petso pointed out in the agreement for the Kitsap School District project on the Poulsbo
Middle School, the School District will own the solar array in 2020. She asked if that would be
considered for this project. Mr. Florek advised a table of estimated fair market value for the equipment
was established. Under his understanding of the law, he could not guarantee the buyout cost in advance.
He had a potential difference of opinion based on advice from their legal counsel and viewed the School
District's ownership of the system in 2020 as an aggressive stance.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. Florek, Mr. Williams and Mr. Herman for meeting with her to
answer her questions. She relayed the following questions from citizens in order to get the answer on the
record:
• Describe the difference between a Co -op and an investor. Mr. Florek explained a cooperative is a
democratically governed corporation. Each member buys one regular share and they have one
vote for the life of the corporation. For example they could vote to discontinue use of Tangerine
Power. In a regular corporation, the number of dollars put into the project determines the number
of votes and financial reward. The goal of a co -op is to have each person have a voice in the
operation of the corporation.
• Would a person have 20 votes if they purchased 20 slices? Mr. Florek answered no, regardless of
the amount contributed, all members of the co -op have equal voting rights. The result is a fairly
even capital structure where people do not contribute more than they are comfortable giving up.
• Was he one of the people lobbying to include co-ops in the Washington State Community Solar
Project Investment Cost Recovery Incentive? Mr. Florek answered he was only one and nearly
lost at the last minute. Every other participant who designed the program said they would do
LLCs which security disclosure laws limit to 20 individuals per project. For a project like this,
each person would need to contribute $30,000. He wanted to make the program available to a
wider range of the population and cooperatives have special treatment under the law that allow an
unlimited number of participants.
• Is this a conflict of interest, his helping get the law passed and now helping the Co -op? Mr.
Florek answered it is a long term plan for helping more people make their own energy.
• Is the reason for a co -op for tax purposes? Mr. Florek answered it is a structure that aligns with
the values he would like to see regarding energy development and those resonated with
Sustainable Edmonds when they decided to contract with Tangerine.
• What happens to the panels when it snows? Mr. Florek answered the panels were designed for
off-grid applications. Unlike a lot of panels, they only have two horizontal rails, there is nothing
but glass on the top and bottom and as a result snow will slide off, unlike regular framed panels
where snow can stick.
• With the 3 cents /KWh savings, the City pays 5 cents /KWH rather than 8 cents /KWh. Mr. Florek
answered every solar generated KWh the system produces will be provided to the City at the base
rate of 5 cents /KWh. Depending on PUD increases, the savings have the potential to increase.
• If the City spends $40,000 1month for electricity at FAC, with solar generated energy, the City will
pay $38,000, a $2,000 savings. Mr. Florek agreed by leasing the solar panels, the City's power
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 22, 2011
Page 15
bill will be reduced. Councilmember Buckshnis noted in addition to being a demonstrative
project, the City also saves money.
• Is the $38,000 sent to Tangerine and distributed to the Ca -op? Mr. Florek advised money flows
are straight to the Cooperative, the contracts are between the Cooperative and the City; Tangerine
is a facilitator of that process.
• With $38,000 1month, the Co -op will break even in year 2 -3. Mr. Williams explained the total
power bill for the FAC is $40,000 /year not a month. The total savings over 10 years is estimated
to be $31,000 432,000 or $3,000 /year off a $40,000 /year electric bill.
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the roof warranty. Mr. Williams explained staff has been
investigating with the original installer of the roof on the FAC in 2008, Lynch Roofing, who used a
product from Soprema. The manufacturer underwrites the warranty on the roof which was originally for
10 years and there are approximately 7 years left on the warranty. There are mechanisms in the two
documents that provide guarantees from the Cooperative with regard to the warranty; however, staff also
wanted an indication from the manufacturer that installation of the panels would not void the warranty.
The manufacturer has provided an outline of what needs to be done in the design phase, installation and
inspection that would result in their honoring the warranty. He suggested if the Council chose to approve
the document, that caveat be included, that the installation be done such that the warranty is preserved.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if the Council was being asked to approve the documents tonight. Mr.
Williams answered yes. He explained the manufacturer is very interested in the way the ballasted frames
are put on the roof, what accommodation will be made for a pad, etc. if they are going to honor the
warranty. The manufacturer also wants to inspect the installation and if it is done correctly in accordance
with their guidance, they will honor the roof warranty for the balance of the term. Councilmember
Plunkett noted that would be done after the Council approved the agreement. Mr. Williams answered the
design did not need to be approved by the Council. He reiterated his suggestion that the Council include a
caveat in their approval that the project not proceed until the manufacturer agrees to honor the warranty.
He anticipated the City and the sponsors would be involved in the installation details. Councilmember
Plunkett observed if the Council approved the agreements tonight, staff will deal with the design and the
roof guarantee; it would not come back to the Council. Mr. Williams assured he was committed to not
allowing installation unless the warranty was protected.
Councilmember Plunkett asked City Attorney Taraday if the contract was one of his tasks. Mr. Taraday
answered no, this was one of the transition tasks assigned to Ogden Murphy Wallace. Councilmember
Plunkett expressed interest in including bonding in the contract. Mr. Herman explained with the insurance
the Co -op will take out, the City will be covered better with the panels than the City is now. The current
warranty only covers repairing the roof; it does not cover damage to the building, damage to contents,
loss of use, etc.
Council President Peterson asked whether the Council had approved final design of the FAC energy
retrofits or other technical building improvements. Mr. Williams answered generally not.
Council President Peterson asked how much oil from Libya or Iraq the solar panels would need and how
much pollution the panels would emit. Mr. Herman answered zero. Council President Peterson
commented the Council was getting hung up on the finances; this community solar project goes far
beyond the $249 lease payment and the few cent/KWh savings the City will realize. What Sustainable
Edmonds and the members of the Co -op have set up via this unique model says a lot about the Edmonds
community. They believe Edmonds has enough individuals who will step up and make a statement about
the future of the community and the planet and won't sit back and watch bombs go off on CNN and worry
about oil prices or watch pictures of nuclear reactors in Japan. Instead they will rely on proven
technologies that work. He urged the Council and the public not to lose sight of the fact that this was not
just about dollars and cents.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 22, 2011
Page 16
Council President Peterson relayed Councilmember Bernheim asked New Energy Cities to look at this
community solar project. At no cost to the City, New Energy Cities contracted with a Portland Company,
Blue Tree Strategies, who had no conflict of interest and is one of the most respected solar companies.
They reviewed the documents and are very excited about the opportunity. They acknowledge it will be
difficult to raise the money but specifically stated the liability to the City is extremely limited.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas agreed with most of Council President Peterson's comments, but
stressed the Council has an obligation to ensure the citizens are protected. She referred to Mr. Hertrich's
comments regarding the trees and the signs. Mr. Herman answered there is one tree on the southwest
corner that has been previously trimmed to the level they are requesting. He could not tell the species
because it has no leaves, but the trunk is less than 8 inches in diameter and the branches less than an inch
in diameter. The other trees that will need to be trimmed 4 feet are also less than 8 inches in diameter with
branches less an inch in diameter. If trimming the trees is a problem, they could install the panels on the
top center roof rather than starting on the south roof. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite advised
Park Manager Rich Lindsay and Arborist Dave Timbrook have been to the site and looked at the trees.
These are trees the City continually maintains and trims annually. She assured staff had no concerns with
trimming the trees.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas inquired about signs. Mr. Florek answered if the City is interested in
providing signage, the contract would allow that to happen. If the City does not want to allow signs, that
section can be deleted. Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked if the Co -op planned to install signage. Mr.
Florek answered they had no specific plans for signage but wanted to leave that option open. Mr. Herman
advised they would like to put a kiosk inside the FAC that would show the output of the system. Any
signage would be educational.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Wilson commented the Council really wants to see a solar project happen but need to
figure out the details because there are few other models. He was irritated at the position he has been in
and will be for the foreseeable future because of contracts with liability resulting in extra expenditures for
the City. Those expenditures eat into his ability to put more cops on the street, ensure parks remain open,
etc. His concern was not the 3 cent/KWh savings, his concern was the potential downside liability. He had
concerns with a solar covenant but did not want to hinder the Co -op's ability to make money. He feared
the Co -op could say a neighbor across the street could say one of their trees blocked the panels. Mr.
Herman said that was not possible, it was too far away. Councilmember Wilson summarized he has 10 -12
concerns; they can be addressed by the full Council or in committee.
Councilmember Petso asked if the City needed to buy a liability policy or does WCIA already provide
coverage. Mr. Williams did not expect the City would purchase a liability policy. Mr. Florek recalled
there had been conversations about the City purchasing a liability policy and the answer was just as Mr.
Williams indicated.
Councilmember Fraley - Monillas asked if the City's legal counsel had reviewed the contract. Mr.
Williams and Mr. Clifton indicated it had. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas asked what changes
Councilmember Wilson wanted to make. Councilmember Wilson commented it was good that the
contract had been reviewed by the City's legal counsel but it had not been reviewed by the Council. He
referred to page 13 of the Solar Power Service Agreement, Section 7.3 under temporary closure of the
premises, that states if for any reason they cannot get power because of something the City does such as
accidentally cutting a line or if the power goes out, the City is responsible for covering all their revenue
for that period. He commented the FAC is an old building and it is possible there could be an earthquake.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 22, 2011
Page 17
Although there is a Force Majeure clause, that clause also states the contract is set aside if there is an
earthquake except for the last line that states the occurrence and continuation of an event of Force
Majeure shall not suspend or excuse the obligation of a party to make any payments due hereunder.
Councilmember Wilson referred to language regarding limited penetrations in the roof on page 7 of the
primary agreement, advising it was his understanding there would be no penetrations in the roof. Even
though it has been stated there would be no penetrations, the contract allows for limited penetration. He
assumed those were for wires and cables for transmission purposes but feared penetrations would void the
roof warranty. Mr. Florek explained one of the issues they became aware of since the last Council
meeting is that seismic codes may demand a limited number of penetrations at the end points. Engineers
and building inspectors will define those requirements. The language was included recognizing that
reality. Councilmember Wilson observed the language was not because they foresee having holes in the
roof but because seismic codes may require the language. Mr. Florek answered yes, noting those were the
type of diligence issues that an engineering review and solar design process will unearth.
Councilmember Wilson advised he could review his 10 or so concerns or raise them in another venue.
Mayor Cooper advised that was a policy decision. The contracts presented tonight were negotiated by Mr.
Williams and Mr. Snyder based on the Council's requests the last time the contracts were reviewed.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO THE SITE AGREEMENT AND
THE ENERGY SERVICES CONTRACT.
Councilmember Bernheim said he wholeheartedly supported Mr. Freeman and Mr. Cloutier's remarks. As
a Councilmember, he was very excited about getting this project off the ground, demonstrating to the
community and the rest of the country that there are ways to generate electricity other than nuclear power
which is 7% of the Snohomish PUD mix. He was opposed to nuclear power, finding it too dangerous and
because of the difficult disposing of the waste. He disagreed with the statement that the return would be
better for investors than the City, noting the City's investment is zero. The City is providing the roof but
the roof is otherwise unused. The Co -op members who contribute $1,000 each are the people who deserve
the return because they are contributing to the project.
Councilmember Bernheim explained he installed solar panels on his garage and they supply about half his
electrical needs over the year. The panels cost $25,000 and he did it because he likes not using nuclear
power. He also minimizes his use of petroleum power and suggested everyone do what they can to reduce
the use of polluting fuels like petrochemicals that cause disease, pollution and war. He noted the damage
to the Japanese nuclear reactors is not a one in a million chance; it was caused by an earthquake. Synergy
installed his solar panels, they were on budget and on time and everything was done to an extremely high
level of confidence. The very kind- hearted, public spirited, generous, intelligent people in the Co -op are
saying give us your roof and we will sell you cheaper power than you can buy from PUD. To the concern
about voiding the roof warranty, the manufacturer has provided guidance to prevent voiding the warranty.
Councilmember Bernheim commented if the City had $750,000 they could do the project themselves. To
the comment that no one wants to lose money, he assured the City would not lose money and would
benefit by clean energy. To the comment that the citizens' interests need to be protected, Councilmember
Bernheim said a yes vote on the motion was a way to protect the citizens' interest by showing them solar
energy can work. He acknowledged the solar panels did not make a lot of power; at full capacity this
project would supply approximately half the annual needs of the FAC. The project will support the solar
industry and increasing demand for solar panels will help drive down the cost of production. He preferred
to address any concerns with the contract tonight. He supported the contracts as proposed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 22, 2011
Page 18
Councilmember Plunkett agreed with most of Councilmember Bernheim's comments and appreciated his
passion. He doubted there was opposition to the concept but there are concerns with the City's liability.
He noted the City sometimes pays a price for good intentions due to liabilities. He wanted to see the
documents regarding the roof warranty, noting the Council was ultimately accountable to the voters. He
agreed with Mr. Williams' suggestion to include language regarding the roof warranty in the contract. He
was also interested in the Co -op being bonded. He was interested in resolving the liability issues. He
wanted to hear Councilmember Wilson's concerns before he would be ready to vote on the contract.
Council President Peterson referred to the construction deadline, noting this issue has been before the
Council a number of times and Mr. Williams and Mr. Snyder, Tangerine put a considerable amount of
time into the contract. An outside agency that New Energy Cities contracted stated, "From the city's side
of the deal, the solar energy services agreement and lease appear reasonable and adequate to ensure that
no significant out -of- pocket expense is incurred by the city in the event that the cooperative is unable to
perform." The Council can review the contract as seven complete novices to solar contracts or look to
staff who has spent countless hours reviewing the contracts, a contractor who has been hired by a group
of Edmonds citizens who is a professional or if there is a conspiracy, look to an outside independent
agency that is nationally known for solar projects. He agreed the Council needed to do its due diligence
but one way of doing that was to rely on professionals. There is an incredible array of professional
opinions on this issue and every department director is supportive of this project.
With regard to the issue of the roof warranty, Council President Peterson acknowledged it is unknown
whether the roof warranty will be honored until the design is complete. The Co -op will not spend the
money on design unless they know they have a space for the panels. If the design negates the roof
warranty, it will not be approved. By approving the contracts, the Council is not saying the project is
100% go ahead; it gives the Co -op the opportunity to provide a design that answers the Council's
questions. He was flabbergasted that many of the questions had not been raised previously; the contract
had been before the Council and there has been ample opportunity to get feedback from staff.
Councilmember Wilson expressed concern with the condescending tone of Council President Peterson's
remarks. This is the second time the Council has seen the contracts. The first 75 minutes the Council had
the contracts previously was a presentation by Tangerine that could have been provided in writing. There
was much of that again tonight. He appreciated the work Tangerine has done. With regard to the review
by an outside agency, they do not represent the Council or the community and he will not abdicate his
responsibility to an outside group. His concern is not the liability the City would incur if the Co -op did
not do their job, he was confident they could do their job. His concern is the liability the City incurs if the
City cannot hold up its end of the bargain. He noted the FAC is about to fall down, held together with
bailing wire and duct tape. His concern is if the FAC becomes incapacitated in any way, the City has a 10
year revenue liability to the Co -op. This is not about Libya or Japan; he only wanted to limit the potential
downside. He would not offer his amendments and would reluctantly vote against the motion even though
he agreed 100% in principle.
Councilmember Petso commented she was not previously aware of the deadline or the outside opinion
and she learned tonight that this project is completely different than the Kitsap County project. She
assured there were citizens who will ask why the Kitsap School District gets $2,000 /year lease and
Edmonds settles for $250 and why Kitsap County will own their solar array at the end of 10 years. She
would appreciate time to be educated about information not included in the packet and to consider the
new information provided tonight.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas expressed interest in proceeding. She has had an opportunity to review
the packet since Friday and has obtained clarity on items she did not understand. She has received
numerous telephone calls regarding issues that have now been answered to her satisfaction. She
understood Councilmember Wilson's concern regarding liability and Councilmember Plunkett's interest
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 22, 2011
Page 19
in bonding the project. She suggested approving the contracts tonight so that the design can proceed and
adding the building liability and bonding to the contract.
Council President Peterson apologized if his tone was condescending, commenting it was from a sense of
frustration. With regard to the third party review, he noted it was important to have a fresh set of eyes but
City staff also supports it and he trusts staff. He supported the Council moving forward tonight, noting
many of the concerns would be addressed in final design. If the concerns expressed are not addressed in
final design, he had faith staff would either bring it back to Council or work it out with the Co -op. He
summarized this is not the final step in the process; it is an important step to get to design and when some
of the remaining questions will be answered.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY - MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO HAVE THE ISSUES OF LIABILITY OF THE
BUILDING TOWARD THE CITY, THE BONDING AND THE ROOF WARRANTY ADDRESSED
IN THE FINAL CONTRACT BEFORE IT IS SIGNED BY THE MAYOR.
Mayor Cooper referred to bonding and suggested the Council indicate a bond amount. Mr. Williams
asked if it was a bond to cover the cost of removing the system from the roof and restoring the roof.
Councilmember Plunkett advised that was his intent. Mr. Williams advised that would be a fairly small
bond and was largely addressed in the agreement. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the contract referred
to a bonding agency or just the willingness for a cash reserve. He was not interested in a cash reserve, and
preferred a bond. Mr. Williams advised the contract provided the option of a bond or cash reserve. He
noted on construction projects, it is the contractor's choice whether to put up a bond or a cash reserve.
That is the way this agreement is worded.
Councilmember Bernheim referred to Alternatives on page 5 of the agreement, Reserve for Removal,
"Grantee shall furnish and maintain a cash reserve in the form approved by the grantor for the purpose of
covering all costs associated with removal of the facility." He requested that language be included in the
contract. Mr. Herman advised they had no problem putting the money anywhere the council wished but
they preferred not to pay a bonding company for something that is honestly not going to happen.
Councilmember Plunkett commented many of the things that are honestly not going to happen do happen.
He referred to a surety bond. He would rely on Mr. Williams, Ogden Murphy Wallace or Lighthouse to
tell the Council what is equivalent to a surety bond that provides the greatest protection to the City. Mr.
Williams commented cash in an account for a specific purpose that covered the amount at risk was the
ultimate protection for the City.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented this is a difficult decision for the Council who has had numerous
discussions in executive session regarding liability for the City. She was fortunate to spend two hours
with Mr. Williams, Mr. Florek and Mr. Herman having her questions answered. She agreed the City's
liability could be considered during the design.
THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (5 -2), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND
WILSON VOTING NO.
Mr. Taraday clarified the motion was to authorize the Mayor to approve the contract after further review
by legal counsel and staff. Issues to be addressed include, 1) the roof warranty, 2) the bond/escrow /money
set aside and 3) Councilmember Wilson's concern about liability for making payments for an extended
period of time if something happened to the building. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas advised that was
the intent of her amendment.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 22, 2011
Page 20
Councilmember Plunkett asked if the intent of the main motion was for the revised contract to be returned
to the Council. Mayor Cooper advised that was not the way the amendment was worded. If the Council
wants the agreement to come to the Council on the Consent Agenda for final approval, the Council
needed to request that.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO HAVE THE COUNCIL SEE THE FINAL VERSION
ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
Councilmember Bernheim recognized the FAC is an old building but he has never heard any public safety
concern about the building collapsing while it is in use.
THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6 -1), COUNCILMEMBER
PETSO VOTING NO.
Mayor Cooper advised final adoption of the agreements will be on the April 5 agenda.
7. EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT / EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS
QUARTERLY REPORT.
Edmonds Public Facilities District (EPFD) Board Chair John McGibbon explained the EPFD is the
governing body for the Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA). He expressed the Board's appreciation to the
Council for 91/2 years of unstinting support in the creation and development of a valuable community
asset. He recognized Stephen Clifton, Cindi Cruz, and Frances Chapin for their support over the years. He
also recognized the members of the Council who have served as Council liaison to the EPFD Board;
Councilmember Petso is the current liaison. He recognized the other EPFD Board members: Bob
Rinehart, Terry Vehrs, Mike Popke, and Maria Montalvo. He invited Councilmembers and the Mayor to
have a guided tour of the ECA.
Chair McGibbon also expressed the EPFD's appreciation for the volunteers who donate their time,
performing myriad tasks. Although the EPFD board members are volunteers, they are a hands -on group
that works closely with the ECA Executive Director Joe McIalwain.
Mr. McIalwain reviewed ECA programs and services:
• Presenting Season (21 shows this year)
• Four of ECA's last five presentations sold 90% or better (Al Stewart, Second City, Spike &
the Impalers, and Vicky Lawrence)
• Upcoming shows:
— Arturo Sandoval — March 25
— Seattle Men's Chorus — March 26
— Randy Newman — April 18
Partner Organizations
• Cascade Symphony Orchestra — March 28 — Sibelius Violin Concerto featuring Violinist
Elisa Barston
• Olympic Ballet Theatre — April 16 and 17 — "Coppelia" — New production marking 30th
Anniversary of OBT
Rental Activities in March
• Friends of Frank DeMiero Jazz Festival
• Sno -King Music Educators Association
• Premera Blue Cross — Company Meetings
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 22, 2011
Page 21
• Rick Steves' Travel Festival
• King's School
• StoryBook Theatre
Education/Outreach
• Two sold -out student matinee performances of Chinese Acrobats of Hebei coming up in May
• Expansion of Education /Outreach Programs planned for 2011 -2012 — Student Matinee
Programs, Artist in Residence
Mr. Mclalwain acknowledged the ECA's Operations Manager, Jeff Vaughan who has done an incredible
job building the rental business in recent months. Mr. Mclalwain commented on recent successes:
• Video monitors installed in ECA Lobby for promotion of upcoming events, recognition of
sponsors /donors and advertising opportunities
• Volunteer intern support for event management and new business development
• Improvements made in accounting system to aid in quality and efficiency of reporting
• New connections in the community showing interest in sponsorship
Mr. Mclalwain invited Councilmembers and the Mayor to attend Center Stage on Wednesday, April 20
where the 5`" anniversary season will be announced and there will be an opportunity for those in
attendance to become sponsors of ECA presentations.
Mr. Mclalwain reviewed operating performance:
Revenue
2011 Budget
2011 YTD
Ticket Sales
$430,000
$163,485
Rental Revenue
$328,820
$61,825
Other Earned Revenue
$87,000
$31,300
Fundraising for Operations
$402,000
$23,907
Total
$1,247,820
$280,517
Expense
Labor
$521,800
$87,158
Facilities /Operations
$232,400
$32,623
Programming
$253,000
$118,153
Other Expenses
$238,300
$17,570
Total
$1,245,500
$255,504
Net Revenue (Expense)
$2,320
$25,013
Mr. Mclalwain reviewed the sales tax revenue streams the PFD receives:
A) Direct Local -Level Sales Tax Rebate
o Covers a portion of the 2002 Bond Issue
B) "TIER 1" County -Level Sales Tax Rebate
o Covers the remainder of the 2002 Bond Issue
• C) "TIER 2" County -Level Sales Tax Rebate
• Intended to cover 2008 Bond Issue
• Original revenues projected to exceed $200,000 annually
• Economic crisis resulted in 90% reduction in revenues from Tier 2 rebate
o Unrealized funding source, cause of capital revenue shortfall
Mr. Mclalwain reviewed capital project revenue:
Revenue
2011
2012
EPFD Direct Tax payment
$195,000
$203,000
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 22, 2011
Page 22
Snohomish County PFD Allocation
#1
$215,575
$226,320
Snohomish County PFD Allocation
#2
$15,500
$16,500
Private Fundraising
$50,000
$50,000
Total Revenues
$476,075
$495,820
Bond Payments Due
$682,863
$706,763
Net Balance
($211,788)
($210,943)
Mr. McIalwain reviewed proposed solutions:
• Edmonds PFD Board and Staff are actively pursuing new revenue streams and improving
operating performance to help meet future bond debt obligations
• Snohomish County Lodging Tax Funds — Snohomish County Councilmembers Sullivan and
Wright indicated the Snohomish County Strategic Tourism Plan emphasizes aviation, sports and
not arts /culture. It will be difficult for the EPFD to access those funds for ongoing support. There
will be opportunity to access funds on a one -time grant basis to help support operations or new
programs
• Extension of PFD Legislation (possible refinance) — did not reach the House floor this year. The
bill is anticipated to be back over the next 2 -3 years
• Building Sponsorship
• Impact of Economic Recovery - unknown
• Improved Operating Performance — Net Revenues to Capital
Mr. McIalwain summarized there is a great team comprised of the EPFD Board, the ECA Board and
Steering Committee that is comprised of members of both Boards. He assured they were working hard to
meet the challenges.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented last year's deficit was $100,000 and this year's and next year's is
projected to be $200,000 but it was her understanding things were looking better. Mr. Mclalwain advised
these same numbers were presented to the Council in October. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the
less than anticipated Tier 2 funds were the reason for the shortfall. Mr. McIalwain agreed that was the
issue. With the economic downturn, the EPFD lost approximately $190,000 /year in Tier 2 funds. Growth
anticipated in the local sales tax revenue also did not occur. If the Tier 2 funds were received in the
amount anticipated and there was growth in the local sales tax revenue, there would not be a shortfall.
Councilmember Wilson commented he thought very highly of Mr. McIalwain, noting the EPFD did a
good job hiring and retaining talent. His fundamental concern was this structure of government did not
exist elsewhere in the State — a PFD Board to collect sales tax and administer the District and another
Board constituted as a fundraising arm with programmatic input. In nearly every other PFD, the PFD
contracts with another entity and there is a separation. EPFD Chair John McGibbon explained the EPFD
Board's charter from the City was to create and to operate the ECA. To expedite fundraising, a 501(c)(3),
ECA, was created. Although the PFD is non - profit, it could not effectively solicit contributions from
organizations unwilling to do business with anyone other than a 501(c)(3). To provide incentive, the ECA
Board has been integrated into the operation of the ECA, they populate the committees that are key in
operating the facility, serve on the Steering Committee and sit in on EPFD Board meetings. He
summarized the buck stops with the EPFD Board because that is their charter. He asked what problem
Councilmember Wilson saw with the structure.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 22, 2011
Page 23
Councilmember Wilson answered from the EPFD Board's perspective there was not a problem because
the EPFD Board did not have to pay the capital bill that the City was responsible for. As a
Councilmember he felt there was a problem. The fundamental charter of the EPFD is to manage the
capital side. Chair McGibbon advised the fundamental charter of the EPFD Board is to manage
operations. Councilmember Wilson advised the reason the EPFD exists is to collect sales tax to go toward
the facility. Chair McGibbon added it is toward the development of the facility, the renovation of the old
high school and the operation of the facility.
Councilmember Wilson commented the EPFD was having success on the operational side which speaks
to the vision of the Board and talent of the staff. There is a shortfall on the capital side beyond the control
of the EPFD or City Council. There is a moral hazard created when the EPFD Board does not have the
responsibility for covering the capital shortfall. He recognized the EPFD Board and staff felt a moral
responsibility to cover the capital shortfall. Chair McGibbon commented it was a joint responsibility; the
EPFD assumed the responsibility to fulfill the financial obligation, to sell the bonds. There have been two
bond sales; in order to sell those bonds, the City had to underwrite them. Councilmember Wilson clarified
they were the City's bonds.
Chair McGibbon advised by charter the City's Finance Director is the Treasurer and an ex- offico member
of the EPFD. It was the decision of the City's Finance Director with the concurrence of City government
that the bonds would be sold in that manner. Councilmember Wilson appreciated Chair McGibbon and
Board Member Rinehart for attending tonight's meeting. He was disappointed no board members
attended the meeting when the Council was told the City needed to come up with $100,000. Chair
McGibbon pointed out the Council knew the conditions of the bond sale and that City underwrote the
bonds. That information was presented to the City Council by the Finance Director at the time the bonds
were sold. Councilmember Wilson responded it took a month for the Council to identify a way to pay the
EPFD bond. At a LTAC meeting attended by Mr. Mclalwain and Ms. Chapin, a way to allocate $100,000
was developed to pay the bond. Tonight's presentation did not point out that the City is responsible for a
$50,000 bond payment on May 1. He recalled when he stated last year that the Council needed to budget
for $200,000 in 2011, he was told by one of the EPFD Board Members that he was spreading
misinformation.
Councilmember Wilson asked what the problem was if there is not a structural problem. He viewed it as a
moral hazard problem, not just the economy. There is not "stick" for the EPFD because the City will pick
up the bill. Chair McGibbon responded when the bonds were sold, a presentation was made to the City
Council by the Finance Director who also had a role with the EPFD Board. To the extent there is
confusion on the Council's part, he apologized, noting there had not been any deception at any point in
time. Councilmember Wilson assured he was not accusing anyone of deception. He asked whether anyone
else in the room knew that a bond payment was due on May 1. He looked to the EPFD Board to help him
understand what he could do to help them be successful. He was willing to remove the capital liability
from the EPFD and campaign in a levy for funds to cover the EPFD bond. But in exchange, there would
need to be some structural change including the EPFD giving the City the responsibility to manage the
EPFD and the EPFD contracting with a programming agency.
Councilmember Wilson asked if the EPFD was open to changing the structure to a model that was more
sustainable. Chair McGibbon answered he was open to anything that would work the problem but did not
think it could be discussed in a meaningful manner tonight. Councilmember Wilson suggested scheduling
another meeting before the May 1 bond payment. He noted according to the Interlocal Agreement, the
$25,000 profit so far this year will go toward the initial payment. He was willing to figure out a way for
the EPFD to keep a portion of that so they could continue to grow in a difficult climate but he did not
want to be told he was spreading misinformation and he wanted assurance that the EPFD Board was
willing to eliminate the moral hazard.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 22, 2011
Page 24
Chair McGibbon was uncertain what Councilmember Wilson meant by moral hazard. He explained there
was an arrangement that was understood by all the parties related to the sale of the bonds. The challenges
the EPFD faces as a result of the economic downturn have been fully explained. The EPFD Board
Members are volunteers committed to making the ECA work and to date have done a reasonably good job
creating and operating the facility. He welcomed Councilmember Wilson's ideas for improving what the
EPFD does. He summarized the bonds were sold with the understanding there was a revenue stream to
cover the debt service but because it was understood that problems can arise, it was necessary for the City
to underwrite the debt service. The primary problem is the economic downturn. The EPFD is doing its
best to address the problem and negate the effects.
Mayor Cooper suggested scheduling further discussion at a future Council meeting.
Councilmember Wilson concluded it was essentially a communication issue. The City has a new
administration with a different way of informing and working with Council. Chair McGibbon welcomed
Councilmember Wilson's suggestions.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PFD Board Member Bob Rinehart advised they have invited Councilmember Wilson to discuss the issue.
The EPFD Board is not trying to relinquish its responsibility and they are working hard to address the
challenges. He reiterated Chair McGibbon's comments about the role and involvement of the ECA Board.
They are asked to do a great deal and they bring a great deal of expertise that the EPFD Board Members
do not necessarily have. That model makes the EPFD Board far more effective.
8. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS
Councilmember Petso reported she met with the EPFD this morning. She was certain the EPFD Board
and /or ECA staff would follow -up with Councilmember Wilson and other Councilmembers prior to the
next scheduled meeting.
Councilmember Plunkett reported the Historic Preservation Commission considered the solar panels on
the FAC. A Certificate of Appropriateness will be required if the project proceeds.
Councilmember Fraley- Monillas reported the Snohomish Health District presented an award to the
condominium building at 960 5th Avenue for being the first non - smoking condominium in Snohomish
County. On March 26, all the Red Robins in the State of Washington are having a Special Olympics Tip a
Cop day. The Edmonds Police Department will be serving at the Lynnwood Red Robin; tips given to the
Police Officers will be donated to Special Olympics. She encouraged the public to visit a Red Robin on
Saturday.
Councilmember Bernheim advised the Port held their meeting tonight. He was unable to attend the
Seashore Transportation Forum as he attended Mayor Cooper's annual report presentation.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported WRIA 8 moved the daylighting of Willow Creek from the 10 year
start list to the 3 -year work plan recommendation. She reported the Economic Development Commission
reviewed what they wanted to look at next. They plan to consider the formed based code.
email r:wel RCK411 01104 301 119
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 22, 2011
Page 25
Mayor Cooper reported Council President Peterson and his trip to Washington DC went well and they
accomplished a great deal. He advised staff has been in constant communication with Hekinan, Japan.
They came through the earthquake well. He invited everyone to keep Japan in their thoughts and prayers.
At this time there are still plans to send the student delegation to Hekinan in July and have visitors from
Hekinan in August.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Bernheim thanked everyone for their efforts on the solar installation, anticipating it
would move forward productively. He will draft and present to the Council President a proposal to
exempt solar panels from the City's height limits so that they could be installed on top of buildings that
are at or near the height limit.
Councilmember Wilson advised the City has been asked to participate in the First Lady's anti childhood
obesity initiative, Let's Move. Typically the Mayor simply needs to sign up and does not need Council
approval. Mayor Cooper agreed to allow him to be the lead due to his relationship with the Regional
Director of Health and Human Services. He will present a resolution to the Council on the Consent
Agenda.
Council President Peterson reported the First Lady spoke at the convention in Washington DC. He
reiterated the trip to Washington DC was not paid for with City funds.
11. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:33 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 22, 2011
Page 26