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