Loading...
cmd070621EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING APPROVED MINUTES July 6, 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 CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec. & Cultural Serv. Dir. Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director Thom Sullivan, Facilities Maintenance Mgr. Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Nicholas Falk, Deputy City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Olson 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." 3. ROLL CALL Deputy City Clerk Nicholas Falk called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested moving the presentation, Item 4.1, to Unfinished Business Item 8.1. The Council has seen it numerous times, before Council, behind closed doors and in committee, and it was time to vet it as unfinished business. She asked City Attorney Jeff Taraday if that could be done. Mr. Taraday asked for clarification whether her intent was to make the presentation 8.1. Councilmember Buckshnis said citizens and Council have had sufficient time to look at and understand the Civic Field process as well as being aware of it through public media releases, presentations to the Finance Committee and twice to Council. She summarized it was time to talk about it because citizens are anxious. Mr. Taraday said the Council was free to reorder the agenda; this is regular meeting, the Council can do whatever it wants. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 1 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO MOVE THE PRESENTATION ITEM 4.1 TO ITEM 8.1. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the April 13' Finance Committee meeting included a presentation regarding Civic Field. The Council has reviewed it several times over the past 7-10 years and everyone is aware of the project and what the Council's discussion should be about. A presentation does not allow time to ask questions and as the Council has plenty of time tonight because an item was pulled from the agenda, she suggested the Council begin vetting the project as there are issues related to bonding that are time sensitive as well as other issues that are not discussed during presentations. Council President Paine did not support moving this agenda item. This is the first presentation for the public; there will be a presentation to the Finance Committee next week regarding the topics Councilmember Buckshnis mentioned. The presentation is an opportunity to introduce the project to the broader public. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas encouraged Councilmembers not to support the motion. Staff s recommendation is a request for Council to consider three components to enable the start of the Civic Center Playfield Park project, 1) approve the three contracts, 2) selection of project alternatives and 3) address the project funding gap by committing to developing a funding program in the future to complete the two-year project. She supported continuing discussion regarding this project, pointing out the south beach project has been on the agenda much longer than this project and has not moved forward. The cost of this project is upward of $15M at this point and is not something that should be done in a box. In addition to the expense, there are no real parks in the Highway 99 areas other than one park with two parking spaces. If there is an opportunity to develop a park, she preferred to develop park space on the Highway 99 corridor. Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, that the Councilmembers comments were off the topic of the motion. Mayor Nelson agreed and suggested comments focus on the park that is the topic of motion. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said before this park is approved, she wanted an opportunity to discuss the impacts it will have on the rest of Edmonds. She wanted the Council to take a careful look before voting on this project. Councilmember Olson commented citizens are ready to move forward on this project and she had no objection to how it was listed on the agenda. Councilmembers can listen to the presentation and have the conversations that are allowed and if a Councilmember was not satisfied, they could make another motion during approval of the agenda to have further discussion. She will vote no on this motion and see what happens during the presentation. Councilmember K. Johnson said she supported having the presentation tonight as long as there was discussion in two weeks. This is an opportunity to have a presentation and learn the facts and for the public to make public comment in two weeks. She asked if the Council President anticipated there would be discussion in two weeks. Council President Paine answered it has been on the extended agenda for a week a half. Councilmember K. Johnson asked when it will return to the agenda for public comment. Council President Paine answered July 20'. Councilmember Distelhorst expressed support for moving ahead with the presentation. When the Council has had presentations in past, there has always been an opportunity to ask questions and have discussion. Councilmember Buckshnis clarified just because an item was unfinished business did not mean the Council would vote on it. She wanted to vet it because Councilmembers have received numerous emails about the project. The public is very invested in this project and want to hear the Council vet it. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 2 COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON CALLED THE QUESTION. VOTE ON CALL FOR THE QUESTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. 4. PRESENTATIONS CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD PARK CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS Parks, Rec. & Cultural Services Director Angie Feser relayed staff s request for Council consideration of approval of the Civic Center Playfield construction contracts at a future City Council meeting. She reviewed: • Purpose o Council consideration of - Project construction and service contracts ■ Projected alternates selection ■ Funding program for gap ■ History 0 2016 8-acres acquired from Edmonds School District 0 2017 Master Plan adopted 0 2018 Grant applications Parks CIP/CFP adoption Stadium grandstands demolished 0 2019 Bonds issued ($3.7m) 0 2020 Project bid unsuccessful 0 2021 Project re -bid A-1 Landscaping was the lowest responsive bidder, bid valid for 60 days (20 days remaining) • Project Design o Hazel Miller Meadows o Promenade o Lawn/Athletic Fields o Perimeter Path (Alternative #2 - Rubber Surface) o Sports courts o Field House/Boys & Girls Club o Skatepark o Scramble Wall (Alternative #3) o Water Feature (Alternate # 1) o Shade Pavilion o Restroom and Storage o P6tanque Grove o Inclusive Playground ■ Funding Sources o Budgeted Revenue Sources ■ Grants $3,470,000 - RCO $1,350,000 - Snohomish County Cons. Futures 450,000 - Hazel Miller Foundation 1,500,000 - Verdant 170,000 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 3 ■ General Fund 1,784,786* ■ Bonds 3,700,000 ■ Donations 400,000** ■ REET 2 (Fund 125) 1,307,488 + REET 1 (Fund 126) 108,389 ■ Park Impact Fees 1,352,620 ■ Total $12,123,282 * $2M identified and $215,214 available **Rotary Club of Edmonds raised $250,000 for inclusive playground • Full Project Expenditures/Gap o Construction $11,747,962 ■ Construction Contract (base bid) ■ Sales Tax (10.4%) ■ Owner Furnished Amenities • Management Reserve (12%) o Construction Support 1,476,463 • Walker Macy Construction Support* • KBA Construction Support* ■ City Engineering Staff Time + Testing o Construction Preparation 84,849 • Permits • City Engineering Fees o Stormwater Mitigation (Yost Park) 200,600 0 1% Art Donation 61,002 o Total Project with Base Bid $13,570,876 *Two additional contracts for Council consideration, required for implementation Project Funding $ 12,123,283 o Total Base Bid $ 13,570,876 o Difference $ (1,447,593) o Base Bid + Alternates (4) $ 15,036,131 o Difference $ (2,912,848) Construction Contract Alternatives* o Alternatives are fully designed, have permit approval and could be included in the park installation by adding them to the construction contract 1. Entry Plaza Water Feature $860,789 o Provides interactive water spray amenity at the entrance from 6th Avenue o Adding the alternate provides above ground features, infrastructure for water amenity currently included in base bid o If alternative not selected, feature could be installed at a later date, likely at a higher cost 2. Rubber Track Surface $186,853 o Provides rubberized surface to currently designed asphalt perimeter path o Rubberized surface selected by community during design process o Surface is environmentally friendly and uses recycled materials o Freeze/thaw resistant, porous, slip resistant, durable and commonly used in playgrounds, outdoor sports courts, water features, and flooring in recreational facilities o If alternative not selected, asphalt pathway would provide sufficient and commonly used surface. Surfacing could be installed at a later date but likely at a higher cost 3. Scramble Wall $373,882 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 4 o Uses required site grading and grooming to provide a shorter climbing wall feature o Stormwater treatment elements are located in this area and produce a grade elevation change which climbing wall utilizes o If alternative not selected, considerably more difficult and expensive to construct in the future due to grading component Total $1,465,255 * Cost includes administrative costs of sales tax, management reserve, 1 % Art Funding Options for Consideration 1. Revised park design/amenities o Project already significant value engineered o Design meets all grant requirements — changing the design would require returning to grant agencies to request modifications and possibly result in loss of grants o Could result in reduction of cost, but could jeopardize grant awards by elimination of elements o Project would be delayed for several years resulting in significant costs related to redesign, permitting and staff time 2. Phase construction — pay as you go o Reduce the need to borrow funds, but significantly delay the project o Would require reapplication or modification from granting agencies o Phasing would significantly restrict use of the park during entire duration of construction proj ect o More expensive due to costs associated with redesign and revised permitting 3. City Funds a) REET b) General Fund/Reserves o Would not require borrowing and project could proceed as planned without delay o Reduces or eliminates funds available for citywide operating budget and/or capital projects in the Parks and Public Works Departments near and long term including future funding for grant matches 4. Councilmanic Bond o Interest rates currently low, but would require committing debt service payments from City funds for the duration of the bond which could be up to 20 years, reducing funding available for other projects or grant matches 5. Bank loan o Interest rates currently low, but would require committing debt service payments from City funds for the duration of the loan which could be up to 20 years, reducing funding available for other projects or grant matches 6. Combination o Would require time to study and develop Recommendation: Further study by Finance Committee and Council to determine funding program Tonight's Discussion/Direction: 1. Consensus of the Council to advance the A-1 I A-1 Landscape Bid Contract $9,9770,238 Landscaping base bid contract, Walker Macy Walker Macy Amendment 91,473 contract amendment and KBA contract to the KBA Contract 613,251 July 13th council meeting for consideration of approval? 2. If so, which of the four project alternates #1 — Water Feature $860,789 should be included in the contract? #2 — Rubber Track Surface 186,853 #3 — Scramble Wall 373,882 #4 — Tree Grates 43,731 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 5 3. Does the Council request the Finance Base Bid Difference $(1,447,593) Committee develop a recommended funding Base Bid + 4 Alt Difference (2,912,848) program for the project's difference between estimated expenditures and currently allocated funding? Council President Paine expressed appreciation for the time staff has been spent on this. She supported the development of Civic Field, but because the costs are so high, the only alternate she supported was the track surface because it would get the most uniform use. She asked how long the track surface was expected to last. Ms. Feser answered she did not have that information readily available but envisioned it would be considerable. The product is widely used on playgrounds, spray pads, water features, etc. The technology was developed over multiple years and it has a lot of durability. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how this project would affect the purchase of other properties. She relayed it has been a priority of the current Mayor to develop a park in the east side of Edmonds. She asked how many parks there were in the City. Ms. Feser answered it depends on how they are classified, there were about 15-20, closer to 40 if the shared parks and pocket parks were included. For the sake of discussion, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas estimated there were 25 parks, but only one Edmonds park was located near the Highway 99 corridor, yet one-third of Edmonds' citizens live on the corridor. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how this project would affect the ability to purchase and develop new parks that would benefit people in that area. Ms. Feser responded looking at the impact of this project system -wide, the ability to do other projects including land acquisition and development, and the allocations earmarked for this project, the grants may not be transferable especially the RCO grants. Hazel Miller and Verdant may be willing to transfer some of the funds. The bonds are flexible enough to be used in the park system and are not necessarily earmarked for this project alone so they could be used for acquisition and development of other parks. There were allocations made to the acquisition program such as $200,000/year, a relatively small amount for land acquisition. She summarized this project would have a significant impact to the system as far as expansion or renovation. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the $15M+ allocated for this park would hurt the purchase and development of a park along the corridor. Ms. Feser agreed it would delay it, depending on grants. The PROS Plan is helping identify community priorities which will assist with developing the CIP, but that process will not occur until late this year or early next year. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested a survey for the PROS Plan might include a question whether residents on the corridor wanted a park in their area or downtown. Ms. Feser said that is being explored with the PROS Plan community survey that is out now and during the process, there are ways to refine the information from the preliminary survey. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Ms. Feser for the presentation and discussions as well as Deputy Director Burley who answered emailed questions while was on vacation. This is a keystone project for Edmonds. It went through an extensive public engagement as well as development of a master pan and in his opinion, the project needs to be completed. He viewed it as a "yes and" not an "either/or" because funds are being identified for other areas of the City in the future and the PROS Plan will assist in identifying future values and priorities the same way as the public engagement and master plan guided the Civic Field project. He expressed support for approving the three contracts when appropriate and beginning to evaluate the four alternatives and funding options. He suggested having the options laid out in a buffet format so they can be evaluated and possibly putting together 2-3 smaller options rather than one allocation from a single fund or reserve. He supported having the Finance Committee evaluate those options and bring something back for Council review. He agreed the track surface would be a high priority, recalling that was supported during the public engagement. The track surface is much safer for participants of all ages as Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 6 asphalt is not a friendly surface to fall on. He supported applying funding alternatives to the park alternatives to see what makes sense. Councilmember Buckshnis echoed Councilmember Distelhorst, this does not need to be an either/or but should be a yes and. She pointed out many people may not understand the time value of money, if the City bonds, rates are very low, and eventually inflation will spike. Bonding is very attractive but the rates are increasing so it is important to look at alternatives and think outside the box. During the initial discussions regarding the $3.7M bond, she expressed her preference for a $5M bond as she believed Civic Field would be more expensive due to the peat and underground water. Civic Field is Edmonds' central park. There can be an uptown park like Councilmember Fraley-Monillas mentioned, but the fact is people are drawn to the water and this is the central park. If the park design is changed and the master plan reopened, there will be substantial delays. A lot of citizens support the development of Civic Field. Bond financing would be advantageous due to the inflated property base and increased house sales. Bonding is investing for future people who will use the park. Rather than pay for it now, bonding will allow funds for a park up north or more parking up north. She expressed support for the track surface and the water feature, but she was unsure about the climbing wall because people can always go to REI and she has never seen anyone on the REI climbing wall. She supported moving forward and having the Finance Committee discuss the numbers. She summarized the City needs to complete its central park. Councilmember L. Johnson commented this was a difficult topic for her as her family participated in the open houses and outreach and were all very excited about the park; her son was excited about the skatepark and the water park. However, like many who support this park, it is right down the road from them and as a Councilmember she wondered if there is broad support across the community for this park or is it mostly in the downtown core. She wished the PROS Plan would be complete before moving forward as it would help answer those questions. There are also tradeoffs, potential opportunities the City may miss out on by choosing to move forward with this project. She summarized future opportunities combined with not having the PROS Plan update completed to provide a holistic view on the community's priorities make this a difficult decision. Councilmember Olson commented a lot of the concerns brought up by Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas and L. Johnson are things all Councilmembers have had on their minds. With regard to the alternatives, being able to cut some of the nice -to -haves and have those funds, financing or the REET investment to use in other ways is definitely the way to go. It would be great to have the alternatives; she put out some feelers about private philanthropy to fund some of the alternatives such as REI sponsoring the scramble wall. She suggested anyone with contacts approach REI about providing an amenity for Edmonds, but she not personally willing to invest in those extras at the park at this point. That said, she fully supports and understands how long it takes move something through the process and frankly Councilmembers Buckshnis and Fraley-Monillas were on the Council when Civic Field was approved. There was a huge investment of resources gathering public input at three different sessions. For example, getting one of the bids out cost $40,000; every time the project is delayed, stopped, or reconsidered, there is an additional huge expense. A modification to make the project a little less expensive results more expense due to redesign and bid processes and in the end results in less good stuff. She encouraged the Council to support the base project. She agreed if the Council chose one of amenities, she liked the rubberized track due to its broad use and broad benefit to so many ages. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was on the Council when the City was fortunate enough to purchase this property from the Edmonds School District. She was also the Council representative on the master plan for the project and participated in two previous PROS Plans. From a planning perspective this was identified as a significant project for the City through the PROS Plan, CIP and the CFP. She read comments from citizens that embody what this was about: "To date the Civic Park project represents an exemplary and outstanding community wide effort that has been supported throughout the community. The Edmonds Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 7 Petanque Club and its 72 members offer enthusiastic support for the Edmonds Civic project." Another citizen wrote, "A large segment of the public is behind you as you move forward." Several citizens asked the Council to move forward without the additional elements; one wrote, "There are diminishing returns for additional elements. In other words, we need to develop the park more than we need a water element or a climbing wall. We already have a very fine spray area at City Park and a climbing wall at the Frances Anderson Center." Councilmember K. Johnson referred to a public television program about city parks and the vision for those parks. Civic Field has been used by the City for 75 years as part of the Edmonds senior and junior high. It is a very flat area, part of ancient Pleistocene era waterbed which is the reason for the high water table. This is a wonderful opportunity and she hoped to move forward with the contracts as soon as possible as the additional elements will not jeopardize the funding. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled past votes on this project were not unanimous, one Councilmember voted against it and wanted to do pay as you go. In her opinion, the City's central park was City Park not Civic Park. She questioned the suggestion to visit REI's climbing wall which is located in Seattle. The 22% of the Edmonds population who are people of color predominately live in east Edmonds. Approving another park downtown is creating social equity and equality issues in Edmonds. She approved of this park in the past when it was $4-5M, not $15M. If only one of the City's parks is located between the corridor and Woodway, that is very unequitable. She reiterated City Park is Edmonds' central park; it cost millions and includes a water feature and specialized playgrounds. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed City Park was a great park that she loved taking her son to, but it was three miles from her home. If she wanted to take children to a park, she was more likely go to Mountlake Terrace or Shoreline instead of driving into downtown Edmonds to visit a park that her tax dollars paid for. She encouraged the Council to think about the equality and equity of having only one Edmonds -owned park with two parking spaces from almost Woodway to east Edmonds. She acknowledged there is a county park in the area, but it is owned by Snohomish County and the City does not control it. She said living in a neighborhood that is not in the downtown core is a totally different environment and the residents deserve to have money spent there. Councilmember Buckshnis commented there are about 48 parks in Edmonds according to the City's website. She agreed it is an equity issue and Highway 99 has been the money making machine corridor. She did not agree that City Park is Edmonds' central park and said Civic Field is the central park. She recalled Councilmember K. Johnson supported pay as you go and she still does. It does not matter how Councilmembers voted in the past, the City is deep into this project and a great deal of time has been invested including a huge public process that included people outside the bowl. She suggested if the Council approved the base bid and financed the project via bonds, there is still plenty of money to purchase property in the Highway 99 area. She commented Esperance did a great job with their park. She supported moving forward with the Civic Field project. Councilmember Olson said talking about other potential projects muddies the waters. As Councilmember Buckshnis said, the City is so deep into this project and so much time, effort and money has been invested to get to this point and it will only get more expensive. She supported proceeding with the base project and continuing with the planning and thought process for other park opportunities and using the money that is not spent on the alternatives to make that happen. Councilmember Olson said it was not that she did not support doing parks in other parts of the City because she absolutely did, but residents do not utilize and enjoy parks thinking about the City boundaries. Edmonds residents enjoy a lot of parks that are not Edmonds parks including Esperance Park in the unincorporated area of Edmonds, parks on the City's boundaries such as Lynnwood's Gold Park, and county parks such as Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 8 the park on Olympic View Drive or Meadowdale Beach Park. She summarized Civic Field is a great project that is very far along and she did not find it prudent for the Council to turn its back on the project, but could instead make cuts if funding was not available. She clarified she was not telling people to go to the climbing wall in Seattle, her suggestion was REI may be interested in sponsoring a climbing wall at Civic Field rather than the City funding it. Councilmember L. Johnson said while listening to the conversation, she was struck by the support for moving forward with this project, but the acknowledgement by Councilmembers that the Highway 99 area and other parts of the City do not have same amenities. She referred to comments that Highway 99 is a money maker for the City and that the Civic Field project needs to continue because of how deep the City is into the project. If Highway 99 is a money maker for the City, but does not have parks, she questioned why Civic Field has been the main focus. She referred to comments that there is plenty of money to purchase property on Highway 99, commenting she has not seen that information and would like to have those discussions. The PROS Plan identifies what the community as a whole wants and the available funding. That was information she did not have; all she had was a lot of passionate people who, like her, have supported this project. She did not have the information that the City could acquire property along Highway 99 to address the equity component that has been missing, especially if Highway 99 is the City's money maker. The City has been deep into projects in the past and have done a U-turn or paused. She summarized she was struggling because this was not matching up for her. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented there are 48 parks in Edmonds and there is I pocket park with 2 parking spaces on the Highway 99 corridor. She agreed surveys were done in the past, but they were not done in different languages, only in English. She questioned how many surveys came from people in the Highway 99 for whom English was not their first language. With regard to being deep into projects, she referred to the "bridge to nowhere" or the "emergency offramp to the ferry system" and the absolutely outrageous the amounts of money spent on that project before it was stopped. She referred to comments about a park on Olympic View Drive or Meadowdale Beach Park, pointing out those were still in downtown Edmonds. To the comment that residents could go to parks in Mountlake Terrace and Shoreline, she found it absolutely amazing that someone would say go to a park in another city because the City is not going to provide a park in the Highway 99 area. She recommended slowing down and taking a look at this, recognizing the costs could be more, just like they were for the connector or the "offramp onto the beach," but the decision to stop that project was appropriate. She summarized with regard to equity and equality, "we don't have it up here as the money makers in Edmonds." Councilmember Olson clarified she has looked at this and has been giving it deep thought. The parallel to the connector project is a false parallel in that there were things in the end that made people think that that project was a mistake. No one is thinking that developing Civic Park is a mistake, the intent is to identify a budget that is realistic, realizing a lot of money has been raised by interested community members such as the inclusive playground funded by the Rotary. This park is something the community has been behind and taking all or most of the alternatives off the table will allow the City to save money for other purposes that the Council is committed to. Ms. Feser summarized this is on the extended agenda for the July 13'b meeting. She will bring forward the contracts with the alternative track surfacing for the Council to vote on and have the Finance Committee work on a funding package. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if a public hearing was needed, recognizing there may not be enough time as there were only 20 days until the bids expired. Ms. Feser answered the bid is only valid for the next two Council meetings. Councilmember Buckshnis anticipated the public would provide comment over the next two weeks. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 9 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, 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, challenged the Council before they voted on any ordinance to ask themselves whether it infringes on the constitutional rights of any citizen or their property rights and the answer should determine their vote. Every ordinance should be written so it encompasses the freedoms and rights of every citizens without infringing on another. This is the law and what America stands for. If the Council's actions harm or deter the rights to one's property, freedom, right to earn income or pursuit of happiness, Councilmembers are violating their office and the constitution. It was telling when City Attorney Taraday couldn't answer an immediate yes to Councilmember K. Johnson's question whether the City has the ability to control private property and trees; the tree ordinance required a yes. Woodway treasures its trees so much that a two-way street was made into one-way because a tree had grown into it. In 1999 Woodway attempted to restrict the property rights of a developer because of trees; it was litigated and the Growth Management Hearings Board determined the developer was able to build twice the number of homes they originally applied for, four per acre. Woodway purchased a portion of the land and designated it for trails. Woodway formed their tree code within the law as follows: a developer can remove only 5% of the trees from the property. The exemption is the footprint of the home with a 25 foot perimeter for safety. Ms. Ferkingstad said Woodway does not charge property owners for removing trees unless removed without permit. Woodway has an allowance for the number of trees that can be removed per year, including one exceptional or 30" DBA every five years. Edmonds' tree ordinance is illegal; it is a taking of property by regulation and fees. She suggested Edmonds learn from Woodway and achieve their goals legally. Her family's plans for three homes on 1.2 acres zoned residential comply with Edmonds' guidelines of 30% tree retention. She was thankful for the exemption from fees if they are able to retain 50% of the trees, but found this arbitrary because many would not qualify. It is illegal for Edmonds to charge anyone for the worth of their trees even with the cap of $2/square foot of property which would be $100,000 in their case. When a neighbor's tree is taken without permission, state law requires they are entitled to three times the tree's worth. She asked whether Edmonds taxpayers would be responsible for three times their trees' worth that the City is taking from them. People can save trees by their own actions, not by controlling others, by not buying furniture, wood siding, wood floors, paper towels, or toilet paper which all use trees. Trees are a valuable and renewable resource. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Fraley-Monillas requested Item 7.5 be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DUNE 22, 2021 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 24, 2021 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 10 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 4. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM SHMUEL AMIT AND KRISTY BIRDSAL 8. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT ORDINANCE FOR TREE REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT CLARIFICATIONS (Previously Consent Agenda Item 7.5) Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained she pulled this from the Consent Agenda to vote against it for a number of reasons related to community input such as Ms. Ferkingstad's concerns with costs related to developing their own property. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with pulling this from the Consent Agenda. She expressed concern with the piecemeal approach to the tree code and never discussing flexible design standards in 20.75.048. She voted no on the tree ordinance previously and wanted to vote no again. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4227, AN ORDINANCE FOR TREE REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2) COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS 1. JOB ORDER CONTRACTING - PROPOSAL AND AGREEMENT Public Works Director Phil Williams explained staff has been working on Job Ordering Contracting (JOC) for some time, beginning last year with changes to the purchasing policy to prepare to add this procurement method to the existing methods. An RFP was developed and circulated and Gordian was eventually selected as the JOC administrator and a contract was negotiated. Mr. Williams reviewed JOC, an additional Washington State procurement option: • What is Job Order Contracting? o RCW 39.10.420 to RCW 39.10.460: o A job order contract is a fixed time period, indefinite quantity delivery system which provides for the use of negotiated, individual work orders for public works projects ► Procurement Options o Design — Bid — Build o Design — Build o ESCO project delivery o General contractor/Construction Manager at risk o Small Works Roster o Job Order Contracting • General Reasons to choose JOC o When you expect to have multiple projects that range from $25,000 to $500,000 (maximum) o When the total volume of work is less than $4 million per year per JOC contractor (up to 3) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 11 o When you have limited owner staff or skills availability for efficient implementation of other procurement methods o When there is need for earlier project delivery than other procurement methods can achieve • Unique aspects of JOC o The owner can discontinue use of the JOC contract at any time o A partnership with a consistent JOC Contractor leads to trust and a familiarity with the owner's unique needs and procedures o Frequent value engineering produces the best balance of quality, efficacy and cost o Use of the Unit Price Book (Means Database) results in accurate projects costs o Eliminates the "change order philosophy" since charges are based on current regional unit prices • Some benefits of JOC for owners o Reduced lead time — no need to plan or prepare bid documents and drawings for each work order o Eliminated bid time o Expedited engineering, since JOC projects often require little architectural or engineering services for construction of most projects o Joint scoping and rescoping as needed • Increased opportunity for small and disadvantages business as JOC does the following: o Furnishes bonding for most subcontractors o Completes "red tape" requirements o Uses a best value bid analysis for subcontractors and partners with subcontractors o Recruits small and disadvantaged businesses as desired o Coaches subcontractors in all aspects of quality work, safety and project management (as needed) o Pays subcontractors promptly, typically subcontractors payment is not tied to JOC..... Councilmember Buckshnis said the Finance Committee recommended forwarding this to full Council. She observed the maximum was $500,000 per project but it can go up to $3M. Mr. Williams explained state law establishes a maximum amount for a JOC system for cities and counties; the current maximum for each individual project (job order) is $500,000 and there can be three JOCs under the JOC administrator. Each of the three contractor could do up to $4M/year, but it is limited to $500,000 per project. Edmonds is not planning anything close to those numbers, but there can be multiple JOCs and multiple projects in a year of various sizes, but they cannot exceed those limits. Councilmember Buckshnis asked Mr. Williams to explain the RS Means Database that Gordian maintains. Mr. Williams explained Gordian has worked for years to add project data to the database such as the cost of a square foot of drywall installed nationally, regionally and locally; costs for excavation, soil disposal, roofing, etc. which can be sorted to determine current prices. He described the process of developing a price; the project sponsor describes the project to Gordian, provides drawings, descriptions, scope, etc., Gordian then develops a proposal and price working with the JOC. The City has the option of accepting, negotiating, or rejecting the price, doing the project later or doing a different project. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff for the complete packet. Council President Paine asked what this would primarily be used for, commenting she understood JOC from her previous employment. Mr. Williams said the intent was to start slow, small facilities projects such as office build outs, partition walls, flooring, painting, small roofing projects, etc. to see how the City liked it. He suspected the City would like it and would start doing larger projects. He commented the maximum of $500,000 could allow utility and civil work, paving, etc. Council President Paine asked if Gordian had access to JOCs with that technical expertise. Mr. Williams answered yes. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 12 Councilmember Distelhorst said he was supportive of this when it came to Council previously and when it was presented to committee. He appreciated the memo regarding Disadvantaged Businesses (DBE) and Women and Minority Owned Businesses (WMBE) and asked how that applies, who develops the inclusion targets, and whether it would be project -by -project or an annual target. Michael Celesta, Gordian, answered they have setting up JOC programs for over 30 years and have several clients in Washington. They have been able to incubate local WMBE contractors on a program level and a per project level. As the owner, the City can dictate those goals or inclusion requirements. He is working with Seattle Public Schools and that is a large part of implementing their JOC program. Councilmember Distelhorst observed Gordian had a lot of local, relevant experience. Mr. Celesta agreed, explaining they can set up the program with the City's inclusion requirements. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if this will include prevailing wage. Mr. Williams answered yes, the City must comply with local purchasing policies, provisions and financing requirements; there is no change to that. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if it will include women, POC, LGBTQ as far as priority contracting. Mr. Williams answered it absolutely can, the City can include whatever it wants. He cautioned there may be limits on that because it can affect outcomes. Having not done that before, he was unable to state the pros and cons, but the City could definitely specify minority and women owned businesses and can include other equity issues and modify it as necessary. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was specifically interested in prevailing wage and equity issues. She asked how much this would cost the City. Mr. Williams answered the contract the Council is being asked to approve does not have an upfront cost. Gordian will be paid as projects are approved; Gordian works with the JOC to develop a proposal and present it to the City. When the City accepts the proposal, Gordian is paid a fee of 5% of the project cost. The City can also exercise the option of hiring Gordian to do project management which is an additional 5.95%. Two levels of service can be provided on a project, 1) 5% for Gordian working with the JOC to develop a proposal and City staff manages the project, or 2) 10.95% for Gordian to do project administration and management and deliver the project. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the professional services agreement was time limited. Mr. Williams answered yes, there is a fixed term but the parties can enter into another agreement. Councilmember K. Johnson asked the length of this agreement. Mr. Celesta recalled it was 3-4 years. Mr. Williams explained although the City intends to utilize the agreement, it does not have to. If at some point it doesn't work, the City can stop using it. The time period is not that key because it could be extended or stopped. Councilmember K. Johnson asked how many responses there were to the RFP and what process was used to select Gordian. Mr. Williams answered the RFP was circulated in accordance with the purchasing policy and the City received only one submittal. He has researched other JOC administrators and has not found others. Councilmember K. Johnson referred to the long list of deferred maintenance projects and asked if this could help get some of them done. Mr. Williams answered absolutely, that is a perfect example of projects that could be done. The key is funding; if funding is available, a lot of work can be done in a hurry via JOC. Councilmember K. Johnson found JOC very positive and asked if additional engineering staff would need to be hired. Mr. Williams did not anticipate needing to hire anyone; staff will work with Gordian for the next 2-3 months to get the system up and running and then identify some projects to get started with. Councilmember K. Johnson said she supported a process that gave a bonus 10% points to WMBE. She recalled that method was used when she worked in King County; things would be rated and 10% added for businesses that fell into that category. Mr. Williams answered that was not how this system worked. If the Council approves the contract, as the program is set up, staff will work with Gordian to select JOC. The JOCs are limited to 10% of the project expenditures, the rest has to be subcontracted. The City will set the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 13 criteria for selecting JOC, but will not be directly involved in the actual selection. The City can work with Gordian to ensure that some of the City's favorite and local contractors on the list. That happens behind the scenes and the City is presented with a cost proposal. Councilmember K. Johnson expressed interest in setting that policy. Mr. Celesta said they have worked with King County and other clients in Washington. The way JOC works, while not the primary benefit but a secondary tertiary benefit, is they are able to meet inclusionary requirements which recycle dollars back into the community to DBE and WMBE businesses. If the City is already tracking that, they would appreciate those metrics, but the City can set the bar and they will set it up on a program level to ensure projects are meeting those inclusion requirements on a per project level. This program can help the City incubate those contractors within the local community and achieve those goals. Mr. Williams said the size of the project will dictate the number of opportunities, the bigger the project is and the broader scope is, the more options there will be. Mr. Celesta said they do this across the nation. Washington is unique because the RCW explicitly states how JOC is done; 10% by prime and 90% by subcontracts. That bodes well for this type of scenario because the JOC will ensure the subcontractors meet the inclusion goals. Mr. Williams thanked Facilities Maintenance Manager Thom Sullivan who has been working with Gordian for over a year on this program. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE JOB ORDER CONTRACTING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT CONTRACT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. 2. UPDATE TO CITY COMPENSATION POLICY HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson recalled two weeks ago she presented how comparator cities are selected. She reviewed: • Background o City is engaging a compensation consultant in 2021 to review the majority of City positions o Policy was last updated in 2012 o Council has changed since then and this policy should reflect the wishes of current Council o Current policy does not reflect PERC supported practices in selection of comparators o Current policy does not reflect a focus on pay equity o Current policy language needs editing for ease of understanding • Key Changes o Clear philosophy statement that addresses pay equity o Adds definition of terms used in the policy o Establishes compensation goals o Establishes best practice, Public Employment Relations Commission supported, methodology for selection of comparators ■ Compensation Philosophy o A compensation philosophy answers the "why" behind employee pay. In a formal, written statement, a compensation philosophy should identify the organization's pay programs and reward strategies and create a framework for consistency. This basis will serve as the guiding principles that drive decision making regarding compensation. • Why is Compensation Philosophy Necessary? o Compensation philosophies are used to attract, retain, and motivate employees. There are several reasons why our organization should have a clear, updated compensation philosophy. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 14 o Demonstrate commitment w By taking the time to ensure fair compensation strategies, the City can help employees feel appreciated. According to a survey by the American Psychological Association, 93% of employees said they are motivated to do their best work when they feel valued. Having a clear updated compensation philosophy will show City employees that we are invested in them. o Retain employees The way the City approaches compensation can have a direct impact on employee satisfaction. In fact, how employees feel about our pay process can be even more important than how much they're paid. According to a PayScale survey, an employee's perception of payroll processes is "5.4 times more impactful on how satisfied they are than how they're paid relative to market." That suggests that if we are fair and transparent about compensation, employee satisfaction and retention rates could increase. o Attract talent ■ Having a compensation policy that is clear and reflective of best practices can also impact the employees we attract. Publishing or sharing our compensation philosophy with job candidates should attract more talent and help find the right people whose needs and values align with our philosophy. Candidates appreciate organizations that are transparent about pay, and updating the compensation policy should directly impact the number and quality of applicants we receive. o Ensure equal pay While there are allowable pay differences based on factors not prohibited by law, our compensation philosophy should show equal pay for equal work and apply that in practice. This will not only show current employees but also prospective employees that we are an organization that values equity. 5.2 COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY (What we are trying to achieve) o The City's compensation program should be designed to attract and retain dedicated, hardworking, diverse, and talented employees who effectively support the mission of the City. Therefore, the City's compensation philosophy shall be competitive in the relative market considering all appropriate factors. Those factors include, but are not limited to, compensation provided by comparable cities, pay equity and internal equity, and fiscal resources available to the City. The total compensation program is made up of both pay and benefits. o The guiding principles set forth in this policy are expressed as general goals, with a full understanding that wages and benefits are mandatory subjects of bargaining for represented employees. This policy applies to non -represented City employees. It may also serve as a guideline for the City Council in its decision making with regard to labor negotiations. Compensation adjustment for non -represented employees are subject to City Council approval; compensation adjustments for represented employees are subject to collective bargaining, and ratification by the union(s) and City Council. 5.4 COMPENSATION GOALS o The City's compensation philosophy is to be competitive in the relevant labor market considering all appropriate factors. To carry out that philosophy, the City's compensation goals are: ■ To attract and retain, dedicated, hardworking, diverse, talented employees who are well qualified to perform their duties in an ever evolving municipal government environment; ■ To pay employees fairly and to ensure pay equity and internal equity; ■ To be externally competitive by providing compensation commensurate with the labor market; ■ To be fiscally responsible and legally defensible. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 15 o The Compensation Policy then outlines how we will achieve our established goals. Key to achieving our compensation goals is establishing the relevant labor market. This is done by the selection of comparable cities. ■ 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. o There is no such uniform approach! o However, over time certain criteria have been used more than others. 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 it 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 bandwidth 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. it 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 bandwidth 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 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 16 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 are Edmonds comparables? 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 Population Burien King 52,300 Bothell King/Snohomish 48,400 P uyallup 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 *Cities in italics are the same as the comparables under the current process in policy o Using the PERC supported methodology of population, assessed valuation, assessed valuation per capita, (with a 50% up-and-down bandwidth) and establishing the geographic labor market as Snohomish, King, Pierce and Thurston Counties, you get the fo lowing com arahles. city County Population Assessed Value Per Capita Issaquah King 38,690 11, 966, 058, 762 309,280 Edmonds Snohomish 42,470 11.,0112'221,440 259,271 Bothell King/Snohomish 48,400 12, 354, 415, 516 255,257 Mukilteo Snohomish 21,360 5,444,416,654 254,888 SeaTac King 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 1 52,300 7, 794, 662, 044 14A 038 Olympia Thurston 54,150 7,741,414,390 142,962 Lacey Thurston 52,910 1 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. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 17 ■ 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; ■ City priorities; ■ Internal anomalies in alignment, disparities, or inconsistencies; ■ Significant changes in the economy or marketplace; ■ Limitations on available financial resources Councilmember Distelhorst expressed appreciation for the review of the overall philosophy and the direction the policy is headed. He recalled the policy had not been updated since 2012 and the City was trying to catch up and align with best practices. He asked about the industry best practice for how often this type of policy should be evaluated. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered it depends on how long it has been since the last update. She suggested the compensation policy should be evaluated every five years. She pointed out all compensation decisions come to the Council. This policy provides the broader, overarching policy; individual reviews, such as non -rep compensation, come to Council and at that time the Council can address changing the market position for example or considering the City's finances. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the Edmonds comparables include two cities from Pierce County and none from Thurston within the population range. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered the list starts with population; there is a very long list of cities within the population policy. The list is then further narrowed by the assessed valuation bandwidth. Cities that are within the 50% up-and-down bandwidth on population may fall out because they are outside the assessed valuation bandwidth. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to the list of Edmonds comparables, commenting they were primarily King County cities and two from Pierce County. Considering that a starter house in King County is $1M, she was concerned that Edmonds comparables were far down the list compared to Pierce and Thurston counties. Ms. Neill Hoyson said all the comparators that meet the PERC established requirements would be used. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked why there were none from Thurston County. Ms. Neill Hoyson pointed out there are two from Thurston County, Olympia and Lacey. She clarified there are two comparable lists, the first list is cities that meet the current policy, cities 10,000 above and below Edmonds' population. There are none in Thurston County that meet that requirement. The second list applies the PERC supported methodology for choosing comparators which starts with population 50% up-and-down and further narrows the list using assessed valuation 50% up-and-down . She included per capita as she found it a better indicator for the amount that can be expended per citizen. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if county or state employees with similar jobs were included. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered county and states, due to their different revenues sources, are not necessarily comparators for the City. The policy does have flexibility if at some point there is a job that does not match well and only counties have that job and then adjust for the county's revenue sources. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the state pays much lower than cities followed by the county. Ms. Neill Hoyson said the state and county are not considered like -employers to cities according to PERC. Council President Paine commented she liked having the assessed valuation information, noting most of Edmonds' revenue comes from property taxes and it makes sense to compare to like communities. If the intent is to target the 50' percentile, she asked if there would be additional flexibility in terms of recruitment and retention with a range between the 50t' and 601 percentile. She asked the difference between the 60' and 50t' percentile. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered moving to 60' percentile would marginally lead the market. If the goals was to lead the market, it would need to be the 70' percentile. The 60t' percentile would be a slightly leading approach, but not a significant monetary impact to employees. There may be times when Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 18 she recommends a leading approach in certain jobs or categories for reasons of recruitment, succession or retention. While some may think a meet -the -market approach is average or mediocre, a majority of organizations take that approach. Council President Paine appreciated the flexibility in the compensation policy to provide bonuses when necessary. Councilmember K. Johnson appreciated Ms. Neill Hoyson showing the current comparators and the proposed PERC approach to population and assessed valuation. She asked if that needed to be included in the compensation policy because the method is not definitive. She was unsure how the comparator graph fit into Chapter 5. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered "how we choose comparators" is included in the updated compensation policy in the market definition. What is not included is establishing the 50% up-and-down bandwidth. She did not recommend including the list of comparators in the policy because population and assessed valuations change and the cities on the list may change. If Council wanted to lock in the 50% up- and-down bandwidth as policy, that can be add to the market definition section. Councilmember K. Johnson agreed with that suggestion. Councilmember L. Johnson appreciated the updated policy and the philosophy behind it, noting it was likely overdue and she appreciated moving forward with it. She recalled Ms. Neill Hoyson mentioning the mission of the City and asked if she was referencing a specific mission statement or the general mission of cities. Ms. Neill Hoyson said she meant the general mission, particularly as it related to equity work the City is doing, a broader statement of the mission and as the City moves forward, she envisioned more documents supporting that mission like policies, equity roadmap, etc. Councilmember Olson said she has been ruminating on this and gets stuck on the fact that the City's assessed valuation does not represent the workforce. From a percentage standpoint, the highest valued properties are people who have saved their entire live and were finally able to purchase their dream house. She wondered if it was fair and did the City have to pay more because some people were wealthier or had higher valued properties than the general area when the workforce comes from the general area. The big picture of that component is being implemented without an acknowledgement of the fact that it will put Edmonds in a higher bracket than the workforce it is competing with in the general area. The talent Edmonds is looking for is not necessarily in the comparator cities, although she noted Lynwood was one of Edmonds' comparator cities. As the policy used only population in the past, Councilmember Olson pointed out this change will have a significant impact on the budget. That was fine to the extent it was something the City needed to do to retain and attract talent, but if there was a way to do an assessed valuation based on south Snohomish County versus Edmonds alone, it would still reflect the property values in Edmonds. If that was PERC defensible, she was interested in knowing how that would impact the comparator cities. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered assessed valuation is PERC's way of saying these are the resources the city has to pay for the work that needs to be done. It is not the cost of housing or the cost of living in a city, it is purely the revenue the city receives that can be used to pay employees to do the work. That is how PERC determines like and similar employees. There is no way to use geography as the primary way of determining comparators, that does not work with the way PERC has established its processes. Councilmember Olson said that was something to keep in mind when determining whether the City wants to meet market, knowing that that extra is paid on the front. When someone is competing for a job around Edmonds, if they are meeting the market also, it might pay less than Edmonds pays. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered Council could choose to remove certain geographic areas such as not considering cities in King County because they pay more. King County is in very close proximity to Edmonds so it is a competitor for labor. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 19 Councilmember Buckshnis said she has had the same thoughts as Councilmember Olson. She complimented Ms. Neill Hoyson on the well written compensation policy. She asked why "employee" was changed to "non -represented employees" in the policy and asked if there were any non -represented employees that were not covered by unions. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered she found a lack of clarity in the way the policy was written. She wanted to be clear that the policy was for non -represented employees and represented employees are covered in bargaining. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled a consultant wrote this policy in 2012 and that Lacey was one of Edmonds' comparables with a 50% up-and-down bandwidth. She asked if this list was used in the past. Ms. Neill Hoyson advised the list of comparators based on current policy was compiled based on her review of current populations. It is possible Lacey may have been on a previous list because cities move on and off the list as populations change. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the Council having lengthy discussions about comparator cities. With regard to economics, Councilmember Buckshnis said she agreed with Councilmember Olson that Edmonds' workforce did not match the assessed valuation and the assessed valuation per capita. She agreed the majority of the City's revenue came from property taxes which is why the City did well during the pandemic because most property owners paid their property taxes. She could see why the PERC methodology would be used, but said Edmonds has a unique business center that includes Highway 99 and the car dealerships. Ms. Neill Hoyson said the intent was to shift the policy to best practices for choosing comparators which has been clearly established by arbitrators. There is not a lot of wiggle room other than changing the market position or removing certain counties if the Council feels their compensation is higher than Edmonds wants to establish. The way the policy is written allows the Council to consider things at the time the compensation work is done. For example, the Council can consider the City's financial position and determine the City cannot afford to do a "meet the market" approach and decide to use a "lag the market" approach. The policy allows the Council, who are the final decision makers regarding compensation, to look at what is happening at the time the compensation work is done. Council President Paine asked if any testing had been done of what happens with the compensation policy, whether it would shift higher or lower and whether any positions would be lower than they are currently paid. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered that testing has not been done to avoid writing a policy to drive a specific outcome. The goal is to write a policy regarding how the City approaches compensation. Typically if the comp work finds positions are in a higher band than they should be, that position is redlined or frozen and does not receive any COLA until their position band catches up to where it should be. That is the approach used by most public agencies; she has never seen someone's pay reduced. Councilmember L. Johnson she supported retaining the King County comparisons. Many Edmonds teens and young adults chose to work in King County instead of Snohomish County due to the difference in pay. Using Snohomish County and leaving out King County is not realistic based on the City's location on the county line. That comparison is not apples to apples but it is a line, people will go where they are paid more. Councilmember Olson referred to the comment that assessed value is an indicator of the resources a city has to pay its employees, commenting paying more for the same job that is done in a neighboring town means that money is not available for other priorities. When looking at the budget, this is a big picture consideration and she hoped Councilmembers will not close their mind to the idea of removing King County. There are a lot of reasons people may prefer to work in Edmonds versus King County if the compensation is close. She clarified her comment was not a challenge to Councilmember L. Johnson, but a comment she intended to make earlier, her contrary lens on the same subject. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ACCEPT THE CITY COMPENSATION POLICY AS PRESENTED IN CHAPTER 5 WITH THE ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 20 Councilmember Olson referred to an issue with numbering on page 364 and suggested the Council wait to approve this next week when that could be incorporated. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered that was an easy fix. Councilmember Olson referred to another correction on page 359, changing "may" to make" which was not changed in the policy in the packet. Ms. Neill Hoyson assured her copy had been updated. Councilmember Olson asked if the Council was voting on the policy in the packet versus Ms. Neill Hoyson's updated version that the public hasn't seen. Ms. Neill Hoyson asked Mr. Taraday if the motion should say that any numbering and spelling errors are corrected. Mr. Taraday said spelling corrections and numbering are considered scrivener's errors that do not require authorization to be corrected. If anything substantial needs to be changed, the Council should provide clear direction to the administration so the change is approved by motion. Councilmember Olson said the counties to be included is not specified in the policy. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered the counties are specified 5.5, Market Definition. Councilmember Olson preferred Councilmembers have an opportunity to think about that. Ms. Neill Hoyson advised the counties included in the policy were not changed other than to remove Kitsap County which the Council voted to remove in 2014 but the policy was never updated. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO AMEND TO ADD IN 5.5 MARKET DEFINITION AFTER THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, "USING THE PERC SUPPORTED METHODOLOGY OF POPULATION, ASSESSED VALUATION AND ASSESSED VALUATION PER CAPITA WITH A 50% UP-AND-DOWN BAND WIDTH AND ESTABLISHING THE GEOGRAPHIC LABOR MARKET." Councilmember K. Johnson explained this would specify in the market definition exactly what is being considered. She acknowledged there has been discussion about eliminating certain cities but the methodology should be included under Market Definition. She asked Ms. Neill Hoyson to define PERC. Ms. Neill Hoyson said it is Public Employment Relations Commission. Councilmember K. Johnson restated her motion: TO INCLUDE "USING THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION METHODOLOGY OF POPULATION, ASSESSED VALUATION AND ASSESSED VALUATION PER CAPITA WITH A 50% UP-AND-DOWN BANDWIDTH" UNDER MARKET DEFINITION. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she did not recall this coming to committee and with all the amendments, she needed time to think about it. She agreed with Councilmember Olson that this is a huge issue and the Council needs to take time to think about it. She was not comfortable voting tonight on something that affects how staff is compensated in the future. Councilmember Distelhorst recalled the PERC methodology supports a 50% up-and-down bandwidth and asked if including such a detailed definition in the policy created any limitations. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered she did not think so, anticipating it would be a rare occurrence that the City would use 100% up- and-down unless it was pushed by bargaining. Councilmember Distelhorst observed a large portion of the amendment is already contained in the first section of 5.5 and he suggested adding a parenthetical of 50% up-and-down. Councilmember Buckshnis concurred with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas and asked if this was time sensitive. If it did not go through committee, committees will be held next week. She expressed interest in seeing a clean version with all the changes and wanted time to think about whether to include King County. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered it is time sensitive, she was trying to get the compensation contractor's work complete. There was a three week delay because she was unable to present it a previous meeting, then she had a conflict with the next meeting and there was no meeting on the 5t' Tuesday. She said of course the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 21 Council should take the time needed to contemplate and be comfortable with the policy. The consultant is working on other things that are not related to the comparators. There is time sensitivity to get this completed in a timely manner so it can be addressed in the budget. This went to committee last month. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the consultant had already been hired. Ms. Neill Hoyson said they are waiting patiently; many cities are doing compensation work now in the wake of COVID. It is not only staffs timeline to get this done before the end of the year but also ensuring the consultant is kept under contract and does not take other clients while waiting for the City. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented there is no report from the consultant. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered the work has not started so there wouldn't be a report at this point. The Council will get a report at the end of the project which she anticipated would be sometime in October. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas said a consultant was hired but the committee did not review the report because that work hasn't started. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered the proposed policy changes went to committee. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reiterated she would like to have time to review the changes to the compensation policy. Council President Paine announced Councilmember K. Johnson is having technology issues, but is available by phone. Mr. Falk advised he can allow someone participating by phone to speak but not appear on video. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas requested the motion be restated. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested Ms. Neill Hoyson provide language Ms. Neill Hoyson provided the following: REVISE SECTION 5.5 TO READ, "THE COMPARABLE LABOR MARKET WILL BE DEFINED AS CITIES IN WASHINGTON STATE BASED ON POPULATION, ASSESSED VALUATION AND ASSESSED VALUATION PER CAPITAL USING A 50% UP-AND-DOWN BANDWIDTH." AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred to have a week to review and suggested placing it next week's Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND TO PUT THIS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA NEXT WEEK. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND TO TAKE KING COUNTY OUT OF MARKET DEFINITION IN 5.5. Councilmember Olson said there are a lot of reasons people prefer to work in Edmonds rather than King County and paying the premium by having King County in the comparator list will elevate all the pay levels to a level she did not think the City needed to pay as well as take money away from other services the City can offer to citizens. She anticipated the impact of including King County would be significant. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas did not disagree with Councilmember Olson, commenting King County's minimum wage was nearly $3/hour different. She did not object to having comparator cities that were above Edmonds, but having the most expensive comparator in the State of Washington was not necessarily a fair comparison with Edmonds wages. She supported the motion. Council President Paine pointed out Burien and SeaTac are cities in King County and their assessed valuation is not at the top. In balance, she did not think including King County cities was moving the needle too much. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 22 COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO EXTEND FOR 13 MINUTES TO 10:10 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Distelhorst echoed Council President Paine's comments, the comparator cities in King County are not Seattle or Bellevue, they are SeaTac, Shoreline which is literally across the street from Edmonds, and Burien. The people who have applied for directorships in Edmonds in the last 18 months were predominately not from Snohomish County. If the City wants to attract regional talent and have the best individuals in positions to serve the City and the residents, the wages absolutely need to be competitive. He was not saying the City would be ahead of the market, but as Ms. Neill Hoyson stated, it was meeting the market, staying in line with cities that Edmonds is competing against to attract talent. King County is already in the existing policy and removing it would be a serious change. He will vote against motion as he preferred to keep King County in the criteria for identifying comparable cities, not cities outside based on their population or assessed valuation. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented Seattle is exactly outside the City's compensation limit. A starter home in Seattle is over $1 M, much more than in Edmonds. Seattle cannot keep first responders and has to pay outrageous prices. Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, that the Council was not looking at Seattle. Mayor Nelson ruled point not taken and allowed Councilmember Fraley-Monillas to continue. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas urged the Council to be careful when comparing to King County because Edmonds is different than King County. She encouraged the Council to move away from King County comparator cities and move toward Snohomish and Skagit Counties which is the area we live in. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON CALLED THE QUESTION. VOTE TO CALL THE QUESTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE AND COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS VOTING YES. Councilmember K. Johnson said the only compactor cities in King County are Issaquah, part of Bothell, SeaTac, Shoreline and Burien. None of these are in the Seattle job market and eliminating King County eliminates 5 of the 11 comparators. Looking at population, assessed valuation and assessed valuation per capita, they are comparable. Only Issaquah has a higher assessed valuation per capita; the portion of Bothell is very similar to Edmonds as are SeaTac and Shoreline. She preferred to keep the King County cities that are comparable to Edmonds in the 50% up-and-down bandwidth. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON CALLED THE QUESTION. VOTE TO CALL THE QUESTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION (TO MOVE THE COMPENSATION POLICY TO CONSENT NEXT WEEK) CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember L. Johnson reported earlier today she learned of the passing Rev. Dr. Jean Kim last Saturday. With her passing, a powerhouse advocate and compassionate voice for those experiencing homelessness and housing instability was lost. Jean Kim dedicated 50 years of her life to helping those stuck in the vicious cycle of poverty. She dedicated herself to true care and compassionate for those experiencing homelessness. She didn't simply see someone as a homeless person and how the discomfort Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 23 of witnessing somebody struggling with homelessness impacted her. Instead she saw those struggling with homelessness as humans with value and deserving of dignity, hope and care. Councilmember L. Johnson said she first met Dr. Kim in 2015 after she started the Jean King Foundation for Homeless Education, a non-profit dedicated to empowering those struggling with homelessness by helping them achieve their academic and career training. She believed passionately in the power of education to help end homelessness. In 2018, she partnered in the effort to build Shepherd's Village, a community of six pallet homes for unhoused Edmonds College students. In April 2020, shortly after the pandemic started, with a grant from Verdant, the Jean Kim Foundation started the Hygiene Center in Lynnwood, giving those experiencing homelessness a chance to simply take a shower. Operating six days a week, it is the only one of its kind in Snohomish County. In the first nine months of operation, the center provided more than 8,000 showers to 738 individuals. What began as essential warm showers has grown to include food, clean clothes, laundry service, sack lunches and volunteers who connect individuals to community resources. Councilmember L. Johnson asked the public to join her in honoring the Rev. Dr. Jean Kim's memory and helping continue her mission of ending homelessness through education and providing basic needs to those experiencing housing instability and homelessness. More about donation needs and volunteer opportunity is available at JeanKimFoundation.org. The Rev. Dr. Jean Kim was small in stature, but she was a giant in inspiration. May her memory be a blessing. Councilmember Olson echoed Councilmember L. Johnson's commented regarding Rev. Dr. Kim. She gave well deserved kudos to the Chamber of Commerce for hosting an Edmonds Kind of 4'. Shorter timelines due to uncertainty and justifiable concerns over the cost due to fundraisers that did not occur were all obstacles that were overcome. It was a wonderful celebration and the grateful community says thank you. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO EXTEND FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Paine hoped everyone had a wonderful holiday weekend. It was a nice break and she welcomed everyone back. The Council is getting closer to resuming in -person meetings. She will check with the committee chairs about the timing of committee meetings. She appreciated everyone's patience and looked forward to in -person Council meetings beginning July 20'. Councilmember K. Johnson referred to today's special meeting that did not include approval of the agenda or audience comments, commenting it is difficult to add items to a special meeting and difficult for citizens to know when to make comments. She suggested when the Council procedures are considered, those be included as regular items on a special meeting agenda. Councilmember K. Johnson was grateful for the number of vaccinated people and for the Governor reopening the state and questioned whether Walkable Main Street was needed under these circumstances. It was a good idea last year, but she wondered if it was a good idea this year. The merchants have spoken, 27 signed a letter requesting a compromise. She asked the Council President to put that on a future agenda for a policy discussion. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was not sure that was Council business. She plans to present a resolution on behalf Jean Kim in two weeks. Her foundation has assisted people who are homeless find housing and she deserves to be honored. The fact that she died the day before Independence Day means a lot. Councilmember Buckshnis offered kudos to the Chamber of commerce, commenting the parade was great but she received numerous complaints about the traffic jam after the fireworks. It looked like everyone had Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 24 fun and it was a wonderful day. She suggested placing a discussion about the American Rescue Plan Act on the agenda, what City plans to do, how much money the City will get, etc. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Councilmember L. Johnson for her words about Rev. Dr. Kim. He gave kudos to the Chamber and all the participants, commenting he enjoyed marching with the Diversity Commission, the first time they met in person since the pandemic started. He encouraged the public to get vaccinated; the increase in variants is a direct result of people not getting vaccinated. The fewer people who are vaccinated, the more everyone will have to live with the variants for some time. There have been consistent spikes in COV1D 10-15 days after major holidays like the 4' of July. He encouraged people to wear a mask when around people who may not be vaccinated or in enclosed spaces. Student Representative Roberts thanked Councilmember L. Johnson for her comments about Rev. Dr. Kim. Rev. Jean Kim was an incredible person and he was lucky to have had the chance to work with the Jean Kim Foundation. She left behind a profound legacy and will be greatly missed. He invited the public to consider donating to the Jean Kim Foundation. He hoped everyone had a happy and safe 4' of July. He gave a shout out to the Chamber of Commerce for the awesome parade and fireworks. He advised of the Snohomish County Farmers Market Nutrition Program for individuals 60 and above or 55 and above for Native Americans. The program is a $40 food voucher that can be used at numerous farmer's markets throughout Snohomish County. As of last Wednesday, 300 vouchers remained. Community members can apply through the Snohomish County website. As the new COVID strains continue to spread, he urged the public to make safe choices, keep masks handy, get vaccinated, enjoy the outdoors and wear sunscreen. 12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson hoped everyone had a wonderful 4' of July and said it was great see so many people at the parade and the number of participants including all the horses. He thanked the Chamber of Commerce, City staff and volunteers for the team effort to organize it in such a short amount of time. He gave a special shout out to everyone who worked on enforcing illegal fireworks. Over a year ago, he presented a stronger fireworks ordinance to Council as the fireworks ordinance had not been updated in 25 years. The Council approved the ordinance and the administration actively promoted the ordinance via a robust communication strategy that included social media, yard signs, Public Works' digital signs, etc. Additional officers were deployed during the week leading up to July 4', and additional citations were issued. The result was a 45% reduction in the number of fireworks complaints this year compared to last year and there were no fires as a result of fireworks. He thanked everyone who called in complaints and encouraged residents to continue reporting fireworks. The Governor announced a statewide ban on outdoor burning through September due to the extreme fire danger. He reminded of the uptown market 4-9 p.m. on July 8' between Safeway and the Edmonds Lutheran Church. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:18 p.m. MI HAEL NELSON, MAYOR <7 PASSEY, CI LERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 25 Public Comment for 7/6/21 City Council Meeting - From: Natalie Seitz Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 20214:59 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public notice errors and 7/6 council meeting Hello, Good Afternoon. I wanted to email to let you know that I will be unable to comment at tonight's meeting due to travel. I also want to make you aware of persistent public notice errors. I had used the meeting portal to look up the tree board meetings shortly after the emergency ordinance. The portal had shown them in the afternoon (a time when I cannot attend), I now understand that the notice was in error and that they are held in the evening. However when I tried to attend on July 2nd (as shown in the attached photo) it became clear that the meeting was on the 1st. I have also found errors with the posting of the planning board meetings. I am saddened and uncomfortable with the frequency of these posting errors as they are a barrier to public participation and transparency into what has been a planning process largely conducted in special committee (away from the public). I am also under the impression from the last council meeting that some council members may view the citizens tree board as a proxy for public participation. Such consideration of the tree board is false because the board has a clearly stated goal to support tree regulation. I continue to hope that the council will undertake a robust public outreach effort associated with the maintenance tree regulations, that are currently being developed, especially in areas annexed in the 6Os, 9Os and SR99 coordinator that will be primarily impacted by this regulatory effort. Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments. I am also happy to talk with any council member to discuss the pitfalls and impacts of tree regulations. Thank you, Natalie Seitz Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 26 Weldome to the City of Edm66ds Agendts'Ad�r boiings qb4�. Click an a rYetwt�i g, Click can Agenda Cover or Agenda FArket to dnµrnladd Ll e P0F agendas anti pa ke irrra.'er �S I I Upoaming Meetings July, 202 Jul 1, 2021 8 :30 A vi i Agenda Cotter Mayor's Climate rote �i� ri 6M. - ilift,ee. ReWa- Meeting _ ................... r� Jul 2, 2021 i• s Agenda Cover y' i N 1 Tree Boa-d reg ula r !'fleeting I � f Jul 6, 2D2 > -3 3 PM. Art,: omir ss nn - Spey ial Meetisl�]. , " P Jj 16, 20.30 il�� I. ih {i: l' 1 -i �ILy`�7uf�`�il •• �;;~n�i� fyi?'_c:;li';j r-i: a I!L.li': - •lir'k. •i i, it U,l;i i?il��l'I�ilrr If.l From: Ken Reidy Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 5:55 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien @edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comments for the July 6, 2021 City Council Meeting City Staff is requesting adoption of the draft Ordinance and associated Attachment A included in the July 6, 2021 Agenda Packet updating the City's tree regulations. The related discussion references highly flawed Ordinance 4218, an Ordinance the City Council may want to repeal. One thing we know about highly flawed Ordinance 4218 is that the City is acting like it was effective immediately on March 2, 2021. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 27 Why is the City treating Ordinance 4218 as an Emergency Ordinance but not treating Ordinance 4220 and this new proposed ordinance as Emergency Ordinances? Why the inconsistency? The new proposed Ordinance claims that this Ordinance is an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body and is not subject to referendum. Please request specific details supporting this claim. Doing so will help to build knowledge in this area. As I emailed Council on April 2, 2021: Please make sure what is and isn't subject to referendum is explained in detail to City Council and the public. This can be a confusing area and it would help all if a solid, detailed explanation is provided. From this point in time forward, I think City Council would be wise to require the details whenever the author of an Ordinance claims that an Ordinance is an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body and is not subject to referendum. Thank you for making this standard practice from now on. I hope all want to avoid effective date mistakes in the future. Please also read this complete draft Ordinance and associated Attachment A with great care looking for errors. I considered doing so but an error I have brought to Council and City Staffs attention multiple times is still included in this latest proposal. Please read this proposal very carefully and make sure it contains no additional errors. Our Code already includes plenty of errors and we certainly do not want to adopt new Code containing errors. As the error I have previously brought to your attention is such an obvious error and as I have pointed it out in detail, it makes me wonder if City Council and City Staff are reading citizen emails and Public Comments for Council Meetings. How hard would it have been to have read all public comments submitted in writing out loud during Council Meetings? Such comments were limited to 450 words. As I've told you on multiple occasions, the Governor's March 24, 2020 proclamation states meetings must provide the ability for all persons attending to hear each other at the same time. I believe public comments submitted in writing should have been heard by all at the time of the related meeting. From: Toni Turley Sent: Saturday, July 3, 2021 10:53 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Civic Park Contract Approval Council Members, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 28 I've lived in Edmonds for about 30 years. For most of those years I've looked out onto Civic Field from my home. After the land was purchased by the city from the school district in 2015, 1 was thrilled to see plans taking shape for the Civic Field acreage, with enthusiastic community involvement during meetings at the Plaza Room and in Council Chambers. That input led to an outstanding master plan for a public recreational space that addressed many and diverse requests from community members, and that could benefit folks of all ages. It's been over four years since Council approved the master plan. The land is already purchased, funding for the majority of the cost is in place, and significant time has been invested thus far with testing, planning, funding, etc. I am not surprised that construction costs have increased over the years during which this project has been delayed. I believe that it's time to move forward with this project. I support a Council vote to award the contract to A-1 Landscaping to begin work on the basic master plan, and to approve additional funds to cover the shortfall. Thank you for your consideration. Toni Turley Edmonds, WA From: Lucinda Sent: Saturday, July 3, 2021 5:53 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Civic park renovation Hello, I live in Edmonds and my "backyard " is Civic park. I attended the open houses and some council meetings regarding the renovation of this amazing piece of property. I watched with excitement when the old grandstand came down and looked forward to seeing more progress on the park renovation. It makes sense that the costs have gone up considering it has taken longer to get started on this project. Even with cost going up, I strongly encourage council to vote yes on going forward with this project. I want to see this project happen, even if it means finding ways to cut costs or perhaps work in phases until it's completed. This project is very important to our community. Sincerely, Lucinda McMahan Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 29 From: Darleen Atik Sent: Saturday, July 3, 20219:07 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Civic Field July 3, 2021 Dear Members of the City Council, As a condominium owner living on Daley Street I am writing to encourage all City Council members to move forward with the Civic Park project. Having had the opportunity to attend public meetings during the design project phases I have witnessed the strong public support for the completion of this project. It is time to approve the contract, provide any additional funding necessary, and follow through on the completion of another wonderful addition to the city of Edmonds. Respectfully submitted, Darleen Atik From: Barry Ehrlich Sent: Friday, July 2, 2021 7:25 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Civic Park July 2, 2021, Dear members of the City Council, I am writing to support the ongoing, but long delayed, effort to remake the Civic Center Park and I encourage you to award a construction contract to low bidder A-1 Landscaping and Construction. I also support the approval of additional funding necessary to build the park. The Civic Park project has vast public support as shown by the multitudes of citizens who participated in public meetings for over two years in the planning process. In fact, I would venture that the Civic Park project generated more public involvement than any other single issue in Edmonds of the last few decades. You have an opportunity to build a unique, spectacular park for Edmonds' citizens of today and long into the future — a place with amenities attractive to people of all ages and interests. And I am particularly excited about the new landscaping! Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 30 This is the time to make the investment for Edmonds' future! Please support this project. Thank you. Sincerely, Barry Ehrlich From: Phyllis Grant Sent: Friday, July 2, 20219:59 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Civic Park Construction Dear City Council, Please allow this email to serve as my support for the construction of Civic Park. The construction will happen right in my backyard, and despite the associated noise and disruption, I still believe the Park is a necessary and welcome addition to our community. Kind Regards, Phyllis Grant Edmonds, WA 98020 From: Lucile Loree Sent: Friday, July 2, 20219:12 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Civic Park bid Dear Council Members, I am writing to support your moving ahead with Civic Park construction. I applaud the council's perseverance in continuing to work through all the obstacles that have come up. Now there is a contractor, A-1 Landscaping, who looks like they will do a great job. I have looked at their website and they have been in business a long time and have completed some impressive looking projects. I think they will make a beautiful park for Edmonds. The completion of that park, with all the careful thought that has gone into it, will make a statement on behalf of Edmonds. It will say: This is who we are, a community that can build Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 31 beautiful things and that welcomes all, no matter your age or background or ability, all are welcome to come and enjoy our town. I urge the council to go ahead with approving the contractor and the funding to complete Civic Park. Sincerely, Lu Loree From: PAT WOODELL Sent: Thursday, July 1, 20214:12 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Approval of Civic Park bid & additional funding Dear City Council, The attached letter is to express my support for pushing forward on Civic Park construction. I appreciate your past support for the park, and please know that a large segment of the public is behind you as you move to approve the successful contractor and funds necessary to begin construction. Your yes vote on these items shows the council's strength in staying the course on an important long-term capital project like this one. Yes! We support you! Regards, Pat Woodell July 1, 2021 Dear members of City Council, The Civic Park project has been in the making for more than 10 years. Like most capital projects, funding has been crafted from a series of grants, general fund pledges, loans, and contributions by civic organizations over the years. This building block commitment to funding shows the solid work that has been contributed by city residents and organizations who believe in this project and are counting on the City Council to put the finishing touches on the process so construction can begin. Civic Park is a flagship project for the City and its residents. There has been overwhelming public support for the Civic Park project. Hundreds of people participated in public meetings during the project's two-year design process. The Advisory Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 32 Committee worked diligently with City parks' representatives in working out ideas and addressing public concerns. This has been the largest turnout for any public project I have seen. When completed, Civic Park will offer a variety of benefits to people all over the City of Edmonds, not just people in the Edmonds bowl. Planned events and activities for the park will be suitable for people from all walks of life. The playground —for example --is one of the few in the region that will be designed for children with mobility challenges. As such, it will be a draw for families outside the City. A sports field is included in the design and will continue to support intra-mural competition throughout the region. Planned amenities for the Park appeal to people of all ages. The six petanque courts in the park plan --a draw for older people --are next to the skate park filled with young skaters. Walking paths are designed for people of all ages, and the skate park is a draw for skaters from all over the City. This intergenerational design plan hits the bulls eye in park design and will be a huge draw for all types of future sports activities. In fact, the Park's planned amenities will generate a variety of new public relations opportunities for the City. The Park will be capable of hosting future events that can generate more income for the City and its residents. In addition to the Taste of Edmonds, Oktoberfest, July 4 fireworks and similar events, new events will draw people into the City, increasing revenues. In short, there is only an upside to completing a project that has been years in the making. The City Council is just steps away from validating the public's strong support for completing Civic Park. I urge you to approve the contract to complete work on Civic Park along with any additional funding needed to take these final steps. Respectfully, Pat Woodell From: James welsh Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 1:29 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Publiccoment@edmondswa.gov Subject: Civic Park contract approval Council Members, To date, the Civic Park project represents an exemplary and outstanding community -wide effort that has been supported throughout our community.. To let the project go unfinished or postponed indefinitely would be a sad community -wide setback. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 33 Fiscal considerations will always be a factor in Council decision making. However, some projects have such an immediate and long-range benefits to a very large number of cross generational citizens that such impact compels an affirmative decision. Civic Park is one of those compelling projects. I fully support approval of the A-1 Landscaping contract. Also, I urge the Council to approve the additional funding needed to cover project increases. James M Welsh From: Kathy Brewer Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2021 1:10 PM To: Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope @edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Chave, Rob <Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Climate Action Plan To Shane Hope, Council Members, Mayor Nelson, and Rob Chave and Planning Department, Edmonds can do its part to reduce impact on the climate by not adopting the Housing Commission Proposals -- not up -zoning, not eliminating single family housing, and not increasing density, traffic, and pollution. When the City allows developers to clear cut trees and cover existing single family lots with buildings and pavement, they take away open space, trees and vegetation that cool and clean the air. It's all the development and the pollution that comes with it that affects our climate and environment. The real difference we can make is in YOUR hands. I hope that you will all do the right thing for Edmonds, our citizens, the climate and the environment and not support up -zoning and overdevelopment of our charming, special city. Sincerely, Kathy Brewer From: Sue Hoekstra Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 2:21 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Single Family Zoning Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 34 Distinguished Members of Edmonds City Counsil, These are comments I prepared for presentation at last night's (June 22, 2021) city counsel meeting. Since the public comment period was cancelled and I was not able to read it, I am sending it on to you today. I hope you will thoughtfully consider my two main points in preparation for tomorrow's special housing study session. Please, for the reasons I outlined here as well as many more regarding the esthetics of our unique city, please do not change our single family zoning. Thank you for the conscientious work you do to preserve the special character of our beautiful Edmonds. Regards, Susan Hoekstra Attached letter: To Mayor Nelson and members of Edmonds City Council: (It was intended that these comments would be read to the city council at the June 22, 2021 meeting. However, the public comment time was eliminated at the last minute so it is being submitted this way.) My two comments are regarding the proposed changes in our single family housing and zoning policies: 1. Negative Environmental impact: Edmonds is a rare and unique waterfront city on Puget Sound. It is geographically located downslope from the heavily developed uplands of Snohomish County which has lately created far more pollution and runoff, much of which runs downhill into our beautiful city. The result for Edmonds is that we have and will continue to experience more flooding and negative impact on our shared watershed. Many citizens of Edmonds have already taken notice and are doing their part to stop this polluted runoff by planting trees, other vegetation and even creating rain gardens to filter the water before it finally enters and negatively impacts Puget Sound. Edmonds finds itself the last line of defense against such an assault on the waterways and the unfortunate recipient of the polluted uphill runoff. How can we ever even consider adding to the environmental damage being carelessly done throughout the region? This is our chance to take a stand and refuse to take part in the same kind of mindless permanent damage being done around us to our home town. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 35 We are a tiny plot of land in the global picture but we still have a responsibility to do our part and not contribute to environmental degradation. Our existing single family zoning has allowed the necessary open space for the vegetation and gardens which are key ingredients in maintaining our healthy environment and ecosystem. Destroying that open space and adding more people will permanently destroy the fundamental global environmental responsibility we should be retaining. 2. Purpose for adding additional population being defeated: The reason given for adding more population to our city is to provide more affordable housing for the missing middle. In the past, the way many first-time home buyers bought homes was to buy a small, old house, fix it up, and gradually work their way up to something larger. But now, those buyers are being outbid by those who can readily afford to pay many thousands of dollars over the asking price and whose intent is to tear the house down, develop that land and sell the resulting multi -family homes for much more than the original house sold for. We are defeating the whole purpose we so proudly think we are helping and would be doing real damage to the esthetic charm and environmental conditions which are already in place. For these reasons, and others, my husband Duane and Susan Hoekstra are opposed to changing our existing single family zoning. Duane and Susan Hoekstra From: Karen Haase Herrick Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 9:57 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Process for Considering ECHC Recommendations My name is Karen Haase Herrick. I have lived in Edmonds since 1989. 1 had the honor to serve as one of the 15 commissioners on the Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission which completed its work January, 2021. My comments are meant to build on email comments sent to you already by another commissioner, several community groups and those made in online news forums. I underscore the need to establish a vision of the future for Edmonds and guiding principles that would bring that vision to life as well as serve as the guideposts for considering each of the 15 ECHC recommendations. The commissioners on the ECHC were inundated with many theoretical ideas to address housing issues in Edmonds. We were also encouraged to expand our initial considerations for affordable housing to change the focus to "equity" in housing. We were offered many articles on theoretical approaches to increase the amount of missing middle housing and affordable housing for those living on less than 80% of the Area Median Income [AMI]. I keep stressing the word "theoretical" for a reason. And that reason is that I have continued to follow housing Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 36 issues around the country as well as this area. While still working on the ECHC, I searched for any research showing that theoretical options truly produced more missing middle housing. I found none. I have continued to look for research that documents added inventory of lower cost housing by up -zoning to allow for DADUs, duplexes, triplexes, and quadruplexes. I still have found none. What I have found is articles only reporting on DADUs being built that disrupt the look and feel of the areas in which they are built such as in Seattle, Ballard, and San Diego. Residents in these cities report frustration with the increased flow in traffic, noise, and architectural imbalance. This weekend, on the last page of PacificNW magazine, a duplex in Kirkland was listed for sale for $2.6 million - that computes out to something less than affordable to the "missing middle" potential homeowner. I cite this information to show that even anecdotal reporting does not substantiate the claim that these types of changes to Edmonds' essential character will achieve the stated objective of "equity" housing or providing affordable "missing middle" housing. To be clear, I believe that anecdotal and theoretical discussions of housing types are not enough to over -ride citizen concerns about infrastructure and crowding and allow for up -zoning that will disrupt all single-family neighborhoods in Edmonds. I am asking the Edmonds City Council members and Mayor Nelson to take a deep breath during this study session on June 24. Please do these two things: Request that all survey results with comments gathered during the life of the ECHC be provided to council members so that you can read for yourself what the residents of Edmonds have to say about the proposed recommendations. • Request - no demand - that city staff provide you with all research on up -zoning that shows outcomes of efficacy or lack of same through scientifically conducted research across the nation. You really should not have to ask for the above data, but it appears you need to. If there is no research showing that up -zoning truly results in more affordable housing, that should tell you something, should it not? Please do not go forward with theoretical ideas simply because "everyone else is doing it" if there is no data to support its efficacy. If the public does not support it and it does not produce expected outcomes documented by research, then why up - zone? Thank you for the opportunity to share one perspective on this process for moving forward. Respectfully, Karen Haase Herrick Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 6, 2021 Page 37 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. OV £°•tt �r J Agenda Edmonds City Council REGULAR MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE, HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA 98020 J U LY 6, 2021, 7:00 P M DUE TO THE CORONAVIRUS, MEETINGS ARE HELD VIRTUALLY USING THE ZOOM MEETING PLATFORM. TO JOIN, COMMENT, VIEW, OR LISTEN TO THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN ITS ENTIRETY, PASTE THE FOLLOWING INTO A WEB BROWSER USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE: HTTPS://ZOO M. U S/J/95798484261 OR JOIN BY PHONE: US: +1253 215 8782 WEBINAR ID: 957 9848 4261 PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE AUDIENCE COMMENTS USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO RAISE A VIRTUAL HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED. PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE AUDIENCE COMMENTS BY DIAL -UP PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO PRESS *9 TO RAISE A HAND. WHEN PROMPTED, PRESS *6 TO UNMUTE. IN ADDITION TO ZOOM, REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS BEGINNING AT 7:00 PM ARE STREAMED LIVE ON THE COUNCIL MEETING WEBPAGE, COMCAST CHANNEL 21, AND ZIPLY CHANNEL 39. "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. - CITY COUNCIL LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ROLL CALL PRESENTATION 1. Civic Center Playfield Park Construction Contracts (30 min) APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AUDIENCE COMMENTS APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA Edmonds City Council Agenda July 6, 2021 Page 1 1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of June 22, 2021 2. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of June 24, 2021 3. Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. 4. Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Shmuel Amit and Kristy Birdsall 5. Ordinance for Tree Regulations for Development Clarifications 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 1. Job Order Contracting - Proposal and Agreement (10 min) 2. Update to City Compensation Policy (45 min) 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda July 6, 2021 Page 2