Cmd061521EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
June 15, 2021
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Susan Paine, Council President
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Brook Roberts, Student Representative
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director
Shannon Burley, Deputy Parks & Recreation Dir.
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Mgr.
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Angela Tinker, City Attorney's Office
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst
The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:12 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The
meeting was opened with the flag salute.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember K. Johnson read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We acknowledge
the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip
Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect
their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the
land and water."
ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely.
4. PRESENTATIONS
JUNETEENTH PROCLAMATION
Mayor Nelson read a proclamation proclaiming June 19"' as Juneteenth Independence Day in the City of
Edmonds.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 1
Councilmember Distelhorst recognized Alicia Crank and Donnie Griffin who were present to receive the
proclamation and other community members unable to attend tonight, Nashika Standbro, Courtney Wooten
and Luis Harris.
Mr. Griffin, Founding Principal of Lift Every Voice Legacy, thanked Councilmember Distelhorst and
Mayor Nelson for ushering this Juneteenth proclamation through the process. Some may not be aware that
the Snohomish County Juneteenth Festival of Freedom Committee selected Edmonds City Park as a
marquee location for the festival this year; unfortunately, the tightening, loosening and re -tightening of
COVID restrictions by the State made planning impossible. Instead a collaboration of virtual and in -person
events hosted by community groups throughout Snohomish County began June 6"' and extends through
June 25"'. Activities include historic storytelling, a live Black Candidate Forum called New Leaders and
New Table which Alicia Crank participated in, the State of Black Community Affairs hosted by the NAACP
and a live streamed church service on Sunday. The public can join these celebrations by going to Lift Every
Voice Legacy's website, Beloved4all.org/Juneteenth2021.
Mr. Griffin said his greatest hope was that Juneteenth would be a holiday celebrated by all Washingtonians
and embraced as a day of emancipation, a day of freedom, a day of liberation like July 41h, a holiday that
brings us all together, unites us in fellowship under the common value justice and freedom for all. By
issuing this proclamation and inscribing it in City code, the City becomes a significant partner in this dream
and journey. He wished all a Happy Juneteenth.
Ms. Crank commended Mr. Griffin and community members who worked tirelessly to put these activities
together.
2. LGBTQ+ RESOLUTION FOR JUNE PRIDE
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas read a resolution recognizing June 2021 as Pride Month in Edmonds and
celebrating our lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual gender non-
conforming, pansexual, and 2 spirit (LGBTQ+) community and affirming that LGBTQ+ rights are human
rights and encouraging the public to join the city of Edmonds to advocate for LGBTQ+ rights, support
community members who identify as LGBTQ+, and celebrate the contributions that they make to our city.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented this is the first time the City has recognized Pride Month. She
introduced wives Sarah Mixson and Oshuna Oma.
Ms. Oma thanked Mayor Nelson and Councilmember Fraley-Monillas and City Council for inviting them.
They have been fortunate in their lives to be supported and loved by their parents, families and friends
throughout their journey. Not everyone is that fortunate; many children, young people and adults live in
fear of coming out to their families, of being different, of not fitting in and they need the community's
support. Right now people need to support trans friends and their families who are trying to figure out their
gender identity which is totally different that one's sexuality. She encouraged everyone to be open and she
hoped the recognition of Price Month would continue every year. She paid tribute to the people in Stonewall
who began this effort.
Ms. Mixson commented on how much it means for the City to acknowledge the LGBTQ+ community.
Many people carry scars from being in communities where that was not a possibly. Having the City
acknowledge Pride Month and putting up a Pride Flag is part of their healing. She read a Quote from Black
lesbian poet Audrey Lorde, "It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept
and celebrate those differences." Ms. Mixson thanked the City for recognizing, celebrating and accepting
differences and recognizing that they bring their full selves to the City, are part of the City and the City is
part of them.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 2
3. YOUTH COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT AND SENIOR RECOGNITION
Deputy Parks & Recreation Director Shannon Burley wished all Happy Juneteenth and Happy Pride. She
recognized and thanked Youth Commission Coordinator Casey Colley, who been with the Youth
Commission since its inception, for the 10 hours a week she dedicates to the Youth Commission.
Ms. Colley recognized graduating commissioners.
• Jacob Sawyer, Co -Chair
o Graduating from Edmonds-Woodway High School
o Has been youth commissioner for two years holding the office of co-chair this last year
o Attending the University of Washington -Seattle in fall to study aerospace engineering
o Favorite part of being a youth commissioner was interacting with local officials and leadership
• Grace Kamila
o Graduating from Shorewood High School
o Been a youth commissioner for a year
o Attending the University of Washington in fall to get undergraduate degree. Still undecided but
leaning toward business, psychology or exercise science
o Enjoyed learning about local government policies, being involved and implementing inclusive
policies
■ Hunter DeLeon
o Graduating from Edmonds-Woodway High School
o Has served as commissioner for one year
o Attending Central Washington University pursuing a degree in music education
o Enjoyed being more involved with the City of Edmonds
Youth Commission Chair Lee Owen expressed appreciation for Ms. Burley and Ms. Casey, the graduating
seniors and Councilmember L. Johnson. He and Youth Commissioners Audrey Lim (Alternate) and Brooke
Rinehimer reviewed:
Past Year Accomplishments
o Activism & Advocacy
= Pronoun inclusion presentation
■ Earth Day volunteering
■ PSRC meeting
■ Participated in Police Chief selection
■ Collaborated with Councilmember Distelhorst on Suicide Prevention Month
o Organization
■ No longer meeting during summer
= Recruitment during fall to line up with school year
* Meeting on the second and fourth Wednesdays
■ Committees
- Diversity & Equity
- Environment
- Youth & Government
- Mental Health
o Networking
• Mindy Woods, Human Services
■ Caitlin Chung, Diversity Commission
■ Jo Anna Rockwood, ESD School Psychologist
■ Robert Bumgardner, ESD Superintendent's Cabinet
• Terese Richmond, Climate Protection
■ Fairvote WA Representatives
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 3
■ Climate Action Plan Representatives
■ Puget Sound Regional Council
o Publicity
■ Exposure through our community involvement
■ New Instagram account at 148 followers as of June 9"' - @edmondsyouthcommission
o Commissioner Diversity
■ This year, we have commissioners from the following schools:
— Edmonds-Woodway High School
— Edmonds Heights K-12
— Shorewood High School
— Mountlake Terrace High School
Future Goals
o Continued Concrete Change
■ Similar to our goal from last year
in See how we can participate in our community post -pandemic
o Building Community Connections
■ Meetings this year have been really helpful
■ We want to get our names out more and continue to build up our community presence, as
well as reach a wider audience
Councilmember Olson said she has enjoyed reading the Youth Commission minutes for the last six months,
her favorite part the description of what would happen after the presentation, getting compliments from the
Council. She commended the Youth Commission for a great job tonight and throughout the past six months
and expressed her appreciation for their time and effort. She enjoyed getting to know some of the
commissioners, recalling she met Jacob Sawyer outside Council Chambers one evening and the things on
his mind about the environment and what to do about climate change blew her mind and made her excited
about the Youth Commission and the next generation made her feel we will be in great hands going forward.
She thanked the commissioners for their involvement in the City.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked the Youth Commission for the great presentation, commenting
she had high hopes for the youth in the City as she sees a positive change. There has been a huge divide in
Edmonds over the last couple years; the Youth Commission brings togetherness and a willingness to work
together and she hoped it set an example for other youth. The City and society needs the youth and she
thanked the Youth Commission for volunteering their time.
Councilmember K. Johnson congratulated the graduating Youth Commissioners and wished them good
times at college. The Youth Commission has done a very good job and it is interesting to see where their
passions lie; the youth of today is different than the youth in generations past. She asked whether the
residency requirement was retained as the commission expanded to other high schools. Chair Lee answered
the students who attend Shorewood and Mountlake Terrace High Schools all live within the Edmonds city
limits. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested contacting King's School and Meadowdale High School.
Chair Lee commented there was a student from Meadowdale last year. He hoped to continue the trend of
more diverse commissioners and was hopeful there would be representation from all the high schools in
future years.
Councilmember Distelhorst thanked the commissioners for being present tonight and for the work they are
doing. He had a wonderful time working with Brook Roberts on Suicide Prevention Month. There are many
great ideas and options for the Council to collaborate with the Youth Commission and commissioners and
he hoped to be able to grow those relationships. The Youth Commission is working on many great ideas
that may not be at the forefront of the Council's work but can be incorporated in the future to benefit
residents and youth.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 4
Council President Paine thanked the Youth Commission for all the work they have done for the City,
recognizing the dimensions they add are absolutely unavailable from any other commission. She
appreciated and recognized the aspects and thoughts the youth bring. She has always thought teenagers
were underappreciated and she hoped commissioners felt appreciated by the adults in their world. She
appreciated the thoughtfulness the commissioners bring to their work and she looked forward to their efforts
next year. She wished them the best, to stay safe and to enjoy their summer.
Councilmember Buckshnis said bravo and thanked the commission for their presentation. She offered
congratulations to Jacob Sawyer, Grace Kamila (her selection for the Youth Commission) and Hunter
DeLeon, commenting it was fun to see commissioners at the Earth Day celebration organized by the Tree
Board. She recalled members of the Youth Commission working with Students Saving Salmon on the Holy
Rosary site last year. She also reads the Youth Commission's minutes and was excited by their ideas. She
expressed her appreciation for the commissioners' gift of volunteering.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented this was an excellent presentation, the content, the delivery and the
slides were fantastic. The Youth Commission has made a real difference and a positive contribution to the
community and she found it an honor and pleasure to work with each commissioner. She looks forward to
the Youth Commission meetings and they are her favorite; youth inspire her and give her hope especially
this Youth Commission. She wished the best to graduating seniors Jacob Sawyer, Grace Kamila and Hunter
DeLeon, commenting it has been a challenging year, but they all rose to the challenge. She summarized she
can't wait to see all that they do and wished them the very best.
Mayor Nelson thanked the Youth Commission and looked forward to seeing them all again very soon.
5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments.
Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, expressed appreciation for the Council's hard work and abundance of
empathy, some of which may be imposing on citizen rights. The empathy for those wishing to walk in the
street on weekends, empathy for trees but not for their owners. Empathy is a good endeavor for individuals
to spark self-awareness and how to help those in need. Enforcing empathy at the government level can
enable harmful behavior and impose on the rights of law abiding, taxpaying citizens. She assumed the intent
of Walkable Main Street was to help businesses struggling with the effects of lockdowns. Most Main Street
businesses have said it has the opposite effect, sales falling as much as 80% for some. With two walkable
streets at the farmer's market on Saturdays, there is no need to extend it to Main Street with no new
attractions, harming businesses and exacerbating the parking and store accessibility nightmare. She
requested the City acknowledge that Walkable Main Street has failed and help the businesses it has
negatively affected.
Ms. Ferkingstad commented Council's desires for trees on private property take precedent over the owner's
right to maintain that property, build a home, or provide for their family. There are an abundance of trees
in Edmonds and just a four minute from their property is a densely wooded park with over 100 acres of
trees. They purchased a treed 1.2 acres in 2017 and have been working with the City to divide it into three
lots to build modest homes for them to downsize and for her parents. They planned to retain 50-60 trees on
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 5
the property, 20% more than required. The tree ordinance forces them to purchase the trees they own on
their land from the City before they can be removed to build their homes. The theft of $250,000 from their
family is an unconstitutional takings that Council will use to hire tree ordinance enforcers who will police
and fine all Edmonds citizens for what they do with their trees. The Council has voted to legalize
infringement on their rights to their property with an illegal regulatory and monetary takings tree ordinance.
This is against the constitution's 5"' amendment takings clause. This Council pledged to uphold the
constitution and should have voted against imposing local government on the rights of citizens and the
businesses they represent. She urged the Council to restore liberty and justice for all in Edmonds and restore
citizens' freedoms and rights to their own property by rescinding the tree ordinance and instead work to
keep victims safe, change laws to hold those who harm others accountable including those who are drug
addicted and mentally ill. She urged the Council to fight for citizens and businesses' rights.
Marlin Phelps commented he is probably the most prolific Snohomish County court of limited jurisdiction
observer ever, he has attended hundreds of times. Today he saw something he has never seen before; he
went to Edmonds Municipal Court and observed a hearing where lawyers were taking testimony from the
arresting officer. All other courts of limited jurisdiction in Snohomish County and King County are
primarily Seattle University juris doctorates and nothing like that ever happens in those courts. He referred
to Travis Burg who was featured on a program done by KOMO 4 "Seattle is Dying," in which it was stated
he had been arrested 50 times. He later murdered his girlfriend and took his own life. The 50 times he was
arrested and put back on the street was done by Seattle University judges. He recommended keeping an eye
on the Edmonds Municipal Court Judge because there are bad people doing other things and Edmonds
Municipal Court stands as the only court of limited jurisdiction in Snohomish County that is actually doing
court and not just letting depraved monsters go and empowering them to do every worse crimes.
Gregg Busch, Wireless Policy Group, on behalf AT&T, expressed AT&T's support for the master permit
presented by City staff. He asked that the Council approve the ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute
the master permit as currently drafted so that AT&T has the opportunity to improve service to Edmonds
residents, businesses and first responders. AT&T's priority is to provide stable and consistent connections
to customers and they are constantly assessing and upgrading their network to respond to the tremendous
increase in demand for mobile data. Small wireless facilities are key to providing additional coverage and
capacity to AT&T's network in areas with high demand for wireless data. To continue to offer high quality
service and respond to the ever increasing demand on AT&T's network, he requested the Council approve
the ordinance authorizing AT&T's master permit. He and Carl Gibson, Director of External Legislative
Affairs, AT&T, are available for questions.
Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, spoke regarding the City's intent to regulate maintenance of trees on private
property. The job description for the Urban Forest Planner states the position is responsible for
implementation of the City of Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan as it relates to private property and
includes a list of job requirements, some of which are not consistent with the UFMP. Examples include:
➢ Managing the permit/notification process for the removing or altering of trees; that should be
amended to state removal or altering trees in conjunction with development as there is currently no
process for private property not associated with development.
➢ Inspect trees on private property as required; this should be amended to "as requested" in order to
be consistent with the UFMP.
➢ Review professional tree assessment/landscape plans that are submitted to the City especially in
conjunction with development; "especially" should be removed, there is currently no requirement
other than associated with development
➢ Assist in determining compliance violations and penalties for illegal tree cutting on private
property; this should be changed to private property in conjunction with development.
The changes she suggested would make the job posting consistent with the UFMP and would correct the
posting to not be pre -decisional to the Planning Board's process which has not yet started or the SEPA
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 6
compliance which the City would need to evaluate as part of this process. Some Councilmembers have
lamented the recent loss of large trees; she has seen a few cut down in recent months and can understand
the desire to understand the underlying cause of environmental degradation. However, the City Council
chose its current course of action knowing full well this would be the result and is evident in the whereas
clauses of the emergency ordinance. The effect of people cutting trees to avoid regulation has been
documented in the urban environment since at least 1990, over 30 years, speaking specifically to the Rossi
paper cited by the USDA when discussing tree ordinances and the effect of ordinances similar to the one
the Council has undertaken. At this point these trees are sunk costs; the choice in front of the Council now
is whether to further penalize the regeneration of private urban forest or choose a more equitable and more
treed future for the citizens of Edmonds by choosing the actions developed under the UFMP.
Rebecca Anderson, Edmonds, said she was grateful to live in this country because she has the freedom to
publicly address her elected officials. At the May 25"' Council meeting she asked the City to resume in -
person meetings immediately so residents could once again fully participate in the important issues facing
Edmonds, including the Citizens Housing Commission policy proposals scheduled to be presented to
Council in the near future. Some of those proposed policies have the potential to radically change the
landscape of Edmonds forever and residents need to be included in those important discussions. She also
encouraged residents to sign a petition on PetitionBuilder.org if they also agree it is time for Edmonds to
open up. She shared some of the comments submitted by residents;
➢ It's time for hybrid City Council meetings. Edmonds has the opportunity to be a leader in the region.
➢ The City Council and the Mayor need to have face time with the citizens they represent.
➢ The housing issues should not be addressed until the City Council is back meeting in -person and
citizens have been given access to their elected officials.
➢ Council meetings should be open before any aspects of the Citizens Housing Commission report
are considered. The aspects of this report are too important to the citizens of Edmonds to be
considered or discussed at virtual meetings. Citizen input is required.
➢ If we can safely host an Edmonds 4"' of July, Council can meet in person. Virtual meetings are
confusing and seem to be contributing to the divisiveness that is poisoning our Council and
community.
Ms. Anderson hoped the Council was as encouraged as she by these comments. Residents are ready to fully
participate in City issues. On June 3`1 she sent an email to all Councilmembers and the Mayor to follow up
on her May 25"' comments. She publicly thanked Councilmembers Olson, Buckshnis, Distelhorst and Paine
for replying to her email. She was informed by Council President Paine that July 12' was the expected date
for City meetings to be fully open with an in -person option and requested an update on the City's reopening
schedule. Business in the state is quickly resurning to near normal with many grocery stores and other
businesses relaxing their mask requirements, large gathering capacities are increasing due to the state being
close to 70% threshold of vaccinated residents and the rate of COVID cases declining, all welcome news.
She hoped the Council would find time tonight to update residents on the timeline to reopen so the Council
can fully engage with their constituents for the good of Edmonds.
(Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.)
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Olson requested Items 7.1, 7.5 and 7.8 be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY OLSON TO APPROVE THE
REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 7
3. 4TH OF DULY PARADE & FIREWORKS, EDMONDS SPRING FEST AND EDMONDS
ARTS FESTIVAL EVENT CONTRACTS
4. LGBTQ+ RESOLUTION FOR JUNE PRIDE
6. APRIL 2021 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT
7. JOHNSON PROPERTY RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT
8. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2021 (previously Consent
Agenda Item 1)
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
ADD THE OMITTED TEXT DOCUMENTED IN THE EMAIL SENT TO FULL COUNCIL THIS
MORNING, TO THE JUNE 8TH MINUTES.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if minutes or exact minutes were being taken. The language in this
morning's email was related to specific minutes, but it was her understanding that minutes of meetings were
taken. After speaking with Council President Paine earlier today, it was clear the comments she made were
just talking off the top of her head. She was unsure why there was a desire to pigeon hole Council President
Paine into a statement she was unwilling or unable to stand behind. She encouraged the Council to vote
against the motion.
Councilmember Olson said what was considered and why it was ruled out should be documented, instead
nothing was included which she felt was an omission of relevance.
Council President Paine stated in looking through the minutes regarding that agenda item, she was
consistent and clear throughout regarding her position and she did not think the comments that
Councilmember Olson wanted included added any elucidation or advanced the discussion. She summarized
the amendment was unnecessary as the Council does not have verbatim minutes.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented these are minutes, not notes and the Council does take verbatim
minutes sometimes. At the meeting, Mayor Nelson specifically asked Council President Paine her opinion
and what she wanted. Councilmember Buckshnis paraphrased what Council President Paine had said,
commenting Council President Paine's remarks did provide her thought process and even though the
Council did not act on it, it was valid information that she provided after Mayor Nelson asked her to render
an opinion. It is not a scrivener's error or someone thinking out loud, but something that should be included
in the minutes.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented Councilmembers change their mind and their position all the
time in the minutes. As these are Council President Paine's statements and not Councilmembers Buckshnis
or Councilmember Olson's, she has right to determine whether they are included. She asked City Clerk
Scott Passey whether the minutes were verbatim or minutes. Mr. Passey answered the City does not do
verbatim minutes, those would be very long; the minute taker does a pretty good job of summarizing as
best she can. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented at least half the Councilmembers have changed
what they stated at the meeting after reading the minutes and determining that was not what they meant or
what they were trying to say. Council President Paine has a right to say whether to include that statement
or not. It should be up to the person making the statement, not to those who are trying to prove a point about
another Councilmember.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 8
Councilmember Olson pointed out this wasn't changing what was in the minutes; this was inserting
something that was completely omitted. She was fine with either a summary or the verbatim.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON CALLED THE QUESTION. VOTE TO CALL THE QUESTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4) COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS
AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS,
AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE COUNCIL MINUTES AS PRESENTED IN THE PACKET FOR
JUNE 8, 2021. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS
DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE
VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING
NO.
2. URBAN FOREST PLANNER JOB DESCRIPTION (previously Consent Agenda Item 5)
Councilmember Olson said she wanted to take a second look at the job description and to consider Natalie
Seitz's comments as there may be some relevance.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
POSTPONE TO A FUTURE MEETING.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the intent was to postpone to a date certain. Councilmember Olson said
she wanted to postpone to another meeting, with the Council President scheduling it whenever she wanted
but providing her at least a week to review it. Council President Paine suggested June 22" d.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked if it would be on the June 22°d Consent Agenda. Council President Paine
answered yes.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if this had been reviewed by a Council committee and had the committee
recommended consent. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas answered yes.
Mayor Nelson restated the motion.
POSTPONE TO THE JUNE 22ND CONSENT AGENDA.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. ORDINANCE TO REPEAL SALARY COMMISSION (previously Consent Agenda Item 8)
Councilmember Olson said she pulled the ordinance to repeal the Salary Commission due to the substance
of yesterday's letter to the editor from resident Jay Grant who chaired the Salary Commission, specifically
the assertion that the Salary Commission had looked at equity which was confirmed by other commissioners
in the comment section. Because the reason the Council was disbanding the Salary Commission was to look
at the issue of equity, this new information from participants and stakeholders warranted further discussion
and another vote.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO
DISCUSS IT TONIGHT IF THERE'S TIME OR AT A TIME THAT THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT
CAN PUT IT BACK ON THE AGENDA TO RECONSIDER THIS WITH CONVERSATION BASED
ON THIS NEW INFORMATION.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 9
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the Salary Commission does not look at equity. It is important to
understand that money is not the only equity issue; other equity issues include benefits for a family, for
example a working couple or a working single parent that needs medical benefits.
COtlncilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, the Council was attempting to put this item on the
agenda, not to discuss the merits of repealing the Salary Commission. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
explained she was speaking against the motion. Mayor Nelson suggested Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
tighten up her comments to speak to the motion.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was speaking to the issue of equity. The issue is not just financial,
equity includes districts so Councilmembers are elected from different areas, providing medical benefits,
changing the meeting time, etc. Money was probably one of the last issues she wanted to look at. It is not
the Salary Commission's job to look at districts and/or benefits as their focus is salaries. She encouraged
the Council not to convene the Salary Commission and to create a group that can look at the equity issues.
She encouraged Councilmembers not to support the motion.
Council President Paine raised a point of order, stating the motion was out of order as the Council already
voted and it was not a motion for reconsideration. Unless someone from the prevailing side wanted to
change their vote, the motion was not proper. City Attorney Jeff Mr. Taraday said the prevailing party rule
only applies to motions made during the same meeting. The Council directed the City Attorney to the
prepare an ordinance at the last meeting. That ordinance is in the packet; it was pulled from Consent and
there either needs to be a motion to approve it or to do something else. Mayor Nelson ruled the discussion
was appropriate.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Council received a lot of information today. She observed there
was no announcement to convene the Salary Commission which should have been done 1-2 months ago; it
was almost like the administration knew the commission would be disbanded. She asked whether there had
been an ordinance to repeal the Salary Commission. Mr. Taraday said the repealing ordinance was the item
that was pulled from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if it was a new ordinance that
came out today. Mr. Taraday said the ordinance was not included in an earlier draft of the packet and was
added to the packet today.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the motion suggested this could be discussed at a future meeting.
Mayor Nelson said the motion stated it could be discussed tonight or at a future meeting. Councilmember
K. Johnson preferred it be postponed to a future meeting so the Council could take into account the
comments from citizens regarding the abolition of the Salary Commission.
Council President Paine expressed support for approving the repealing ordinance tonight. The past Salary
Commission could not address equity because they do not have that authority; that is the authority of the
City Council. There were also no changes in the salary, the Salary Commission's 2019 recommendation
stayed the same. Council can work with staff and HR Director Neill Hoyson agreed she could provide
Council a "Compensation 101." The Council needs to have that conversation and she can work with Ms.
Neill Hoyson to put that together. She expressed support for approving the ordinance to repeal the Salary
Commission.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Council President Paine regarding having the Council look at
equity. She was uncertain one email from a one person who served on the committee and their interpretation
should reverse the work the Council has done. She supported considering equity, noting any changes to the
salary would not affect current Councilmembers. Retaining the Salary Commission would likely result in
an increase in Council's salary and the Council cannot to do anything about it. For example, if the Salary
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 10
Commission recommends the Council gets a raise, that is what happens. She suggested repealing the
ordinance would save taxpayers money and allow the Council to look at issues that may keep people from
running for office.
Councilmember K. Johnson said repealing the Salary Commission was a big mistake. The Salary
Commission removes elected officials from setting their own salaries, they look at benefits and can consider
other issues. The issue of equity is very muddy; the Council could go to a ward system without affecting
the Salary Commission. The Salary Commission conducts independent investigation, works with the HR
Director, looks at what other cities are doing, and considers compensation related to salary and benefits. If
the Salary Commission was eliminated, the Council salary would be flatlined until 2026 which does not
increase the salary or opportunities for people to be on the Council. If anyone believes the salary for the
City Council is inadequate, the Salary Commission is the best chance for making incremental
improvements. If the Salary Commission is disbanded, with an average 8% increase per year, a 40%
increase would be required in 2026 to keep up with inflation and other factors. She did not support the
motion.
Councilmember K. Johnson objected to this coming to Council as a surprise; this is essentially the Council's
second touch. An issue has not been discussed is the difference between legislative and administrative
authority; the Mayor is suggesting a change to the Salary Commission, but in fact that is the Council's
legislative authority and she was confused why Councilmembers were agreeing to it. She preferred to have
a larger discussion regarding equity, what was wrong with the Salary Commission and what equity meant
to the four Councilmembers who support this, whether they want more salary or benefits. She was unclear
what the objectives and reasons were for abandoning the Salary Commission.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4) COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS
AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS,
AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
Councilmember L. Johnson said she had not had an opportunity to weigh in on the discussion and felt left
out. She asked if Councilmember who did not get called on would have an opportunity to provide input.
Mayor Nelson suggested a Councilmember make a motion regarding action on the ordinance which could
be followed by discussion.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PAINE, TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE IN THE PACKET DISBANDING THE SALARY
COMMISSION.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, asking if it was the ordinance in Friday's packet or the
packet that was updated today. Mayor Nelson clarified the motion pertains to the ordinance that was sent
out today. Mr. Taraday explained there was no change to the ordinance; the earlier draft of the packet did
not contain the ordinance. There is only one version of the ordinance.
Councilmember L. Johnson said out of curiosity, she looked at the minutes from August 19, 2014 when the
Salary Commission was disbanded in the past and found Councilmembers Buckshnis and K. Johnson voted
in favor of disbanding.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, commenting the Councilmember had no idea what
happened in 2014 or whether it was germane to this decision. The topic under consideration is repealing
the proposed ordinance and Councilmember L. Johnson was referring to disbanding the Salary Commission
in 2014. Mayor Nelson clarified the discussion is regarding repealing the Salary Commission so a
Councilmember bringing up past repeals was relevant. He ruled point not taken.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page l 1
Councilmember L. Johnson said she was speaking to repealing the Salary Commission in 2014 and the
voting record. Statements are being made that this is without precedence; she found it interesting that two
Councilmembers who are now in opposition were in favor in the past. This is not without precedence,
specifically for existing Councilmembers. If time permits, she will look at the votes in 2017. This
information is relevant because the administration brought this forward showing all the time that goes into
the Salary Commission. She recognized staff was under tremendous pressure coming out of a pandemic
and are pointing out the time the Salary Commission takes and the minimal change between Salary
Commissions. That information as well as her desire to leave a legacy of increasing the ability for
individuals to serve on Council led her to support having Council look at the equity issue and whether to
reconvene a Salary Commission in the future. She resented the implication that there was a coordinated
effort, assuring there was no coordinated effort; it was each Councilmember speaking to their desire for
future Councils.
Councilmember Distelhorst commented he would keep his comments brief as it is already 8:37 p.m. and
the Council still has a number agenda items. He supported repealing the ordinance because there needed to
be a more inclusive, holistic look at the process which would not be achieved by the Salary Commission.
It may require working with the HR Director and/or an outside professional and will require a broader view
and more holistic approach. This not personal for the existing Council, it is setting up a long term structure
for the future, for the benefit of residents, the City and public officials. He recalled people saying they did
not do it for the money, commenting that was a fantastic place to be because it meant they have the money
to take care of themselves. Not everyone in the community can do something not for the money because
they have rent, mortgage and bills to pay. That needs to be taken into consideration with a holistic approach
to provide a better structure that allows more people in the community to participate in public service. He
supported repealing the ordinance and having a specific group effort looking at this without a narrow
COLA, inflation, dollars and cents look. There is an opportunity to have a Salary Commission in the future
to conduct a periodic review once these issues are addressed. For those reasons, lie supported the motion.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she did not understand what it meant to have a holistic view of the Council
or better opportunities for people to participate in public service. In a democracy anyone who wants to run
for public office may do so. The compensation for public office is minimal; she doubted the Council even
made minimum wage if 25 hours a week was considered. The Salary Commission is supposed to look at
salary and benefits. There could be a separate discussion about equity, holistic treatment, or wards, etc., but
she did not understand how that would be structured. When talking about equity in this context, there needed
to be more specifics because she did not understand and the public may not either.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was also on the Council when the Salary Commission was
disbanded and assumed she voted in favor. She recalled after some time, the Council agreed to restart the
Salary Commission. The fact that three existing Councilmembers were involved in disbanding and
reinstituting the Salary Commission illustrated that there was more to it and that it was not commonly done.
She expressed interest in residents being able to run for office, noting five of the seven current
Councilmembers live in the bowl or the view corridor of Edmonds. That results in a certain types of people,
and other people who do not live in those areas need to be encouraged to run for office. Unfortunately, if
someone works to support their family, they cannot run for office and be successful because they cannot
attend daytime meetings. That precludes nurses, daycare staff, baristas, construction workers, the working
class of Edmonds who cannot leave work for daytime meetings. For democracy purposes, she
recommended taking a look at it to see if anything could be done to encourage other people to run for office,
not just people who have the financial ability to do it. She noted other cities are also looking at this issue.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE CALLED THE QUESTION. UPON ROLL CALL, VOTE TO CALL
THE QUESTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS,
BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES;
AND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 12
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-
MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember L. Johnson corrected the record: in the August 19, 2014 minutes, Councilmembers
Buckshnis and Fraley-Monillas voted in favor of disbanding the Salary Commission and Councilmember
K. Johnson voted against.
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND ACTION ON MASTER PERMIT WITH NEW
CINGULAR WIRELESS. PCS,_LLC. OBTAINING TERMS THAT PROTECT THE CITY
IN RELATION TO THE FORTHCOMING PLACEMENT OF SMALL WIRELESS
(SMALL CELL) FACILITIES IN THE C_ITY'S RIGHTS -OF -WAY, SUBJECT TO
OBTAINING SITE SPECIFIC PERMITS
City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised additional changes to Section 25 of the master permit were emailed to
Council. Ms. Tinker will briefly review the substance of the changes. If a motion is made to approve the
master permit, lie requested the Council clarify that the recommended version of the master permit was the
one emailed to Council with changes to Section 25. It was his understanding that AT&T had also agreed to
that language.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order regarding when that that information was emailed.
Councilmember Distelhorst advised it was emailed at 8:04 am today.
Angela Tinker, Lighthouse Law Group, reviewed:
• Master Permit Approval (or Denial)
o What does a "No" Vote (not approving the Master Permit) mean for the City?
■ City will still get Small Wireless in its streets
■ Site specific applications will still be made
• Shot clock periods apply
■ City cannot prohibit the provision of personal wireless services
■ City will risk not having the financial protections the Master Permit Offers
• Master Pen -nit Financial Protection
o Financial protections provided with this Master Permit:
■ Comprehensive indemnity
■ Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy $ 5,000,000 / $10,000,000
■ City named as an additional insured
■ AT&T assumes risk of damage to its facilities
s hidemnity and insurance survive any expiration or termination
■ AT&T must remove its facilities upon expiration or termination
■ City can impose monetary penalties $500/day
■ City can require AT&T to maintain $50,000 security fund in favor of City
■ AT&T's agreement City is not bound if FCC's restrictions are lifted
Master Permit Approval (or Denial)
o If the first wireless provider places its facilities in City's rights -of -way without a master permit,
City risks being able to get a master permit with any other wireless provider and the financial
protections that come with it.
■ Federal Law requires the City be competitively neutral
o What does a "Yes" Vote mean for the City?
■ City will get the financial protections of the Master Permit
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 13
■ It DOES NOT MEAN the Council wants or is in favor of small cell deployment
■ A solid Master Permit document has been negotiated that protects the City within and up
to the limits of the law.
• Changes to Section 25 of the master permit
o Addresses revocation, AT&T has agreed to the changes
o Wording was changed, replacing reference to penalty or sanction with reference to damages
and remedies to make clear the intent of the parties that the contract remedies exist to
compensate for any economic harm or loss that may occur.
• City staff and the City Attorney's office believe they have developed a good document that protects
the City within and up to the limits of the law imposed and recommend the Council approve the
master permit.
Councilmember Distelhorst thanked City staff and Lighthouse for the work they have done on this for a
long period of time. He also thanked fellow Councilmembers for the numerous discussions on this topic,
commenting it was obvious they had done a lot of research and homework. That was reassuring to him as
a resident that the Council was taking this issue seriously and looking at it from multiple angles. He
appreciated the work the Council, staff and legal have done to continue to move this application forward
and including improvements and protections in the document.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed staff and Lighthouse had been working on this for over year. Ms.
Tinker agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis said she understood the decision was either yes or no, and asked
if changes could be made within the document. For example, as was stated in the minutes of previous
meetings, could the language in the inventory be changed so that there were maps prior to deployment. The
master permit states they will provide hard copies, digital copies, GIS and use of the pole after installation
and she wondered if it would be advantageous for the City to have that information beforehand. She
commented if multiple providers putting things here, there and everywhere, and the City gets that
information afterwards, it could result in visual pollution.
Ms. Tinker agreed the master permit requires the provider document the exact location of facilities that
actually exist in the various ways Councilmember Buckshnis mentioned. She did not recommend requiring
them to identify their planned installations as part of the master permit because if the master permit is
limited to the locations that they identify in their plan, they can ask to place the facilities outside their plan.
That would mean another master permit would come before Council and the permit would not really
"master" in that sense, but serial permits like this coming to Council from serial providers. That is
something Council could do if wanted to consider master permits repeatedly, but Lighthouse did not believe
that was the best use of Council time and it would not change anything. The terms would be the same and
she did not see an advantage to the City.
Councilmember Buckshnis provided an example, AT&T puts 35' poles by the beach and the ferry and then
Verizon puts poles 100 or 150' apart and then another provider puts poles by the ferry and waterfront every
150'. She said it seems like the City has no control over the placement prior to installation so when there
are multiple providers, can there be an understanding of the location and whether they can comingled. She
referred to the water views, expressing concern with the waterfront filling up with poles. Ms. Tinker said
ECDC 20.50, passed by Council in April 2019, governs the aesthetic regulations of these devices. The
master permit is subject to all the terms and conditions in the permit as well as the conditions in ECDC
20.50 and 18.60 as now exists or may hereafter be amended. Just because a provider has a master permit
does not mean they get to simply place whatever facility they want wherever or whenever they want; they
still need to apply for a site specific permit otherwise known as a wireless facilities permit or right-of-way
construction permit. When they make that application, staff processes it and applies the location preference
hierarchy and aesthetic requirements of ECDC 20.50.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 14
Mr. Taraday added as part of the master permit application process, the provider submits a map to provide
a rough idea where they intend to place their facilities in the first two years. He asked if Councilmember
Buckshnis' question was whether they could be limited to only those areas. Councilmember Buckshnis said
there is one provider now, AT&T, but the door will be open. There is a map provided on packet page 222
of the planned locations for their small cell units. It seems as if the City has no control over having multiple
providers putting their poles in the same place because there is no comingling. Her question was related to
inventory and placement and whether there could be commingling of different providers' small cell
facilities. She pointed out 35' poles, which are much higher than telephone poles, will be noticeable and
asked what the Council could do in this agreement to prevent that. Ms. Tinker answered the City cannot
effectively prohibit them from providing their telecommunication services as the U.S. Congress has made
clear in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. That has been interpreted to mean the City cannot prevent
them from densifying a network or improving their services. The City can regulate the aesthetics which
ECDC 20.50 does. Council could amend ECDC 20.50 and the provider would have to comply with those
amendments because the master permit authorizes and agrees the City can make those amendments.
Councilmember Buckshnis said Lighthouse was still not getting her concern regarding comingling. Mr.
Taraday said with regard to collocating, theoretically things could be done in the aesthetic regulations to
encourage collocating of multiple antennas for multiple providers in the same spot, but most likely that
would require an increase in the heigh limit of the pole so there was a tradeoff. This is all outside the master
permit, something the Council will have to address via an amendment to the aesthetic regulations in ECDC
20.50 which can be done at a later date if the Council chooses to take that up. Increasing the allowed height
of poles may indirectly encourage some collocating within the same pole. However, as Ms. Tinker stated,
that cannot be required because it could be argued that the requirement is tantamount to an effective
prohibition if they want to put it somewhere else.
Council President Paine commented this is an amazing body of work and she offered her thanks to the legal
and staff team. With regard to liquidated damages, limited to $500 a day per violation, she asked if that was
limited by federal rule or was that developed as part of the agreement. Ms. Tinker answered that was part
of the agreement; the purpose of liquidated datnages was to provide a reasonable approximation of
anticipated economic harm that may occur if there were a breach. In Section 25, the City is not limited to
liquidated damages, it can elect to use that but the courts have recognized if the contract so states, there can
be a choice of the type of damages pursued so the City could also pursue actual damages, monetary damages
as well as equitable damages such as specific performance.
To ensure this was clear to everyone who has been watching this very closely, Council President Paine
pointed out this master permit will be the template for other carriers coming into the City to avoid inequity
in how others in the industry are treated. AT&T is the first; other providers will have essentially the same
agreement. Ms. Tinker and Mr. Taraday agreed. Mr. Taraday said that was why so much time was spent
working with AT&T on this agreement; because it was the first one, it essentially becomes the template for
others to follow so they wanted to ensure it was very carefully negotiated. As Ms. Tinker stated, within the
limits of the law which are severe, they believe they have negotiated a very good agreement for the City
under the circumstances provided by the federal government. Council President Paine agreed that this was
a very good agreement given the limited latitude the City has. If the Council wants to look at ECDC 20.50
again, that is a separate discussion. She thanked the team for the amazing amount of work they have done.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REVIEW THE AESTHETIC REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL CELL
FACILITIES AT A FUTURE DATE.
Councilmember K. Johnson said the Council and the public have a lot of concerns about the aesthetic
requirements, an area where the Council does have some control. She felt it would be very useful for the
Council to look at issues such as colocation, minimum spacing and potential undergrounding. Discussing
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 15
the master permit has elevated those issues and it would be worth the Council's time to discuss them
separate from the master permit.
Council President Paine referred to Council reconsidering ECDC 20.50, relaying her understanding from
2019 when she was in the audience that all cities across the country had a very specific time period to
develop a hierarchy of aesthetic standards. She asked if the Council had the ability to make changes to the
aesthetic requirements at this point in time considering the FCC's deadline in 2019 to develop those
requirements. Mr. Taraday answered that was a good question and lie was glad she raised it. It might
ultimately depend on what changes were made. For example, there is currently a 25' height limit on free-
standing poles. If the change allowed the industry to place a higher pole, something that could be viewed
as an industry -friendly change, and he did not think there would be an issue even though the change was
made after the deadline. With respect to other changes, the City would need to research the effect of the
FCC deadline on subsequent amendments. He agreed there was a deadline imposed in 2019 to adopt the
aesthetic regulations; the City met that deadline at the time. A lot of thought went into those regulations as
it was believed it might be the last opportunity, but this is a new Council and a majority of Councilmembers
were not on the Council when those aesthetic regulations were adopted. He did not want to commit to how
much the aesthetic regulations could be changed, but he doubted there would be pushback from the industry
for something like increasing pole height. He offered to take this under advisement and report back to the
Council.
Council President Paine commented the hierarchy is creative, remarkable and benefits the City. She would
not object to discussing ECDC 20.50 sometime in the near future due to the unanticipated effects of having
this come together in real time. It was fairly theoretical in 2019 and two years later may be a good time to
have that discussion. She was interested in what the City would be giving up or exchanging in having a full
discussion of ECDC 20.50.
Councilmember Olson was in favor of reconsidering the aesthetic requirements in ECDC 20.50. She was
also in the audience when those were discussed in 2019 and paid a lot of attention due to her concern about
the aesthetics. The City Council in 2019 did a great job with the information available. She felt more was
known now than was known then, there were different questions and things to look at so there would be
value in revisiting it. She summarized there was a lot at stake in terms of visual pollution.
Councilmember L. Johnson also supported revisiting the issue of aesthetics as she was not on Council when
those were adopted. She asked if that would be done separately from the vote on the master permit. Ms.
Tinker answered yes. With regard to the vote on the master permit, Councilmember L. Johnson said the
Council is backed into a corner on this. Mayor Nelson requested she speak to the motion regarding the
review of aesthetic requirements in ECDC 20.50.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS CALLED THE QUESTION. VOTE TO CALL THE QUESTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember L. Johnson said she felt the Council was backed into a corner on this item. She can protest
with a no vote or by abstaining, but the City was at risk of a lawsuit and risks not having financial
protections. She can vote yes, but that still has the appearance of support. She felt duress, which is defined
as compulsion by threat or force, constraints or other actions brought to bear on someone to do something
against their will or better judgment. While she appreciated the work that has been done, her comments are
not directed toward any of the work done by staff, fellow Councilmember or citizens. The Council is stuck,
she feels duress making this decision, and it stinks.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 16
Councilmember Olson said she took a little bit of comfort in the fact that the term of master permit was five
years.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST,
TO ACCEPT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, GRANTING TO
NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, A
NON-EXCLUSIVE MASTER PERMIT AGREEMENT TO INSTALL, OPERATE, AND
MAINTAIN SMALL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES WITHIN THE
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, PRESCRIBING
CERTAIN RIGHTS, DUTIES, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO,
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr. Taraday asked for clarification that Council President Paine was moving the version of the ordinance
emailed at 8:04 a.m. today. Council President Paine agreed that was her motion.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she received a lot of information today regarding aesthetics and pole
placement. She asked whether 100-150' pole spacing could be addressed in ECDC 20.50. Mr. Taraday
answered to the extent the City was legally allowed by federal law to address it, site specific consideration
would be addressed in ECDC 20.50. He did not want to pretend that the Council could do anything they
wanted in ECDC 20.50 because ultimately the City cannot take action that effectively prohibits the
deployment of small cell. In comparing the City of Edmonds' aesthetic regulations to other cities', he was
proud of the work that was done in 2019. He was not suggesting 20.50 should not be revisited,
acknowledging there was a different City Council now, but the aesthetic regulations are reasonable yet still
robust and really good as far as federal law allows the City to regulate. When the Council takes up 20.50
again, questions about what can be regulated can be explored in more detail.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she wanted to go on record that she has a wealth of information. She
appreciated AT&T providing information regarding RF. She asked if there was a way limit to just 3G and
4G and leave 5G out of picture at this time. Mr. Taraday answered no. Ms. Tinker explained state law 35.99
states cities cannot impose requirements that regulate the services or business operations of the provider
and cannot regulate based on the kind of signals that are carried or capable of being carried over the
facilities. Federal law does not allow regulating on the basis of RF emissions; under 47 United States Code
Section 332, no state or local government may regulate the facilities on the basis of radio frequency
emissions to the extent they comply with the FCC standards. She summarized if the reason for not wanting
5G was due to RF, then the answer to Councilmember Buckshnis' question was no. The City also cannot
prevent them from improving their services or densifying a network, etc.
Councilmember Buckshnis said all her questions have been answered, noting a lot of citizens have
contacted her. She will vote yes because of the fact she has to, but she was concerned from the RF standpoint
and everything she has read. She is old enough to have been around when the Surgeon General did not warn
people about cigarettes. She wanted to keep a close eye and work diligently on 20.50. She thanked Ms.
Tinker for doing a good job with all the information she bombarded her with.
Councilmember Olson said she also found comfort, and the public may find comfort as well, that Section
28 of the master permit states the permittee agrees to comply with all present and future federal, state and
local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. Which means if there was an actualization of the concerns,
there was an opportunity for laws to be put in place that would prevent continued service that was harmful.
She appreciated the work the legal team put into the master permit, commenting the City was probably as
protected as it could be given the circumstances.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 17
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE
VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO.
2. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A REVISION TO THE SMALL WIRELESS RIGHT OF WAY
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FEE
City Attorney Jeff Taraday said this is a companion to the master permit. One of things they realized in the
course of reviewing a site specific permit application, an application that the City ultimately denied, is that
it took quite a bit longer for City staff and the legal team to review and analyze the application, interact
with the applicant, much longer than the amount the City collects for the permit fee for that type of
application. The City does not want to be in position of a subsidizing of permit review costs and is not
allowed to use permit fees as revenue generating source. The proposed change to the permit fee schedule
converts small wireless permit reviews to a small flat fee plus an hourly basis after the first three hours. The
net effect is the applicant will pay for however long it takes to review an application; for example, if it takes
five hours to review an application, the applicant will pay for five hours of review time. It incentivizes the
applicant to do a good job with their application and ensures the City is not subsidizing the wireless industry
by using taxpayer dollars to review their application. That is the reason for the proposed change to the fee
schedule.
Councilmember Distelhorst recalled this was presented to Council committee last week. It was his
understanding this new rate was somewhat of an interim. He asked how many permits staff expected to
review to reach a final fixed fee. Public Works Director Phil Williams said he did not know. This was the
first application to be reviewed. It was an agonizing decision at the end, but based on where the discussions
were, getting information from the applicant and the shot clock running out, the application was denied and
the applicant was encouraged to reapply. He agreed there was no way $500 would cover the cost of that
first review. Once several have been reviewed, maybe ten, staff and the applicants will have a better idea
of how it works, applicants will produce better applications when they know what information staff needs
to make a decision, and the review process will continually go smoother. He concluded it would be difficult
to estimate how many applications there would eventually be. Councilmember Distelhorst clarified his
question was not how many applications there would be, but how many would need to be reviewed before
a final fixed fee could be determined. Mr. Williams suggested maybe ten with the three different companies
who are likely to submit permit applications.
Council President Paine thanked Mr. Taraday and Mr. Williams for putting this together, noting this is one
of the things the City can control, recovery of the actual costs to review applications for small cell facilities
in the rights -of -way. She expressed support for the resolution.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO PASS A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A REVISED FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY'S
DEVELOPMENT -RELATED FEES AND CHARGES FOR SERVICES.
Councilmember K. Johnson said this helps recoup actual fees for small cell facilities. The resolution is
intended to replace Resolution 1442 that was established on December 10, 2019 which adopted a fee
schedule. She summarized the purpose of this resolution was to revise the fee schedule for small cell review.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how three hours was determined versus two hours or one hour. Mr.
Taraday said staffs hourly billing rate is $110. The original fee was $330 which assumed it would only
take three 3 hours to review an application. With these types of applications, that is not realistic. The 3
hours was determined by dividing $330 by $110.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 18
Councilmember Buckshnis observed these applications are for deployment of the small cells in the right-
of-way. Mr. Williams agreed. He explained there were two options, the FCC determined a reasonable fee
would be $270; the other option is to establish what the review costs and seek to be reimbursed. Mr. Taraday
said the $270 is the fee a pole owner can charge. The presumptively reasonable fee the FCC determined is
$500, but there is no way that would cover the cost of review given the amount of time this first one took.
This was not just a learning curve, the City's regulations require that steps be evaluated in sequence and
because of the way the City's aesthetic regulations are set up, it will take less time to review an application
for one of higher ranked aesthetic preferences because staff will not have to go through the process of
determining the higher ranked preferences are not possible. Over time it is likely that an application for
location preference 2 can be reviewed much more quickly than an application for location preference 4
because of the additional steps an applicant has to demonstrate were not possible for location preference 4.
Due to the hierarchy, it may take a while before the City ends up with a fixed fee; it may be that there is
one fixed fee for location preference 1 and 2 and a different fee for location preferences 3 and 4. For now,
the City will look at actual costs and let the actual cost data drive the fee.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if it was correct that these could not be collocated on PUD poles. Mr.
Taraday answered that was not correct; location preferences 3 and 4 contemplate location on PUD poles.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
EXTEND TO 10:25 P.M. UPON ROLL CALL MOTION FAILED (4-3) FOR LACK OF A SUPER
MAJORITY, COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS
AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO EXTEND UNTIL 10:15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER K.
JOHNSON ABSTAINING.
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess.
10. NEW BUSINESS
UPDATE TO CITY COMPENSATION POLICY
HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson explained tonight's presentation was an intended as overview; it is also
scheduled on next week's agenda for further discussion. She will provide information regarding
comparators tonight as that is an area that will require more discussion. As there was some confusion by
residents that this was related to the Salary Commission, she clarified this was a separate policy related to
City personnel and was not related to elected officials.
Ms. Neill Hoyson explained the City's compensation policy has not been updated since 2012. She reviewed:
• Current process for comparator selection and why change is proposed
o The current process for the selection of comparator cities takes into account only population
and geographic location.
o Why is that an issue?
o A perfect world would have one uniform process for developing comparable employers for
compensation analysis. There is no such uniform approach!
o However, over time certain criteria have been used more than others.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 19
o The most common situation for use of comparables in Washington is bargaining for law
enforcement and fire personnel. It is required by Washington state law that comparators are
used as one factor in bargaining.
o Why is that important and why does that impact the comparator selection process for other City
positions?
o It is favorable for an employer to have consistency in selection of comparables throughout the
organization. This leads to compensation decisions that are defensible should they be
challenged by Unions to the PERC.
What is the PERC Supported Process for Comparator Selection?
o You must first start from the statutory guidance to use "like employers of similar size on the
West coast of the United States." RCW 41.56.465(2)
o While this definition is far from clear cut, over the years arbitrators have developed certain
criteria to apply to this statutory definition
o The two most common criteria are population served and assessed valuation
o In order to satisfy the "similar size" component of the statutory definition you must begin with
population, recognized by arbitrators as "the most commonly referenced criteria" City of
SeaTac, at 7-8 (Krebs, 2002)
o In fact, "the vast majority of interest arbitrators in the Northwest over the last 20 years have
taken population as the first factor to be considered in determining comparables." City of
Mukilteo, at 4 (Lankford, 2002)
o Most arbitrators use a band -with of 50% up and down, with 100% as the usual upper limit
■ This means that for cities whose population is 100,000, possible comparables' population
should be no smaller than 50,000 and no larger than 150,000 (using the 50% upper limit)
or 200,000 (using the 100% upper limit)
o The 50% up-and-down methodology has been adopted by many arbitrators as an appropriate
band -width to determine "similar size" See, e.g., City of Redmond, at 3 (Wilkinson, 2004);
City of Vancouver, at 3 (Beck, 1998)
o Arbitrators also routinely limit the upper limit to 100% greater than the employer Yakima
County, (Gangle 2004)
o In order to satisfy the "like" employer requirement, the most common criteria used is assessed
valuation.
■ As stated by Arbitrator Wilkinson, "there are so many arbitration awards that have
considered only population and assessed valuation as a measure of size that no citation is
needed." City of Camas, at 13 (Wilkinson, 2003)
o The same band -width process used for establishing the population range is then used to
establish the assessed valuation range.
o It should be noted that while assessed valuation does not reflect the retail sales capacity of a
jurisdiction, and in turn the sales tax derived from such sales, assessed valuation is still the
most common criteria for determining "like" employers
o Additionally, using the calculation of assessed valuation per capita has been used as an
acceptable factor to determine "like" employers in cases where the comparable list needed to
be pared down to a manageable number.
o Lastly, geographic proximity is another component of the "like" employer requirement.
■ "It is quite clear that Washington interest arbitrators have commonly preferred
geographically proximate comparators when such are available." City of Longview, at 4
(Lankford, 2008)
o Geographic proximity does not take the place of population and assessed valuation. For
example, the fact that Medina shares a border with Bellevue does not make Bellevue a Medina
comparable, given the significant disparity in size.
■ Who area Edmonds comparables?
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 20
o Using the current methodology in policy which is 10,000 above and below the population of
Edmonds and located in the Counties of Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston you get the
following comparables:.
city
County
Po ulation
Burien
Kiny,
52,300
Bothell
King/Snohomish
48,400
Puyallup
Pier
42,700
Edmonds
Snohomish
42,470
Lynnwood
Snohomish
40,690
Issaquah
King
38,690
Lake Stevens
Snohomish
34,150
University Place
Pierce
33,310
Des Moines
King
32,260
o Using the PERC supported methodology of population, assessed valuation, assessed valuation
per capita, (with a 50% up-and-down band -width) and establishing the geographic labor market
as Snohomish, King, Pierce and Thurston Counties, You get the following comparables.
city
County
Population
Assessed Value
Per Ca iita
Issaquah
Khng
38,690
11, 966, 058, 762
309,280
Edmonds
Snohomish
42,470
11,0.11,22144.0
259,271
Bothell
King/Snohomish
48,400
12, 354, 415, 516
255,257
Mukilteo
Snohomish
21,360
5,444 416,654
254,888
SeaTac
Kina
29,180
6,965,017,090
238,691
Shoreline
King
56,980
11,637,183,574
204,233
Lynnwood
Snohomish
40,690
7, 503, 860, 299
184,415
Puyallup
Pierce
42,700
6, 928, 321, 607
162,256
Burien
King
52,300
7, 794, 662, 044
149,038
Olympia
Thurston
54,150
7,741,414,390
142,962
Lacey
Thurston
52,910
7,268 934,236
137,383
*Cities in italics are the same as the comparables under the current process in policy
Leading, Meeting, or Lagging the Market
o Once you have established your market you must then determine if you will take a leading,
meeting, or lagging compensation position.
o Edmonds has established a 50th percentile or median of comparators and has therefor
established a compensation position of meeting the market.
o There is no change proposed to the overall philosophy on market position but the updated
policy does recognize that there may be certain situations which require a different market
approach.
Recruiting the desired level of talent in certain jobs is a sustained problem and results in
negative impacts to the City and the citizens we serve;
■ Retention problems including succession and turnover;
R City priorities;
■ Internal anomalies in alignment, disparities, or inconsistencies;
r Significant changes in the economy or marketplace;
Limitations on available financial resources
Ms. Neill Hoyson advised she will send her PowerPoint presentation to Council and she encouraged
Councilmembers to contact her with questions.
2. ADDING JUNETEENTH AS A PAID CITY EMPLOYEE HOLIDAY
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 21
HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson advised the proposed ordinance would add Juneteenth as paid holiday
for City employees. She read the introduction to the ordinance.
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2021, Governor Jay Inslee signed Substitute House Bill 1016, making
June 19th (known as Juneteenth, Emancipation Day, and Freedom Day) a paid day off for state
employees starting in 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City Council agrees that June 19th, which has been celebrated across the nation
as Juneteenth to mark the emancipation of those who had been enslaved in the United States, should
be acknowledged and celebrated by all Washingtonians; and
WHEREAS, it is the City Council's intent to designate Juneteenth as a City holiday, starting in
2022, to celebrate the end of chattel slavery; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to encourage City employees to use June 19th as a day to
engage in fellowship with Black/African Americans; revisit our solidarity and commitment to
antiracism; educate ourselves about slave history; and continue having conversations that uplift
every Edmonds citizen;
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L.
JOHNSON, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4225, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 2.35 ECC (VACATION AND SICK LEAVE)
TO ADD JUNE 19TH (JUNETEENTH) AS A CITY HOLIDAY; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Councilmember Olson said she did a lot of research on this and there were a lot of great conversations
among Councilmembers. She supports this but wanted the public to know that adding another paid holiday
was not something that was done without consideration and thought. Most public entities are going to 12
paid holidays. She suggested at some point the Diversity Commission may want to consider the holidays
that the City offers. She supported Councilmember K. Johnson's suggestion to support diversity by offering
floating holidays which many other cities do but Edmonds does not. She was in favor of the ordinance,
thanked staff for bringing it forward and looked forward to celebrating on Saturday.
Councilmember Distelhorst recalled the City code included two floating unpaid holidays for City staff,
possibly in the chapter following this chapter. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered no, that may be for certain
employee groups such as directors but she would need to check.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said this is supported by the Governor as well as Snohomish County. This
is a good way to honor citizens of Edmonds whose family members have historically gone through this
level of independence in this country. She was proud Edmonds was moving forward with this and will be
in line with Washington State and Snohomish County. She assumed this would be a holiday throughout the
state, recalling Columbus Day is no longer a state holiday, but is a federal holiday. The City changed
Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples Day. She agreed with Councilmember Olson's suggestion for the
Diversity Committee to look at the City's paid holidays.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the addition of Juneteenth as a paid City employee
holiday, but felt the process was flawed as it should have gone through not only the Diversity Commission
but also the Public Safety, Personnel and Planning (PSPP) Committee. While she was in total support, the
process could have been better with more input. She referred to the thoughtful email from Councilmember
K. Johnson that referenced a lot of other holidays that could be observed with floating holidays. She agreed
with the suggestion to look at the City's paid holidays in totality and possibly add a floating holiday.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Mayor Nelson for his thoughts. Mayor Nelson said he would defer
until all Councilmembers have spoken.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 22
Councilmember K. Johnson referred to the memo she sent to Ms. Neill Hoyson yesterday to which she did
not receive a response. In the memo she said she did not understand why the proposed change to the City's
policy did not go to the PSPP Committee last week. The purpose of Council committees is to discuss
proposed agenda items and the committee determines whether items go on Consent or the regular agenda.
Items recommended for the full agenda should be for discussion with a decision at a later Council meeting
to provide three touches for Council and the public. Instead this was submitted as a New Business item for
action which was a total surprise to her. The Council is not supposed to operate with surprises or take action
before an agenda item is vetted through a discussion. She did not understand the hurry because the proposal
will not take effect until 2022. This year June 19t" is on Saturday and next year it will be Sunday and she
questioned how that would be addressed.
Councilmember K. Johnson was also interested in the cost associated with adding a citywide holiday and
suggested it may have been better to consider this with the 2022 budget due to the costs associated with the
proposal that will not take effect until 2022. Overall she did not like this rush to judgment as it felt like it
was copying the Governor's action for political gain. She clarified she felt Juneteenth was a significant time
of reflection for the country especially this year and in no way did she diminish the importance of this time
for reflection and healing of historic injustice. Her issue was with the process and the rush to judgment. She
suggested the City consider a floater holiday that could be used to observe Juneteenth, Kwanzaa, Historic
Heritage Month, Lunar New Year, LGBTQ+ Celebration, International Women's Day, Hanukkah,
Passover, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Persian New Year, or Ramadan or others. She summarized it
would be good to have a floater holiday that employees could use for their personal and religious needs.
Councilmember L. Johnson expressed appreciation for the ordinance and tonight's proclamation
recognizing June 19t" as Juneteenth Independence Day in the City of Edmonds. July 4' is a paid holiday,
the celebration of the 1776 Declaration of Independence, of freedom from British rule, a version of freedom
that did not include everyone. It wasn't until June 19, 1865 that slavery was abolished in the last remaining
state. She recalled a mention last week of folding the Juneteenth celebration into the July 4"' celebration.
To anyone considering that suggestion, she urged them to study the historical significance of each date; in
her own studies, she found the perspective of Reverend Ronald Miner, Senior, founder of the National
Juneteenth Foundation, helpful. He states, "For some, the 4"' of July tells only half the story of freedom in
America and the 19"' of June completes the cycle of independence day celebrations in America. The 4"' of
July freed the land from Britain and the 19"' of June freed all the people. So you can't really talk about
freedom in America unless you talk about the 4"' of July and the 19"' of June." Four years ago Edmonds
began to recognize Indigenous Peoples Day and though it was a small step, it was a step toward recognizing
the true history of this land and undoing the whitewashing many of us were taught. With the recognition of
Juneteenth, Edmonds takes another small step in the continued fight for true freedom and recognition of all
who inhabit the land. If the City has July 4"' a paid holiday, June 19"' also needs to be paid holiday.
Mayor Nelson said this ordinance is significant because of how slavery is tied to the country's history. It
existed before the United States was a country, as far back as 1619. It existed when independence was
declared in all 13 colonies. The most revered founding fathers, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson,
James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, were slave owners. A majority of the signers of the Declaration of
Independence and half the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were slave owners. Eight of the first
twelve United States presidents were slave owners. Slavery is so common in this country's history that it
had its own section in the United States Constitution, Article I Section 2, Clause 3, refers to give these
other persons representation as three -fifths of a person. Slavery was the focal point of a civil war, the only
time United States citizens have fought each other. People were enslaved in the land we have inhabited for
246 years. From emancipation in 1865 to today, it is past time to commemorate and celebrate the end of
enslaving people in this country. For 156 years it has not been recognized, there has been thought about the
process, and the merits of this as a potential holiday have been considered, and for 156 years it has not been
acknowledged and it is time to do the right thing. He hoped the Council would join the Washington State
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 23
Legislature, which is well known for being partisan, in their overwhelming bipartisan support. The
Washington State Senate voted 47-1; the State House voted 89-9, the United States Senate unanimously
passed a resolution today making Juneteenth a federal holiday and the House is moving expeditiously to
consider it. He was hopeful the Council would take action so the City could recognize this as a City holiday
to celebrate Freedom Day, Jubilee Day, Liberation Day, and Emancipation Day as Juneteenth.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND FOR ANOTHER 15 MINUTES TO 10:30 P.M. SO WE CAN FINISH
UP COMMENTS. MOTION FAILED (3-4) FOR LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY,
COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND K. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST,
FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE
VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON ABSTAINING.
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
14. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Nl Cj liol & iFA k*,- �FnQ,
MICHAEL NELSON, MAYOR SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 24
Legislature, which is well known for being partisan, in their overwhelming bipartisan support. The
Washington State Senate voted 47-1; the State House voted 89-9, the United States Senate unanimously
passed a resolution today making Juneteenth a federal holiday and the House is moving expeditiously to
consider it. He was hopeful the Council would take action so the City could recognize this as a City holiday
to celebrate Freedom Day, Jubilee Day, Liberation Day, and Emancipation Day as Juneteenth.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND FOR ANOTHER 15 MINUTES TO 10:30 P.M. SO WE CAN FINISH
UP COMMENTS. MOTION FAILED (3-4) FOR LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY,
COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND K. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST,
FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE
VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON ABSTAINING.
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Co COi1i NI ['n'L- E NIINUI'ES
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
14. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
!►[ i GI.Co � �r i..tc 'Fob
MI AEL NELSON, MAYOR SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 24
Public Comment for 6/15/21 Council Meeting:
From: Ken Reidy
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 12:34 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Nelson, Michael
<Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen
<Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Neill Hoyson, Jessica
<Jessica.NeillHoyson@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comments for the June 15, 2021 City Council Meeting
Per ECC 1.04.020:
In the event the city council is unable to complete its agenda on any Tuesday, it may recess
the meeting to the immediately following Wednesday at the same time and place as the
commencement of the meeting for which the agenda was incomplete. Nothing herein shall be
construed to prevent the city council from continuing any item before it in public meeting to a
future regularly scheduled Tuesday meeting of the city council. [Ord. 1606 § 2, 1972].
ECC 1.04.040 does not say that the Mayor and City Council President can "confer" after City
Council has approved the Agenda and decide on their own that an approved Agenda Item will
be addressed at a Future Meeting.
When and how did Mayor Nelson and Council President Susan Paine "confer" after the June
1, 2021 Agenda was approved near the start of the June 1, 2021 City Council meeting? Why did
they decide to move "Resolution adopting Council Rules of Procedures" to a Future
Meeting? Why should I even have to ask these questions? Should not all business of the
Governing Body be conducted openly? Was this type of conduct addressed in Open Public
Meeting Act training for Elected Officials?
I understand that Mayor Nelson is clearly part of the Governing Body as the presiding officer of
the Governing Body, but can the City Council President and the Mayor decide to change the
Agenda without City Council voting to approve such? This makes no sense to me. Why approve
an Agenda if the Mayor and Council President can later "confer" and change the agenda
without a City Council vote?
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 25
As this act has taken place, what will be done about it?
Yesterday, an extended Agenda was displayed on the City's website for the first time since May
28, 2021. The Extended Agenda, dated June 11, 2021, indicates this topic will be discussed
during the July 20th Council Meeting. Why such a long delay? What exactly is going on? This
was on the June 1st Agenda, an agenda approved by vote of the City Council.
Edmonds likes to claim it welcomes all people. How is refusing to answer reasonable citizen
questions "welcoming"? The last email response I received from an Edmonds Mayor was in
March of 2012.
I believe I have asked hundreds of reasonable questions over the last nine plus years. Do all
elected officials welcome all people? Please be truthful. Edmonds also does not follow or
enforce its Code of Ethics which states Elected Officials shall keep the community informed on
municipal affairs and encourage communications between the citizens and all municipal
officers. Emphasize friendly and courteous service to the public and each other; seek to
improve the quality of public service, and confidence of citizens.
From: Michael Landau
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 8:35 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmonds Salary Commission
Hello,
Please do not disband the Edmonds Salary Commission. This will only exacerbate the lack of
trust that the public has with the current administration and Council.
Thank you,
Michael Landau
From: ACE President
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2021 4:58 PM
To: Paine, Susan <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Teresa Wippel <teresa@myedmondsnews.com>;
Edmonds Beacon Editor <edmondseditoryourbeacon@gmail.com>
Subject: Lack of public posting of Council Extended Agendas for 2 weeks
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 26
Good afternoon Edmonds City Council president Paine,
It has come to our attention that this is now the second consecutive week a City Council
Extended Agenda has not been posted on the city website. The last one available to the public
and Edmonds residents was posted on Friday, May 28, 2021.
Having the public informed in a timely manner as to upcoming critical presentations, public
hearings, discussions, and actions is essential for people to be properly represented and
engaged with their city. Otherwise, how can they be prepared and attend meetings with zero
information received the past two weeks?
On page 224 of your June 1, 2021 Council Packet, it states as part of your desired Council Rules
of Procedures:
"3.5 Ordinances scheduled for Council action will generally receive three readings (with the
exception of items that have had a public hearing before the Planning Board). A. The first
reading will be the scheduling of the item on the Council Extended Agenda by title or subject. If
reasonably possible the item should be listed on the Extended Agenda at least two weeks prior
to the second reading. The Council President may authorize exceptions for items of an
emergency or unexpected nature requiring immediate action. The applicable portion of the
Council Extended Agenda will be appended to the meeting agenda and distributed and posted
along with the agenda. B. The second reading will be scheduled for review and discussion by
the full City Council or a Council Committee. Items of a minor or routine nature may bypass this
meeting and be scheduled directly to a Consent Agenda. In such cases Council shall by motion,
waive the second reading as part of the adopting motion. C. The third reading will be Council
review and action at a subsequent meeting."
Is there any explanation for this consistent lack of notice? Please advise and be clear as to the
reasons. Is this a mistake? A change in process? Because of the change, oversight, or whatever
the reasons, we ask that all future scheduled agenda items related to this change will be
delayed at a minimum three weeks from when the next extended agenda is publicly posted so
Edmonds residents can properly catch-up and participate in the government process that is
everyone's democratic right.
I understand there is also a future special council meeting regarding housing policy on June 24,
2021 that was made known only to select citizen recipients last week but has not been publicly
announced; not visible on the current city calendar or on an extended agenda (as none posted)
so now we have insufficient notice for public engagement on intended housing policy
discussions that you previously promised would be transparent. And occurring well before you
agreed to return to in -person Council meetings which is also extremely disconcerting.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 27
What is happening with the promise of open local government that you as Council Chair are
largely responsible for leading?
Sincerely,
Dr. Michelle Dotsch, on behalf of
The Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds (ACE)
From: Christina McDonald
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2021 6:46 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Council
<Council@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: In person City Council meetings
Hello,
I strongly support the return to in -person City Council meetings. With such a high number of
citizens vaccinated, I feel these can be conducted safely. Giving the opportunity to participate
via Zoom, if desired, would serve all.
Thank you!
Christina McDonald
Edmonds resident
206-999-3044
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 28