Loading...
2021-04-27 City Council - Full Agenda-28481. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. o Agenda Edmonds City Council V,j Hv REGULAR MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE, HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA 98020 APRIL 27, 2021, 7:00 PM 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://ZOOM. US/J/95798484261 OR JOIN BY PHONE: US: +1 253 215 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 APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AUDIENCE COMMENTS APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of April 13, 2021 2. Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. 3. Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Cadence Clyborne and Frank Celli Edmonds City Council Agenda April 27, 2021 Page 1 4. Civic Field - Reject All bids COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. Paid Family & Medical Leave (PFML) Policy Changes (15 min) 2. 2021 April Budget Amendment (15 min) 3. Code Amendment to Realign Planning Board Appointment Schedule (20 min) 4. Marina Beach Park Renovation Grant Match Certification (5 min) 5. Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan Update Consultant Agreement (10 min) 6. Findings of Fact to Support adoption of Ordinance 4217 Regarding Prohibition of Removal of Landmark Trees (15 min) 7. Introduction Regarding Private Code Amendment to ECDC Section 20.75.045.13, entitled Unit Lot Subdivision - Applicability (15 min) 8. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. Council Committee Minutes (0 min) 2. Outside Boards and Committees Reports (0 min) 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda April 27, 2021 Page 2 6.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/27/2021 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of April 13, 2021 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 04-13-2021 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 3 6.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING DRAFT MINUTES April 13, 2021 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Susan Paine, Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Brook Roberts, Student Representative 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Michelle Bennett, Acting Police Chief Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr. Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Council President Paine 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 City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely. 4. JOINT MEETING 1. JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING BOARD The following Planning Board Members were present, participating remotely: Mike Rosen, Chair; Alicia Crank, Vice Chair; Roger Pence; and Matt Cheung. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 1 Packet Pg. 4 6.1.a Development Services Director Shane Hope relayed the Planning Board meets with the City Council periodically to clarify items in the Work Program and discuss upcoming ideas and issues. Chair Mike Rosen advised there is one vacant position on the Planning Board as well as the Student Representative position. He explained the presentation will identify priorities, seek the Council's input on those priorities and guidance on how the Planning Board can better serve the City in the future. He reviewed: • Activities undertaken since Last Joint meeting (7/20/20) 1) Public Hearings a) Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance - New Chapter b) Amend the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for 21 Properties on 9th Ave. N c) Proposal to Amend the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation From "Neighborhood Commercial" to "Multi -Family - Medium Density for Two Vacant Parcels in Perrinville d) Proposed 2021 - 2026 Capital Facilities Plan / Capital Improvement Plan e) Tree Code f) Code Amendment to Broaden Applicability of the Unit Lot Subdivision Process g) Outdoor Dining interim zoning ordinance 2) Briefings a) Regional Code Collaboration - EV Ready Codes Research Summary b) Update on development activities in the city c) Climate Goals Planning and status update d) Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Updates 3) Joint Meetings a) Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee • Validate priorities 1) Code updates implementing the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP), including additional work on the Tree Code(s) 2) Code updates reflecting Climate Plan Goals, including electric vehicle charging infrastructure 3) Housing - as directed by the Council 4) Low impact subdivision code updates 5) Code updates related to sidewalks requirements for new development 6) Low impact / stormwater code review and update 7) Sustainable development codes review and updates 8) Parks and PROS Plan support 9) Further Highway 99 Implementation 10) Neighborhood Center Plans 11) Comprehensive Plan update prep • Continued areas of interest: 1) More public engagement 2) Increased youth involvement Councilmember K. Johnson recalled priorities from past years that were not included in this list, specifically updating the subdivision and PRD code. Vice Chair Crank responded the Board has discussed that and it was included on the list in the past. The Planning Board looks forward to the new code writer assisting with that and at the last meeting, that was included on the list per Councilmember K. Johnson's suggestion. Councilmember K. Johnson commented another issue that is not identified is the Five Corners Neighborhood Plan. She recalled efforts many years ago to update the code relative to Westgate and Five Corners, but that does not seem to have been included as it has in the past. Ms. Hope answered the list includes neighborhood center plans and although Fiver Corners is not specifically identified, the Planning Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 2 Packet Pg. 5 6.1.a Board is very interested in addressing it. Councilmember K. Johnson wanted to highlight that so it did not get lost in the shuffle. Councilmember K. Johnson was uncertain the code writer would be undertaking the subdivision and PRD code. She recalled there was some initially discussion at the Planning Board approximately eight years ago and then was shelved for reasons she did not know. It may be appropriate to have a general discussion about where we have been in the past, where are we now and what do we want to accomplish before the code writer is expected to draft language. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her appreciation for the Planning Board's work and said she enjoys reading their minutes. Her interests include the tree code, stormwater, watershed, climate and she recalled the Council was provided the low impact development code for subdivisions several years ago. Although some of the new tree code is good, it still does not address no net loss or net ecological gain. Her priorities include the deteriorating watersheds which can be caused by the loss of trees, stormwater, and weather events. She asked how that could be incorporated into the Planning Board's priorities. Chair Rosen commented many of the priorities are related to the environment but their impacts on the environment are not necessarily equal. There are many other items that have impacts such as transportation and land use as well as other items the City does not control. He hoped the Planning Board's minutes reflect their passion about protecting the environment and the character of the community, understanding and appreciating property rights, ensuring they listen to the community and not creating unintended consequences. He understood it was a balancing act. With regard to the tree code, Chair Rosen relayed the Planning Board was also interested in the metrics that would be used, the starting place for no net loss and recognizing that the tree code will be part of a process. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she has seen unintended consequences over the past years while awaiting the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) and the tree code. Councilmember Olson recalled the Planning Board leadership reached out to the Council so the Council's priorities could be reflected in the list of priorities. Housing will be a significant part of this year's work; implementing ideas so that there is a good outcome will be important. Ideas are often not necessarily good or bad, it depends on how they are implemented. She recommended including in that conversation the issue of variances and when they are appropriate. For example, there is not a lot of value to determining setbacks or building heights if they will be waived during the process. She was interested in the Planning Board discussing what has to exist for a variance or waiver to be approved. Councilmember L. Johnson commented in reviewing the Planning Board's list, their environmental focus is evident and she felt the Planning Board definitely considered her input. She expressed her full support for the environmentally focused priorities specifically the tree code, UFMP update, and climate plan goals including the EV charging. She asked for clarification on Priorities 4 and 7, how they are distinguished from each other and where they overlap. Development Services Director Shane Hope answered the Planning Board is still working on this. There has been some work done on low impact subdivision code updates as well as more opportunities for a sustainable approach to subdivision codes. Priority 6, Low impact / stormwater code review and update, has a climate, environmental and infrastructure impact. Priority 7, Sustainable development codes review and updates, the intent is to ensure development codes are sustainable such as net ecological gain. Those will be considerations as the code update occurs. Councilmember L. Johnson said she also appreciated the increased youth involvement and looked forward to hearing how that will be accomplished. Chair Rosen said increasing public engagement in general is of interest to the Planning Board and he was pleased there was a new community outreach person at the City and looked forward to collaborating with her and providing ways for the public to participate in ways they Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 6 6.1.a are comfortable and specifically the youth. The Planning Board has had several conversations about how to better involve youth and be more proactive. Council President Paine commented a comprehensive tree code as well as a tree canopy assessment will assist the Planning Board with their environmental focus. As there is a lot of concern about sidewalks, she was glad to see that on the list of priorities. She appreciated the focus on infrastructure and accomplishing it in an environmentally responsible way. She appreciated the Planning Board's review and discussion regarding the tree code. Vice Chair Crank said the list of 11 priorities was not in priority order. In developing the list, the Planning Board acknowledged limits in time and space and wanted to focus on items they could touch this calendar year. The Planning Board also recognized there had been a significant change on the Council since the last joint meeting so they wanted to leave space to include other topics and reprioritizing items. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said if she had been contacted, she might have suggested adding zoning of the waterfront to the list of priorities. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Planning Board Members for attending and expressed his appreciation for the conversation with Board Chair Rosen earlier this year. The priority list is fantastic and he wanted the Planning Board to do all of it. He appreciated the discussion on intersectionality of some of the issues and hoped the Planning Board would look at that beyond City boundaries. Some key state legislation has looked at climate, housing, transportation and vehicle miles traveled — some have passed and some have not. With regard to unintended consequences, some of the City's actions which may be seen as pro - environmental in Edmonds can have impacts outside the City's borders. He was excited about taking a regional, holistic approach to decisions on housing, transportation, and land use. Highway 99 would be another priority as well as coupling bicycle storage facilities in multi -unit developments with the necessary infrastructure improvements to ensure people feel safe riding. For example, it does not make sense to have multi -unit developments on a very busy corridor with a speed limit of 40 mph where people cannot use their bikes for transportation. He suggested that to be considered with a comprehensive lens rather than as a one-off. Chair Rosen agreed most issues are not geographically restricted especially related to the environment. Councilmember Distelhorst said staff has been working on a regional DADU working group; nearly every city in Snohomish County allows DADUs and Edmonds is the only that does not. He cited a DADU under construction in Esperance. Councilmember Buckshnis said funds were included in the budget to do a Comprehensive Plan review of the waterfront. She recalled Edmonds Crossing is still identified several times in the Comprehensive Plan and agreed the zoning of the waterfront needs to be reviewed. She asked if the Planning Board has any interaction with other commissions. Board Member Pence said he is the liaison between the Planning Board and the Economic Development Commission, primarily communicating the Planning Board's efforts such as tree code. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the list of priorities were in a ranked order or a general list. Vice Chair Crank said it is a list of priorities; they are not in a ranked order. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested they could be called the Planning Board's work program rather than priorities. Chair Rosen answered the intent of this presentation was to ensure the City Council agrees with the Planning Board's list, whether anything needed to be added or removed. Ms. Hope relayed tree issues will be next on the Planning Board's agenda. Student Rep Roberts asked if the Planning Board saw any opportunity for collaboration between the Youth Commission and the Planning Board on projects. Chair Rosen said the board recognizes it has not done a Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 7 6.1.a good job accessing youth as a resource and they plan to do better. Vice Chair Crank said Planning Board Member Daniel Robles reached out to the previous student representative for suggestions regarding what the Planning Board was doing right, what they could do better, etc. The Planning Board is open to collaboration. Council President Paine suggested neighborhood plans would be a good opportunity for collaboration with the Planning Board. She expressed her appreciation to the Planning Board for all the work they do. Chair Rosen relayed the Planning Board's job is to ensure the City Council has information to make good decisions. He asked if there was anything the Planning Board could do to better assist the Council. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented on the importance of communication, pointing out better communication would be helpful for both the Council and the Planning Board. Meeting once a year does not allow the members of the Council or the Planning Board to get into specifics. Chair Rosen welcomed any specific input, relaying there has been discussion about using the three minute public comment to provide brief updates regarding topics the Planning Board is discussing and/or preparing position papers to draw attention to certain topics. He welcomed any specific suggestions for improved communication. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested pairing Planning Board Members with Councilmembers to provide periodic updates and/or gather feedback. Councilmember Buckshnis said she thoroughly enjoys reading the Planning Board minutes and observed the Planning Board meetings videos have been posted. She suggested utilizing the Development Services Report as a way to communicate Planning Board issues to the City Council. Councilmember L. Johnson expressed appreciation for Chair Rosen reaching out to her and felt the priorities reflected her input. In addition to the Planning Board seeking input from Council, she said it was also important for Councilmembers to reach out to the Planning Board for more information on topics they are considering. She asked who she should reach out to. Chair Rosen said there is always benefit from hearing directly from individuals; he appreciated one-on-one conversations. The Planning Board is a group that works for the City Council and he did not want to imply that Councilmember could provide individual direction. Vice Chair Crank appreciated the positive feedback on the minutes, commenting in a large part because of Chair Rosen, Planning Board Members have been purposely verbose in the minutes to ensure all discussions are being captured. Chair Rosen is very adept at summarizing the entire discussion and that is included in the minutes. Councilmember K. Johnson thanked the members for their service on the Planning Board. It is a very important role for the City and having served on the Planning Board, she was aware at how much in-depth work they do. It is appropriate for the Planning Board to assume that role because the Council simply does not have the time. She appreciated the Planning Board's advisory role to the Council and that they take the time to understand the issues and provide Council their input. Councilmember Distelhorst recognized that Chair Rosen and other Planning Board Members have professional experience in public engagement and public participation. He asked how the Council can support the Planning Board in ensuring long term continuance of public participation. He appreciated receiving more online surveys and household mailers from the City in the last six months than ever before. He asked what the Planning Board needed to ensure the Council and staff could continue providing more equitable public participation opportunities. Chair Rosen said he has heard from both the Mayor and Councilmembers that public engagement as well as increasing engagement is a high priority. The days of requiring the public show up in -person to a building is not in a comfort zone or convenient. The City needs to have enough tools to allow people to engage in whatever way they are comfortable in engaging as well as doing a good job informing them of those opportunities. The tools as well as the evaluation are important to ensure the loudest voice doesn't always win as sometimes the majority voice is incorrect. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 8 6.1.a 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO AMEND TO ADD ORDINANCE NO 4217, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM EMERGENCY REGULATION TO PROHIBIT THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LANDMARK TREES ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM REGULATION AND DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY, AS ITEM 8.2 Councilmember Buckshnis explained since she did not have the votes last week to get Ordinance No. 4200 on the agenda, she would like to introduce Ordinance No. 4217. Council President Paine pointed out there is a public hearing next week on Ordinance No. 4217. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked City Attorney Jeff Taraday to opine on this. Mr. Taraday explained the point of a public hearing on an interim ordinance is to determine whether the Council wants to continue the interim ordinance or repeal it. The presumption is the interim ordinance is adopted without a public hearing so the public hearing occurs after the fact to essentially confirm that the Council wants to leave the interim ordinance in place. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about adding another emergency ordinance. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, stating she was adding this ordinance to the agenda for discussion and perhaps an amendment. Mayor Nelson ruled point taken. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was unclear how that affected the public hearing. Mr. Taraday said he had not seen the ordinance that Councilmember Buckshnis requested be added to the agenda. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed Mr. Taraday had not written the ordinance. Mr. Taraday said he had not. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE AGENDA, ADDING AS ITEM 8.2, UN -TABLE REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST THAT WAS TABLED A FEW WEEKS AGO. Councilmember L. Johnson expressed concern that requests have been made to add two items to the agenda; it was her understanding when Councilmembers knew they planned to add something to the agenda, as a courtesy they gave other Councilmembers a heads up and provided information so there was time to review it in advance. She has done her due diligence to prepare for tonight's meeting and now is being asked to consider two additional items for which she does not have material to consider. Assuming both Councilmembers knew they planned to add these items, if she had been provided the information, she would have spent time reviewing it prior to committees meetings. She summarized she was challenged and a little frustrated by the last minute requests and it would be easier to consider these items if Councilmembers had the courtesy of sending them out in advance. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 9 6.1.a Councilmember Distelhorst recalled the Rules of Procedure that were on last week's agenda and were tabled for three weeks include a section on Councilmember reimbursements. His position for the last two months has been a preference for a long-term policy that addresses Councilmember reimbursements rather than one-off decisions because that would provide more long term benefit to current and future Councilmembers rather than handling things in an ad -hoc fashion. He looked forward to discussing reimbursement policies as part of the updated Rules of Procedure which will come back to Council in two weeks. Councilmember Olson commented Councilmember L. Johnson made a valid point and she could have done that but thought everyone knew she intended to bring this back and had asked for it to be on the agenda. Councilmember Olson offered to withdraw the amendment and requested it be added to the agenda next week as an un-tabled item. With regard to Councilmember Distelhorst's comments, she pointed out an upcoming policy will not be retroactive to something that occurred in December. Whatever policy was in place in December would be relevant to this reimbursement request. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT. Councilmember Buckshnis explained the ordinance the Council passed was related to landmark trees and Councilmembers should be aware of it. Council has every right to put whatever they want on the agenda; she has been in meetings all day today so did not have an opportunity to send out information ahead of the meeting. She assumed everyone knew it was coming since her request to extend the moratorium was not approved. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, stating Councilmember Buckshnis was discussing a motion that was not approved. Mayor Nelson advised the Council has moved on to another topic. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked Councilmember Distelhorst for reminding the Council that the Rules of Procedure which include a reimbursement policy will be coming back to the Council. MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. Marjie Fields, Edmonds, was pleased the Council was continuing to improve the tree code and looked forward to further progress at tonight's meeting. She was particularly concerned about large, old trees for protecting watersheds and hoped there was some way of preserving trees doing important work in mitigating damage to fragile watersheds such as Perrinville. She was also concerned that the code makes it too easy for developers to ignore the tree retention requirement by just paying the fee for removing trees and passing the fee on to the buyer which does not protect trees. She requested the Council reexamine the fee -in -lieu provisions. Robert Boehlke, owner of House Wares on Main Street for the last 22 years, said after listening to last Tuesday's Walkable Main Street presentation and the subsequent discussion, he and several merchants who were also in attendance felt they were unheard and invalidated. In their opinion, the survey as written was skewed to favor Walkable Main Street and their objections were minimized. For that reason, they relayed their concerns directly to the local community who are a critical component to the success of their businesses. They composed a statement identifying their position and a compromise that all sides should be able to accept, Save our Saturdays (SOS). Saturday is a very important day in the retail trade; their local customers and fellow retailers depend on it. He suggested Sunday be designated Fun Day with a Walkable Main Street. In response to a comment that few merchants were opposed to Walkable Main Street, an impromptu canvas of fellow Main Street merchants immediately yielded 14 signatures from businesses on Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 10 6.1.a Main Street or directly adjacent which represents more than half of Main Street retailers. Others expressed support after the SOS flyer was released. The proposal was presented to the media, copies sent to Councilmembers and the Mayor and a public rally was held Saturday at the fountain. Community support at the rally was overwhelming, very positive both online and in person and comments included shoppers were deterred on the days Main Street was closed. He urged the Mayor and City Council to consider leaving Main Street open to traffic, business parking and access on Saturdays and reserve Sundays for Walkable Main Street. Dave Teitzel, Edmonds, an Edmonds resident for approximately 40 years, said he and his family have been happy to patronize a wide variety of local businesses for decades. Last year's pandemic caused a major decrease in revenue for all restaurants and retail businesses and unlike Seattle, Edmonds has been fortunate that most of its bars and eateries have remained viable through a combination of good management, CARES Act funding and help from the City. He applauded the administration and Council's efforts in that regard. Walkable Main Street was a good experiment during the pandemic to allow people to get out and safely enjoy downtown and maintain proper social distancing. While Walkable Main Street was popular on Saturdays and Sundays during the pandemic, the effects of the street closures on businesses have been very uneven. Walkable Main Street has greatly benefit eateries and bars, but many downtown retail businesses have reported negative effects from the program, experiencing revenue reductions on Saturdays of 30-50% when Saturdays are downtown businesses' best retail sale days. Many downtown businesses are still reeling from the pandemic restrictions and desperately need Saturdays sales revenue to allow them to remain viable. Recognizing that the Council and Mayor had heard directly from a number of downtown businesses expressing their concern, Mr. Teitzel strongly encouraged them to listen to the concerns of their constituents, downtown businesses as well as their patrons. Maintaining the appeal of Edmonds requires a vibrant array of restaurants, bars and retail businesses; all these businesses deserve the City's support. A fair compromise to help all downtown businesses is to continue a Walkable Main Street program on Sundays and allow Main Street to remain open to traffic on Saturdays. This compromise would enable retail businesses to maximize Saturday revenue and still allow bars and restaurants to attract foot traffic. It is the responsibility of elected officials to listen to their constituents; in this instance their constituents are asking for a compromise regarding Walkable Main Street. Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, found the joint meeting with the Planning Board very interesting and he appreciated the comments. He suggested the Council missed an opportunity to assist the Planning Board by helping them prioritize their list of priorities. He was surprised not to hear anything about a vision for the City, a vision that integrates housing, businesses, and environmental stewardship which all culminates in the planning for the City. He was disappointed not to hear discussion about a vision such as a dense, urban environment or a neighborhood suburban environment. He suggested the Comprehensive Plan be a priority because that integrates the various topics. Until there is a vision for the City that encompasses the Comprehensive Plan, "any path is going to get you there if you don't know where you're going." In his opinion, the City did not know where it wanted to go and until the Comprehensive Plan was updated based on today's environment, technology and resources, the City will continue to struggle with all the individual topics such as tree code, housing code, etc. versus being part of an integrated plan. Rebecca Anjewierden, owner of Rebekah's Boutique on Main Street, spoke regarding Walkable Main Street, explaining she pays Main Street rent in order to attract drive -by and walking customers who are drawn in by their windows. The closure of Main Street last summer cut her Saturday revenues in half and she feared it would do the same this year. Her regular customers said they are not comfortable coming on the weekends and will be avoiding Walkable Main Street. July and August are typically her biggest months for selling clothing when people are out and about enjoying the beautiful weather. The closure of Main Street eliminates a lot of parking and customers tend to go to the farmers market to get flowers and do not Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 11 6.1.a return to shop downtown after walking 3-4 blocks to their purchases in their car. She did not agree with Walkable Main Street and preferred the compromise to close Main Street on Sundays. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, a 42 year resident, was pleased that the Council was considering fixing the tree code tonight and hoped the Council's discussion was not cut off again as it had been at the last four Council meetings. The Council should not adopt an inadequate tree code; it will only result in the loss of more mature trees in total contravention to the Urban Forest Management Plan that the City spent considerable time preparing and adopting. The Council needs to discuss and resolve public comments that have been submitted over the past two months which to date it appears have been ignored. Tonight's action not to put the Landmark Tree ordinance on the agenda is another example of the Council refusing to discuss serious tree -related issues. It is the Council's job to discuss and resolve those issues and it should not continue to be put off and ignored. Everyone knows that the tree code is very complicated and contentious but it should not be judged by some Councilmembers by how many meetings it has taken to resolve. For example, the fee -in -lieu provision in the current code is a mess; it is difficult to tell if and how it applies to developer tree retention requirements. That is a fatal flaw and must be resolved and cannot continue to be put off. He was disappointed the Council was not listening to the public; the Council was sent a letter yesterday cosigned by 24 citizens asking to take this issue seriously and consider the comments that have been submitted and concerns about retaining a green environment in Edmonds and he found it troublesome that that was not being acknowledged. He hoped the Council read the letter and took it into consideration. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 8. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2021 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 1. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO NEW TREE REGULATIONS Development Services Director Shane Hope said tonight staff and Council will go through several amendments that have been presented. The new tree regulations were intended to improve and strengthen tree protection during development. Three Councilmembers worked with City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien and her to vet the remaining amendments. Mr. Lien will review the amendments and Councilmembers will have the opportunity to make motions to include or change the amendments. Mr. Lien explained the proposed amendments have been inserted into the tree code that was adopted via Ordinance 4218 in a redline/strikeout format. The redline/strikeout amendments without comments have been voted on at previous Council meetings. He suggested starting with the first amendment in 23.10.060. Council President Paine suggested beginning with the most contentious amendment that will require a fuller discussion in 23.10.080 related to tree replacement and fee -in -lieu on page 11 of the ordinance. She referred to the proposed amendment in 23.10.080.E, expressing concern it would diminish the effectiveness of the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 12 6.1.a fee -in -lieu and using it as an incentive. She anticipated this would be a very meaty topic and preferred to handle it first. Councilmember Buckshnis explained the reason the proposed amendment was in two colors was the discussion began at the March 2nd meeting and then the meeting was stopped and the Council never returned to this discussion. A subgroup was formed after a simple majority put the tree code on the Consent Agenda. The subgroup considered the amendment shown in green. She agreed this entire section had not been addressed since the March 2' meeting which ended abruptly. Councilmember Olson asked if Mr. Lien could follow the amendments if they were handled in this order. Mr. Lien assured he would be able to track the amendments. He explained he would focus on the amendment highlighted in green; the yellow highlight was included because it was an amendment made and seconded at a previous meeting but never discussed. Mr. Lien presented the following amendment (shown in green highlight in the packet), that had been vetted by the subcommittee: Revise 23.10.080.E Tree Replacement Fee -in -lieu to read, "After providing clear documentation to Development Services that all tree retention and/or replacement options have been considered and are infeasible, including arborist reports as necessary, the developer shall pay a fee -in -lieu for each replacement tree required but not replaced. ^ fee in lieu of tree r plaeement ,r be allowed, *eet to for- eaeb f:eplaeemefit tfee r-e"ifed bu4 not planted on the appheation site E)r- an aff site leeati " Mr. Lien explained this sentence recognizes there may be instances where the 30% tree retention standards in 23.10.060.0 cannot be met; the trees are in the way of development. This sentences says when those retention standards are not met and the required replacement ratios are not met, then a fee -in -lieu is required. There are also amendments proposed with regard to how the fee -in -lieu is calculated. Council President Paine expressed support for the proposed language because it is clear that each tree that cannot be replaced or retained would be considered for fee -in -lieu after all the other options are considered. She was not a fan of fee -in -lieu, finding it just the cost of doing business. However, she recognized sometimes there are trees smackdab in the middle of a project and it would be infeasible to retain them. This text makes it clear that any tree not retained or replaced can be considered for fee -in -lieu. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO ACCEPT THE LANGUAGE IN GREEN AS WRITTEN. Councilmember K. Johnson said this language was developed by the subcommittee in collaboration with Mr. Lien. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Lien referred to an amendment made at a meeting in March: Add the following to 23.10.080.E.3 Tree Replacement Fee -in -lieu: "For each sign tree greater than 24" in DBH removed, a fee based on an appraisal of the tree value by the city tree protection professional using trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal shall be required." An associated amendment was in made in 23.10.080.A.3 "For each significant tree greater than 14 inches and less than 24 inches in DBH removed, three (3) replacement trees are required." With those amendments, there is no replacement requirement for trees greater than 24 inch DBH, only the appraisal and fee -in -lieu. Those two amendments were made due to the potential for a double dip if both Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 10 Packet Pg. 13 6.1.a the appraisal and a fee -in -lieu was required based on replacement trees, there was potential to charge for the 24" tree as well as its replacement. Mr. Lien presented the following amendment proposed by Councilmember Olson: Revise 23.10.080.E.1 Tree Replacement Fee -in -lieu to read: 1. Fee -in -lieu payments shall be deposited into the Tree Fund. The value of the payment shall be determined as provided in subsections I.a and I.b below: a. The afnetm4 of the fee shall be $1000 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to sa4isfy the 4 replaeemefA-comply with the tree retention requirements of this seetion and shall be deposited int Gi ECDC 23.10. 060. C.1. 4.b. $350 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to satisfy the tree replacement requirements o ECDC 23.10.080.A beyond the retention standard ofECDC 23.10.060.C.1. Mr. Lien explained this code is different than other jurisdictions' codes. Most other jurisdictions' codes require fee -in -lieu to get to the replacement/retention standard. Edmonds' code goes beyond that; even when the retention standard is met, the fee -in -lieu is still required for the replacement trees that could not be planted on the property. This amendment has two different fees; if a development removes more than the 30% and could not replant to reach 30%, the trees to reach 30% are charged at $1,000/tree. Once they reach the number of trees required to be retained, then all remaining trees that were not planted are charged at $350/tree, the cost to purchase and plant a tree. Councilmember K. Johnson asked Mr. Lien to describe the Planning Board's position on the $350. Mr. Lien answered the Planning Board's position is tied to the previous amendment. The first thing is to retain as many trees as possible, the next step is to replant as many trees as possible, and the third step is fee -in - lieu. With regard to the fee -in -lieu amount, the Planning Board considered several options, an alternate replacement ratio, not requiring so many replacement trees and a different fee -in -lieu number instead of $1,000. The Planning Board wanted the higher replacement ratio and the higher dollar amount as an incentive to retain trees. The Planning Board's thinking was if developers have to pay more to remove and plant trees, they will make greater efforts to retain trees. Mr. Lien reviewed the following in the fee -in -lieu development examples: Example 1 • Assumptions o Appraisal for each 24" DBH Tree removed into Tree Fund ■ Assume $3,030 per 24" DBH in example ■ Average appraisal for tree inventory from the City of Renton which appraised 2,283 trees (low $541, high $12,415) ■ No replacement trees required, only payment into Tree Fund o Fee for Replacement trees not planted ■ 1,000 per tree below the 30% retention requirement ■ $350 per tree beyond 30% • Fee -in -lieu development o New Single Family Development ■ 15 trees pre development ■ 30% retention — 5 trees ■ Tree retained — 6 trees ■ Assume plant 3 replacement trees ■ Tree fund Payment $22,610 ($22k) ■ Required replacement trees not planted — 4 ((350) ■ 24" DBH Trees cut — 7 ($3,030) ■ Parks/traffic/Sewer/Water - $18,450 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 11 Packet Pg. 14 6.1.a o Short subdivision - Four Lots ■ 41 Trees Predevelopment ■ 30% Retention -12 Trees ■ Trees Retained -13 Trees ■ Assume 3 Trees/lot -12 Trees ■ Tree Fund Payment-$57,110 ($58K) - Required replacement trees not planted -16 Trees(* $350) - 24" DBH trees cut -17 (* $3,030) ■ Tree Fund Payment Retain 8 additional trees-$34,730 ($37K) - Required replacement trees not planted -4 Trees (* $350) - 24" DBH trees cut -11 (* $3,030) ■ Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$55,351 o Subdivision - Ten Lots ■ 90 Trees Predevelopment ■ 30% Retention -27 Trees ■ Trees Retained -20 ■ Assume 3 Tree/lot -30 ■ Required replacement trees not planted -74 ■ Tree Fund Payment-$73,320 ($98K) - Required replacement trees not planted -45 (* $350) - 24" DBH trees cut -19 (* $3,030) ■ Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$129,151 o Conservation Subdivision Design ■ Standard subdivision design - 153 Trees Predevelopment - 30% Retention -46 Trees - Trees Retained -15 Trees - Assume 3 Tree/Lot -12 Trees - Tree Fund Payment-$180,720 ($315K) - Required Replacement trees not planted -230 • Tree to get to 30% -19 (* $1,000) Additional Replacement Trees -211 (* $350) - 24" DBH Trees Cut -29 (* $3,030) - Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$70,801 ■ Clustered design - 153 Trees Predevelopment - 30% Retention -46 Trees - Trees Retained -62 Trees - Assume 3 Tree/Lot -12 Trees - Tree Fund Payment-$110,300 ($202K) • Required Replacement trees not planted -142 (* $350) • 24" DBH Trees Cut -20 (* $3,030) - Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$70,801 o Multi- Family Development - 10 Unit Apartment ■ 8 Trees Predevelopment ■ 25% Retention -2 Trees ■ Trees Retained -0 Trees ■ Required Replacement Trees -18 Trees ■ Tree Planted -36 Trees ■ Tree Fund Payment-$9,090 ($0) - 24" DBH Trees Cut -3 (* $3,030) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 12 Packet Pg. 15 6.1.a ■ Park/Traffic Impact Fee = $38,595 Example 2 • Assumptions ■ Appraisal for each 24" DBH Tree Removed into Tree Fund - Assume $3,030 per 24" DBH in example - Average appraisal for tree inventory from the City of Renton which appraised 2,283 trees (low $541; high $12,415) - No replacement trees required, only payment into Tree Fund ■ Fee for replacement trees not planted - $1,000 per tree • Fee -in -lieu development o New Single Family Development ■ 15 Trees Predevelopment ■ 30% Retention -5 Trees ■ Tree Retained -6 Trees ■ Assume Plant 3 Replacement Trees ■ Tree Fund Payment $25,210 ($22K) - Required replacement trees not planted -4 (* $1,000) - 24" DBH trees cut -7 (* $3,030) ■ Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$18,450 o Short Subdivision ■ 41 Trees Predevelopment ■ 30% Retention -12 Trees ■ Trees Retained -13 Trees ■ Assume 3 Trees/lot -12 Trees ■ Tree Fund Payment-$67,510 ($58K) - Required replacement trees not planted -16 Trees(* $1,000) - 24" DBH trees cut -17 (* $3,030) ■ Tree Fund Payment Retain 8 additional trees-$37,330 ($37K) - Required replacement trees not planted -4 Trees(* $1,000) - 24" DBH trees cut -11 (* $3,030) ■ Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$55,351 o Subdivision - Ten lots ■ 90 Trees Predevelopment ■ 30% Retention -27 Trees ■ Trees Retained -20 ■ Assume 3 Tree/lot -30 ■ Required replacement trees not planted -74 ■ Tree Fund Payment-$102,570 ($98K) - Required replacement trees not planted -45 (* $1,000) - 24" DBH trees cut -19 (* $3,030) ■ Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$129,151 o Conservation Subdivision Designs ■ Standard Design - 153 Trees Predevelopment - 30% Retention -46 Trees - Trees Retained -15 Trees - Assume 3 Tree/Lot -12 Trees - Tree Fund Payment-$317,870 ($315K) • Required Replacement trees not planted -230 (* $1,000) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 13 Packet Pg. 16 6.1.a • 24" DBH Trees Cut -29 (* $3,030) - Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$70,801 ■ Clustered Design - 153 Trees Predevelopment - 30% Retention -46 Trees - Trees Retained -15 Trees - Assume 3 Tree/Lot -12 Trees - Tree Fund Payment-$317,870 ($315K) • Required Replacement trees not planted -230 (* $1,000) • 24" DBH Trees Cut -29 (* $3,030) - Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$70,801 o Multi -Family ■ 8 Trees Predevelopment ■ 25% Retention -2 Trees ■ Trees Retained -0 Trees ■ Required Replacement Trees -18 Trees ■ Tree Planted -36 Trees ■ Tree Fund Payment-$9,090 ($0) - 24" DBH Trees Cut -3 (* $3,030) ■ Park/Traffic Impact Fee = $38,595 Example 3 • Assumptions in the fee -in -lieu development o Fee for replacement trees not planted ■ $1,000 per tree below the 30% retention requirement ■ $350 per tree beyond 30% 0 3:1 replacement ratiofor24"andgreater DBH trees • Fee -in -lieu Development o New Single Family Development ■ 15 Trees Predevelopment ■ 30% Retention -5 Trees ■ Tree Retained -6 Trees ■ Assume Plant 3 Replacement Trees ■ Tree Fund Payment $8,750 ($22K) - Required replacement trees not planted -25 (* $350) ■ Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$18,450 o Short Subdivision ■ 41 Trees Predevelopment ■ 30% Retention -12 Trees ■ Trees Retained -13 Trees ■ Assume 3 Trees/lot -12 Trees ■ Tree Fund Payment-$20,300 ($58K) - Required replacement trees not planted -58 Trees(* $350) ■ Tree Fund Payment Retain 8 additional trees-$12,950 ($37K) - Required replacement trees not planted -37 Trees (* $350) ■ Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$55,351 o Subdivision - Ten lots ■ 90 Trees Predevelopment ■ 30% Retention -27 Trees ■ Trees Retained -20 ■ Assume 3 Tree/lot -30 - Required replacement trees not planted -74 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 14 Packet Pg. 17 6.1.a ■ Tree Fund Payment-$35,700 ($98K) ■ Required replacement trees not planted -102 (* $350) ■ Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$129,151 o Conservation Subdivision Designs ■ Standard Design - 153 Trees Predevelopment - 30% Retention -46 Trees - Trees Retained -15 Trees - Assume 3 Tree/Lot -12 Trees - Tree Fund Payment-$129,950 ($315K) - Required Replacement trees not planted -317 • Tree to get to 30% -19 (* $1,000) Additional Replacement Trees -317 (* $350) - Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$70,801 Clustered Design - 153 Trees Predevelopment - 30% Retention -46 Trees - Trees Retained -62 Trees - Assume 3 Tree/Lot -12 Trees - Tree Fund Payment-$74,900 ($202K) Required Replacement trees not planted -214 (* $350) - Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$70,801 o Multi -Family ■ 8 Trees Predevelopment ■ 25% Retention -2 Trees ■ Trees Retained -0 Trees ■ Required Replacement Trees -18 Trees ■ Tree Planted -36 Trees ■ Tree Fund Payment -$0 ($0) ■ Park/Traffic Impact Fee = $38,595 Councilmember K. Johnson asked whether flexible layout design in the 10-lot subdivision and the multifamily examples in order to save 24+ inch trees was incorporated into the code. Mr. Lien said he did not run the flexible subdivision design in his example but that was something that could potentially be applied. In the standard conservation subdivision design example, it is difficult to retain trees to the maximum extent possible due to access easement requirements, utility easements, building footprints outside the setbacks. Once the building footprint is filled, trees that were growing in a stand are now vulnerable to windthrow and not the right tree in the right place anymore. A 10-lot subdivision could definitely utilize flexible layout and staff would encourage it. The Conservation Subdivision Design was adopted under Ordinance 4218 and the new section in the subdivision code 20.75.048. Councilmember Olson said one of her motivations for this amendment was this code is different and special from most jurisdictions in that it requires replacement and/or fee -in -lieu even for the ones meeting the retention requirement. It is also true that the space where a building will be located is currently occupied by trees and those two things are inconsistent. It is important that at the same time the Council is incentivizing developers to retain all the trees they can, especially the big ones, to also not be punitive for the trees that have to be removed for the sake of development on properties zoned for development. Secondarily she had some concern and wanted Councilmembers to think about the unintended consequence of smaller contractors who may not be able to front these enormous fees if the Council adopts something that does not have an adjustment and is more reasonable. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 15 Packet Pg. 18 6.1.a In the context of meeting goals from the standpoint of maintaining tree canopy, Councilmember Olson hoped the City would provide education/outreach to developers to get them to want to retain trees because they are vested and care about the environment and the value of the trees from an environmental standpoint even if it makes their job more difficult. She was concerned the outsized fees would prevent smaller contractors from doing business in Edmonds and only the larger contractors, who would pass on the fees to the home buyer, would be able to do business in Edmonds. She was uncertain that was on the Council's list of goals. Council President Paine said she would support the proposed Section a but not Section b. Councilmember Distelhorst referred to the examples, expressing concern with how much the fee drops and the possibility to incentivize the fee -in -lieu over retaining trees based on how low the fee would be. On the flipside, he also had concerns with how high the impact fees are and passing them on to housing costs especially when prices in Edmonds have increased 20% in the last year. He suggested that could be addressed via housing policies versus reducing the fees which may have an unintended consequence if developers simply pay the fee -in -lieu and not retaining any trees. Councilmember Buckshnis commented this is a very complex code and she preferred to keep it simple. She noted there are very few forested areas left so she did not envision small developers constructing homes unless it was their own home. She pointed out 27 significant trees were removed for a 4,000 square foot home. She preferred to retain the existing language. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested dividing the question as she had heard comments in favor of Section a and in favor of Section b. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if Section a could stand without b. Mr. Lien answered they are tied together and he did not think a could be included without b. He clarified the portion of a that could remain was the reference to ECDC 23.10.060.C.1, but "comply with tree retention" did not make sense without b. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to retain the original language for a, but recalled in order to add b, the language was added to a. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED TO REMOVE "COMPLY WITH TREE RETENTION" IN A AND TO REMOVE B. Council President Paine raised a point of order, suggesting the Council vote on the original motion and then address it through the amendment process. Mayor Nelson ruled point taken. Mayor Nelson restated the motion: TO ADD SECTIONS A AND B TO 23.10.080.E.1. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. Mr. Taraday suggested Mr. Lien illustrate what the code language would look like without all those amendments. Mr. Lien showed the code language without the proposed amendments: 23.10.080.E.1 The amount of the fee shall be $1000 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to satisfy the tree replacement requirements of this section and shall be deposited into the City's Tree Fund. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 16 Packet Pg. 19 6.1.a Mr. Taraday said one of the things that the Council discussed during the last debate was the issue of retention versus replacement. With the amendment that was just voted down, there was a clear implication in the code, an implication that was voted down, that one could buy their way up to the retention requirement. He was unclear whether in voting that down the Council was trying to direct staff that it does not want developers to be able to buy their way out of the retention requirement or if it simply wants all trees, whether they are trees to fulfill a retention requirement or trees to fulfill a replacement requirement, to be paid a fee -in -lieu if not planted at the rate of $1000/tree. There are multiple ways he and Mr. Lien can interpret the Council's deliberations and they are unclear what the Council's intentions are. Councilmember L. Johnson said she was interested in drafting the language in a way that it does not allow developers to buy their way out. Mr. Lien referred to the amendment in green approved earlier, "after providing clear documentation to Development Services that all tree retention and/or replacement options have been considered and are infeasible, including arborist reports as necessary..." pointing out that language infers there will be situations where the 30% retention standard cannot be met. The language in green acknowledges documentation will be required and after considering it, each tree not replanted per the replacement standards is required to be paid at a ratio of $1,000/tree. Councilmember L. Johnson asked Mr. Taraday to clarify what he was alluding to in his previous comments. Mr. Taraday wanted to ensure, 1) that the Council understands this code, and 2) that staff understands the Council. In listening to the debate, he was not clear on the Council's position with respect to the retention requirement. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if the Council should vote on their intention so staff could direct the Council on the way to meet it. She was unclear why Mr. Taraday was providing that advice and what he was asking of the Council. Mr. Taraday said if the 1-6 vote that the Council just took was an indication that they did not want developers to be able to buy themselves out of the retention requirement, then the word "retention" in the green amendment needed to be removed via an amendment. If there are circumstances as Mr. Lien just described where the Council recognizes there will be situations and is okay with those situations after providing the requisite documentation where developers could buy their way out of the retention requirement, then "retention" in the green amendment can remain. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested removing "tree retention and/or" in the green amendment, commenting the Council seemed to be getting confused with tree retention and replacement trees. There are requirements for tree retention and for tree replacement and she did not want developers to be able to buy their way out. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED TO REMOVE "TREE RETENTION AND/OR" IN THE GREEN SECTION. Councilmember Distelhorst asked if to address Mr. Taraday's concern, should "tree retention and/or" be removed from the green section or should "or tree retention" be added to Section 1. Mr. Lien said having retention in both places might be clearer. Mr. Taraday said there are a lot of options depending on what the Council is trying to accomplish. If "retention" is removed from the green section as stated in the motion, that means a developer cannot buy themselves out of the retention requirement and there will need to be another process developed for what happens if the retention requirements cannot be met because, as Mr. Lien stated, that is likely to happen on occasion. There are other possible ways to address that other than a buy-out. Ms. Hope said it would be important to address what happens when tree retention is not possible. Paying into a fund was one way to address that; if that was not allowed, another method needed to be determined. Councilmember Distelhorst asked if adding "retention" to Section 1 addresses that for the instances when everything has been exhausted and there is no other option. Mr. Lien said even without adding it to Section Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 17 Packet Pg. 20 6.1.a 1, it is addressed. It would add clarity if it was added to Section 1 as well. If a tree is removed, it will need to be replaced to the standards in 23.10.080.A whether or not they met the retention requirements. If not replanted, there would be a $1,000 fee. Deleting "retention and/or" as stated in the amendment will require development of another process for properties that cannot meet the retention requirements. Councilmember Buckshnis said Section E is titled Tree Replacement Fee -in -lieu, so she did not think it should address retention because retention is addressed in 23.10.060 Tree Retention with Development. She relayed Joe Scordino's comment that there are conflicts between the fee -in -lieu and tree replacement. Councilmember K. Johnson said this was referenced as the amendment in green, but the code section on the screen also contains underlined, strikethrough and highlighted text. Before the Council votes, she wanted to be clear what it was voting on. Mayor Nelson clarified the amendment is to revise 23.10.080.E to read, "After providing clear documentation to Development Services that all tree ten4ien wi&ef replacement options have been considered and are infeasible, including arborist reports as necessary, the developer shall pay a fee -in -lieu for each replacement tree required but not replaced." Council President Paine suggested adding "for any tree not able to be retained, the amount of the fee shall be $1,000 multiplied by the number of trees that were not retained..." to the tree retention section. Mr. Lien said the tree retention section references the fee -in -lieu. Mr. Taraday said it did not. He pointed out the significance of the proposed amendment would essentially be to direct staff to come up with some other means of dealing with properties that do not meet the retention requirement. Ms. Hope said it is confusing to say that someone could buy their way out of retaining trees. Clear documentation is required to show it is truly infeasible; then if they meet that requirement, they pay a fee -in -lieu. A developer cannot just choose to pay instead of replace. Mr. Lien said with regard to infeasible, other changes were made to the tree retention and protection plan regarding the documentation. He referenced language in 23.10.060.B.2.c.iv, "For trees not viable for retention, a description of the reason(s) for removal based on poor health, high risk, of failure due to structure, defects, unavoidable isolation (windfirmness), or unsuitability of species, etc., and for which no reasonable alternative action is possible must be given (pruning, cabling, etc.)." That is part of the documentation they would have to provide to show tree retention is infeasible. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Taraday interpreted this motion to mean the Council wanted staff to develop a different means of dealing with properties that do not meet the retention requirement. One of the options would be to create a process they would need to go through that would be more than an administrative process. For example, something akin to a reasonable use exception where there is a public process and there is a fairly rigorous standard that needs to be met. If they can meet the rigorous standard and there is a public opportunity to contest the evidence, they would essentially get a variance of sorts from the retention requirement. That would be one option that would be more than just a financial payment but a rigorous procedural requirement that would subject the assertions of infeasibility to a high standard and a public process. Councilmember L. Johnson asked how the public process would occur, whether it would come to Council. Mr. Taraday responded it would probably go to the Hearing Examiner. It would depend on the type of application, but it would likely not come to Council. Councilmember K. Johnson commented over the past decade small and large developers have taken the approach of clearcutting every tree prior to development which is not what the Council wants. The Council wants to retain the largest trees and replace those that cannot be retained. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 18 Packet Pg. 21 6.1.a Councilmember Distelhorst asked for Ms. Hope's input, noting public processes have often been used to block certain items. He had concern with that given that the Citizens Housing Commission recommendations, provided after an 18 month process, include streamlining the permitting process and simplifying code language related to housing and development. Ms. Hope agreed there is a tendency sometimes for these kinds of public processes to play out in ways where people may expect that simply showing up and protesting at a public meeting is the answer to stopping a development, when in fact the Hearing Examiner has to go through a rigorous process of looking at the facts and criteria to determine whether it is feasible or not. A developer would go through that process and receive a determination that they have to replace the trees or do not have to replace the trees and would not have to pay into the tree fund. It would be a very complicated process and although a developer would have to pay for the Hearing Examiner process, there would need to be a process by which a developer paid additional money if they did not meet the criteria. She was concerned that additional uncertainty would complicate things. Conversely with a fee -in -lieu program, if a developer adequately demonstrates they truly cannot replace the trees, the money goes into a Tree Fund that is used for tree activities and tree replacement. Councilmember Olson said it was her fault the Council ended up on this journey. Mr. Taraday took the fact that the amendment was voted down 1-6 as the Council was not supportive of a fee -in -lieu program, but it may be that they were not in favor of the $350/tree. She asked if there was a way to assess where the Council stands, whether they were fine with fee -in -lieu if it was more substantial. Mr. Taraday offered a hypothetical question to the Council: imagine a scenario where a developer comes in for a five -lot subdivision and the developer could meet the tree retention requirement if he only developed four lots, but to get the fifth lot, he has to take down trees; it is infeasible to get five lots and meet the tree retention requirement. In that scenario, would the Council want the code to say sorry developer, you only get four lots or say you get five lots but you have to do something else instead? He said these are the type of real world examples that staff will be faced with once applications begin to be submitted. The hypothetical he provided highlighted the policy challenges and policy choices the Council has before it. Councilmember Buckshnis said she clearly understood what Mr. Taraday was saying and she did not want to add any language that provided any type of discretion for the fifth lot to happen. There is a tree retention policy and a tree replacement policy and a fee -in -lieu. There is a price associated with replacement trees, but it is not clear in the code whether retention or replacement takes precedence. There are conflicts between the tree retention and fee -in -lieu and there is no indication which one supersedes the other. Councilmember Buckshnis acknowledged she had had a long day of meetings and may not be articulating her concerns clearly. In regard to Mr. Taraday's hypothetical, Councilmember Distelhorst said in his view the key determination would be what are the items for that fifth lot; there are a lot of variants that could be applicable that may sway his opinion one way or another. Council President Paine referred to the Planning Board's list of priorities, Items 4 and 7, Low Impact Subdivision Code Update and Sustainable Development Code Review and Update. Using Mr. Taraday's example, she would be satisfied to get the fifth unit if there was greener development put in place via the code. She agreed if the developer had to be told sorry, you can get four lots but not five, and at the point the Planning Board's priorities 4 and 7 can be completed, those are areas that can provide more wiggle room and address retention aspects in this code once those items are completed. Mr. Lien referred to the Conservation Subdivision Design in the code that allows for flexibility. In the example Mr. Taraday provided, that would be one consideration — what else could be done to meet the retention requirement. Even with that, there will still be instances where the retention standards cannot be met. Another comment he has heard from Council tonight is that the retention language is in the wrong place. Instead of developing an entirely new process, he suggested acknowledging in 23.10.060 that there Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 19 Packet Pg. 22 will be instances where tree retention cannot be met instead of in 23.10.080. As Ms. Hope pointed out, there will still be a fee -in -lieu payment when the retention requirements cannot be met and that money can be used for tree planting. Another amendment has been proposed to use the Tree Fund to purchase and preserve forested properties and open space. Councilmember K. Johnson said a developer doesn't have to build up to all the setbacks. If it means saving trees, perhaps one of the considerations should be a smaller building footprint. Especially in areas that are already downzoned, it is important not to build large buildings. She said that is done because they are spec homes and the developer wants the maximum profit feasible. She has been told by developers that when they market their homes, they want a clean landscape with nothing on it because that makes it more appealing to home buyers. She contended that the code should keep as many native, large trees as possible. Councilmember Distelhorst expressed support for Mr. Lien's comment about adding retention fee -in -lieu language somewhere else to add the clarity that Mr. Lien and Mr. Mr. Taraday requested. Councilmember Olson concurred. Recognizing it was 9:34 p.m., Mr. Lien said this was not something staff could draft on the fly tonight. He suggested the Council proceed with reviewing the simpler amendments and asked for direction regarding adding language in 23.10.060 for instances when tree retention requirements cannot be met including whether it is administrative process or a public variance process variance as Mr. Taraday outlined. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented that after working on this for 90 minutes, she was uncertain the Council would make the best decisions by continuing to review amendments. Councilmember Buckshnis offered to met with the subcommittee again to resolve the retention requirements, pointing out 23.10.080.E was one of the original amendments proposed on March 2" d. Ms. Hope suggested that would be more efficient than trying to resolve it tonight. If there was still the will to review the simpler amendments, those could be completed tonight and staff could come back with everything at the next available meeting. She was also tired after a long day of meetings. Councilmember L. Johnson said she was aware that three Councilmembers worked with staff to review the amendments. She asked if that was the subcommittee that Councilmembers and staff were referring to, recalling she and Council President Paine also worked with staff early in the process. She asked who constituted the subcommittee and expressed support for continuing to review the simpler proposed amendments. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said that was why she did not think it was best for the Council to continue reviewing the amendments tonight. She started her Zoom meetings today at 2:30 p.m. and was reaching the 7' hour of meetings today. She encouraged Council not to continue with the review of amendments, fearing it would "just go south." Councilmember Buckshnis said she started her Zoom meetings today at 2 p.m. She offered to work with administration, whether it was called a working group, a subcommittee or whatever. She was simply offering her services as this was originally her amendment on March 2"a. Councilmember Olson expressed support for continuing to review some of the easier amendments, recalling Council President Paine had wanted to start with the meatier ones, but there are several that can be voted on quickly. Council President Paine agreed there were several amendments that could be addressed quickly. She acknowledge everyone has had a long day, but extending the meeting slightly would allow the Council to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 20 Packet Pg. 23 get through all the amendments and then figure out what to do about tree retention. She proposed the Council start with the first highlighted amendment and work through them. Councilmember Distelhorst agreed with Council President Paine and previous Councilmembers that there were several amendments that should be quick and benign. He said he would refrain from comparing what time he started work this morning. Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment: Revise 23.10.060.2.b.i to read: "Location of all proposed improvements, including building footprint, access, utilities, applicable setbacks, critical areas, buffers and required landscaped areas clearly identified..." COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO ADD "CRITICAL AREAS" AS SHOWN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment, explaining he proposed it based on Council discussion: Revise 3.95.040.0 to read: Monies deposited into the tree fund for a fee -in -lieu of tree replacements as provided for in ECDC 23.10.080.E must be used to purchase trees for planting or acquiring and preserving wooded areas and open space." COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO ADD "OR ACQUIRING AND PRESERVING WOODED AREAS AND OPEN SPACE" IN 3.95.040.C. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment: Revise 23.10.100.C.2.f to read: "If illegal tree topping has occurred, the property owner shall be required to have a certified arborist develop and implement a five (5) year pruning schedule in addition to monetary fines and/or required tree replacement. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ADD "/OR" IN 23.10.100.C.2.f. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment: Revise 23.10.080.13.1 to read: "The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable assurance of regaining vigor, for reasons not attributable to the development." Mr. Lien explained by adding this language, if a tree has to be removed due to damage associated with the development, replacement would be required. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON AND SECONDED TO ADD "FOR REASONS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT" TO 23.10.080.B.1. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment: Add 23.10.070.C.6 to read: "Limit the time period that the critical root zone is covered by mulch, plywood, steel plates or similar materials, or by light soils, to protect the trees critical root zone." A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON AND SECONDED TO ADD 23.10.070.C.6 "LIMIT THE TIME PERIOD THAT THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE IS COVERED BY MULCH, PLYWOOD, STEEL PLATES OR SIMILAR MATERIALS, OR BY LIGHT SOILS, TO PROTECT THE TREES CRITICAL ROOT ZONE." Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 21 Packet Pg. 24 6.1.a Council President Paine asked how this differed from 23.10.070.B, Placing Materials Near Trees. Mr. Lien answered B refers to parking equipment, storing building materials, etc. near trees; 23.10.070.C.6 is related to limiting the time that tree protection measures would be in place during development refers. Councilmember L. Johnson asked how limiting the time would be determined, whether it was enough to say "limit the time" or was that too vague. Mr. Lien said every development would be different. Sites are often developed in stages, so when work is completed in that area of the site, the protection measures can be removed. Another section of the code refers to a preconstruction meeting; this section can be discussed during the preconstruction meeting. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if it would be beneficial or redundant to say, "limit as discussed during preconstruction meeting." Mr. Lien did not think that was necessary. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment: Revise 23.10.070 Tree Protection Measures During Development to read: "Prior to development activity or initiating tree removal on the site, vegetated areas, individual trees and soil to be preserved in accordance with ECDC 23.10.060.B shall be protected from..." A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED AND SECONDED TO ADD "IN ACCORDANCE WITH ECDC 23.10.060.B TO 23.10.070. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment: Revise 23.10.060.D.3 to read: "Priority Three: Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been evaluated for tension and are not able to be retained because of mature trees that are a all hazard except where adjacent..." A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON AND SECONDED, TO ADD "BECAUSE OF MATURE TREES THAT ARE A FALL HAZARD" TO 23.10.060.D.3. Councilmember Olson said she was part of the subcommittee and accepted this amendment at the time, but when she studied the packet later, the intent of the amendment was unclear. Mr. Lien described how he interpreted this amendment: priority three trees are listed as alders and cottonwoods which have their place in the environment; alders are nitrogen fixing and are usually associated with riparian corridors or wetlands but are not necessarily the best urban tree which is why they were give priority three status. This amendment adds because they are fall hazards to the reasons that alders and cottonwoods shouldn't be retained. Councilmember Olson said the amendment seemed to state it was because of the other trees that are fall hazard that it may be possible to keep the alders and cottonwoods. Mr. Lien said the fall hazard is not the other trees; the fall hazard applies to the alders and cottonwoods. Councilmember Olson said then they should not be retained and they are not a priority at all if there is concern with them falling. Mr. Lien said that would be one of the considerations for retention; if they are a fall hazard, they are not trees that a developer will want to retain. Councilmember Olson suggested moving "and subject to a fall hazard" to follow "except for when not adjacent to open space, wetlands or creek buffers." Mr. Lien said that changes the intent; alders and cottonwood are a priority three. Where they would not be a priority three is where they are adjacent to open space, wetlands or creeks. Councilmember Olson relayed her understanding of Mr. Lien's explanation that alders and cottonwoods would be a higher priority when adjacent to open space, wetlands or creek buffers. Mr. Lien agreed. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 22 Packet Pg. 25 6.1.a Councilmember Olson asked if it clear as written for a layperson when she, as a layperson, did not understand it. Mr. Lien referred to priority one trees in D.Ld "significant trees adjacent to critical area and their associated buffers" and the exception in D.3 "except when adjacent to open space, wetlands or creek buffers." When alders or cottonwoods are adjacent to open space, wetlands or creek buffers, they become priority one trees. Councilmember Olson suggested adding, "except for when the terms in priority one apply." Mr. Lien responded he did not think that was necessary. Councilmember Olson said other Councilmembers were indicating it was also confusing to them. Council President Paine did not support the proposed change, primarily because if alders and cottonwoods are present on a development site, it is probably in a wetland or riparian area or adjacent to one or adjacent to one that is not functioning efficiently. She accepted them being priority three, but unless they go through a hazard analysis, she would not support the proposed changed. Councilmember K. Johnson said alders are part of the succession forest; once an area has been logged, they are one of the first trees to come back. As Mr. Lien said, they are nitrogen fixing and they have many advantages such as wildlife habitat and they mature around 40 years. Young alders and cottonwoods may be a priority three but once they mature, they become a fall hazard. This is evident on Main Street on either side of Yost Park and in residential areas near Yost Park. She concluded it was perfectly fine to have alders, just not when they were fall hazards. Mayor Nelson commented this seemed to be a controversial amendment. Councilmember K. Johnson pointed out staff did not object to the proposed language. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON CALLED THE QUESTION. CALL FOR THE QUESTION CARRIED. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE AND SECONDED TO EXTEND FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (5-2). Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment: Revise first sentence of 23.10.060.E to read, "In considering trees for retention, applicants and the City shall avoid, to the extent known, the selection of trees that may beeeme hazardous beea se of wind gusts that are mature and maybe be a fall hazard, including..." A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON AND SECONDED TO REVISE 23.10.060.E TO READ, "IN CONSIDERING TREES FOR RETENTION, APPLICANTS AND THE CITY SHALL AVOID, TO THE EXTENT KNOWN, THE SELECTION OF TREES THAT MAY BECOME HAZARDOUS BECAUSE OF WIND GUSTS THAT ARE MATURE AND MAYBE BE A FALL HAZARD, INCLUDING..." Councilmember Distelhorst said this seemed to make more sense because it was applied to all consideration for tree retention versus alders and cottonwoods. Mr. Lien agreed. Council President Paine did not support the motion, preferring a hazard tree analysis that was scientifically valid. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 23 Packet Pg. 26 6.1.a Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the point raised by Council President Paine would be consistent with this. Mr. Lien referred to language in 23.10.060.B.2.c.iv, "for trees not viable for retention, a description of the reason(s) for removal based on poor health, high risk of failure due to structure, defects, unavoidable isolation (windfirmness), or unsuitability of species, etc., and for which no reasonable alternative action is possible must be given (pruning, cabling, etc.)." If the developer is claiming hazard tree, one of things required for documentation of hazard trees is the arborist completes the Tree Risk Assessment form that determines whether or not a tree is a hazard. If it comes back as high or extreme risk, then it is considered a hazard. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if this was approved, was it redundant or did it create another opening in the code. Mr. Lien said all this amendment does is replace "that may become hazardous because of wind gusts" with "that are mature and may become a fall hazard." It is very similar language, just a small tweak. Councilmember Olson asked if Mr. Lien continued to support the statement that staff does not object or did he feel it added no value. Mr. Lien said he still did not object to this amendment. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment, stating he preferred the revised language: Revise last sentence of 23.10.060.E to read: less of a buff-er- ffem other- tfees, gr-ade ehanges affeeting the tree health and stability, anWer- the presence of buildings in elese pr-wdfait�- ILa revised building placement would result in the retention ofmore and/or higher priority trees, the development plan should be ad iusted to maximize the retention of such trees. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO REVISE LAST SENTENCE OF 23.10.060.E TO READ: "REMAINING TREES MAY BE SUSCEPTIBLE TO BLOWDOWNS BECAUSE OF LOSS OF A BUFFER FROM OTHER TREES, GRADE CHANGES AFFECTING THE TREE HEALTH AND STABILITY, AND/OR THE PRESENCE OF BUILDINGS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY. IF REVISED BUILDING PLACEMENT WOULD RESULT IN THE RETENTION OF MORE AND/OR HIGHER PRIORITY TREES, THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOULD BE ADJUSTED TO MAXIMIZE THE RETENTION OF SUCH TREES. " Councilmember Olson said this was a good amendment and thanked Councilmember K. Johnson for suggesting it. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment: Move 23.10.060.D.2.d "other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees" to priority one. Mr. Lien explained staff recommends against this amendment because other significant native evergreen trees could also be located within healthy groupings, within the setbacks or have a screening or priority function. If more and more is moved into priority one, it downgrades what the City is trying to retain such as specimen trees, significant trees that form a contiguous canopy, significant trees on slopes greater than 15%, significant trees adjacent to critical areas and buffers, and other big significant trees 60 feet in height or 18 inches in diameter. As more trees are added into priority one, a developer could argue saving one of these other trees over a specimen tree. Moving more into the priority one degrades the trees that the city really wants to save which was why he did not support this change. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 24 Packet Pg. 27 6.1.a Councilmember K. Johnson recalled the subcommittee had this discussion and did not reach an agreement. Her focus is on the native evergreen and deciduous trees. She preferred they be encompassed in priority one, pointing out they were not enumerated. For example, one of the priority one is "significant trees over 60 feet in height," and she assumed most of those were native trees. She wanted it to be clear that the City wants to keep the native tree canopy. Councilmember Buckshnis commented most of the trees being cut are conifers, at least in the areas she has seen in the last 4-5 years. She understood Mr. Lien's opinion, commenting the goal is to keep, retain or replace native trees because the City has been losing its canopy for years. She expressed support for the proposed change. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested inserting "significant native trees that form a continuous canopy" or "significant native trees over 60 feet tall," then the priority three category would basically be the smaller trees. Mr. Lien said smaller trees can form a contiguous canopy. Councilmember K. Johnson said it was more important to maintain large conifers, bigleaf maples, etc., the trees that really represent the natural forest. Councilmember Olson raised a point of order, asking if the supportive comments from Councilmembers K. Johnson and Councilmember Buckshnis could be treated as the motion and second. Mayor Nelson answered no. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO MOVE 23.10.060.D.2 "OTHER SIGNIFICANT NATIVE EVERGREEN OR DECIDUOUS TREES" TO PRIORITY ONE. Councilmember Olson referred to D. Le, "significant trees over sixty (60) feet in height or greater than eighteen (18) inches DBH" which addresses the spirit and core of Councilmember K. Johnson's amendment. Mr. Lien point was this waters down the priorities. If the priority is the biggest trees, whatever they are, she assumed those were the trees that Councilmember K. Johnson wanted to save. She agreed with not adding to priority one because then nothing is specialized or differentiated. Contiguous canopy is one of the biggest priorities from an environmental standpoint and usually it is comprised of bigger trees. She did not support the proposed amendment even though she made the motion. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE CALLED QUESTION. CALL FOR THE QUESTION CARRIED. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment: Add 3.95.040.A.6: "Purchasing and planting of trees by the City ofEdmonds including Planting street trees within the right-of-waX." COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO ADD 3.95.040.A.6: "PURCHASING AND PLANTING OF TREES BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS INCLUDING PLANTING STREET TREES WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY." MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Lien said an option for tree retention will be developed and returned to Council for consideration. He suggested a subcommittee draft options. Councilmember Olson asked if the Council needed to pass the code as amended so something better was in place. Mr. Taraday said the Council has that option; there is an ordinance in the packet and the Council Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 25 Packet Pg. 28 6.1.a could pass that ordinance with the amendments that have been approved tonight. Alternatively, the Council could wait until the tree retention language is drafted and approve everything at the same time. Mr. Lien said if the ordinance is adopted with the changes that have been approved so far, if the tree retention requirements could not be meet, the development would have to be denied because there is no process for a site that cannot meet the tree retention standards. Mr. Taraday agreed, there was no escape valve or pressure release mechanism for such developments. Councilmember Olson said she could accept that since it would probably only be 1-2 weeks before it was brought back. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY'S TREE REGULATIONS AND TREE FUND PROVISIONS AS PRESENTED IN THE PACKET. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE AND SECONDED TO EXTEND FOR FIVE ADDITIONAL MINUTES TO 10:25. MOTION CARRIED. �9�u EV03 RKS4113u lu M DI�I C: Mayor Nelson relayed Snohomish County is continuing to go in the wrong direction with regard to the number of COVID cases. Several counties are going back to Phase 2; Snohomish County is currently at 152 cases/100,000 and will go back to Phase 2 if it reaches 200 cases/100,000. Regardless of vaccine distribution, people still need to wear marks, socially distance and wash their hands. Mayor Nelson wished his youngest son, Henry, a Happy Birthday. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Distelhorst said it has been somewhat heartening to see increased responsible gun legislation taking place at the state and federal levels. He appreciated the moves being taken to address the gun violence public health epidemic in this country. It seems there have been killings occurring daily over the past couple weeks, including in this region. Having lived in multiple other countries that do not have any such gun violence, he personally struggled to understand why society continued to accept this senseless violence and killing, including the killing of Dante Wright. Councilmember Distelhorst wished Happy Ramadan to those celebrating over the next month. Councilmember Buckshnis announced her reappointment of Nicole Hughes to the Economic Development Commission. She thanked everyone who has contacted her, commenting she will be busy reviewing 24 grant proposals that WRIA 8 received. She hoped Walkable Edmonds will be reviewed and that Mayor Nelson will make the correct decision. Councilmember K. Johnson expressed her concern about Walkable Main Street, commenting there had been an outpouring of concern from local merchants and people who support them. The perspective of the survey people who go to Walkable Main Street, not from businesses' perspective. The joint letters, protests and local surveys have filled that void. She hoped Mayor Nelson listened to this new point of view. Councilmember K. Johnson explained the reason she abstained from the vote regarding hazard pay for grocery workers was it was a very last minute proposal which she had not been briefed on other than the packet materials. It was presented as an emergency so it had to be voted on that night, but that negated the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 26 Packet Pg. 29 6.1.a Council's 2-3 touch rule. She did not appreciate that the topic was proposed as a rush without opportunity for proper vetting ahead of time. The packet contained one-sided information and did not address any of the unintended consequences that have been cited by grocery workers such as a reduction in hours and loss of benefits or questions such as would staffing levels change or would grocery prices increase. For those reasons, she abstained from the vote. Council President Paine thanked the Planning Board for their presentation tonight. She was glad the Council was down to one final issue with the tree ordinance. This is the third meeting after it was anticipated all this work would be completed, and that was due to a number of reasons including a lack of diligence on the packet. She recognized the tree code was important to everyone and she encouraged Councilmembers to ask questions of staff. She agreed the COVID numbers were going in the wrong direction and encouraged people to continue wearing masks, to be safe and to enjoy the beautiful, sunny weather. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS AND SECONDED TO EXTEND 5 MORE MINUTES TO 10:30. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Olson acknowledged there are currently a lot of issues of public interest. She invited the public to a mask -wearing, socially distanced "Talk Then Walk" on Wednesday, April 21 at 10 a.m. at the 85 Degree C Bakery and Cafe near Ranch Market. A half hour chat will be followed by a walk. Councilmember L. Johnson announced her appointment of Keith Hamilton to the Economic Development Commission. She referred to her expressed desire last week for the City to seriously consider Sundays for Walkable Main Street, stating she stands by that request, especially considering the strong community support for that compromise. She looked forward to the upcoming discussions regarding that topic. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas referred to a comment about reinstating the 2-3 touch rule, noting there were suggested additions to the agenda that did not adhere to the 2-3 touch rule. There are no policies or procedures regarding that issue, sometimes it is observed and sometimes it is not. She was hopeful the new Council Rules and Procedures would include something specific. She announced Linda Carl who was former Mayor Haakenson's executive assistant and who worked for the Snohomish County Executive's office and the Health District, retired today. She wished her well. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed she accompanied the Snohomish Health District's Health Officer to meet the Washington State Secretary of Health Dr. Umair Shah and to visit the Edmonds College vaccine site. She found Dr. Shah a very interesting man with a wealth of information. He came to Washington from Texas and was appointed by the Governor in January. Dr. Shah congratulated Snohomish County for having the most people vaccinated of any county and the numbers continue to be reasonable compared to many other counties. She said people still need to wear masks, socially distance, get vaccinated and avoid large gatherings. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said public health is beginning to work on gun legislation as one of the top public health issues because it is being coming more rampant and more people are dying from gun violence. Student Representative Roberts urged the public to continue wearing masks whether they are vaccinated or not, to please get vaccinated if they can, and to stay safe. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:29 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 27 Packet Pg. 30 6.1.a Public Comment for 4/13/21 Council Meeting: From: Candy Brown Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 7:09 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comment I agree with our retailers and Save Our Saturdays. Please show your support for them and keep Main Street open on Saturdays. —Candy Brown From: Janelle Cass Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 6:24 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Walkable Mainstreet Dear Mayor and Edmonds City Council, I am both a resident and business owner in Edmonds. I am writing to urge your consideration of having more public input for the "Walkable Mainstreet" plan. Any action or decision with this sheer impact to the business district deserves a public process. I am a board member of the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce and do not recall any requests for input regarding this plan. It is also my understanding that this was not presented to the Economic Development Commission either. The public survey was skewed both in the questions presented and in the fact that it did not reveal to the public what the negative impacts are associated with the street closure. I have shared this information to several neighborhood groups including the "My Edmonds Moms" and every remark was overwhelmingly in support of a Sunday WMS. As the public becomes more educated it would be prudent to re -survey and consider everyone's input. Thank you for your time, lanelle Cass President, Ohana Hyperbarics Inc. From: Bill Phipps Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 4:02 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Citizens Planning Board <citizens- planning@edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 28 Packet Pg. 31 6.1.a <Kernen.Lien@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Tree Code Hello City Council and fellow Tree Code advocates; A couple more thoughts besides the Fees -in -lieu -of mess: How will the Tree Code work in conjunction with the Critical Areas Code? If a proposed development has critical areas on it, will the Critical Areas Code take precedence and the Tree Code not be applicable? Or will the Critical Areas Code apply to the critical areas and the Tree Code apply to the remaining portion of the property? Under 10.80.D.4, the replacement tree specification new section D.4, what is the Urban Growth Area ? Is that different then City of Edmonds boundaries? Should that definition, Urban Growth Area, be in the Definitions section ? You will need to develop a comprehensive tree replacement planting plan and area. You may find this harder to do than you think. I would have the Parks Department give you all a presentation on public open spaces, parks, and other City controlled areas where mass planting of conifers could possibly occur. Kernen; in the new draft that I read, it looks like section 10.060.F, Preconstruction Meeting, was left out,,,? In the Funding Purposes section 3.95.040; 1 think it should be stated that an aerial forest canopy analysis should be funded for, at five year intervals. It should be remembered that all loss of significant trees should be accounted for and replaced with multiple of -kind replacement trees. We just lost another 7 significant trees (9 total) last week on our block. That's' a total of 13 large conifers, in the last six months, on one block alone. No replacement trees are being planted for any of those large conifers. You all realize that the overwhelming majority of Edmonds residents do not have a view of the water. We have a view of the trees. And that view is disappearing quickly! We are counting on you to preserve our forest canopy. Thank you Bill Phipps Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 29 Packet Pg. 32 6.1.a From: Bill Phipps Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 3:03 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen <Kernen. Lien @edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov>; Citizens Planning Board <citizens- planning@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Joe Scordino <joe.scordino@yahoo.com> Subject: Fw: Fee -In -Lieu in Tree Code Must be Fixed Greetings City Council and All; I agree with Joe, the new fees -in -lie -of (FILO) section is real confusing. Section .080.E. The change made last time you worked on was a mistake. It could have been a clerical mistake. My notes say that you were changing it to $350 FILO for replacement trees for original trees less than 10" DBH; and $1000 for replacement trees for original tree over 10"DBH... ?? But now, as it is written, it's : $1000 FILU for each retention tree not meeting requirements and $350 for each replacement tree not meeting requirements. Is this what you meant to say? I hope not. Fees -in -lieu -of are a slippery slope . They can be taken advantage of by developers. The FILU provisions should be strengthened, not weakened. A thousand dollars per tree is nothing to a developer building a million dollar house. Please keep the FILU provisions as was originally written. Or make them more stringent. I have other comments but really wanted to amplify Joes' concerns on the the confusing changes to the FILO provisions. Thank you for your service; Bill Phipps From: joe scordino Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 1:35 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien @edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope @edmondswa.gov> Subject: Tree Code - Need for Section on Semi -Annual Reporting to Council Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 30 Packet Pg. 33 6.1.a The Tree Code needs to have a Section (e.g., 23.10.120) that addresses reporting to the Council and the public on the "effectiveness" of the Tree Code in achieving UFMP and Comp Plan goals and objectives. This can be constructed similar to the Council Reporting in the Critical Areas Ordinance (Section 23.40.55) which states: "The Director will provide a report to the City Council during the 1st and 3rd quarter each year, summarizing " .............. The Council can discuss what metrics it would like to see in the semi-annual reports such as number of parcels with tree removals, affected watersheds, percentage of trees removed on each parcel, percentage of trees replaced, amount of in -lieu fees collected, effects of removal on tree canopy, etc. I'm sure the Council is aware of public concerns about the continuing loss of the "green character" of Edmonds, and this semi-annual reporting will keep the Council and the public informed on this important issue. From: Joan Bloom Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 10:17 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Co -Signed Letter on Unforeseen Outcomes of Council Action on Tree Code Council, To be perfectly clear, please consider mine to be an additional signature to the following letter: Council Members, We, the undersigned, are very concerned about the unintended consequences and likely outcomes of the Council adopting the Tree Code as is without addressing the inherent issues and complications that prudent City management would necessitate. Our questions reflecting our concerns are: Does the Council want to allow substantially more mature trees in Edmonds to be removed (except for those in critical areas such as along streams and in City Parks)? Does the Council intend to ignore the "no net loss" goal in the Urban Forest Management Plan (which the City, Council and citizens worked on for three years)? Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 31 Packet Pg. 34 6.1.a Does the Council want to allow developers the discretion of determining "feasibility' of cutting down all the mature trees on a parcel by simply paying a fee (i.e., cost of business)? Does the Council want to allow developers full discretion on replacement of significant trees (i.e., what replacement species, where they are planted, etc.)? Does the Council want to allow sensitive watersheds, such as the Perrinville Creek Watershed, to be further degraded by allowing excessive removal of mature trees? Does the Council want to give full power (i.e., discretion) to Planning Department individuals WITHOUT OVERSIGHT regarding the numerous developer exemptions? Does the Council intend to ignore the 'best available science' on the value of large trees and the intertwined aspects of climate change, stormwater management, residential flooding, wildlife corridors, over -development, societal benefits of a 'green' environment, Puget Sound view properties and inherent property values, and the likely outcome of mismanagement of sensitive watersheds (e.g., the demise of Perrinville Creek)? Does this Council really want to be responsible for diminishing the "green character" of Edmonds that so many of its citizens identify with? Isn't preserving the "green character" the intent of the UFMP and the Tree Code? If your answer to any of the above questions is 'No' then we hope and expect you will agree to devote the time needed NOW to work through the tree code issues and make 'prudent management' changes to the tree code with an eye towards what the City intended in the UFMP. The unforeseen consequences of approving the tree code "as is for now" are too important to ignore. From a tree's perspective, there is only ONE CHANCE to get this right. Sincerely, Joe Scordino Richard Senderoff Marjie Fields Steve Hatzenbeler Kathleen Sears Duane Farmen Deborah Hopkins Nancy Johnson Greg Ferguson Lora Petso Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 32 Packet Pg. 35 6.1.a Cynthia Jones Marty Jones David Richman Bernie Busch Mike Shaw Sharon Sneddon Diana Maish Dee Piepho Lynette Petrie Beth Stimson Karen Barnes Jane O'Dell Susie Schaefer Joan M. Bloom From: Joan Bloom Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 10:12 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: co -signed letter asking the Council to take prudent management action on the Tree Code at the April 13 (and beyond) Council meetings. Council, I was unavailable this weekend and missed the opportunity to co-sign the letter sent to you by Joe Scordino. This email is to endorse every point made by Joe and others in the "co -signed letter asking the Council to take prudent management action on the Tree Code at the April 13 (and beyond) Council meetings." Please consider mine an additional signature to this letter. Regards, Joan Bloom From: Robert Sears <searslegg@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 7:42 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comment Walkable Main Street" on Sundays should have been the program in the first place. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 33 Packet Pg. 36 6.1.a Without having to park blocks away on the biggest shopping and most fun day of the week (think summer market) the residents of Edmonds and visitors can once again support our small businesses and enjoy the vibe of a healthy, bustling and vibrant town. - Bob Sears* * a 21-year Edmonds resident and Edmonds enthusiast From: joe scordino <joe.scordino@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 11:20 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Subject: Co -Signed Letter on Unforeseen Outcomes of Council Action on Tree Code Attached and below is a co -signed letter asking the Council to take prudent management action on the Tree Code at the April 13 (and beyond) Council meetings. Council Members, We, the undersigned, are very concerned about the unintended consequences and likely outcomes of the Council adopting the Tree Code as is without addressing the inherent issues and complications that prudent City management would necessitate. Our questions reflecting our concerns are: Does the Council want to allow substantially more mature trees in Edmonds to be removed (except for those in critical areas such as along streams and in City Parks)? Does the Council intend to ignore the "no net loss" goal in the Urban Forest Management Plan (which the City, Council and citizens worked on for three years)? Does the Council want to allow developers the discretion of determining "feasibility" of cutting down all the mature trees on a parcel by simply paying a fee (i.e., cost of business)? Does the Council want to allow developers full discretion on replacement of significant trees (i.e., what replacement species, where they are planted, etc.)? Does the Council want to allow sensitive watersheds, such as the Perrinville Creek Watershed, to be further degraded by allowing excessive removal of mature trees? Does the Council want to give full power (i.e., discretion) to Planning Department individuals WITHOUT OVERSIGHT regarding the numerous developer exemptions? Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 34 Packet Pg. 37 6.1.a Does the Council intend to ignore the 'best available science' on the value of large trees and the intertwined aspects of climate change, stormwater management, residential flooding, wildlife corridors, over -development, societal benefits of a 'green' environment, Puget Sound view properties and inherent property values, and the likely outcome of mismanagement of sensitive watersheds (e.g., the demise of Perrinville Creek)? Does this Council really want to be responsible for diminishing the "green character" of Edmonds that so many of its citizens identify with? Isn't preserving the "green character" the intent of the UFMP and the Tree Code? If your answer to any of the above questions is 'No' then we hope and expect you will agree to devote the time needed NOW to work through the tree code issues and make 'prudent management' changes to the tree code with an eye towards what the City intended in the UFMP. The unforeseen consequences of approving the tree code "as is for now" are too important to ignore. From a tree's perspective, there is only ONE CHANCE to get this right. Sincerely, Joe Scordino Richard Senderoff Marjie Fields Steve Hatzenbeler Kathleen Sears Duane Farmen Deborah Hopkins Nancy Johnson Greg Ferguson Lora Petso Cynthia Jones Marty Jones David Richman Bernie Busch Mike Shaw Sharon Sneddon Diana Maish Dee Piepho Lynette Petrie Beth Stimson Karen Barnes Jane O'Dell Susie Schaefer Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 35 Packet Pg. 38 6.1.a From: J Alex Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 7:49 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comment re WMS Dear City Council, I have been reading the concerns of the downtown businesses who found that closing Main Street on Saturdays is a hardship. I agree a good compromise would be Main Street open to traffic and parking on Saturday from 8am-5pm; and Walkable Main Street could be on Saturday night from 5pm-10pm and all day Sunday. Friday night could be added in, unless it does cause a problem due to how early people need to move their cars. Thank you got listening, Judith Alexander Edmonds, WA 98026-9406 From: Mary Duffy Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 2:54 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comment I'm writing in support of the proposal to have Walkable Main Street on Sundays only. I think this is an excellent compromise, and that the merchants deserve this. Mary Duffy Edmonds 98026 From: Cherryl Bailey Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 9:13 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comment Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 36 Packet Pg. 39 6.1.a I support local retail businesses. I would like to see parking available on Main Street on Saturdays for people shopping in Edmonds.The streets could be closed off on Sundays for restaurants. Please support our retail business. Cherryl Bailey From: Ken Reidy Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 8:16 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope @edmondswa.gov>; Chave, Rob <Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov>; Martin, Michelle <Michelle.Martin@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Citizens Planning Board <citizens-planning@edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comment for April 13, 2021 City Council Meeting For many years, I have railed against the provision of false, misleading, inaccurate, or incomplete information to City Council and Hearing Examiners in advance of decisions. Despite my efforts, it continues to happen. The Planning, Public Safety and Personnel Committee agenda for Tuesday night, April 13, 2021, provides further proof of this. Please refer to page 16 of that Agenda Packet which contains the following three falsehoods: WHEREAS, the initial planning board terms were staggered such that two positions would expire after each of the first four years of the planning board; and WHEREAS, the initial terms for positions 1 and 2, for example, would have started at midnight on January 1, 1981 and would have expired at midnight on January 1, 1982; and WHEREAS, any other interpretation of those initial term lengths would require a conclusion that the initial terms for position 7 and the alternate position were intended to be five year terms, a conclusion which is not supported by any evidence and which appears contrary to the four-year length of all subsequent terms; The TRUTH is that the initial planning board terms were staggered such that two positions would expire after each of years 2-5 of the planning board; and The TRUTH is that the initial terms for positions 1 and 2 started the very first second of January 1, 1981 and expired at midnight on December 31, 1982; and Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 37 Packet Pg. 40 6.1.a The TRUTH is that the initial terms for position 7 and the alternate position were five-year terms that started the very first second of January 1, 1981 and expired at midnight on December 31, 1985. The evidence and the TRUTH are easily found on Page 1 of the December 16, 1980 City Council Meeting Minutes. I have attached Page 1 for your convenience. Why are falsehoods presented to decision makers in advance of decisions? Is there ever any accountability when this takes place? Will the culture within Edmonds City government that allows this conduct ever change? There may be further problems with what is being presented to the Planning, Public Safety and Personnel Committee agenda for next Tuesday night's meeting. Hopefully, whoever is responsible for preparing the agenda item and the proposed Ordinance amending Chapter 10.40 of the Edmonds City Code will be asked to correct all falsehoods and provide complete information. I encourage City Council to implement policies and procedures to address all steps that must be followed when it becomes known that false, misleading, inaccurate, or incomplete information has been provided to City Council and Hearing Examiners in advance of decisions. Please consider whether these policies and procedures should involve disciplinary action. Thank you. Attachment: From: Kenneth Degernas Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2021 8:10 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comment Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 38 Packet Pg. 41 6.1.a Now it's time to help the retailers survive. They are just as important to the quaintness of Edmonds as our wonderful restaurants. Open streets Sunday only please. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 13, 2021 Page 39 Packet Pg. 42 6.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/27/2021 Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #247027 through #247101 dated April 22, 2021 for $3,325,297.78 (re -issued check #247080 $204.00) and wire payments of $13,960.80 & $567.92. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #64657 through #64659 for $622,377.02, benefit checks #64660 through #64665 and wire payments of $638,228.19 for the pay period April 1, 2021 through April 15, 2021. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Attachments: claims 04-22-21 wire 04-22-21 wire 04-22-21 b FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 04-22-2021 payroll summary 04-20-21 payroll benefits 04-22-21 Packet Pg. 43 6.2.a vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06 :17AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 247027 4/22/2021 076040 911 SUPPLY INC 247028 4/22/2021 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 247029 4/22/2021 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account INV-2-9960 INV-2-9960 - EDMONDS PD - PLOE( BALLISTIC VEST 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 CONCEALABLE CARRIER 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 TRAUMA PLATE 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 EXTERNAL CARRIER 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 SAFARILAND ID PANEL 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 HEAT PRESS - EDMONDS PD 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 2 NAME TAPES 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 2 - VELCRO 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.1 % Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 INV-2-9961 INV-2-9961 - EDMONDS PD - INVEN SGT BRASS BELT BUCKLE 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.1 % Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 Total 15-88879 A&A - INT BESSY A&A - INT BESSY 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 15-89038 A&A INT MOUL A&A INT MOUL 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 421586 Total ; WATER/ SEWER - PRINTING ON SP Page: 1 aD L 3 c �a .y Amoun 0 a aD r CU d 880.0( N 80.0( m t 20.0( U m 200.0( d 10.0( �a 10.0( o �a 10.0( fd U 4- 123.& o �a 0 a 60.0( Q 6.0E N 1,415.W N N 0 170.0( c 170.0( aD 340.0( E U �a Q Page: 1 Packet Pg. 44 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06:17AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 247029 4/22/2021 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 247030 4/22/2021 071634 ALLSTREAM 247031 4/22/2021 065568 ALLWATER INC 247032 4/22/2021 001528 AM TEST INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) WATER/ SEWER - PRINTING ON SP 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 WATER/ SEWER - PRINTING ON SA 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 Total 17451796 C/A 768328 PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service 512.000.31.518.88.42.00 Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929; 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 Total 041421001 FINANCE DEPT WATER Finance dept water 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 041421003 WWTP: ACCT: COEWASTE: 4/14/2 Acct COEWaste: 4/14/21 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Total 120960 WWTP: SAMPLE #21-A003797-3801 #21-A003797-3801 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 120971 WWTP: SAMPLE #S 21-A004162-41 6.2.a Page: 2 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 25.2E u L 25.2 , N 2.6< U 2.6< 55.81 as c �a 1,348.0� o L 11.1' a E 1,370.31 0 7a 0 42.7E a a Q 4.4E .r N N N 43.7E 4 0 4.5E E 95.5( c aD E 355.0( U �a Q Page: 2 Packet Pg. 45 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06:17AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 247032 4/22/2021 001528 AM TEST INC (Continued) 120972 247033 4/22/2021 070976 AMERESCO INC CS-4 CS-5 P F-4 P F-5 247034 4/22/2021 078338 ANDREW LIEBL & KRISTI COLLIER 3-07850 PO # Description/Account SAMPLE #S 21-A004162-4163 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 WWTP: SAMPLE #S 21-A004071-40 SAMPLE #S 21-A004071-4077 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 Total WWTP: THRU 2/20/21 CONSTRUCT THRU 2/20/21 CONSTRUCT. SERV-1 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 Retainage 423.100.223.400 10.4% Sales Tax 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 WWTP: THRU 3/31/21 CONSTRUCT THRU 3/31/21 CONSTRUCT. SERV-1 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 Retainage 423.100.223.400 10.4% Sales Tax 423.100.76.594.39.65.10 WWTP: THRU 2/28/2021 PROF SER THRU 2/28/21 FINAL DESIGN SERV 423.100.76.594.39.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.100.76.594.39.41.00 WWTP: THRU 3/31/2021 PROF SER THRU3/3/21 FINAL DESIGN SERV-C 423.100.76.594.39.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.100.76.594.39.41.00 Total #21-193-RDW UTILITY REFUND #21-193-RDW Utility refund due to 6.2.a Page: 3 aD L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 80.0( u 435.0( 870.0( m c 1,163,775.0( -58,188.7E 0 121,032.6( L>% M a 1,063,775.0( -53,188.7E o Ta 110,632.6( o a a Q 338,499.5E N 35,203.9E N 0 291,135.3( . R U 30,278.0 3,042,954.51 y E t U �a Q Page: 3 Packet Pg. 46 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06:17AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 247034 4/22/2021 078338 ANDREW LIEBL & KRISTI COLLIER (Continued) 247035 4/22/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES PO # Description/Account 411.000.233.000 Total 6560000028142 WWTP:4/14/21 UNIFORMSJOWEL Mats/Towels 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 Uniforms: 3 Lab Coats $0.17 each = 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 656000017014 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 656000026738 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.2.a Page: 4 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a aD 134.1E -0 134.1E m L_ N 51.4E y U 5.3E m c O.OE � 0.5' 0 29.5E a 3.0 -'E 0 1.6' 7a 0 L 6.1' CL a Q 6.1' N 6.1' N 4 0 6.1' 6.0E 0.1; (D E t 0.6z u Q Page: 4 Packet Pg. 47 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06:17AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 247035 4/22/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 656000028154 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 656000030191 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.2.a Page: 5 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 0.6, u L 0.6L N 0.6z U 0.6' c a� 29.5E �a 3.01 o L �a a 1.6' E 6.1' u 0 6.1' 0 L 6.1' a Q 6.1' N N 6.OE N 0 E M 0.6z c 0.6z E t 0.6z Q Page: 5 Packet Pg. 48 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06:17AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 247035 4/22/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued) 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 656000030194 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 Tota I : 247036 4/22/2021 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0322088-IN WWTP: 4/13/21 DIESEL FUEL ULSD #2 DYED - BULK fuel (include 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 Total 247037 4/22/2021 075217 BASLER, ANTHONY 58496 BASLER XZ244518 INT BASLER XZ244518 INT 001.000.23.512.50.41.01 Total 247038 4/22/2021 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 1244740 FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 728.60 GF FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 728.60 GF 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 1246680 FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 605.00 GF FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 605.00 GF 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 Total 6.2.a Page: 6 W L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 0.6, u L_ 0.6" N m 9.2� u 19.1( c a� 0.91 �a 1.9� o L 224.9° a E 2,020.6' u 0 210.1E 2,23017 0 a a Q 100.0( N 100.U( N 0 E 1,198.8E .� c 1,003.9- E 2,202.7E �a Q Page: 6 Packet Pg. 49 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06:17AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 7 a� L 3 Bank code : usbank c �a Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun N 247039 4/22/2021 075025 BRANDING IRON LLC 12377 WALKABLE MAIN STREET POSTCA 0 m Walkable Main Street Postcards 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 1,138.0( u 10.4% Sales Tax L 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 118.3E Total: 1,256.3E m 247040 4/22/2021 074776 BUCKSHNIS, DIANE Buckshnis REFRESHMENTS FOR EARTH DAY v Refreshments for Earth Day for Marsl 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 66.4, Total : 66.4' 247041 4/22/2021 072571 BUILDERS EXCHANGE 1068697 E7DC INITATION TO BID E7DC Initation to bid — 112.000.68.542.61.41.00 25.0( E21CA Invitation to bid a 112.000.68.542.30.41.00 0.2- E21 CA Invitation to bid 126.000.68.542.30.41.00 0.5E U EOMA Invitation to bid c 332.100.64.594.76.41.00 332.4.E -70 EOJA Invitation to bid 0 421.000.74.594.34.41.00 1.2( a E21CA Invitation to bid Q" Q 125.000.68.542.30.41.00 0.7z .r EOGA Invitation to bid 423.000.75.594.35.41.00 57.4E N Total : 417.6( Iq 0 247042 4/22/2021 076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC 5753957 ROADWAY - ASPHALT & ASPHALT E E ROADWAY - ASPHALT & ASPHALT I M 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 354.0E U 10.1 % Sales Tax c 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 35.7E E Total: 389.8: U �a Q Page: 7 Packet Pg. 50 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06:17AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 247043 4/22/2021 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 247044 4/22/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 94992027 STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA 125.000.68.542.61.31.00 10.1 % Sales Tax 125.000.68.542.61.31.00 94997333 STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASE- STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASE- 125.000.68.542.61.31.00 10.1 % Sales Tax 125.000.68.542.61.31.00 Total 26535308 CANON 5250 bw meter usage March 2021 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 bw meter usage March 2021 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 bw meter usage March 2021 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 clr meter usage March 2021 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 clr meter usage March 2021 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 clr meter usage March 2021 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 contract charges April 2021 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 contract charges April 2021 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 contract charges April 2021 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 6.2.a Page: 8 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 418.9E u L 42.3, N m z 711.4E v 71.8E c 1,244.5F c �a 0 1.2E �a a 1.2E E 1.2z u 4- 0 21.4E 0 L 2.6E CL Q 2.6E N 167.6� N 0 20.9E M 20.9E 19.8( (D E t 2.5E um Q Page: 8 Packet Pg. 51 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06:17AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 9 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 247044 4/22/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) 0 m 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 2.5� u 26535309 CANON 2501 F P contract charge April 2021 '0 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 26.4z 19 clr meter usage March 2021 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 22.2E u bw meter usage March 2021 4" 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 1.91 c 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 5.2E 26535311 WWTP: 3/2021 CONTRACT CHG+4/ OLD PRINTER - 3/2021 CONTRACT 0 423.000.76.535.80.45.00 83.2E >+ 26535316 C/A 572105 CONTRACT# 3091 /0521 a Finance dept copier contract charge E 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 209.6- .Fu B&W Meter usage IRC5250 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 13.5' 0 Color Meter usage IRC5250- 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 44.5E o 10.4% Sales Tax a 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 27.8z Q 26535319 FLEET COPIER Fleet Copier N 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 48.1 E N 10.4% Sales Tax c 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 5.0( E 26535320 CONTRACT CHARGE/METER USAC contract and usage charges E z 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 1,088.3( 10.4% Sales Tax aD 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 113.1E t 26535323 WATER SEWER COPIER U �a Q Page: 9 Packet Pg. 52 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06:17AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 247044 4/22/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Water Sewer Copier 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 Water Sewer Copier 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 26535324 PW ADMIN COPIER PW Office Copier for 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 PW Office Copier for 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 PW Office Copier for 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 PW Office Copier for 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 PW Office Copier for 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 PW Office Copier for 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 26535326 ENG COPIER THRU 4/30/2021 6.2.a Page: 10 aD L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 71.0E u 71.0E N 7.3E v 7.3E 4- m c a� 85.8, �a 48.6' o L �a 48.6: a E 34.3:.i U 4- 34.3: 0 7a 34.3< o a a 8.9' Q N 5.0E N N 5.0E o E 3.5, 'M 3.5, aD MEt U �a Q Page: 10 Packet Pg. 53 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06:17AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 11 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 247044 4/22/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) ENG COPIER THRU 4/30/2021 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 253.4,' 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 26.3E Total: 2,707.01 247045 4/22/2021 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS ENG2021-0128 E21JA INSPECTION & PERMIT FEE; E21JA INSPECTION & PERMIT FEE; 421.000.74.594.34.41.00 590.0( Total : 590.0( 247046 4/22/2021 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 17167 WWTP:3/2021 M/O+SEWER 3/2021 M/O & SEWER 423.000.75.535.80.47.20 42,307.0( Total : 42,307.0( 247047 4/22/2021 005965 CUES INC 584075 SEWER - PARTS SEWER - PARTS 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 882.9E Freight 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 17.9E 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 93.7( Total : 994.61 247048 4/22/2021 076577 CWT LLC 35569 JOHNSON CESCL RECERTIFICATIC JOHNSON CESCL RECERTIFICATIC 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 180.0( Tota I : 180.0( 247049 4/22/2021 067794 DALCO INC 26537 WWTP: PO 536: COUPLERS, NIPPL PO 536: COUPLERS, NIPPLES, O-R 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 105.7. 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 11.0( Page: 11 Packet Pg. 54 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06:17AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 247049 4/22/2021 067794 067794 DALCO INC 247050 4/22/2021 078337 DANIEL & CAREEN SNOW 247051 4/22/2021 078332 DOCUSIGN INC 247052 4/22/2021 007253 DUNN LUMBER 247053 4/22/2021 078330 EAGLE PRO PAINTING Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Total 3-24825 #40273971-810-CJ4 UTILITY REFUN #40273971-810-CJ4 Utility refund du( 411.000.233.000 Total INV24758514 DOCUSIGN SERVICES docusign services 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 Total 7889437 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ SAW BLAE FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ SAW BLAE 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7906832 FIRE STATION 20 - SUPPLIES FIRE STATION 20 - SUPPLIES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 7907069 FIRE STATION 20 - SUPPLIES FIRE STATION 20 - SUPPLIES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Total: 484 PW- 20719 86TH PL W EXTERIOR F PW- 20719 86TH PL W EXTERIOR F 422.000.72.531.20.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.20.48.00 6.2.a Page: 12 aD L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 116.7! 0 U d L_ 243.4, 243.4", m 3,160.0( c 291.2( -a 3,451.2( 0 L �a 37.7- a E 3.8E 0 151.4z > 0 a 15.9( Q N 113.2E c14 N 11.9( 334.11 2 U c 7,450.0( E t 774.8( Q Page: 12 Packet Pg. 55 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06:17AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 13 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 247053 4/22/2021 078330 078330 EAGLE PRO PAINTING (Continued) Total : 0 8,224.8( 0 247054 4/22/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 2218 WWTP: LIGHT CONTROL - NO PO LIGHT CONTROL - NO PO 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 17.9� 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 1.8 1 2220 WWTP: PO 481 HOOK, BRM DSTP� PO 481 HOOK, BRM DSTPN, DUST 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 3.5 1 c 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 0.3 2234 PUBLIC SAFETY/ COURT ROOM - S �a PUBLIC SAFETY/ COURT ROOM - S 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 o 6.9� 10.4% Sales Tax a 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 0.7, 2235 WWTP: CASCADE DISH POWDER - CASCADE DISH POWDER - NO PO U 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 7.9� o 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 0.& o 2236 WWTP: TIDE DETERGENT NO PO L a TIDE DETERGENT NO PO Q 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 18.9� .r 10.4% Sales Tax N 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 1.9 1 N 2240 FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES N 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 32.8 1 E 10.4% Sales Tax f° 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.4, }; 2242 CITY HALL - SUPPLIES d CITY HALL - SUPPLIES E 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.5E csi 10.4% Sales Tax Q Page: 13 Packet Pg. 56 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06:17AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 247054 4/22/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 Tota I : 247055 4/22/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00025 WILLOW CREEK HATCHERY/ METI WILLOW CREEK HATCHERY WATE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1-00575 OLYMPIC BEACH SPRINKLER / ME- OLYMPIC BEACH SPRINKLER / ME- 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1-00655 LIFT STATION #7 71 W DAYTON ST LIFT STATION #7 71 W DAYTON ST 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 1-00825 BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROON BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROON 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1-00875 SPRINKLER 21 MAIN ST/ METER 11 SPRINKLER 21 MAIN ST / METER 11 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1-00925 LIFT STATION #8 107 RAILROAD AV LIFT STATION #8 107 RAILROAD AV 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 1-00935 WATERFRONT CENTER 220 RAILRi WATERFRONT CENTER 220 RAILR1 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1-01950 LIFT STATION #1 450 SUNSET AVE, LIFT STATION #1 450 SUNSET AVE, 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 1-02125 SUNSET & CASPER SPRINKLER/ M SUNSET & CASPER SPRINKLER/ M 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1-03710 SPRINKLER 290 MAIN ST/ METER' SPRINKLER 290 MAIN ST / METER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1-03900 SPRINKLER 290 DAYTON ST / MET[ SPRINKLER 290 DAYTON ST / MET[ 6.2.a Page: 14 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a aD 0.8� -0 107.0E m L_ T3 N 428.3E y 141.7� c d 53.9, 0 1,155.7� a E 53.9z U 4- 0 Ta 53.91 c L a a Q 109.8� v N N N 53.9, 0 E 53.9z f° c a� 53.9z E t U �a Q Page: 14 Packet Pg. 57 6.2.a vchlist Voucher List Page: 15 04/22/2021 10:06:17AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 247055 4/22/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 0 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 as 53.9z -0 1-03950 OLD PUBLIC WORKS (NORTH) 200 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON L 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 854.9E 1-05125 SPRINKLER 101 2ND AVE N / METE SPRINKLER 101 2ND AVE N / METE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 53.9z U 1-05285 SPRINKLER 102 W DAYTON ST / MI SPRINKLER 102 W DAYTON ST / MI 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 53.9z 1-05340 SPRINKLER 190 DAYTON ST / MET[ SPRINKLER 190 DAYTON ST / MET[ 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 53.9z o 1-05350 OLD PUBLIC WORKS (SOUTH) 200 L-, OLD PUBLIC WORKS (SOUTH) 200 a 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 115.8z 1-05650 CITY PARK SPRINKLER/ METER 71. CITY PARK SPRINKLER/ METER 71. U 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 53.9z 0 1-05675 CITY PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP / 7a CITY PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP / o L 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,159.5( 0- 1-05700 SPRINKLER @ 3RD/PINE / METER', Q .r SPRINKLER @ 3RD/PINE / METER' 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 53.9z N 1-05705 LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl N LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl c 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 109.8, 1-09650 SPRINKLER 350 MAIN ST / METER i E SPRINKLER 350 MAIN ST / METER 1 f° U 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 53.9z }; 1-09800 SPRINKLER 390 DAYTON ST / MET[ a� SPRINKLER 390 DAYTON ST / MET[ E 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 53.9z U 1-10778 FOUNTAIN 490 MAIN ST/METER 75' Q Page: 15 Packet Pg. 58 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06:17AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 247055 4/22/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 247056 4/22/2021 075200 EDUARDO ZALDIBAR FOUNTAIN 490 MAIN ST/METER 75, 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1-10780 SPRINKLER 500 MAIN ST / METER SPRINKLER 500 MAIN ST / METER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1-13975 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1-16130 SPRINKLER 439 5TH AVE S / METEI SPRINKLER 439 5TH AVE S / METEI 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1-16300 SPRINKLER 500 DAYTON ST / METE SPRINKLER 500 DAYTON ST / METE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1-16420 LOG CABIN SPRINKLER / METER 6'' LOG CABIN SPRINKLER / METER 6' 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1-16450 CENTENNIAL PLAZA SPRINKLER 1 CENTENNIAL PLAZA SPRINKLER 1 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1-16630 SPRINKLER 575 MAIN ST/ METER' SPRINKLER 575 MAIN ST/ METER' 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1-17475 SPRINKLER 590 DAYTON ST / METE SPRINKLER 590 DAYTON ST / METE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1-19950 PINE STREET PLAYFIELD / METER PINE STREET PLAYFIELD / METER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1-36255 SPRINKLER 1141 9TH AVE S / METE SPRINKLER 1141 9TH AVE S / METE 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 Total 8136/2021 TRANSLATION SERVICES 6.2.a Page: 16 aD L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 53.9, u L_ 53.9z Y m v 628.71 m c aD 53.9z �a 0 53.9z `5% M a E 53.9z 0 65.2 0 L Q a 53.9z Q N 53.9z N 0 114.2( . �a U 53.9z y 6,070.81 _ U co Q Page: 16 Packet Pg. 59 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06:17AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 247056 4/22/2021 075200 EDUARDO ZALDIBAR Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 247057 4/22/2021 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR189855 247058 4/22/2021 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD 247059 4/22/2021 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY PO # Description/Account TRANSLATION SERVICES 422.000.72.531.90.49.20 Total : C57501 B&W COLOR USAGE bw meter usage 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 dr meter usage 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 dr meter usage 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 clr meter usage 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 Total EDH924346 ORDINANCE 4219 ordiance 4219 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 Total WAEVE180213 WATER/ SEWER - SUPPLIES WATER/ SEWER - SUPPLIES 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 WATER/ SEWER - SUPPLIES 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 6.2.a Page: 17 aD L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 100.0( U 100.0( .` N m 2.0E 8.3E a� 8.3E �a 8.3E o L 1.0E a E 0.8, 0.8 m, 0 29.9: > 0 L a a Q 22.4( .r 22.4( N N N 0 504.2E E M 504.2E U c 52.4E E z U 52.4z Q Page: 17 Packet Pg. 60 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06:17AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 247059 4/22/2021 066378 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY (Continued) 247060 4/22/2021 075988 FIIX INV39722 247061 4/22/2021 072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 162795 247062 4/22/2021 078334 FREDERICK VANHOOSE & J DU 1-28200 247063 4/22/2021 072585 GLOBAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY INC 117496909 247064 4/22/2021 012560 HACH COMPANY 12407270 PO # Description/Account Total : WWTP: 4/10/21-4/9/22 15 CMMS EN 4/10/21-4/9/22 15 CMMS ENTERPRI 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 Total APR-2021 SUPPORT SERVICES Apr-2021 Support Services 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 Total #4203-3680490 UTILITY REFUND #4203-3680490 Utility refund 411.000.233.000 Total INV 117496909 - CUST 5534536 - EC GLOVE BOX - PATROL 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 GLOVE BOXES - PROPERTY RM 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 Total WWTP: PO 527 COVER ASSY O 527 COVER ASSY 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Freight 6.2.a Page: 18 W L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 1,113.4E 0 U d L_ 12,574.0' 12,574.0E m z 425.0( m c 44.2( -a 469.2( 0 L �a 19.9( 19.9( E U 4- 0 56.9E > 0 L 93.9( a Q 19.9� N N 5.9, N 0 11.8, E 188.6( c a� 352.0( E U �a Q Page: 18 Packet Pg. 61 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06:17AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 19 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 247064 4/22/2021 012560 HACH COMPANY (Continued) 0 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 as 69.9,1 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 m 43.8� .L Total: 465.8' N 247065 4/22/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 5527216 STREET - SUPPLIES/ 5TH & MAIN L m STREET - SUPPLIES/ 5TH & MAIN L 111.000.68.542.63.31.00 83.9' 10.3% Sales Tax c 111.000.68.542.63.31.00 8.6z 7073183 STREET - SUPPLIES/ 5TH& MAIN LI STREET - SUPPLIES/ 5TH& MAIN LI �a 111.000.68.542.63.31.00 77.4E o 10.3% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.63.31.00 7.9E a 8516371 STREET - SUPPLIES 5TH & MAIN LI STREET - SUPPLIES 5TH & MAIN LI 111.000.68.542.63.31.00 99.8( U 10.3% Sales Tax o 111.000.68.542.63.31.00 10.2E Ta Total: 288.OS o L Q 247066 4/22/2021 071642 HOUGH BECK & BAIRD INC 13799 E20CE SERVICES THRU 3/25/2021 Q- Q E20CE SERVICES THRU 3/25/2021 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 3,549.31 N Total : 3,549.31, N 247067 4/22/2021 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 3460884 COMPOSTABLE PLATES AND BOW c Compostable plates and bowls N E 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 109.8; 'R 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 11.4' 3462605 WWTP: PO 541 KITCHEN TRASH LI E PO 541 KITCHEN TRASH LINERS 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 U 199.1 z ;a Q Page: 19 Packet Pg. 62 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06:17AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 20 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 247067 4/22/2021 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED (Continued) 0 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 20.7- u Total: 341.1E .`- 247068 4/22/2021 068426 INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INT'L INC INVUSA03692 WWTP: TBERNSTEIN BASIC RIGGII N TBERNSTEIN BASIC RIGGING COU 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 145.0( r 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 15.0� Total : 160.05 247069 4/22/2021 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 300-10085045 FLEET - SUPPLIES/ 100' RED 12 GP FLEET - SUPPLIES/ 100' RED 12 GP — 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 18.8E FLEET - PARTS (RETURNED & CRE a 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 18.9E 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 1.9( U 10.4% Sales Tax c 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.9 1 Ta 300-10085149 UNIT 121 -PARTS/ WORKLAMP 0 UNIT 121 -PARTS/ WORKLAMP a 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 66.9E Q 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.9( N Total : 115.61 N Iq 247070 4/22/2021 069851 JACKYE'S JACKETS 24144 STREET/ STORM WORK WEAR PEI STREET/ STORM WORK WEAR PEI N E 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 690.0( .m STREET/ STORM WORK WEAR PEI 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 690.0( c 10.4% Sales Tax E 111.000.68.542.90.24.00 71.7E U 10.4% Sales Tax Q Page: 20 Packet Pg. 63 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06:17AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 247070 4/22/2021 069851 JACKYE'S JACKETS (Continued) 247071 4/22/2021 078341 JULIA & JAMES NEAL 4-16450 247072 4/22/2021 072774 JWC ENVIRONMENTAL INC 105968 105968T 247073 4/22/2021 078340 KAYLA & STEVEN ROSS 8-35875 247074 4/22/2021 017050 KW ICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 3162021-01 247075 4/22/2021 078333 LATINO NEWSPAPER EL SIETE DIAS 5329 PO # Description/Account 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 Total #788742RT UTILITY REFUND #788742RT Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 Total WWTP: PO 533 MOTOR: UNDERCH PO 533 MOTOR: UNDERCHGD TAX 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 WWTP: ADDL TAX FOR INV. 10596E ADDL TAX FOR INV. 105968 DATED 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 Total #21-137471 UTILITY REFUND #21-137471 Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 Total INV 3162021-01 - FEB 2021- EDMOI` FEB 2021 CAR WASH CHARGES 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 Total E7DC AD PUBLICATION 4/2/21 E7DC AD PUBLICATION 4/2/21 112.000.68.595.61.41.00 E7DC AD PUBLICATION 4/2/21 125.000.68.595.61.41.00 E7DC AD PUBLICATION 4/2/21 126.000.68.595.61.41.00 E7DC AD PUBLICATION 4/2/21 422.000.72.594.31.41.00 6.2.a Page: 21 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a aD 71.7E 'D 1,523.5: m L_ 13 N 177.7( y 177.7( m c d 43,519.9z c �a 105.3 - 43,625.2E a E U 25.3z 25.3z 0 0 0 L Q a 96.3< Q 96.1 N N N 458.8E E 56.5£ U 153.8 , E t 20.7( U Q Page: 21 Packet Pg. 64 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06:17AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 22 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 247075 4/22/2021 078333 078333 LATINO NEWSPAPER EL SIETE DIA: (Continued) Total : 690.0( 247076 4/22/2021 078339 LAURAORLANDO 3-10410 #21-0452WA UTILITY REFUND #21-0452WA Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 121.6� Total : 121.65 247077 4/22/2021 075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER May Cigna MAY CIGNA PREMIUMS May Cigna Premiums 811.000.231.550 12,963.4E Total: 12,963.4' 247078 4/22/2021 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC Apr-2021 04-2021 LEGALS FEES 04-2021 Legal fees 001.000.36.515.31.41.00 51,878.0( Total: 51,878.0( 247079 4/22/2021 075716 MALLORY PAINT STORE INC E0135503 CITY HALL - SUPPLIES FOR 3RD FL CITY HALL - SUPPLIES FOR 3RD FL 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 382.8' 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 39.8- Total : 422.6' 247080 4/22/2021 078064 MORSLI, MALIK 2005634.009 REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: REFUND: CLASS CANCELLATION: 001.000.239.200 204.0( Total : 204.0( 247081 4/22/2021 069873 PAPE MACHINERY INC 12621121 WATER - PARTS FOR MOWER WATER - PARTS FOR MOWER 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 18.2E 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1.9( Tota I : 20.1( 247082 4/22/2021 065051 PARAMETRIX INC 25918 WWTP: TO 4.2019 THRU 4/3/21 Page: 22 Packet Pg. 65 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06:17AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 247082 4/22/2021 065051 PARAMETRIX INC (Continued) 25951 25952 247083 4/22/2021 071813 PEACOCK, W I LLIAM R 2021 T000013A 247084 4/22/2021 069633 PET PROS 1127 247085 4/22/2021 078344 PLOEGER, HAYDEN APRIL REIMBURSEMENT 247086 4/22/2021 078335 RITA BODDY 247087 4/22/2021 067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO PO # Description/Account TO 4.2019 THRU 4/3/21 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 WWTP: THRU 4/3/21 WWTP CONT THRU 4/3/21 WWTP CONTROLS SI 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 WWTP: THRU 4/3/21 CONTROLS SI THRU 4/3/21 CONTROLS SUPPOR- 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 Total WWCPA TRAINING - CHRIS SHAW WWCPA TRAINING - CHRIS SHAW 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 Total INV 1127 - EDMONDS PD - HOBBSh ACE FOOD -DISCOUNT 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 HOBBS FOOD -DISCOUNT 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 10.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 Total REIMBURSEMENT FOR CDL LICEN REIMBURSEMENT FOR CDL LICEN 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 Total 8-00925 #788112RT UTILITY REFUND #788112RT Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 Total 647103 INV 647103 - CUST 1733 - EDMOND 6.2.a Page: 23 a� L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 12,446.7E u 7,593.7', m t U 393.7E 20,434.2E c c �a 587.0( o 587.0( �a a E 110.4� 0 151.9E 0 27.5( a 290.W Q N N 156.0( 156.0( E M 22.3, 22m% E t U �a Q Page: 23 Packet Pg. 66 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06:17AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 24 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 247087 4/22/2021 067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO (Continued) 0 m 223 AMMO 001.000.41.521.23.31.00 3,210.2( u 10.4% Sales Tax L 001.000.41.521.23.31.00 333.8E Total: 3,544.0E m 247088 4/22/2021 071655 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP B13318395 MAR-2021 CLOUD SERVICE CHAR( v Mar-2021 Cloud Service Charges 512.000.31.518.88.41.00 933.8, 10.4% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.41.00 97.1 , Total: 1,030.9E 247089 4/22/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200326460 HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMON HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMON a 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 19.4E 200496834 LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT R LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT R U 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 84.0' c 200650851 CITY PARK RESTROOMS 7a CITY PARK RESTROOMS 0 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.1, a 200651644 PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP Q' Q PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 802.4E 201103561 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVI TRAFFIC LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVI N � 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 37.21 N 201184538 HICKMAN PARK E HICKMAN PARK 2 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 27.4� U 201383270 CITY PARK GAZEBO c CITY PARK GAZEBO E 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.1; U 201431236 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OILY Q Page: 24 Packet Pg. 67 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06:17AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 247089 4/22/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLY 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 201441755 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 201453057 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD LIGHTS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 201501277 LIFT STATION #14 7905 1 /2 211 TH F LIFT STATION #14 7905 1 /2 211 TH F 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 201790003 ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH ALDERWOOD INTERIE 6130 168TH 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 202114484 CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHEL CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHEL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 202250635 9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPE BED / M 9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPE BED / M 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 202289450 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 202356739 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 205184385 LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / fV LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / fV 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 205307580 DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 221593742 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 6.2.a Page: 25 aD L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 a m 17.1 u 187.0, m t U 63.7.E m c aD M 22.9� �a 0 22.1 < `5% M a E 212.3E 'ij U 4- 0 19.4E 0 L Q a 80.5E Q N 29.1E N 0 22.81 .E ca U 177.0E y E z 89.2E Q Page: 25 Packet Pg. 68 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06:17AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 26 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 247089 4/22/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 0 221732084 VETERANS PLAZA METER 1000597 VETERANS PLAZA METER 1000597 U 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 m 99.5< .L 222398059 SIGNAL CABINET 22730 HIGHWAY' 22730 Highway 99, Signal Cabinet - 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 84.4, 222818874 DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND A) Decorative Lighting 115 2nd Ave S / 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 15.4E Total : 2,148.1: 247090 4/22/2021 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC 26256 SEWER - ONSITE TROUBLE SHOO" �a SEWER - ONSITE TROUBLE SHOO" 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 o 1,450.0( 26257 SEWER - LIFT STATION# 7 ENGINE a SEWER - LIFT STATION# 7 ENGINE 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 145.0( Total : 1,595.0( Z 247091 4/22/2021 071666 TETRA TECH INC 51720612 E9FA SERVICES THRU 3/26/2021 4- 0 '70 E9FA SERVICES THRU 3/26/2021 > 0 422.000.72.531.90.41.20 16,550.6" a 51720742 EOFA SERVICES THRU 3/26/21 °- Q EOFA SERVICES THRU 3/26/21 422.000.72.594.31.41.00 21,035.9( N Total : 37,586.51 N 247092 4/22/2021 027269 THE PART WORKS INC INV66301 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE - SUP o MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE - SUP 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 91.1 'M Freight z 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.0 c 10.4% Sales Tax E 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 10.5, t U �a Q Page: 26 Packet Pg. 69 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06:17AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 247092 4/22/2021 027269 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 247093 4/22/2021 072649 THE WIDE FORMAT COMPANY 247094 4/22/2021 078336 TIM & LINDZE WILSON 247095 4/22/2021 064423 USA BLUE BOOK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 129120 2-36300 555908 247096 4/22/2021 072312 VERSATILE MOBILE SYSTEMS INC 0000108061 247097 4/22/2021 073552 WELCO SALES LLC PO # Description/Account Total MONTHLY BASE CHARGE FOR HP Monthly base charge for HP Pagewid 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 Total #20-5259WA UTILITY REFUND #20-5259WA Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 Total WWTP: PO 502 CAP KIT FOR LIDO P PO 502 CAP KIT FOR LDO MODEL 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Total INV 0000108061 - CUST EDMPOL - 1 5100 RESIN RIBBONS 12/CS 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 Total 7990 EOJA DOOR HANGERS EOJA DOOR HANGERS 421.000.74.594.34.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 6.2.a Page: 27 aD L 3 c �a Amoun N 0 111.71 0 U d L_ 175.0( N 18.2( y 193.2( m c d 133.9E -a 133.9E 0 L �a 2,268.0( a E 10.8, 4- 237.0( o 2,515.8: 0 Q a Q 127.0( N N 15.9E N 0 14.8; 157.8E M c aD 286.6E E U �a Q Page: 27 Packet Pg. 70 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06:17AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 247097 4/22/2021 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 247098 4/22/2021 061286 WESTERN FLUID COMPONENTS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 421.000.74.594.34.41.00 Tota I : G90160-001 UNIT 11 - HOSE ASSEMBLY UNIT 11 -HOSE ASSEMBLY 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 247099 4/22/2021 075743 WHISTLE WORKWEAR OF SHORELINE 201045 247100 4/22/2021 075139 WSP USA SOLUTIONS INC 247101 4/22/2021 011900 ZIPLY FIBER 201049 1047019 253-011-1177 Total : WWTP: LJOHNSON 2021 RAINBOO LJohnson Rai ngear/Rai n boots at 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 WWTP: LJOHNSON 2021 UNIFORM LJOHNSON 2021 UNIFORM ALLOW 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 Total E4FE SERVICES THRU3/31/21 E4FE SERVICES THRU3/31/21 422.000.72.594.31.41.00 Total PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE 6.2.a Page: 28 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a aD 29.8- -0 316.4E m L_ N 45.5 - U 4.4E 49.9 j c c �a 283.4, — 0 28.9" a E 157.4E 0 16.0E 0 485.9( p L Q Q 1,394.2E N 1,394.2E c14 N 0 6.4' M 24.4' a� 24.4' t U �a Q Page: 28 Packet Pg. 71 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06:17AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 247101 4/22/2021 011900 ZIPLY FIBER Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE' 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE' 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 425-712-0417 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 425-712-8251 PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX, PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 425-745-4313 CLUBHOUSE ALARM LINES 6801 M CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUSION 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 425-775-1344 425-775-1344 RANGER STATION 425-775-1344 RANGER STATION 001.000.64.571.23.42.00 425-775-7865 UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FI' 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 425-776-2742 LIFT STATION #7 VG SPECIAL ACC[ LIFT STATION #7 V/G SPECIALACC 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 Total: 6.2.a Page: 29 a� L 3 c �a Amoun y 0 a aD 24.4< 'D U d 24.4< 24.4< Y m 36.6' m c 36.6, c �a 17.3E o L 86.7E a E 72.8, .� 72.81 0 Ta 97.1 ; a a Q 141.5" N N N 76.3( c E 2 73.1( U c aD 26.4, E 866.2' um Q Page: 29 Packet Pg. 72 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :06:17AM Bank code: usbank Voucher Date Vendor 75 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 75 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 30 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 1 i Bank total : 3,325,501.71 i Total vouchers : 3,325,501.71 i N N N O N E 2 V C E t V f6 Q Page: 30 Packet Pg. 73 6.2.b vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :31:52AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 4222021 4/22/2021 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 0747 PW CC - 4/6/2021 PAYPAL - PNWS QUARTERLY TRAIT 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 TARGET - WATER/ SEW ER/ STREE 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 TARGET - WATER/ SEW ER/ STREE 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 TARGET - WATER/ SEW ER/ STREE 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 TARGET - WATER/ SEW ER/ STREE 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 AMAZON - OIL BASED SHARPIE 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 APPLE CHARGE FOR PHIL WILLIA� 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 1558 ZOOM, LOGMEIN, DUO, REV, DOTC Newegg.com - Replacement battery H 512.000.31.518.88.31.00 LogMeln - GoToMeeting Business 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 Zoom - Cloud recording monthly (IT), 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 Zoom - Cloud recording monthly (IT), 512.000.31.518.88.42.00 Zoom - Cloud recording monthly (IT), 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 Zoom - Cloud recording monthly (IT), 001.000.11.511.60.42.00 Zoom - Cloud recording monthly (IT), 001.000.61.557.20.42.00 Zoom - Cloud recording monthly (IT), 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 DotGovRegistration - edmondswa.go� 512.000.31.518.88.49.00 Page: 1 m L 3 c ea Amoun 00 a 0 0 240.0( m =a 21.4' Y m 21.4' u 21.4' aD 21.4( c �a 5.2' o 0.9� a E M 259.4< Z 0 2,119.6E 0 L 5,075.8E 0- Q 44.1 E N 54.1( N 0 44.1 E m 3 44.1 E; c d 1,457.2E E 800.0( Q Page: 1 Packet Pg. 74 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :31:52 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 4222021 4/22/2021 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) Duo.com - MFA monthly qty 90 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 Rev.com - Zoom Live Captions add o 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 1937 FLEET CC - 4/6/2021 W ESCO AUTOBODY - FLEET SUPP 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 WA DOL - UNIT 083 REPORT OF SA 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 WA DOL - UNIT 138 REPORT OF SA 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 FISHERIES SUPPLY- UNIT 159 PAI 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 AMAZON - FLEET SUPPLIES 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 HOME DEPOT - UNIT G03 PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 FISHERIES SUPPLY - FLEET SUPPI 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 AMAZON - UNIT 113 PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 ACE HARDWARE - UNIT M-16 NUTr 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 ZORO TOOLS - UNIT 60 PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 FISHERIES SUPPLY- UNIT 120 PAF 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 3355 MOLES CC - 4/6/2021 UPS - SHIPPING RETURN BACK TC 111.000.68.542.90.49.00 WESSPUR - PARTS FOR STREET 111.000.68.542.71.35.00 ASTROF CONCRETE - STREET COI 125.000.68.542.61.31.00 6.2.b Page: 2 m L 3 c Amoun .y 0 a m 270.0( m L 40.0( `a N Y m 75.2, 13.6E m c aD 13.6E c �a 8.9`. o 13.8, a 29.7' •� U 44.4; o R 36.8£ o L a 20.2; Q 36.2E N N N 99.1E Iq 0 m L 12.5, 3 c a� 755.0, E t 722.1' a Page: 2 Packet Pg. 75 vchlist 04/22/2021 10 :31:52 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 4222021 4/22/2021 062693 US BANK 1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 1 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) VIMEO - HAYDEN PPLOEGER MUNI 422.000.72.531.90.43.00 ASTROF CONCRETE - STREET COI 125.000.68.542.61.31.00 5639 PAYFLOW PAYMENT PROCESSOR Payflow payment processor 001.000.62.524.20.49.00 Payflow payment processor 001.000.62.558.60.49.00 Payflow payment processor 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 6654 SULLIVAN CC - 4/6/2021 DRY WALL CART PAID FOR BY PAR 001.000.64.576.80.35.00 B I D-1 687/0907 BID/ED! CREDIT CARD MARCH 202 BID/Ed! Facebook Advertisements 140.000.61.558.70.41.40 BID/Ed! Zoom Subscription April 202" 140.000.61.558.70.49.00 Total Bank total Total vouchers 6.2.b Page: 3 m L 3 c Amoun .y 0 a m 150.0( m L 687.4E `a N Y m 14.8 , 14.8 m c aD 14.8E c �a 394.9, �a a 244.7E .E R U 16.5z o 13,960.8( 13,960.8( a a 13,960.8( Q N N N O d L 3 c as E a Page: 3 Packet Pg. 76 6.2.c vchlist 04/22/2021 11:32:12AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 42221 4/22/2021 062693 US BANK 1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 1 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 9644 OG CC APR 2021 OG CC APR 2021 001.000.23.523.30.31.00 Total Bank total Total vouchers Page 1 m L 3 c �a r Amoun 0 a a� U a� 567.9, •= 567.9: 567.9: u t U 567.9:. c m c �a 0 L E 0 i 0 L Q Q r N N N O d L 3 c m E t U �a r r a Page: 1 Packet Pg. 77 6.2.d PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Protect Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements c521 STM 175th St. SW Slope Stabilization c560 E21 FB STM 2018 Lorian Woods Stud s018 W8FA SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 EBGA STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 EBFC WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 EBJA �019 Traffic Calming am 611sw STIR 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades i045 E9AD [UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s020 WTR 2019 Waterline Overlay i043 E9CB �2019 Waterline Replacement STIR 2020 Guardrail Installations i046 EOAA erlay Program STIR 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program i049 EODB 020 Pedestrian Task Force STIR 2020 Traffic Calming i048 EOAC STIR 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades i047 EOAB STIR 2020 Waterline Overlay i053 EOCC STIR 2021 Guardrail Installations i057 E21AB STIR 2021 Overlay Program i051 E21CA 1h STIR 2021 Pedestrian Task Force SWR 2021 Sewer Overlay Program i060 E21CC LSTM 2021 Stormwater Overlay Program STIR 2021 Traffic Calming i056 E21AA �021 Waterline Overlay Program i059 E21CB STIR 220th Adaptive i028 EBAB 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STIR 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps i037 EBDC Moor 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 VE73DB STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OV i052 E20CB STIR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 EBCA STIR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improveme V c368 E1 CA STIR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 EBCC STIR 89th PI W Retaining W- i025 E7CD STIR ADA Curb Ramps i033 EBDB IFSTIR Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing � i040 E9D� STIR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB LSTM Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design s022 STIR Bikelink Project c474 ESDA Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project i050 SWR Citywide CI PIP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement i026 STIR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion 1015 E6AB PRK Civic Center Playfield (Construction) EOMA Revised4/22/2021 Packet Pg. 78 6.2.d PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Protect Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number PRK Civic Center Playfield (Design) c536 EOMA Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Reh STR Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector c478 ESDB WTR Elm St. Waterline Replacement c561 STR Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave i058 E21 DA LWTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC Minor Sidewalk Program STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update s025 EONA STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA ville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements STM Perrinville Creek Recovery Study s028 E21 FC WTR Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project WTR Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c558 E21JA STM Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project c547 SWR Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c548 EOGA Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c559 FAC PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South c502 E9MA SWR Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services c562 STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 ESFD STM _ Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 c546 WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA evitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) i055 UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo ESNA torm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD STR Sunset Walkway Improvements J111111111111111hL c354 E1 DA STR Trackside Warning System c470 ESAA STR ,ni..i.,..+ e+ �..u,.. av (3rd 4th i044 E9DC PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) c544 E7MA Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design" c496 E7MA J §§MLRK PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) m103 E7MA Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 ESHA Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment s026 PRK Yost Park Infiltration Facility c556 E21 FA Revised 4/22/2021 Packet Pg. 79 6.2.d PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title STR EOAA i046 11111PFZ020 Guardrail Installations STR EOAB i047 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades STR EOAC i048 2020 Traffic Calming STR EOCA i042 2020 Overlay Program STR EOCC _ i053 2020 Waterline Overlay STR EODA s024 2020 Pedestrian Task Force 2020 Pedestrian Safety Progra STR EODC i050 Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project c546_1 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 STM EOFB c547 Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project c54;K Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project WTR EOJA c549 Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project s026 Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment PRK EOMA c551 Civic Center Playfield (Construction) c536 layfield (Design) GF EONA s025 Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update c368 th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STR E1 DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements E20CB i052 76th Ave"veT (196th St. to OVD) STR E20CE i055 SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) E20FC c552 Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvemen STR E21AA i056 2021 Traffic Calming 2021 Guardrail Installations STR E21 CA i051 2021 Overlay Program 2021 Waterline Overlay Program SWR E21 CC i060 2021 Sewer Overlay Program 2021 Stormwater Overlay Program STR E21 DA i058 Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave i062 2021 Pedestrian Task Forc;W� PRK E21 FA c556 Yost Park Infiltration Facility 56 ilization STM E21 FC s028 Perrinville Creek Recovery Study 559 nnual Sewer Replacement Project SWR E21GB c562 Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services Wr E�A c558 Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Proj WTR E21JB c561 Elm St. Waterline Replacement STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring 4Mdmonds Fishing Pier Rehab STR ESAA c470 Trackside Warning System Revised4/22/2021 Packet Pg. 80 6.2.d PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title STR E5DB c478 Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector - E5FD c479 reaview Park Infiltration Facility SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study qWP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR E5J13 c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re-coatin UTILITIES E5NA solo Standard Details Updates E6AA d� Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion r"DA ;� 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) STR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program Stormwater Comp Plan Update AL SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II 7A = Audible Pedestrian Signals STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements E7CD j025 STR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements E7FA m10 ope Repair & Stabilizatio STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement PRK E7MA c544 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) PRK E7MA c496 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) E7MA Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) STR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive i 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements STR E8CC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i033V ADA Curb Ramps STR E8DC i037 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps s018 2018 Lorian Woods STM E8FB c521 174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements 8FC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project liv SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c523 019 Swedish Waterline Replacement UTILITIES E8J13 s020 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STR E9AA i038 2019 Traffic Calming STR E9AD i045 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades - WTR E9CB i043 2019 Waterline Overlay STR i040 Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing STR E9DC i044 Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) STM E9FA s022r Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design FAC E9MA c502 PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South Revised 4/22/2021 Packet Pg. 81 6.2.d PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineerinq Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Protect Title PM EBMA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STIR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STIR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STIR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study STIR ESAA c470 Trackside Warning System WTR ESKA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating STIR ESDA c474 Bikelink Project STIR ESDB c478 Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector STM ESFD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility WWTP ESHA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR ESJB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) STIR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW PRK E7MA c496 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement FAC E9MA c502 PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South SWR EBGA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project STM EBFB c521 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements WTR EBJA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement STM E8FC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project PRK EOMA c536 Civic Center Playfield (Design) PRK E7MA c544 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) STM EOFA c546 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 STM EOFB c547 Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project SWR EOGA c548 Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project WTR EOJA c549 Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project PRK EOMA c551 Civic Center Playfield (Construction) STM E20FC c552 Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements PRK E21 FA c556 Yost Park Infiltration Facility WTR E21JA c558 Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project SWR E21 GA c559 Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project STM E21 FIB c560 175th St. SW Slope Stabilization WTR E21JB c561 Elm St. Waterline Replacement SWR E21GB c562 Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services STIR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STIR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STIR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program STIR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals Revised 4/22/2021 Packet Pg. 82 6.2.d PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title STIR E7CD i025 89th PI W Retaining Wall STIR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements STIR EBAB i028 220th Adaptive STIR EBCA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements STIR EBCC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th STIR EBDB i033 ADA Curb Ramps STIR EBDC i037 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps STIR E9AA i038 2019 Traffic Calming STIR E9DA i040 Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing STIR EOCA i042 2020 Overlay Program WTR E9CB i043 2019 Waterline Overlay STIR E9DC i044 Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) STIR E9AD i045 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades STIR EOAA i046 2020 Guardrail Installations STIR EOAB i047 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades STIR EOAC i048 2020 Traffic Calming STIR EODB i049 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program STIR EODC i050 Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project STIR E21 CA i051 2021 Overlay Program STIR E20CB i052 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) STIR EOCC i053 2020 Waterline Overlay STIR E20CE i055 SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) STIR E21AA i056 2021 Traffic Calming STR E21AB i057 2021 Guardrail Installations STIR E21 DA i058 Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave WTR E21 CB i059 2021 Waterline Overlay Program SWR E21 CC i06o 2021 Sewer Overlay Program STM E21CD i061 2021 Stormwater Overlay Program STIR E21 DB i062 2021 Pedestrian Task Force STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization UTILITIES ESNA solo Standard Details Updates SWR ESGB s0l l Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study STIR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update STM EBFA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study UTILITIES EBJB s020 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update STM E9FA s022 Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design STIR EODA s024 2020 Pedestrian Task Force GF EONA s025 Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update WTR EOJB s026 Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment STM E21 FC s028 Perrinville Creek Recovery Study Revised 4/22/2021 Packet Pg. 83 6.2.d PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Project Engineering Accounting Project ; Funding Project Title Number Number FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB FAC PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South c502 E9MA L GF Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update s025 EONA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA R PRK Civic Center Playfield (Construction) c551 EOMA PRK Civic Center Playfield (Design) c536 EOMA c PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) c544 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) c496 E7MA Z i PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) m103 E7MA i PRK Yost Park Infiltration Facility c556 E21 FA Z STM 174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements c521 EBFB STM 175th St. SW Slope Stabilization c560 E21 FB s c STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 EBFA 2 STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 4 EBFC STM 2021 Stormwater Overlay Program i061 E21 CD 1 STM Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design s022 E9FA s c STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE — STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD i STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG c STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA STM Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements c552 E20FC i STM Perrinville Creek Recovery Study s028 w E21 FC c STM Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project c547 EOFB STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 ESFD s STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 c546 EOFA STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB c STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD C c STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC c STR 2019 Traffic Calming i038 E9AA C STR 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades i045 E9AD c STR 2020 Guardrail Installations i046 EOAA s STR 2020 Overlay Program i042 It EOCA e STR 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program i049 EODB i STR 2020 Pedestrian Task Force s024 EODA G Z c STR 2020 Traffic Calming i048 EOAC c STR 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades i047 EOAB STR 2021 Guardrail Installations i057 E21AB STR 2021 Overlay Program i051 E21 CA t STR 2021 Traffic Calming i056 c s E21AA U STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC s c STR 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps i037 EBDC S STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB c c STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA STR 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) i052 E20CB STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 EBCA Revised 4/22/2021 Packet Pg. 84 6.2.d PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Project Engineering Accountinq Project Funding Project Title Number Number STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 ElCA STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th 031 EBCC STR 89th PI W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD STR ADA Curb Ramps i033 EBDB STR Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing i040 E9DA STR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB STR Bikelink Project c474 ESDA STR Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project i050 EODC STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC STR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion 015 E6AB STR Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector c478 ESDB STR Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave io58 E21 DA STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA STR Minor Sidewalk Program 017 E6DD STR SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) i055 E20CE STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STR Trackside Warning System c470 ESAA STR Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) i044 E9DC STR 2021 Pedestrian Task Force 061 E21 DB STR 2020 Waterline Overlay i053 EOCC STR 220th Adaptive i028 EBAB SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 EBGA SWR 2021 Sewer Overlay Program i060 E21 CC SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study soli ESGB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC SWR Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c548 EOGA SWR Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c559 E21 GA SWR Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services c562 E21GB UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s02O EBJB UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo ESNA WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 EBJA WTR 2019 Waterline Overlay i043 E9CB WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA WTR 2021 Waterline Overlay Program i059 E21 CB WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 ESJB WTR Elm St. Waterline Replacement c561 E21JB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 ESKA WTR Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c549 EOJA WTR Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c558 E21JA WTR Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment s026 EOJB WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 ESHA Revised 4/22/2021 Packet Pg. 85 6.2.e Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,004 (04/01/2021 to 04/15/2021) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount 112 ABSENT NO PAY NON HIRED 56.00 0.00 119 SICK Donated Sick Leave -used 88.00 4,089.50 120 SICK SICK LEAVE - L & 1 40.00 1,444.04 121 SICK SICK LEAVE 695.00 27,640.68 122 VACATION VACATION 1,124.00 48,586.32 123 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOURS 135.75 5,500.89 124 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY 43.00 1,500.27 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 126.00 5,155.09 131 MILITARY MILITARY LEAVE 50.00 2,057.42 150 REGULAR HOURS Kelly Dav Used 127.50 4,905.69 155 COMP HOURS COMPTIME AUTO PAY 212.25 11,434.80 157 SICK SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 400.00 30,681.84 158 VACATION VACATION PAYOFF 432.00 33,136.39 160 VACATION MANAGEMENT LEAVE 57.00 3,926.47 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 17,024.50 701,549.36 194 SICK Emerqencv Sick Leave 123.00 5,733.15 196 REGULAR HOURS LIGHT DUTY 79.00 4,271.27 205 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME .5 102.50 2,086.76 210 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -STRAIGHT 6.50 209.49 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 36.00 1,883.67 216 MISCELLANEOUS STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT 15.00 1,568.43 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 269.75 18,037.72 225 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -DOUBLE 2.25 193.09 405 ACTING PAY OUT OF CLASS - POLICE 0.00 243.30 410 MISCELLANEOUS WORKING OUT OF CLASS 0.00 349.01 411 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 0.00 1,155.66 600 RETROACTIVE PAY RETROACTIVE PAY 0.00 567.00 601 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP .5 8.00 0.00 602 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 1.0 40.00 0.00 604 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5 227.50 0.00 901 SICK ACCRUED SICK LEAVE 2.31 0.00 902 MISCELLANEOUS BOOT ALLOWANCE 0.00 150.00 acc MISCELLANEOUS ACCREDITATION PAY 0.00 67.01 04/22/2021 Packet Pg. 86 6.2.e Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,004 (04/01/2021 to 04/15/2021) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount acs MISCELLANEOUS ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT 0.00 177.41 boc MISCELLANEOUS BOC II Certification 0.00 96.39 colre MISCELLANEOUS Collision Reconstruction ist 0.00 89.56 cpl MISCELLANEOUS TRAINING CORPORAL 0.00 179.12 crt MISCELLANEOUS CERTIFICATION III PAY 0.00 404.96 ctr MISCELLANEOUS CTR INCENTIVES PROGRAM 0.00 121.00 deftat MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSE TATICS INSTRUCTOI 0.00 89.56 det MISCELLANEOUS DETECTIVE PAY 0.00 122.69 det4 MISCELLANEOUS Detective 4% 0.00 1,028.08 ed1 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 2% 0.00 694.41 ed2 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 4% 0.00 552.86 ed3 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 6% 0.00 6,385.74 firear MISCELLANEOUS FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR 0.00 481.56 k9 MISCELLANEOUS K-9 PAY 0.00 251.53 less MISCELLANEOUS LESS LETHAL INSTRUCTOR 0.00 85.68 Iq1 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2% 0.00 1,066.95 Ig11 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2.5% 0.00 599.74 Ig12 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 9% 0.00 4,451.51 Ig13 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 7% 0.00 967.51 Ig14 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 5% 0.00 1,287.20 Ig15 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY 7.5% 0.00 583.73 I0 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 1 % 0.00 333.08 Iq5 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 3% 0.00 1,250.19 Ici6 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv .5% 0.00 349.02 Iq7 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 1.5% 0.00 277.76 Iq9 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 3.5% 0.00 193.99 mtc MISCELLANEOUS MOTORCYCLE PAY 0.00 122.69 ooc MISCELLANEOUS OUT OF CLASS 0.00 507.30 nds MISCELLANEOUS Public Disclosure Specialist 0.00 101.78 phv MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY 0.00 2,505.95 prof MISCELLANEOUS PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 0.00 194.64 pto MISCELLANEOUS Training Officer 0.00 163.58 sdp MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL DUTY PAY 0.00 301.49 04/22/2021 Packet Pg. 87 6.2.e Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,004 (04/01/2021 to 04/15/2021) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount sqt MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT 0.00 194.64 St REGULAR HOURS Serqeant Pav 0.00 145.98 str MISCELLANEOUS STREET CRIMES 0.00 521.80 traf MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC 0.00 122.69 21,522.81 $945,128.09 Total Net Pay: $622,377.02 04/22/2021 Packet Pg. 88 6.2.f Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,004 - 04/01/2021 to 04/15/2021 Bank: usbank - US Bank Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 64660 04/20/2021 bpas BPAS 4,898.43 0.00 64661 04/20/2021 epoa2 EPOA-POLICE 6,027.00 0.00 64662 04/20/2021 epoa3 EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT 631.76 0.00 64663 04/20/2021 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 3,435.94 0.00 64664 04/20/2021 teams TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763 5,048.00 0.00 64665 04/20/2021 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 3,918.39 0.00 23,959.52 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 3189 04/20/2021 awc AW C 327,138.70 0.00 3191 04/20/2021 edm CITY OF EDMONDS 120.00 0.00 3193 04/20/2021 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 270.00 0.00 3194 04/20/2021 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 50,591.51 0.00 3195 04/20/2021 us US BANK 115,500.50 0.00 3196 04/20/2021 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177B1 114,397.27 0.00 3198 04/20/2021 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 5,486.19 0.00 3200 04/20/2021 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 764.50 0.00 614,268.67 0.00 Grand Totals: 638,228.19 0.00 4/22/2021 Packet Pg. 89 6.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/27/2021 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Cadence Clyborne and Frank Celli Staff Lead: NA Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Marissa Cain Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Cadence Clyborne and Frank Celli by minute entry. Narrative Cadence Clyborne 8606 182nd. PI. SW ($12,804.76) Frank Celli 8616 182nd PI. SW ($193,310.83) Attachments: CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM CELLI -for council CLAIM FOR DAMAGES CLYBORNE - for council Packet Pg. 90 6.3.a CITY OF EDMONDS CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM Date Claim Form Received by City Please take note that _State Farm Fire & Casulaty Insurance Company, as subrogee for Frank M. Celli and Parlene A Celli, who currently resides at , mailing address P.O. Box 1505 Lynnwood, WA. 98046 home phone # 425-563-3380, work phone # N/A, and who resided at at the time of the occurrence and whose dates of birth are , are claiming damages against The City of Edmonds in the sum of $193, 310.83 arising out of the following circumstances listed below. DATE OF OCCURRENCE: 11/24/2018 LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: 8616 182nd PI. SW Edmonds, WA. 98026 TIME: exact time not known DESCRIPTION: Property Damage as a result of sudden water surge in City of Edmonds water system. 1. Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or damage. _On 11/24/2018 there was a water main break in Seaview Estates. The City of Edmonds turned off water in the area and repaired the damage to the water main up the cul-de-sac from their home. When Mr. Celli returned home he discovered water shooting from a pipe that ruptured in the Master Bathroom and standing water was whirpooling through vent and pouring out of ceiling in basement. Water went throughout HVAC system. Discovered that neighbor had similar problem and he'd called 911 who sent Fire Dept. to shut off water. Water damage throughout the home damaging floors, walls and contents, etc. (attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed) 2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers. Parlen and Frank Celli (address & phone above), Cadence Clyborne and Frank Bennett , Amy Pinngo- Sno. Fire Dist. #1 206-207-0089, Jeff Koblyk, City of Edmonds ("COE") 427-711-0235, Jim Waite COE 425-717-0235, other witnesses include repairmen and trades people hired for clean up and repairs whose names and addresses are not known at this time. 3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair. Link to documents attached to email sent to Scott.Passey@Edmondswa.gov 4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? _XYes _ No If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY License Plate # Driver License # Type Auto: (year) (make) (model) DRIVER: OWNER: Address: Address: Phone#: Phone#: Passengers: Name: Name: Address: Address: a� a� c� E c� L E 2 U Form Revised 04/09/2021 Page I of 2 Packet Pg. 91 6.3.a This Claim form must be signed by the Claimant, a person holding a written power of attorney from the Claimant, by the attorney in fact for the Claimant, by an attorney admitted to practice in Washington State on the Claimant's behalf, or by a court -approved guardian or guardian ad litem on behalf of the Claimant. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. Signature of Claimant Or Signature of Representative _Laura Evezich Print Name of Representative Date and place (residential address, city county) April16, 2020 22525 SE 64th PI., Suite 2300 Issaquah, WA. 98027 King County _ WSBA # 20990_ Bar Number (if applicable) Please present the completed claim form to City Clerk's Office City of Edmonds 121 5tn Avenue North Edmonds, WA, 98020 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. E 2 U Form Revised 04/09/2021 Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 92 6.3.b CITY OF EDMONDS CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM Date Claim Form Received by City Please take note that State Farm Fire & Casualty Ins. Co. as subrogee to Cadence Clyborne and Gerorge Bennett, who currently reside at home phone #425-478-8541_, work phone #N/A_, and who resided at the time of the occurrence and whose date of birth is , is claiming damages against The City of Edmonds —in the sum of $12,804.76 arising out of the following circumstances listed below. DATE OF OCCURRENCE: 11/24/2018 TIME: Approx. 9:00 p.m._ LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: 8606 182nd. PI. SW Edmonds, WA. 98026_ DESCRIPTION: Property damage as a result of sudden discharge of water from City of Edmonds water system. 1. Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or damage. _ On 11/24/18 there was a water main break in Seaview Estates. The city's water utilities crew repaired the water main. Later that evening Clyborne and Bennett heard a weird noise and discovered water pouring out of every faucet and shower and their water heater blew. The homeowner called the Police and Fire Depts. The Fire dept. called Water Dept. who turned off the water. Fire Department and Water Dept. admitted liability. Damage to multiple rooms and contents within house.(attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed) 2. Provide a list of witnesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers. , Amy Pinngo, Sno. Fire Dist #1 206-207-0089, Jeff Koblyk City of Edmonds ("COE") 425-717-0235, Jim Waite COE 425-717-0235, other witnesses include repairmen and trades people hired for clean up and repairs whose names and phone numbers are not known at this time. 3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair. Link to documents attached to email sent to Scott.Passey@Edmondswa.gov 4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? _XYes No If so, please provide the name of the insurance company: License Plate # Type Auto: _ * * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS ONLY * * Driver License # (year) (make) (model) DRIVER: OWNER: Address: Address: Phone#: Phone#: Passengers: Name: Name: Address: Address: E U Form Revised 04/09/2021 Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 93 6.3.b This Claim form must be signed by the Claimant, a person holding a written power of attorney from the Claimant, by the attorney in fact for the Claimant, by an attorney admitted to practice in Washington State on the Claimant's behalf, or by a court -approved guardian or guardian ad litem on behalf of the Claimant. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. Signature of Claimant Or Signature of Representative _Laura Evezich Print Name of Representative Date and place (residential address, city and county) m 22525 SE 64th PI., Suite 2300 Issaquah, WA. 98027 1° King Co. April 15, 2021 0 L Date and place (residential address, city and county) ° _WSBA # 20990 E Bar Number (if applicable) WSBA U Please present the completed claim form to City Clerk's Office City of Edmonds 121 5tn Avenue North Edmonds, WA, 98020 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Form Revised 04/09/2021 Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 94 6.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/27/2021 Civic Field - Reject All bids Staff Lead: Phil Williams Department: Public Works & Utilities Preparer: Phil Williams Background/History Construction of the new Park at Civic Field was initially put out to bid in May, 2020, during earlier stages of the worldwide pandemic. The city received only two bids at that time. This may have been, in part, related to the health emergency. In addition, both contractors omitted key information in their bid submittals and the City determined their bids to be non -responsive. The re -bid was rescheduled to 2021 and staff restructured the bid documents into a lump -sum bid solicitation rather than a line -item bid. Additional soil testing at the park site and additional design work were also completed on the Yost Park stormwater mitigation system. That system will assist the Civic Field project in satisfying the full impact of installing all of the required detention. The project was again bid in March, 2021 and bids were opened April 8th. Staff Recommendation Reject all bids and instruct staff to re -bid the project after necessary changes to the Request For Bids have been made. Narrative The history to date suggests bidders on this project still have confusion about what is and is not required in the bid submittal. Both the low -bidder and the second low -bidder have written letters to the City. One tries to make the case that their bid is responsive in spite of the missing information. The other suggests the low bid should be rejected. Attempting to award a bid to either one seems likely to lead to a formal bid protest and possible lawsuit from the other. Resolving these competing claims would certainly be a longer process and require more city resources than rebidding. For this reason, it is recommended the City again reject all bids and re -bid as quickly as possible after making some additional changes to the bid documents that clarifies exactly what is required to be submitted and where it should be placed. That work is ongoing now. Packet Pg. 95 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/27/2021 Paid Family & Medical Leave (PFML) Policy Changes Staff Lead: Emily Wagener Department: Human Resources Preparer: Emily Wagener Background/History The City developed a Paid Family & Medical Leave (PFML) policy in response to the WA State's voter approved Paid Family and Medical Leave Program. The City's policy allows employees to supplement their PFML payments with their available paid leave as long as the combined total of payments does not to exceed 100% of the employee's gross wages. After one year of administering this program, we have noticed that, because of how PFML calculates leave payments, this 100% maximum negatively impacts part time and lower wage employees. This effect is that part time and lower wage employees subject to the 100% maximum do not receive enough in supplemental payments to continue to pay their benefit premiums while on leave. Staff Recommendation We ask Council to approve the included policy changes. Narrative Staff requests to revise the current PFML policy to allow supplementation for a combined payment maximum of 150% for those who are not able to cover their benefit payments while on leave at the 100% maximum. This will not only increase the benefit to the employee and allow them to continue to pay for benefits while on leave, it will reduce the City's liability and need to collect premiums from employees either while they are on leave or after they return. The administering PFML agency does not identify a maximum employers can pay in supplemental wages only that they are categorized as supplemental wages instead of regular wages. Also included are general verbiage changes to clarify the policy with regards to maximum state benefits and how HR calculates supplemental leave. Please see the attached PFML Policy document with proposed changes in redline. Attachments: WPFML Revision 21-04 PFML Policy Changes 21-0420 Packet Pg. 96 7.1.a Appendix E Washington State Paid Family & Medical Leave Overview Paid Family and Medical Leave is a mandatory statewide insurance program that will provide almost every Washington employee with paid time off to give or receive care. If you qualify, this program will allow you to take up to 12 weeks, as needed, if you: • Welcome a child into your family (through birth, adoption or foster placement) • Experience a serious illness or injury • Need to care for a seriously ill or injured relative • Need time to prepare for a family member's pre- and post -deployment activities, as well as time for N childcare issues related to a family member's military deployment. For specifics on military -connected paid leave, visit www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs28mc.pdf z U v If you face multiple events in a year, you might be eligible to receive up to 16 weeks, and up to 18 weeks o if you experience a serious health condition during pregnancy that results in incapacity. a- J Payment of Premiums a This program is funded by premiums paid by both the employee and employer. It is administered by the state Employment Security Department. Premium amounts for both the medical and family coverage are set by the state. Premium costs may be shared between employer and employee but employers must pay a minimum of 33% of the total premium for both family and medical coverage. Premium sharing for represented employees will be as agreed to in their respective collective bargaining agreements. Premium cost sharing for non -represented employees will be recommended by the Mayor as part of the annual budget process. Any employee portion of the premiums will be deducted from the employee's paycheck on each pay cycle. Supplemental wages as defined in this policy are not subject to premiums. Applying for benefits Starting January 1, 2020, employees who have worked 820 hours in the qualifying period (equal to 16 hours a week for a year) will be able to apply to take paid medical leave or paid family leave. The 820 hours are cumulative, regardless of the number of employers or jobs someone has during a year. All paid work over the course of the year counts toward the 820 hours, including part-time, seasonal and temporary work. While on leave, you are entitled to partial wage replacement. That means you will receive a portion of your average weekly pay. The benefit is generally up to 90 percent of your weekly wage, with a minimum of $100 per week and a maximum of $1,000 per week in 2020. Future maximum benefits will be adiusted by the commissioner annuallv by September 30t" to be effective the followina January 111. You will be paid by and must apply for benefits through the Employment Security Department rather than by the City. For information on applying for benefits please go to paidleave.wa.gov. Supplementing Washington Paid Family & Medical Leave with other accrued leave The City allows the supplementing of paid leave with an employee's available accrued leave. Employees who choose to supplement their paid family or medical leave payments must first use sick leave and then may use other accrued leave once sick leave is exhausted. Packet Pg. 97 7.1.a HR will calculate the Employee's supplemental benefit amount by using the WA PFML online calculator. If the employee disagrees with the calculation, they can provide their official benefit application approval notice from the Employment Security Department for recalculation. Employees may not normally use supplemental benefits to receive more than 100% of their gross regular compensation (PFML benefit plus supplemental benefit). However, if an employee's calculated supplemental benefit amount does not fully cover their regular pay -period deductions (such as medical, dental, vision, FSA, etc.) the employee may use additional supplemental benefits, not to exceed 150% of their gross regular compensation (PFML benefit plus supplemental benefit). Employees must follow normal payroll procedures in order to use accrued leave as supplemental leave while on Paid Family & Medical Leave. Coordination with Shared Leave Employees who wish to receive shared leave must also apply for paid family & medical leave benefits through Employment Security. If approved for shared leave, the amount of leave awarded will be based en the appreved payments from empleyment seGUFity Se that the empleyee will net FeGeiVe greater than 100 „f their regular GE)r~,peRsatiGR. calculated the same as if an employee used their own accrued leave t to supplement. V Leave Protections o a Employees who return from leave under this law will be restored to a same or equivalent job if they meet 2 the following requirements: 1 a • have worked for the City for at least 12 months, and • have worked 1,250 hours in the 12 months before taking leave (about 24 hours per week, on average). You may remain on your City provided health insurance while on leave. If you contribute to the cost of your health insurance you will continue to be responsible for that portion. The City will pay the full premium for your health coverage while on you are on leave and you will be required to make arrangements to repay this when you return to work. Should you fail to return to work, any amount paid for your health care premiums on your behalf by the City will be deducted from your final paycheck. No Discrimination or Retaliation The City of Edmonds is prohibited from discriminating or retaliating against you for requesting or taking paid leave under this law. Packet Pg. 98 PAID FAMILY & MEDICAL LEAVE (PFML) POLICY CHANGES d a� c� s U 0 a J LL a 0 N 0 N N tm C R L U 0 a J LL a _ m E z Q Packet Pg. 99 • Employees can supplement their state PFML payments by using their eligible paid leave balances. • Total payments to employees are capped at s00% of gross weekly wages including state and supplemental payments. s00% FTE based on i00% max Gross Weekly Pay PFML Weekly Benefit Max Weekly Supplement Weekly Leave Hrs. Used Weekly Benefit Cost* *eased on family coverage for Med/Den/Vis on the Regence plan • Employee's weekly supplement amount covers their weekly benefit cost. • Employee may have other deductions and/or pre-tax benefits, such as the Flexible Spending Account (FSA) that would also be covered. • The Z00% cap on total wages negatively impacts part-time and lower wage- earning employees as follows: • These employees receive far less in supplemental leave payments from the City. • They are unable to continue to pay their benefit premiums while on leave. • They will need to pay their benefit premiums while on leave by sending payment into the City or by catching them up when they return to work. • They may miss out on the tax benefit of having premiums deducted from their pay. • City staff must track and collect any unpaid employee premiums. • Part-time employees pay a higher cost -share for their benefits than full-time employees. 62.5o% FTE based on s00% max Gross Weekly Pay PFML Weekly Benefit Max Weekly Supplement Weekly Leave Hrs. Used Weekly Benefit Cost* *eased on family coverage for Med/Den/Vis on the Regence plan • Employee's weekly supplement amount does not cover their weekly benefit cost. • Employee may have other deductions and/or pre-tax benefits, such as the Flexible Spending Account (FSA) that would also not be covered. • Increase the cap on total wages to 1.50% for those employees who are unable to continue to pay their benefit payments at the s00% level. • Other minor verbiage changes include: • Clarifying that supplemental wages (as defined in policy) are not subject to PFML premiums. • Reference to the state's annual max benefit recalculation. This will avoid an annual policy change. • Reference to how HR calculates the Supplemental leave benefit and what employees can do if they disagree with the calculation. 62.5o% FTE based on i5o% ma Gross Weekly Pay PFML Weekly Benefit Max Weekly Supplement Weekly Leave Hrs. Used Weekly Benefit Cost* • *Based on family coverage for Med/Den/Vis on the Regence plan • Employee's weekly supplement amount covers their weekly benefit cost. • Employee may have other deductions and/or pre-tax benefits, such as the Flexible Spending Account (FSA) that would also be covered. • Proposed policy changes will have a significant, positive impact on part-time and lower wage-earning employees with the City. • Supplemental payments reduce the employee's accrued leave balances. This is not an additional cost to the City. • Increasing the cap for this group of employees may encourage supplemental leave use. • Proposed policy changes are expected to reduce the City's obligation to track and collect unpaid employee benefit premiums for those on PFML. STAFF RECOMMENDATION a J LL a 0 N O N N d C t t2 O a J LL a :.o c m E s �a w w a 7.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/27/2021 2021 April Budget Amendment Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Marissa Cain Background/History Amend the 2021 Ordinance No. 4216 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Council approve Ordinance No. XXXX amending the 2021 Budget. Attachments: 2021 April Budget Amendment Exhibits 2021 April Budget Amendment Ordinance Budget Amendment on April 27 Packet Pg. 108 7.2.a New Item for Council to Consider (April 2021) Budget Amendment for: April 20th, 2021 Description: The Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services (FRCS) Department is requesting the addition of contracted Parks Planning Support services. For 2021, in addition to operating a department during ever -changing COVID guidelines, PRCS has the PROS Plan, Salmon Safe certification (new), and Civic Park project, an active land acquisition program, more than 25 small parks capital projects in deferred maintenance, several with safety and environmental degradation issues. There is not a designated staff to implement the park planning workload and using contracted services for design, permitting, land acquisition and management of small parks capital projects will allow department Admin to better focus on Human Services implementation and park maintenance. Recreation & Cultural Serices Division: JAdministration Title: IParks Planning SUDDort Services Budget Amendment Type Date of Discussion or Budget Approval? How is this amendment funded? What is the nature of the expenditure? Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Director New Item For Council To Consider 100% Ending Fund Balance One -Time Operating Fund r 001 GENERAL Name: I Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 001.000.64.571.21.41.00 Professional Services $ 50,000 $ $ $ S Total Expenditure Increase Decrease $ 50,000 $ $ S Revenue Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 $ $ $ $ S Total Revenue Increase Decrease $ $ $ $ S Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 001.000.39.508.00.00.00 Ending Fund Balance $ 50,000 $ $ $ S Total Ending Fund Balance Increase Decrease $ 50,000) $ $ $ $ Packet Pg. 109 7.2.a New Item for Council to Consider (April 2021) Budget Amendment for: April 20th, 2021 Item Description: The Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services (PRCS) Department is requesting funding for additional wetland delination services to meet the permitting requirements necessary to allow access into the Marsh for restoration efforts including volunteer work of invasive plant removal and planting of native vegetation. Without the permit and necessary delination, the City is unable to access significant areas of the Marsh to complete this restoration work. Currently, access is allowed in the northwest and southeast portions and this delineation will meet permit requirements to provide access to the remainder of the Marsh for restoration work. Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Fund Name: 017 MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATION Division: Administration Title: Edmonds Marsh Planning Services Preparer: Angie Feser, Director Budget Amendment Type New Item For Council To Consider Date of Discussion or Budget Approval? How is this amendment funded? 100% Ending Fund Balance What is the nature of the expenditure? One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? Operating Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 017.000.64.576.80.41.00 Professional Services $ 20,000 $ S $ $ Total Expenditure Increase Decrease $ 20,000 $ $ S $ Revenue Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 $ $ S $ S Total Revenue Increase(Decrease) $ $ S $ S Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 017.000.64.508.40.00.00 Ending Fund Balance $ 20,000 $ S $ S Total Ending Fund Balance Increase Decrease S (20,000) $ S $ S Packet Pg. 110 7.2.a New Item for Council to Consider (April 2021) Budget Amendment for: April 20th, 2021 Item Description: The Street Department is requesting the funds to purchase a "mini excavator." A mini would provide our sidewalk crew the ability to efficiently and safely demo and prep the job sites for a sidewlk pour. A large portion of the crew's efforts are in doing this site preparation, often with a backhoe that is too large for the site or by manually doing the work by hand. A mini fits into a parking stall or onto a sidewalk that is being removed creating a job site compressed enough to not require traffic controls/flaggers thus reducing the required manpower to accomplish the job. A mini is typically the first piece of equipmnet on a sidewalk project and is almost always the last to leave. The purchase of a mini will allow for the sidewalk crew to be more efficientproductive and safe. Department: Street Department/Equipment Rental Fund Name: 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL Division: Public Works Title: Equipment Purchase Preparer: Tod Moles, Street/Storm Manager Budget Amendment Type New Item For Council To Consider Date of Discussion or Budget Approval? How is this amendment funded? 100% Ending Fund Balance What is the nature of the expenditure? One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? Capital Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 B-Fund/ Streets $ 80,000 $ $ $ S Total Expenditure Increase Decrease $ 80,000 $ $ $ $ Revenue Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 $ $ $ $ $ Total Revenue Increase(Decrease) $ $ $ $ S Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 511.100.77.508.00.00.00 Ending Fund Balance $ 80,000 $ S $ S Total Ending Fund Balance Increase Decrease $ 80,000 $ S $ S Packet Pg. 111 7.2.a New Item for Council to Consider (April 2021) Budget Amendment for: April 20th, 2021 Item Description: Currently the three utility funds do not have formal policies for reserve funds needs and the General Facility Charges for new services have not been reviewed and reevaluated for over 8 years. This budget amendment will program the funds to hire a consultant who will help city staff to develop policies to ensure to develop policies to ensure that adequate reserves are in place and to verify if General Facility Charges need to be updated. Department: Public Works Fund Name: MULTIPLE FUNDS Division: Engineering Title: Utility Fund Reserve Policies and Utility Expansion Fees Update Preparer: Michele (Mike) De Lilla Budget Amendment Type New Item For Council To Consider Date of Discussion or Budget Approval? How is this amendment funded? 100% Ending Fund Balance What is the nature of the expenditure? One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? Operating Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 421.000.74.534.80.41.67 Interfund Services $ 7,500 $ S $ S 421.000.74.534.80.41.10 Professional Services 22,500 422.000.72.531.70.41.67 Interfund Services 7,500 422.000.72.531.90.41.20 Professional Services 22,500 423.000.75.535.80.41.67 Interfund Services 7,500 423.000.75.535.80.41.30 Professional Services 22,500 Total Expenditure Increase(Decrease) $ 90,000 $ S $ S Revenue Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 $ S $ S Total Revenue Increase(Decrease) S $ S $ $ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 421.000.74.508.00.00.00 Ending Fund Balance $ 30,000 $ S $ S 422.000.72.508.00.00.00 Ending Fund Balance 30,000 423.000.75.508.00.00.00 Ending Fund Balance 30,000 Total Ending Fund Balance Increase Decrease $ 90,000 $ S $ S Packet Pg. 112 7.2.a Previously Discussed by Council (April 2021) Budget Amendment for: April 20th, 2021 Item Description: The Teamsters and AFSCME labor contracts were extended through 2021, and a COLA increase of 2% was included with this extension. This decision package increases the budget expenditures for salaries and benefits under the Teamsters and AFSCME contracts. Department: Multiple Fund Name: MULTIPLE FUNDS Division: Multiple Title: Increase to Salaries / Benefits from new Labor Contract Preparer: Marissa Cain Budget Amendment Type Previously Discussed By Council Date of Discussion or Budget Approval? Approved 12/5/2020 and 1/12/2021 How is this amendment funded? 100% Ending Fund Balance What is the nature of the expenditure? On -Going Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? 10perating Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fill out on -going costs & revenues Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 001.000.23.512.50.23.00 Benefits $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 001.000.31.514.20.23.00 Benefits 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 512.000.31.518.88.23.00 Benefits 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 001.000.25.514.30.23.00 Benefits 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 001.000.61.557.20.23.00 Benefits 700 700 700 700 700 001.000.62.558.60.23.00 Benefits 400 400 400 400 400 001.000.62.524.20.23.00 Benefits 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 001.000.62.524.10.23.00 Benefits 600 600 600 600 600 001.000.67.518.21.23.00 Benefits 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 001.000.64.571.21.23.03 Benefits 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 001.000.64.576.80.23.00 Benefits 4,200 4,200 4,200 4,200 4,200 001.000.65.518.20.23.00 Benefits 700 700 700 700 700 001.000.66.518.30.23.00 Benefits 3,200 31200 3,200 3,200 3,200 422.000.72.531.40.23.00 Benefits 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,400 111.000.68.542.31.23.00 Benefits 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 421.000.74.534.80.23.00 Benefits 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 423.000.75.535.80.23.00 Benefits 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 423.000.76.535.80.23.00 Benefits 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 511.000.77.548.68.23.00 Benefits 800 800 800 800 800 001.000.41.521.10.23.00 Benefits 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 001.000.23.512.50.11.00 Salaries 7,600 7,600 7,600 7,600 7,600 001.000.31.514.23.11.00 Salaries 11,500 11,500 11,500 11,500 11,500 512.000.31.518.88.11.00 Salaries 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 5,400 001.000.25.514.30.11.00 Salaries 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 001.000.61.557.20.11.00 Salaries 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 001.000.62.558.60.11.00 Salaries 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 001.000.62.524.20.11.00 Salaries 11,300 11,300 11,300 11,300 11,300 001.000.62.524.10.11.00 Salaries 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 001.000.67.518.21.11.00 Salaries 12,300 12,300 12,300 12,300 12,300 001.000.64.571.22.11.00 Salaries 11,200 11,200 11,200 11,200 11,200 001.000.64.576.80.11.00 Salaries 15,700 15,700 15,700 15,700 15,700 001.000.65.518.20.11.00 Salaries 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 001.000.66.518.30.11.00 Salaries 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 422.000.72.531.70.11.00 Salaries 7,400 7,400 7,400 7,400 7,400 111.000.68.544.70.11.00 Salaries 11,800 11,800 11,800 11,800 11,800 421.000.74.534.80.11.00 Salaries 12,300 12,300 12,300 12,300 12,300 423.000.75.535.80.11.00 Salaries 10,700 10,700 10,700 10,700 10,700 423.000.76.535.80.11.00 Salaries 19,600 19,600 19,600 19,600 19,600 511.000.77.548.68.11.00 Salaries 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 001.000.41.521.10.11.00 Salaries 13,300 13,300 13,300 13,300 13,300 Total Expenditure Increase Decrease $ 227,400 $ 227,400 $ 227,400 $ 227,400 $ 227,400 Packet Pg. 113 Previously Discussed by Council (April 2021) 7.2.a Revenue Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 $ $ S $ S Total Revenue Increase(Decrease) $ $ $ $ $ Endine Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 001.000.39.508.00.00.00 Ending Fund Balance 138,400 138,400 138,400 138,400 138,400 111.000.68.508.30.00.00 Ending Fund Balance 14,900 14,900 14,900 14,900 14,900 421.000.74.508.00.00.00 Ending Fund Balance 15,400 15,400 15,400 15,400 15,400 422.000.72.508.00.00.00 Ending Fund Balance 9,800 9,800 9,800 9,800 9,800 423.000.75.508.00.00.00 Ending Fund Balance 38,400 38,400 38,400 38,400 38,400 511.000.77.508.00.00.00 Ending Fund Balance 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 512.000.31.508.00.00.00 Ending Fund Balance 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 Total Ending Fund Balance Increase(Decrease) $ 227,400 $ 227,400 $ 227,400 $ 227,400 $ 227,400 r+ Q Packet Pg. 114 7.2.a Previously Discussed by Council (April 2021) Budget Amendment for: April 20th, 2021 Item Description: The construction phase of the Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements project will begin in March 2021 and be complete by fall 2021. The budget amendment is needed to account for the additional funds programmed for the construction phase and the transfer of funds from decision packages 75 (2021 Pedestrian Safety) and 76 (2021 Traffic Signal Upgrades). The additional funds from the 112 Street Fund are the remaining grant funds from the 2018 Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) Complete Streets Grant. Department: Public Works Fund Name: MULTIPLE FUNDS Division: Engineering Title: Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Preparer: Bertrand Hauss Budget Amendment Type Previously Discussed By Council Date of Discussion or Budget Approval? December 15, 2020 City Council Meeting How is this amendment funded? 100°/u Ending Fund Balance What is the nature of the expenditure? One -Time Is the Expenditure Operating or Capital? IC.pital Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 112.000.68.595.61.65.00 Construction Sidewalks $ 44,000 $ S $ S 125.000.68.595.61.65.00 Construction Sidewalks 136,000 125.000.68.595.61.41.00 Professional Services - Sidewalks 39,000 125.000.68.542.64.41.67 Interfund Serv-Traffic Control 3,000 125.000.68.542.64.48.00 R&M - Traffic Control 47,000 Total Expenditure Increase Decrease $ 169,000 $ S $ Revenue Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 $ S $ S Total Revenue Increase(Decrease) $ $ S $ S Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 112.000.68.508.30.00.00 Ending Fund Balance $ 44,000 $ S $ S 125.000.64.508.30.00.00 Ending Fund Balance 125,000 Total Ending Fund Balance Increase Decrease $ 169,000 $ S $ S Packet Pg. 115 gIDPBdgtRpt 4/7/2021 10:09:29AM Decision Package Budget Report City of Edmonds 7.2.a Date 07/28/2020 Budget Year 2021 Decision Package: 670-21022 - 2021 Traffic Calming Program Group Version Priority Duration mcain 0 1 One -Time Approval Status Approved Item Description 2021 Traffic Calming Program Justification The program consists in installing traffic calming devices, such as radar feedback signs, bulb -outs, striping modifications, and other methods. Describe All Funding Sources REET-1 Describe Future or Ongoinq Costs On -going cost in future years if additional stretches needing traffic calming devices are identified. Project Status (if applicable) Narrative Not Defined FISCAL DETAILS 2021 Capital Expenditures 126.000.68.542.64.41.67 INTERFUND SERV-TRAFFIC CONTRC 1,000.00 126.000.68.542.64.48.00 R & M - TRAFFIC CONTROL 14,000.00 Total Capital Expenditures 15,000.00 Total Expenditures 15,000.00 Revenues 001.000.349.18.000.00 CONTRACT SERVICES Total Revenues Net Budget -1,000.00 -1,000.00 14,000.00 r c m E c m E Q m m �L Q Q r N O F4 Packet Pg. 116 gIDPBdgtRpt Decision Package Budget Report 4/7/2021 10:09:29AM City of Edmonds Date 07/29/2020 Budget Year 2021 Decision Package: 670-21023 - 2021 Pedestrian Safety Group Version Priority Duration mcain 0 1 One -Time Approval Status Approved Item Description Installation of new pedestrian improvements such as Rectangular Rapid Flashing beacons (RRFB's), sidewalk, bulb -outs at intersections, red flashing beacons on Stop Signs and other signage and striping improvements throughout the City. Justification This program started in 2019 as part of an effort to improve pedestrian safety (one of the top 2019 Council priorities). Describe All Funding Sources RE ET-2 Describe Future or Ongoinq Costs Expected life cycle of beacons ranges from 10 to 15 years. Project Status (if applicable) This program has been on -going since 2019. FISCAL DETAILS Capital Expenditures 125.000.64.597.73.55.17 TRANSFER TO FUND 117 125.000.68.542.64.41.67 INTERFUND SERV-TRAFFIC CONTRC 125.000.68.542.64.48.00 R & M - TRAFFIC CONTROL Total Capital Expenditures Total Expenditures Revenues 001.000.349.18.000.00 CONTRACT SERVICES 117.200.397.73.125.00 INTERFUND TRANSFER Total Revenues Net Budget 2021 190.00 1,000.00 19, 000.00 20,190.00 20,190.00 -1,000.00 -190.00 -1,190.00 19, 000.00 r c m E c m E Q m m �L Q Q r N O F4 Packet Pg. 117 7.2.b ORDINANCE NO. XXXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4216 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, previous actions taken by the City Council require Interfund Transfers and increases in appropriations; and WHEREAS, state law requires an ordinance be adopted whenever money is transferred from one fund to another; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the amended budget appropriations and information which was made available; and approves the appropriation of local, state, and federal funds and the increase or decrease from previously approved programs within the 2021 Budget; and THEREFORE, WHEREAS, the applications of funds have been identified; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1. of Ordinance No. 4216 amending the budget for the fiscal year 2021 is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown in Exhibits A, B, C, and D adopted herein by reference. 1 Packet Pg. 118 7.2.b Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: IM JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. APPROVED: MAYOR, MIKE NELSON 2 Packet Pg. 119 7.2.b SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2021, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4216 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of 12021. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY 3 Packet Pg. 120 7.2.b EXHIBIT "A": Budget Amendment Summary (April 2021) FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION 2021 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE REVENUE EXPENDITURES 2021 ENDING FUND BALANCE 001 GENERAL FUND 13,347,278 42,450,777 45,978,718 9,819,337 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 459,105 300,000 467,140 291,965 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 1,825,890 2,620 - 1,828,510 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 11,517 5,010 5,900 10,627 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 210,222 - 210,222 - 017 MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATION FUND 864,490 20,000 844,490 018 EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND 123,581 123,581 - 019 EDMONDS OPIOID RESPONSE FUND 28,445 - 28,445 - 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 159,431 165,370 45,800 279,001 111 STREET FUND 941,253 1,722,360 2,187,430 476,183 112 COMBINED STREETCONST/IMPROVE 2,189,972 3,068,385 2,862,297 2,396,060 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 599,272 165,060 236,880 527,452 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 20,534 270 - 20,804 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 88,392 71,460 87,150 72,702 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 87,233 25,240 26,880 85,593 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 14,041 1,390 3,000 12,431 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 75,353 24,000 29,900 69,453 125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 2,000,717 1,282,050 1,601,298 1,681,469 126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 1,946,015 1,285,240 2,053,911 1,177,344 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 316,106 103,930 100,900 319,136 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 213,707 179,800 200,998 192,509 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 169,460 2,200 50,000 121,660 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 1,107,524 29,220 25,000 1,111,744 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 10,408 10,120 11,900 8,628 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND 10,346 79,239 76,340 13,245 141 AFFORDABLE & SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FUND 65,112 65,000 - 130,112 142 EDMONDS CARES FUND - - - 211 LID FUND CONTROL - - - 231 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVICE FUND - 759,710 759,700 10 332 PARKS CONSTRUCTION 6,046,540 1,392,520 5,552,490 1,886,570 421 WATER 22,026,766 10,299,357 10,760,050 21,566,073 422 STORM 9,914,166 6,265,225 7,293,890 8,885,501 423 SEWER/TREATMENT PLANT 55,138,987 31,130,450 40,492,284 45,777,153 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 843,931 1,985,870 1,985,870 843,931 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 8,712,017 1,331,100 1,429,954 8,613,163 512 Technology Rental Fund 734,287 1,204,880 1,257,909 681,258 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 137,533 67,270 96,167 108,636 Tota I s 130,439, 631 105,475,123 126, 062,004 109, 852, 750 �L sZ Q CV CD CV a w E t v M r Q Packet Pg. 121 EXHIBIT "B": Budget Amendments by Revenue (April 2021) 7.2.b FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION Adopted Budget Ord. #4211 1/1/2021 Adopted Amendment Ord. # 3/10/2021 Proposed Amendment Ord. # 4/2021 2021 Amended Revenue Budget 001 General Fund $ 42,450,777 $ $ $ 42,450,777 009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 300,000 300,000 012 Contingency Reserve Fund 2,620 2,620 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 5,010 5,010 016 Building Maintenance Fund - - 017 Marsh Restoration & Preservation Fund 018 Edmonds Homelessness Response Fund 019 Edmonds Opioid Response Fund - - 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 165,370 165,370 111 Street Fund 1,722,360 1,722,360 112 Combined Street Const/Improve 3,048,185 20,200 3,068,385 117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 165,060 - 165,060 118 Memorial Street Tree 270 270 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 71,460 71,460 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 25,240 25,240 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 1,390 1,390 123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 24,000 24,000 125 ParkAcq/Improvement 1,282,050 1,282,050 126 Special Capital Fund 1,285,240 1,285,240 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 103,930 103,930 130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 179,800 179,800 136 Parks Trust Fund 2,200 2,200 137 Cemetery Maintenance Trust I'd 29,220 29,220 138 Sister City Commission 10,120 10,120 140 Business Improvement District Fund 79,239 79,239 141 Affordable and Supportive Housing Fund 65,000 65,000 142 Edmonds CARES Fund - - 211 Lid Fund Control - - 231 2012 LTGO Debt Service fund 759,710 759,710 332 Parks Construction 1,392,520 1,392,520 421 Water 10,299,357 - 10,299,357 422 Storm 6,012,300 252,925 6,265,225 423 Sewer/Treatment Plant 28,131,150 2,999,300 31,130,450 424 Bond Reserve Fund 1,985,870 - 1,985,870 511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,331,100 1,331,100 512 Technology Rental Fund 1,204,880 1,204,880 617 Firemen's Pension Fund 67,270 - 67,270 Totals $ 102,202,698 $ 3,272,425 $ $ 105,475,123 C d E C E Q d 7 m �L CL Q N O N �L 0. Q N O N 4i C d E t 0 M r Packet Pg. 122 EXHIBIT "C": Budget Amendments by Expenditure (April 2021) 7.2.b FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION Adopted Budget Ord. #4211 1/1/2021 Adopted Amendment Ord. # 3/10/2021 Proposed Amendment Ord. # 4/2021 2021 Amended Expenditure Budget 001 General Fund $ 45,179,468 $ 610,850 $ 188,400 $ 45,978,718 009 Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 467,140 - - 467,140 012 Contingency Reserve Fund - - 014 Historic Preservation Gift Fund 5,900 5,900 016 Building Maintenance Fund 210,222 - 210,222 017 Marsh Restoration & Preservation Fund - 20,000 20,000 018 Edmonds Homelessness Response Fund 123,581 - 123,581 019 Edmonds Opioid Response Fund 28,445 28,445 104 Drug Enforcement Fund 45,800 - 45,800 111 Street Fund 2,172,530 14,900 2,187,430 112 Combined Street Const/Improve 2,781,828 36,469 44,000 2,862,297 117 Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 236,880 - - 236,880 118 Memorial Street Tree - - 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 87,150 87,150 121 Employee Parking Permit Fund 26,880 26,880 122 Youth Scholarship Fund 3,000 3,000 123 Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 29,900 - 29,900 125 ParkAcq/Improvement 1,428,736 47,562 125,000 1,601,298 126 Special Capital Fund 1,761,841 292,070 2,053,911 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 100,900 - 100,900 130 Cemetery Maintenance/Improv 200,998 200,998 136 Parks Trust Fund 50,000 50,000 137 Cemetery Maintenance Trust I'd 25,000 25,000 138 Sister City Commission 11,900 11,900 140 Business Improvement District Fund 76,340 76,340 141 Affordable and Supportive Housing Fund - - 142 Edmonds CARES Fund 211 Lid Fund Control - - 231 2012LTGO Debt Service Fund 759,700 - 759,700 332 Parks Construction 5,360,378 192,112 - 5,552,490 421 Water 10,578,596 136,054 45,400 10,760,050 422 Storm 6,847,783 406,307 39,800 7,293,890 423 Sewer/Treatment Plant 35,634,329 4,789,555 68,400 40,492,284 424 Bond Reserve Fund 1,985,870 - - 1,985,870 511 Equipment Rental Fund 1,292,815 53,139 84,000 1,429,954 512 Technology Rental Fund 1,251,409 - 6,500 1,257,909 617 Firemen's Pension Fund 96,167 96,167 Totals $ 118,861,486 $ 6,564,118 1 $ 636,400 1 $ 126,062,004 �L 0. Q N O N 4i C d E t 0 M r Q Packet Pg. 123 EXHIBIT "D": Budget Amendment Summary (April 2021) 7.2.b Fund Number Proposed Amendment Change in Revenue Proposed Amendment Change in Expense Proposed Amendment Change in Ending Fund Balance 001 188,400 (188,400) 017 20,000 (20,000) 111 14,900 (14,900) 112 44,000 (44,000) 125 125,000 (125,000) 421 45,400 (45,400) 422 39,800 (39,800) 423 68,400 (68,400) 511 84,000 (84,000) 512 6,500 (6,500) Total Change 636,400 (636,400) �L Q Q r N O N a N E t V M r Q Packet Pg. 124 April Budget Amendment Requests April 27, 2021 a Packet Pg. 125 We have 6 requests tonight; more detailed Decision Packages are found in your Council Packet. These requests were discussed during Finance Committee meeting on April 13. Packet Pg. 126 If passed, this budget amendment would have no impact to forecast revenues and would add $636,400 in expenditures to the annual budget. Fund Increase to Revenues Increase to Expenses Projected Ending Fund Balance General Fund 001 $ - $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Marsh Fund 017 - 201000 201000 Fleet Management 511 - 80,000 80,000 Utility Funds 421, 422, 423 - 901000 901000 Various (AFSCME & Teamsters Contracts) - 2271400 2271400 Street Construction 112, REET 125 - 169,000 169,000 Totals $ - $ 636,400 $ 636,400 OS' FQM u o�0 Packet Pg. 127 Budget Amentlmentfor: Apil10th, 2021 Irein Desrrip rion: The Pa rks. Recrea Lion & Cultural Senices (PROS) Department is requesting the addition of contmc ted Parks Planning Support semices. For 2021, in addition to operating a department during ever -changing C OVID guidelines, PROS has the PROS Plan. Salmon Safe certification (new), and Civic Park project. all active land acquisition program, more than 25 small parks capital projects in deferred maintenance. several pith safety- and eniironmental degradation issues. There is not a designated staff to implement the park pLanniing workload and using contracted senices for design, permitting. land acquisition and management of small parks capital projects nil] allow department Admin to better focus on Human Senices implementation and park maintenance. Department; Di'risimu Tirle: Budget amendment Type Date of Disetusian or Budget apprmal? Haw is this amendment funded? Mat is the nature of the expenditure? L the F-%Tenaatua-e OperaGse or Capital'. Eipenditure Increase (Decrease) Parks. Recreation & Cultural Seriees Administration Parks Planning Support Saervices 3ngde Feser. Director New Item Far Coumeil To Con-ider 10U*b Ending Fund Balance Gn,.-Iiin. Opera ' Fund �001 GERER3I. Name; -�ccounrNumber Description io2i Mil J " 1)14 ;U;t. 001.000.64.571.21.41.00 Prafesswnal Services S 50,0.00 .S S S S Total E,xpew-:anne hlcrease (Decrease) 50,000 S S S Fin-enue Increase (Decrease) account N umber Description 2021 :022 202 � ' 014 i0; � S 5 $ S S Total RL-ve i E=ease (Decrease) S S S C S Ending Fund Balmce Increase (Decrease) -�ccountNumber Description 2021 :0!, " '014 i02; 001.No. 39.508.00.00.00 EndmpFund Balance $ (50,000'. S S S Total Ending Fund Balance li=ase {Decrease) $ (50,000) $ S S Request for $50,000 in Professional Services to support additional project workload in Parks. w Packet Pg. 128 Budget Amendment for: Aprd 28th, 2021 Item Desrriprian: The Parks. Recreation. & Cultural Services (PRCS) Department is requesting funding for additional wedand delina [ion senices to meet the permitting requirements necessary- to allow access into the h1arsh for restoration efforts including volunteer work of invasive pkint mmov.al and planting of name vegetation. Without the permit and neeessar}' delination, the Girt- is unahk to access significant areas of the &brsh to complete this restoration work. Currently. access is allowed in the northwest and -southeast portions and this delineation will meet pert requirements to proiide access to the remainder of the Marsh for restoration work.. Department: Parks, Recreation C Cultural 5emices Rind � -ILue: 017 MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATION Di�isian: �idministratian Title: Edin-onds Marsh Planning Services Preparer: Angie Fever, Director Budget Amendment Type Date of Discussion arBudget Appixr 31". Hour is Tbas amendment funded? A at is the natvae of the expenditure? h the F. pendm3re OperatmE or Capital? Expenditure Increase (Decrease) New Item For Council I Consider 100*-- Ending Fund Boilnnce One -I M4 Account Number Description 2021 �0= !0:3 �0=4 017.000.64-576.80-41.00 Profinsicnal sers7ces S 20,000 5 S S S Total E- hwe Increase ecrea.a', S 20,000 S S Revenue Increase (Decrease) Account Number De-rffipovu 2021 10!, " '1'1.4 - S S Total Rn-enue Increase (Degrease) - S S S S Endintz Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 :0= i023 '014 i0:: 417.H0.64-3E8.40-00.01) EndmgFundBalance S (20,000) S S S S Total Eadmg Fund Balance Increase {Decrease) (_'O,G74} S S S S Request for $20,000 in Professional Services from the Marsh Fund for permitting to access the Edmonds Marsh to do restoration work. OF EbnjQ�O w Packet Pg. 129 Budget Aimendmentfor: Apiil?Oth, 2021 Item Description: The Street Department is requesting the funds to purchase a "mini eacarator." A mini would proiide our sidewalk cress the ability to efficiently and safely deino and prep the jab sites for a side,%i.k pour. A Large portion of the crew'i efforts are in doing this site preparation, often with a backhoe that is too Large for the site or by tnauuak doing the work by hand. A mini fits into a parlang stall or onto a sidewalk tka t is bein removed creating a job site compressed enough to not require traffic controlsrfiaggers thus reducing the required tnaupower to accomplish the job. A mini is tpicall,' the first piece of equipmnet on a sidewalk - project and is ahnost atwass the last to lease. the purchase of a mini will aDoss for the sidewalk cress to be more efficient roducdve and safe. Department: Street DepartmentEquipment Rental Fund Name: c11 EQL-InMENT RENTAL Division: Public llorki Title: I Equipment Purehase Preparer. I Tad lfvle:. Street. Storm Manager Budget Amendment Type Date of Discussian or Budget Appi�wal? How is this amendment funded? What is the name of the expenditure? Is the Expendlt * Operating or Capital? Expenditure Increase (Decrease) New Item Far Couneil I Consider 1G4•.a Ending Fund Balance One-Iune L'spitdl Account Number Deseription !021 Mil -023 :]14 !0:� 511-100-77-594.48-64.00 B-Fund.' Street} S 80,000 5 S S S Total Expendkm-e Increase (Decrease) c. 80,000 5 S S S Wvenue Increase (Decrease) -kccounr Numbel Deseriptwa 20_I 101, '_023 _014 io,ti \ t S S Total RMTnue Increase (Deerease) ` - $ S Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Account Number Desert Lion 2021 :oil 2023 14 !0:� 511.100.77.508.W.00.00 EndmeFundBahmce S (80,NO) S 5 Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) S (80,000) S $ S Request for $80,000 in the Equipment Rental fund for a mini excavator. OV Eb4jQ�O w Packet Pg. 130 Sucker ndlnent for: April ?Oth, 2021 Item Descrip don: Currently the [(tree utility funds do not have formal policies for reserve funds needs and the General Facility' Charges for new set-kices here not been renewed and rees'aluared for over 8 years. Ihis budget a mendment will program the funds to hire a consultant wko will help do- staff to develop policies to ensure to develop policies to ensure that adequa to reserves are in place and to retifc- if General Facility Charges need to be updated. Department: Public 11-Drk-s Division: Eogiaeering Fund MULTIPLE FUNDS Title: i tililt Fund Reserve Policies and Utility Expansion Fees Update Name: Preparers Michele Milm) De Lilla Budget ,'amendment Type Date of Disemsion or Budget 'Approval? How is this amendment funded? 9.1at is the nattue Df the expenditure? Is the Expenditure OpeIatuag OSCapital? Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Nen' Item For Council I Consider I Ending Fund Balance One-Iiin e Operariag Account Number Description 2021 ;U_, J 421.NO. 74-534.80-41.67 lnterfimd Services ?-500 S 421.000.74.534.80.4L10 P-ofernicnal Services 11_504 422.000-72-531.70-41-67 lnterfuad Services 7,500 422. HO. 72-531-90AI -20 Pixifeasional Services 22,500 423.000.75-535-80AI-67 lnterfuad Services 7,500 423.000.75-535-80AI -3 0 Professi al Services 22,500 Total Expenditm-e Increase (Decrease) 5 90,400 Rpvpoup Inerpase [I]perpawl Account Number Description ;1 Total Re4pmin Increase (Decrease) i $ 5 Endintr Fund Balance Increase fDecrease) Account Number Description 2021 ;02, J " J ""''4 421.NO. 74-508.00-00.00 EndmgFund Balance $ (30,000) ,S S 422.000-72-508.W-00-00 Endmgr Fund Balance 300D 423.0D0-75-508.00A0-00 EndmgFundBalance 30N Tatal Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) 5 (9D,0-00) 5 5 Request for $90,000 — $30,000 each from the Water, Storm, and Sewer Funds — to provide funds to develop formal reserve policies. Budget Amendment for: Aprd 20th, 2021 Item Description: The Teamsters and AFSC14fE labor contracts mere extended through 2021, and a C OLA increase of 21!'u R-as included with this extension. This decision package increases the budget expenditures for salaries and benefits under the Teamsters and AFSC %fE contracts. Department, Multiple Fund Name1 hILZTTPLE FUNDS Ditision: 41u1tiple Title: Increase to Salaries : Benefits froan new Labor Contract Preparer: Mari— Cain Budget Amendment Type Date of Discussion or Budget Appr—ml? How is this ameodm—t funded? What is the na-L—e of the expenditum? L the Expend n re, Cqp wkgo or Capital? Fxrwviditr[rP Tnrrpaw (f]arrnacn) F—i—ly Dis¢nssed By Counr$ Approved 12.5 1020 and 1 12 2021 100% Ending Fned Balanre 909 4—Going Gperating Fill our ow-oni..o rn.rc .4 Account Number Description 2021 N22 2021 2014 2025 001.000..23.512.5023.00 Benefit S 1500 $ 1.500 S 1500 5 1.500 $ 1500 001.00031.514.2023.00 Benefit 2,500 2.500 2,500 2.500 2,500 512.000.31.518.8923.00 Benefit 1,100 i,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 001.000.25.51430.23.00 Benefit 1,200 1.200 1.200 1.200 1,200 001.000.61.557.2023.00 Benefit 700 700 700 700 700 001.000..62.558.6t723.00 Benefit 400 400 40O 400 400 2023.00 MI 12 152129 00 B—fit� Benefits 2 700 2,700 2700 2.700 2 711 2111 2.70D 1 1-�10 2 700 2,700 .1!q 001.000.62.524_1023.00 Benefit 600 600 69❑ 600 600 001.000.67.518.2123.04 I Benefit 2,300 2,300 2,300 2.300 2,300 Revenue Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2821 _p22 2033 2024 202E Total Rereoue hu axe eenease - $ - - $ - S Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Account Number Description 2021 ;022 2023 2024 2029 001.000.39.508A0.00.00 Ending Fund Balance (139,400) 13&400 138 40 IM400 (139,400) 111.000.69 50830.00.00 Ending Fucui Balance (14,900) (14,900) (14,900) (14,900) (14,900) 421.000.74.508.00.00.00 Ending Fuud Balance (15,400) 15.400 15 40 15_401) (15,400) 422. 01DO. 72508. 00010.010 Ending Fund Balance (9,800) 4.800 9 80 _801) SO 423.000.75.508.00.00.00 Ending Fund Balance (38,400) (38,400) (38,400) M400) (39,400) 511.000.77.508.00.00.00 Ending Fund Balance (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) (4,DD4) 512.000.31.508.00.00.00 Ending Fund Balance (6,500) 6 500 (6,500) 6.500 b SO Total F.adineFund Balance Increase -e S 27,400 S (227,400) 27 40U S 227 400 S ?7,40U This budget adjustment is for $227,400 for the increased Salaries and Benefits that resulted from the ASCFME and Teamsters contract settlements. ti � 'L u Packet Pg. 132 Sudvt — mendrnent for: Apii120th, 2021 IMm D¢>c3-1priuu: The consMuction phase of the Gin -Wide Pedestrian Crossing EEuhancements projectvillbegin in March 2021 and be complete by fall 2021. The budget amendment is needed to account for the additional fonds programmed for the construetion phase and the transfer of funds froin derision packages 1-5 (2021 Fedesniian Safety) and ?G (2021 Traffic Signal 'Upgrades). The additional funds from the 112 Street Fund are the remaining grant funds from The 201STransportation ImprorementBoard (M) Complete Streets Grant. Department: Public Works Division: Engineering Rind 'MULTIPLE FUNDS Title: Cilywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements N-riue'. Preparer. Bertrand Hauss Budget Amendment Type Date of Discussion or Budget Appiusal" How is this amendment funded' ' hat is the nature of the expenditure? L the F.xpendimre Operating or Capital? Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Previously- Discussed B7- Council December 1L 20'.0 Cit,- Couutil_Meeting 100% Ending Fund Balance Ome-Iime Capital Account Number Description 2021 :];: ;0,3 '014 2029 112.00.6E_595.61.65.00 Can3inction Sidewalks $ 44000 $ S - S $ - 125.%0.6E_595.61.65.00 Con i=t oo Sidm alks 136,400 - - 1_".000.68-595-61.41.00 Professioaal.Senaces- Sidenalks 3%000 - - 1_'{.000.68-542.64.41.57 Interfund Seri --Traffic Control 3 00 - - 1' S.%0.6E_542. 64.48.40 R&M - Traffic Control Total ExpendAure Increase(Decrease) S 169,0-00 5 S 5 S Revenue Increase (Decrea se) Account Number Description 2021 201.1. 10213 ' 014 102 E $ $ - S S - Total Respanue Increase ecrewe $ S $ - 5 S - Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) iccoantI umber Description 2021 ;0;: 2023 :0,4 2025 112.%0.68-508.30.00.00 EndmeFundBalance $ (44,000) $ $ - S $ - 125. %0.64.508. 30.00.00 Endure Fund Balance (125,000) - - Total Er dmg Fund Balance Increase ecreaee $ 169,0 $ S - S 5 - Request for $169,000 to allow for changes to Citywide Pedestrian Safety projects. w Packet Pg. 133 Recommendation: E E We would like a motion to approve Ordinance Number XXXX as presented in your packet, amending Ordinance Number a 4216 as a result of unanticipated transfers and expenditures 04 of various funds, and fixing a time when the same shall C 41 become effective. E 0 E a m E Thank you. Q � OF EbM O Packet Pg. 134 7.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/27/2021 Code Amendment to Realign Planning Board Appointment Schedule Staff Lead: Jeff Taraday Department: Planning Division Preparer: Rob Chave Background/History Under Chapter 10.40 EMC, an appointment schedule was established for the Planning Board, including four-year terms for the seven members and alternate on a staggered basis, so that the term dates did not require new appointments all at once. Over the years, the actual timing of some appointments has gotten out of synch with the original schedule. This may have resulted from off -schedule resignations and confusion about the remaining terms for persons filling the vacant positions. At the City Council's PSPP Committee meeting on April 13, the committee members reviewed the proposal (Exhibit 1) and determined to place it on the Council agenda for further consideration. Staff Recommendation Discuss and adopt one of the proposed ordinance alternatives. Narrative Because the original (circa 1980) appointment schedule had gotten off track over the subsequent years, staff is proposing to amend the code to correct the current problem and implement the code's original intent. The Council's PSPP Committee reviewed an initial ordinance effecting this change. However, there are at least two ways of fixing the problem and Staff has included the original ordinance reviewed by the PSPP (Exhibit 1) as well as a second alternative (Exhibit 2). Both amendment alternatives preserve key objectives behind the Planning Board schedule (a logical order that has four-year terms provided on a staggered basis), and phase in a schedule for two positions to be appointed or reappointed per year. In addition, none of the terms would need to be extended to five years. The new alternative ordinance (Exhibit 2) maintains terms closer to the schedule originally adopted by the Council in 1980, with one-year terms used to get the positions back on schedule. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Alt ordinance #1 with attachment Exhibit 2: Alt ordinance #2 with attachment Packet Pg. 135 7.3.a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 10.40 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATED TO THE CITY'S PLANNING BOARD. WHEREAS, the City's planning board was created with the 1980 adoption of Ordinance 2170, which took effect on January 1, 1981; and WHEREAS, the original planning board appointments are reflected in the city council meeting minutes of December 16, 1980; and WHEREAS, the initial planning board terms were staggered such that two positions would expire each year; and WHEREAS, it has come to the city's attention that, over time, the planning board terms have through error or misunderstanding deviated from the design intended by Ordinance 2170, where two seats would become vacant each year; and WHEREAS, of the eight planning board positions (seven numbered positions, plus one alternate), only positions 5, 6, and 7 have expiration dates that would be consistent with the original appointments; and WHEREAS, the city council would like to move toward returning to the originally intended staggered expiration of two terms per year; and WHEREAS, there may be more than one way to accomplish that objective; and WHEREAS, conforming all positions to expiration dates that would be consistent with the December 16, 1980 original appointments would create five-year terms for positions 2, 3, and 4; and WHEREAS, if possible, the city council would like to return to staggered terms without creating any five-year terms; and WHEREAS, the city council would like to return to staggered terms in a manner that will shorten terms of as few current board members as possible; and Packet Pg. 136 7.3.a WHEREAS, this ordinance is believed to be the best way to accomplish all of these objectives; and WHEREAS, under this ordinance, an intermediate step is necessary at the beginning of 2022, when four positions would expire; and WHEREAS, adjustment of some current planning board terms is necessary to return to the originally intended two per year expiration; and WHEREAS, it may be easier to track term lengths going forward if the alternate position no longer automatically fills a vacant position; and WHEREAS, position 7 and the alternate position require special treatment to return to a staggered state; and and WHEREAS, at the time of this ordinance, position 5 is vacant due to expiration of term; WHEREAS, the planning board code has not been updated since 2009 and needs other updating; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 10.40 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "Planning Board," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment A, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike - Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: Packet Pg. 137 7.3.a MAYOR MIKE NELSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 138 7.3.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2021, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 10.40 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATED TO THE CITY'S PLANNING BOARD. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of 12021. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY 4840-7251-8158,v. 1 Packet Pg. 139 7.3.a Attachment A 10.40.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide for the creation of a planning board pursuant to Chapter 35A.63 RCW, and provide for its membership, organization, operation, and expenses. The planning board shall generally serve in an advisory capacity to the city in regional and local planning and specifically assist in the development of the comprehensive plan and ZeRiRg OFdoRaReedevelopment regulations and their successive review and amendment from time to time. The board shall have the additional duties specifically set forth in this chapter and such ad hoc duties as the city council may from time to time assign to it. [Ord. 2342, 1983; Ord. 2170 § 2, 1980]. 10.40.020 Planning board. A. Appointment. There is created the planning board, consisting of seven members. Each member shall be appointed by the mayor, subject to confirmation by the city council. 1. Members of the board must be residents of the city of Edmonds. 2. Although the city of Edmonds is not divided into political or geographical wards, it is the intent of this section that said board membership shall maintain a reasonable balance of geographical distribution throughout the city of Edmonds. 3. It is the intent of this section to maintain a diversified representation of occupations and experience on the planning board. To this end each appointee shall be considered for board membership according to his/her field of experience, among other factors. 4. An alternative member shall be appointed to serve in the event any regular member is absent or disqualified for any reason. In the event a regular member is absent or disqualified for any reason, the alternate shall have all the powers of a regular member, including the right to vote on board decisions. The alternate shall be subject to the same attendance requirements as regular board members. in the event that , Fegular r sitien en the beard shah be deel r^�, VaGaRt, the -Alt-P—rRate Shall -he deemed to foil such vaGaRGY fer the FemaiRder of the 61Rexpired tee B. Term. In order to provide for continuity of membership, members shall be assigned a position number. Except as provided below, two positions shall expire each year. The initial term of each position shall expire as set fertb b^i w with subsequent t^r..,.,s being fGFbe four years eaeh and until theuEEesser is appeipted And-Ee,RfiF +ed, PROVIDED THAT, the current term for each position shall expire, and a new term shall begin, at the commencement of the year shown, respectively, below, AND FURTHER PROVIDED THAT the current term' for Position Seven shall expire at the commencement of 2022. to be followed by a sinele three-year term expiring at the commencement of 2025: Position One - 49822022 Position Five - 19842024 Position Two - 39922022 Position Six - 19942024 Position Three - 4QR32023 Position Seven - 4QR52022 and 2025 Position Four - 3QR32023 Alternate - 19852� 2025 1. The board shall advise on all amendments to the comprehensive plan cOntained ;^ ECDC Title' � ( ^rat fees`. This includes reviewing all elements of the plan on a periodic basis and reporting to the mayor and city council on the need for changes in the plan. It also includes Packet Pg. 140 7.3.a Attachment A holding public hearings and making recommendations to the mayor and city council on proposed changes to the plan, to the text of the ZeRiRgdevelopment regulations, and also to the zoning map in the case of rezones, as provided in ECDC Title 20. Review of and recommendations for the plan may be prepared as a whole or in successive parts. 2. The board shall advise the mayor and city council on all parking matters that involve an amendment or other modification to any city ordinance or code section within the jurisdiction of the board. 3. The board shall serve as an ongoing park board and advise the mayor and city council on all matters relating to the acquisition and development of all city parks and recreation facilities. 4. The board shall do research and investigation on specific projects assigned to it by the mayor and city council. The board will analyze data collected, arrange for public participation, and organize its findings. The board will then present its findings to the mayor and city council detailing a summary of pertinent data, public contribution, alternatives available, and may, if appropriate, recommend a course of action, giving reasons for such recommendation. 5. The board shall have such other powers and duties as contained in Chapter 35A.63 RCW, as may be amended from time to time, that are not otherwise specifically delegated to the hearing examiner or other specific staff or agency of the city. D. Operation. 1. The city planning division shall provide regular staff services to the planning board. Other city departments shall provide staff services as requested by the planning board. 2. The city council shall establish an annual budget for planning board operations for services in addition to regular staff services. Should the planning board and planning staff determine that a particular project requires services in addition to those normally provided by the city staff, then an estimate of needs detailing the type of assistance and funding required shall be presented to the city council for approval before that project is undertaken. 3. Four members of the board shall be the minimum number necessary to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business; provided, that the vote of not less than three members shall be necessary to take action on any particular item before it. 4. The board shall hold regular meetings on the second and/ fourth Wednesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m. at the Edmonds city council chambers. Cancellation of a regular meeting, or a different location for a regular meeting, shall be announced at the last regular meeting preceding the affected meeting, if possible, otherwise the change will be advertised in the regular manner. 5. The city council shall meet periodically with the planning board at a city council meeting in order to review and update planning board agendas. The intent of this section is to stimulate continuing communication between mayor, city council and the planning board in an effort to identify and solve the problems facing the city of Edmonds. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the manner in which items are placed on a planning board agenda nor the topics that may be considered by the planning board. 6. The board shall adopt rules of procedure and rules governing election and duties of officers of the board; provided, however, said rules shall pertain only to the internal procedures of the members and said rules and procedures may be questioned only by members of the board and do not give standing to question said procedures to nonmembers or other parties. [Ord. 3421 Packet Pg. 141 7.3.a Attachment A § 1, 2002; Ord. 3094 § 1, 1996; Ord. 2659, 1988; Ord. 2656 § 4, 1988; Ord. 2433, 1984; Ord. 2342, 1983; Ord. 2196 § 1, 1981; Ord. 2170 § 3, 19801. 10.40.030 EeG-Fd-iAat-edTePGFt _ anti;o.,l Peco- ,. mir; development ent ,.,,mmissi MR. }[reserved] W its E)theF duties, the plaRRiRg bOaFd Shall review and GeRsider strategies foF Such strategies shall be deSigRed te impi — c—imeFewal viability, teurism develepmeRt and regaFdiRg itS jGiRt FeeemmeRdatiGRs. This duty shall SURset eR December 31, . [Ord. 3735 § 2, 20091. Packet Pg. 142 7.3.b ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 10.40 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATED TO THE CITY'S PLANNING BOARD. WHEREAS, the City's planning board was created with the 1980 adoption of Ordinance 2170, which took effect on January 1, 1981; and WHEREAS, the original planning board appointments are reflected in the city council meeting minutes of December 16, 1980; and WHEREAS, the initial planning board terms were staggered such that two positions would expire each year; and WHEREAS, it has come to the city's attention that, over time, the planning board terms have through error or misunderstanding deviated from the design intended by Ordinance 2170, where two seats would become vacant each year; and WHEREAS, of the eight planning board positions (seven numbered positions, plus one alternate), only positions 5, 6, and 7 have expiration dates that would be consistent with the original appointments; and WHEREAS, the city council would like to move toward returning to the originally intended staggered expiration of two terms per year; and WHEREAS, there may be more than one way to accomplish that objective; and WHEREAS, immediately conforming all positions to expiration dates that would be consistent with the December 16, 1980 original appointments would create five-year terms for positions 2, 3, and 4; and WHEREAS, if possible, the city council would like to return to staggered terms without creating any five-year terms; and WHEREAS, the city council would like to return to staggered terms in a manner that will shorten terms of as few current board members as possible; and Packet Pg. 143 7.3.b WHEREAS, this ordinance is believed to be the best way to accomplish all of these objectives; and WHEREAS, under this ordinance, some intermediate steps are necessary at the beginnings of 2021 and 2022; and WHEREAS, adjustment of one current planning board term (Position 1) is necessary to return to the originally intended two per year expiration; and WHEREAS, positions 2, 3, and 4 require special treatment to return to theoriginal staggered schedule without creating five-year terms for those positions; and WHEREAS, at the time of this ordinance, position 5 is vacant, pending appointment and confirmation, due to expiration of the term at the end of 2020; and WHEREAS, the planning board code has not been updated since 2009 and needs other updating; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 10.40 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "Planning Board," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment A, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in st-r-ike- Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR MIKE NELSON Packet Pg. 144 7.3.b ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: M. JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 145 7.3.b SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of , 2021, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 10.40 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATED TO THE CITY'S PLANNING BOARD. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of 12021. 4840-7251-8158,v. 1 E CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 146 7.3.b Attachment A 10.40.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide for the creation of a planning board pursuant to Chapter 35A.63 RCW, and provide for its membership, organization, operation, and expenses. The planning board shall generally serve in an advisory capacity to the city in regional and local planning and specifically assist in the development of the comprehensive plan and development regulations and their successive review and amendment from time to time. The board shall have the additional duties specifically set forth in this chapter and such ad hoc duties as the city council may from time to time assign to it. [Ord. 2342, 1983; Ord. 2170 § 2, 1980]. 10.40.020 Planning board. A. Appointment. There is created the planning board, consisting of seven members. Each member shall be appointed by the mayor, subject to confirmation by the city council. 1. Members of the board must be residents of the city of Edmonds. 2. Although the city of Edmonds is not divided into political or geographical wards, it is the intent of this section that said board membership shall maintain a reasonable balance of geographical distribution throughout the city of Edmonds. 3. It is the intent of this section to maintain a diversified representation of occupations and experience on the planning board. To this end each appointee shall be considered for board membership according to his/her field of experience, among other factors. 4. An alternative member shall be appointed to serve in the event any regular member is absent or disqualified for any reason. In the event a regular member is absent or disqualified for any reason, the alternate shall have all the powers of a regular member, including the right to vote on board decisions. The alternate shall be subject to the same attendance requirements as regular board members. In the event that a regular position on the board shall be declared vacant, the alternate shall be deemed to fill such vacancy for the remainder of the unexpired term. B. Term. In order to provide for continuity of membership, members shall be assigned a position number. Except as provided below, two positions shall expire each year. The term of each position shall be four years, PROVIDED THAT, the current term for each position shall expire, and a new term shall begin, at the end of the years shown, respectively, below, AND FURTHER PROVIDED THAT the current term for Position 1 will be a short term ending at the end of 2022, to be followed by a four year term, AND FURTHER PROVIDED THAT, the next terms after the current terms for positions 2, 3, and 4 shall be short terms of one year each, to be followed by four year terms: Position One - 2022 Position Five - 2024 Position Two - 2021 and 2022 Position Six - 2024 Position Three - 2022 and 2023 Position Seven - 2021 Position Four - 2022 and 2023 Alternate - 2021 1. The board shall advise on all amendments to the comprehensive plan. This includes reviewing all elements of the plan on a periodic basis and reporting to the mayor and city council on the need for changes in the plan. It also includes holding public hearings and making Packet Pg. 147 7.3.b Attachment A recommendations to the mayor and city council on proposed changes to the plan, to the text of the development regulations, and also to the zoning map in the case of rezones, as provided in ECDC Title 20. Review of and recommendations for the plan may be prepared as a whole or in successive parts. 2. The board shall advise the mayor and city council on all parking matters that involve an amendment or other modification to any city ordinance or code section within the jurisdiction of the board. 3. The board shall serve as an ongoing park board and advise the mayor and city council on all matters relating to the acquisition and development of all city parks and recreation facilities. 4. The board shall do research and investigation on specific projects assigned to it by the mayor and city council. The board will analyze data collected, arrange for public participation, and organize its findings. The board will then present its findings to the mayor and city council detailing a summary of pertinent data, public contribution, alternatives available, and may, if appropriate, recommend a course of action, giving reasons for such recommendation. 5. The board shall have such other powers and duties as contained in Chapter 35A.63 RCW, as may be amended from time to time, that are not otherwise specifically delegated to the hearing examiner or other specific staff or agency of the city. D. Operation. 1. The city planning division shall provide regular staff services to the planning board. Other city departments shall provide staff services as requested by the planning board. 2. The city council shall establish an annual budget for planning board operations for services in addition to regular staff services. Should the planning board and planning staff determine that a particular project requires services in addition to those normally provided by the city staff, then an estimate of needs detailing the type of assistance and funding required shall be presented to the city council for approval before that project is undertaken. 3. Four members of the board shall be the minimum number necessary to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business; provided, that the vote of not less than three members shall be necessary to take action on any particular item before it. 4. The board shall hold regular meetings on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m. at the Edmonds city council chambers. Cancellation of a regular meeting, or a different location for a regular meeting, shall be announced at the last regular meeting preceding the affected meeting, if possible, otherwise the change will be advertised in the regular manner. 5. The city council shall meet periodically with the planning board at a city council meeting in order to review and update planning board agendas. The intent of this section is to stimulate continuing communication between mayor, city council and the planning board in an effort to identify and solve the problems facing the city of Edmonds. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the manner in which items are placed on a planning board agenda nor the topics that may be considered by the planning board. 6. The board shall adopt rules of procedure and rules governing election and duties of officers of the board; provided, however, said rules shall pertain only to the internal procedures of the members and said rules and procedures may be questioned only by members of the board and do not give standing to question said procedures to nonmembers or other parties. [Ord. 3421 Packet Pg. 148 Attachment A 7.3.b § 1, 2002; Ord. 3094 § 1, 1996; Ord. 2659, 1988; Ord. 2656 § 4, 1988; Ord. 2433, 1984; Ord. 2342, 1983; Ord. 2196 § 1, 1981; Ord. 2170 § 3, 1980]. 10.40.030 [reserved] [Ord. 3735 § 2, 2009]. Packet Pg. 149 7.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/27/2021 Marina Beach Park Renovation Grant Match Certification Staff Lead: Angie Feser Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Preparer: Angie Feser Background/History In June 2020, the City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department applied for two $500,000 grants in the State of Washington Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) program for the Marina Beach Park Renovation/Willow Creek Day Lighting project. These applications were approved by City Council Resolution on March 17, 2020. The ALEA (Aquatic Land Enhancement Account) application ranked #1 and the WWRP-LP (Washington Wildlife Recreation Program - Local Parks) applicant ranked #18 out of 80 projects. The Recreation and Conservation Funding Board grant awards will be announced June 29, 2021. The ALEA grant is expected to be funded and depending upon State Capital budget approval, the WWRP-LP grant has a probability of being funded. RCO requires grant applicants to certify their match commitment by May 10, 2021. A Master Plan graphic of the Marina Beach Park Renovation project is attached. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends Council authorize the Mayor to sign the State of Washington Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) Certification of Applicant Match for two possible grants of $500,000 each for the Marina Beach Renovation project. Narrative Attachments: Marina Beach Park Renovation Project - Master Plan Graphic City of Edmonds Certification Sponsor Match Form Project #20-1322 City of Edmonds Certification Sponsor Match Form Project #20-1296 Packet Pg. 150 7.4.a overloo C O 0 Tl overlook r�a� �- 11�1 V i} O me -k -'� m L ' t !Z m L � V overlook !r 1 p', on • �. parking ni. n nature trails atur pi4Y } try p z` �+/ 1 roo bridge over#o bridge J J L Packet Pg. 151 7.4.b Certification of Applicant Match Organization Name City of Edmonds Project Name Willow Creek at Marina Beach Park Project Number 20-1322 The sources and amounts of our matching share will be: Cash $ 500,000 [Source of Match — Grant [Source of Match — Grant Additional Information about Grant Amount ■ Total: $ 500,000 As the authorized financial representative for the above identified organization, I here- by certify that the sponsor matching resources are available for the project referenced above. I further acknowledge that our organization is responsible for supporting all non - cash commitments and donations should they not materialize. Signature Printed Name Michael Nelson Title Mayor Date Certification of Applicant Match Form 3/31 /2021 Packet Pg. 152 7.4.c Certification of Applicant Match Organization Name City of Edmonds Project Name Marina Beach Park Redevelopment Project Number 20-1296 The sources and amounts of our matching share will be: Select... Lsource of Match — Grant Additional Information about Grant Amoun Total: $ 500,000 As the authorized financial representative for the above identified organization, I here- by certify that the sponsor matching resources are available for the project referenced above. I further acknowledge that our organization is responsible for supporting all non - cash commitments and donations should they not materialize. Signature Printed Name Michael Nelson Title Mayor Date Certification of Applicant Match Form 3/31 /2021 Packet Pg. 153 7.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/27/2021 Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Plan Update Consultant Agreement Staff Lead: Angie Feser Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Preparer: Angie Feser Background/History The Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) plan is a guiding master plan for operating, managing and enhancing the Edmonds's parks, open space, trails, recreation facilities and recreation programs as based on community engagement representative of the entire city. The PROS plan is a policy strategy guide providing goals and objectives, recommended initiatives and capital projects, and prioritization methods built on public process and also serves as a communication tool. With the City's long history, there are numerous PROS plans, with the most recent versions in 2008, 2014 and a simple update in 2016. Edmonds is due for a comprehensive update to reflect community changes sincethe previous plan adoption. This plan update will focus on assessing the equitable geographic distribution and capital investments in parks, recreation, and cultural arts facilities and as well as programs for all community members. The PROS plan must be updated every six years to remain eligible for state and federal funding. Due to the State's two-year granting cycle, if this plan is not completed by the February 28, 2022 deadline, the city will not be eligible to receive any park related state or federal grants until 2025. The proposed agreement and related scope of work include the basic components to update the existing PROS Plan: 1. Project initiation and management 2. Existing conditions and baseline analyses (review of existing plans and studies; demographics; trends and profile; base mapping and spatial analysis; and park inventory and site assessments). 3. Community engagement (public involvement plan; Parks & Planning Board sessions; random - sample, statistically valid survey; community -wide online survey; virtual public meetings; stakeholder interviews and forums; meeting in a box; social media content; and pop-up meetings). 4. Community needs assessment (level of service assessment; recreation assessment and gap analysis). 5. Preliminary PROS Plan (Capital Facilities Plan, administrative draft plan, SEPA checklist) 6. Review and approvals (Parks & Planning Board review, council review/approval, final document) In addition, and relatively unique to a traditional PROS Plan, there are additional services to provide Packet Pg. 154 7.5 robust, multi -faceted Public Involvement Plan (PIP) to reach Edmond's traditionally under -served community members who use languages other than English and people who have lower incomes. Utilizing this approach both with the PROS Plan, combined with and overlapping outreach efforts for the Highway 99 Renewal Plan, will create and develop working relationships that will build a foundation with these communities located on the eastern portion of the City of Edmonds, who can be underrepresented in city planning efforts. Public Involvement Plan Services The additional efforts to reach our Spanish, Korean and Chinese speaking population in meaningful ways, requires translation of the statistically -valid survey, communications materials (handouts, emails, etc.) meeting materials and on -site translators. Working with the Human Services Program Manager, staff and a City Partnership Committee sourced from Community Based Organizations (CBO), these outreach services will include: 1. On-line survey translated to three languages 2. Coordination with the Highway 99 Renewal Plan 3. Virtual Public Meeting live interpretation (2) 4. Drafting of email communications translated in three languages 5. "Meeting in a Box' - development of and training for a set of tools for city staff and the City Partnership Committee members to engage business owners and residents on -site, community -oriented in person meetings 6. Preparation of a social media toolkit with text and graphics in three additional languages 7. Multi-lingual staff member for pop-up event and related translated materials/display boards The City Council approved the PROS Plan Update during the 2021 budget process. The basic work to update the existing plan and the diversity, equity, and inclusion services necessary to equitably reach and engage the entire population of Edmonds is $143,396 (base services plus one additional option of virtual public meeting interpretation for two meetings). The Professional Service Agreement with Scope of Work and Fees is attached. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending the City Council authorize the Mayor to enter a Professional Services Contract with Conservation Technix for the sum of $143,396 to provide consultant services to update the City's 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan. Narrative Consultant Selection A Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was issued with three qualifying consultants submitting by the March 15, 2021 deadline. A team of staff members from Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services and Development Services departments evaluated on the criteria of project understanding and approach; demonstrated experience and expertise on similar projects; qualifications of key personnel and the project team; successful past performance managing public process and communications and technical capability; and overall quality of content and responsiveness to RFQ requirements. The firm, Conservation Technix, was selected as most qualified. The RFQ's project scope was developed with review and input from five city advisory groups to reflect community priorities and interests on the focus of the planning work. A presentation included an Packet Pg. 155 7.5 overview of the purpose of a PROS Plan, summary of existing plan components including goals and objectives and then solicited feedback to incorporate in the RFQ requirements. The groups included Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee (January 14t"), Parks & Planning Board (January 27tn) Edmonds Arts Commission (February 1"), Youth Commission (February 3rd) and Diversity Commission (February 3rd). One priority was centered around equity and social justice as it related to involvement with the PROS Plan development and how Edmonds under -served population should be included. (See attachment "2022 PROS Plan Focus Recommendation Summary" for more detail). Attachments: PROS Plan PSA Conservation Technix (FINAL) 4.22.2021 2022 PROS Plan Focus Recommendations Packet Pg. 156 7.5.a _y nF CD Q,G CITY OF EDMONDS MIKE NELSON MAYOR 121 5T" AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 • 425-771-0220 FAX 425-672-5750 Website: www.edmondswa.gov IB90 1 0 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into between the City of Edmonds, hereinafter referred to as the "City," and Conservation Technix, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant." WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a consulting firm to provide planning services related to the 2022 Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan project ("Project"); and WHEREAS, the Consultant has the necessary skills and experience, and desires to provide such services to the City; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work. The scope of work shall include all services and material necessary to accomplish the above mentioned objectives in accordance with the Scope of Work that is marked as Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Payments. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work. A. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this Agreement shall be on a time and expense basis as set forth in Exhibit A; provided, in no event shall the payment for work performed pursuant to this Agreement exceed the sum of One Hundred Forty -Two Thousand Three Hundred Ninety -Six Dollars ($143,396.00). B. All vouchers shall be submitted by the Consultant to the City for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The City shall pay the appropriate amount for each voucher to the Consultant. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City monthly during the progress of the work for payment of completed phases of the project. Billings shall be reviewed in conjunction with the City's warrant process. No billing shall be considered for payment that has not been submitted to the City three (3) days prior to the scheduled cut-off date. Such late vouchers will be checked by the City and payment will be made in the next regular payment cycle. Packet Pg. 157 7.5.a C. The costs records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three (3) years after final payment. Copies shall be made available upon request. 3. Ownership and use of documents. All research, tests, surveys, preliminary data, reports, and any and all other work product prepared or gathered by the Consultant in preparation for the services rendered by the Consultant under this Agreement shall be and are the property of the Consultant, provided, however, that: A. All final reports, presentations, documentation and testimony prepared by the Consultant shall become the property of the City upon their presentation to and acceptance by the City and shall at that date become the property of the City. B. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable request, to inspect, review and copy any work product during normal office hours. Documents prepared under this Agreement and in the possession of the Consultant may be subject to public records request and release under Chapter 42.56 RCW. C. In the event that the Consultant shall default on this Agreement, or in the event that this Agreement shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein provided, the work product of the Consultant, along with a summary of work done to date of default or termination, shall become the property of the City and tender of the work product and summary shall be a prerequisite to final payment under this Agreement. The summary of work done shall be prepared at no additional cost. 4. Time of performance. The Consultant shall perform the work authorized by this Agreement promptly in accordance with the receipt of the required governmental approvals. 5. Indemnification / Hold harmless agreement. The Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses, demands, or suits at law or equity arising from the acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant in the performance of this Agreement, except for injuries and damages caused by the sole negligence of the City. Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers, the Consultant's liability, including the duty and cost to defend, hereunder shall be only to the extent of the Consultant's negligence. The Consultant shall comply with all applicable sections of the applicable Ethics laws, including RCW 42.23, which is the Code of Ethics for regulating contract interest by municipal officers. The Consultant specifically assumes potential liability for actions brought by the Consultant's own employees against the City and, solely for the purpose of this indemnification and defense, the Consultant specifically waives any immunity under the state industrial insurance law, Title 51 RCW. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. Packet Pg. 158 7.5.a 6. General and professional liability insurance. The Consultant shall obtain and keep in force during the term of this Agreement, or as otherwise required, the following insurance with companies or through sources approved by the State Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Title 48 RCW. Insurance Coverage A. Worker's compensation and employer's liability insurance as required by the State. B. Commercial general liability and property damage insurance in an aggregate amount not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) for bodily injury, including death and property damage. The per occurrence amount shall be written with limits no less than one million dollars ($1,000,000). The City shall be named on this policy as an additional insured. C. Automobile liability insurance covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities arising out of or in connection with the services to be performed under this Agreement, in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit for each occurrence. The City shall be named on this policy as an interested party. D. Professional liability insurance in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000). The Consultant shall furnish the City with verification of insurance and endorsements required by this Agreement. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time. All insurance shall be obtained from an insurance company authorized to do business in the State of Washington. The Consultant shall submit a verification of insurance as outlined above within fourteen days of the execution of this Agreement to the City. No cancellation of the foregoing policies shall be effective without thirty (30) days prior notice to the City. The Consultant's professional liability to the City shall be limited to the amount payable under this Agreement or one million dollars ($1,000,000), whichever is the greater, unless modified elsewhere in this Agreement. In no case shall the Consultant's professional liability to third parties be limited in any way. 7. Discrimination prohibited. The Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, veteran status, liability for service in the armed forces of the United States, disability, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap, or any other protected class status, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification. 8. Consultant is an independent contractor. The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee or representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of the City for any purpose. The Consultant shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents, employees, representatives and subcontractors during the performance of this Agreement. 9. City approval of work and relationships. Notwithstanding the Consultant's status as an independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to this Agreement must meet the approval of the City. During pendency of this Agreement, the Consultant shall not perform work for any party with respect to any property located within the City of Edmonds or for any project subject to the administrative or quasijudicial review of the City without written notification to the City and the City's prior written consent. Packet Pg. 159 7.5.a 10. Termination. This being an Agreement for professional services, either parry may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party written notice of such termination no fewer than ten (10) days in advance of the effective date of said termination. 11. Integration. The Agreement between the parties shall consist of this document and the Scope of Work and fee schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A. These writings constitute the entire Agreement of the parties and shall not be amended except by a writing executed by both parties. In the event of any conflict between this written Agreement and any provision of Exhibit A, this Agreement shall control. 12. Changes/Additional Work. The City may engage the Consultant to perform services in addition to those listed in this Agreement, and the Consultant will be entitled to additional compensation for authorized additional services or materials. The City shall not be liable for additional compensation until and unless any and all additional work and compensation is approved in advance in writing and signed by both parties to this Agreement. If conditions are encountered which are not anticipated in the Scope of Work, the City understands that a revision to the Scope of Work and fees may be required. Provided, however, that nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to obligate the Consultant to render services, or the City to pay for services rendered, in excess of the Scope of Work in Exhibit A unless or until an amendment to this Agreement is approved in writing by both parties. 13. Standard of Care. The Consultant represents that the Consultant has the necessary knowledge, skill and experience to perform services required by this Agreement. The Consultant and any persons employed by the Consultant shall use their best efforts to perform the work in a professional manner consistent with sound practices, in accordance with the schedules herein and in accordance with the usual and customary professional care required for services of the type described in the Scope of Work. 14. Non -waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision. 15. Non -assignable. The services to be provided by the Consultant shall not be assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City. 16. Covenant against contingent fees. The Consultant warrants that he/she/they has/have not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that he/she/they has/have not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award of making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City shall have the right to annul this Agreement without liability or, in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 17. Compliance with laws. The Consultant in the performance of this Agreement shall comply with all applicable Federal, State or local laws and ordinances, including regulations for licensing, certification and operation of facilities, programs and accreditation, and licensing of individuals, and any other standards or criteria as described in the Agreement to assure quality of Packet Pg. 160 7.5.a The Consultant specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and occupation (B & O) taxes which may be due on account of this Agreement. 18. Notices. Notices to the City of Edmonds shall be sent to the following address: City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the following address: Conservation Technix, Inc. PO Box 885 Orinda, CA 98563 Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three (3) days after deposit of written notice in the U.S. mails, with proper postage and properly addressed. DATED THIS day of CITY OF EDMONDS Michael Nelson, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney 2021. CONSERVATION TECHNIX, INC. J� t �41- Stephen Duh, President Packet Pg. 161 7.5.a STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF ) On this day of 2021, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , to me known to be the person who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said person, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: Packet Pg. 162 7.5.a EXHIBIT A Edmonds 2022 PROS Plan Update Scope & Fee Scope of Work Task 1: Project Initiation & Management Hold a project kick-off meeting with City staff to refine the scope of the project and to consider the following: Review and discuss the overall objectives and milestones for the project • Discuss community interests and issues and identify key community partners • Define a communication and public outreach plan to include team and staff roles Discuss concurrent planning efforts underway to assess options for coordination of efforts Hold periodic project coordination meetings, via video or phone conference, with City staff to review and discuss work products, prepare for community outreach, refine objectives and develop implementation strategies. Deliverables for Task 1: Kick-off meeting, including agenda, data request & summary notes Periodic project coordination meetings Team coordination & consolidated invoicing Task 2: Existing Conditions & Baseline Analyses Task 2.1. Review of Existing Plans & Studies Review and analyze pertinent, city-wide planning materials, including the existing Comprehensive Plan, past PROS Plan, Bicycle Plan, Cultural Plan, Aquatic Facility Study, Urban Forestry Management Plan, Snohomish County parks plan, city budget and others. Review and validate the park and recreation goals of the Comprehensive Plan and other City policy statements. Task 2.2. Demographics, Trends & Profile Compile relevant statistics and data to include Census figures and Washington OFM projections to profile population trends and other socioeconomic conditions. Examine recent studies and regional statistics, such as the Washington SCORP, NRPA data and sports industry association data, to develop a trend assessment uniquely focused toward the City's offerings. Task 2.3. Base Mapping & Spatial Analysis Utilize GIS to analyze the parks, trail and recreation system against distribution, proximity and equity criteria and identify potential shared uses or multiple uses of public lands for recreation. Packet Pg. 163 7.5.a We will utilize a network -based walkshed gap analysis to illustrate areas of the city with optimal parkland and trail access, as well as highlight areas underserved by park and recreation facilities through a social equity lens using available demographic data. Task 2.4. Park Inventory Site Assessments Expanding upon existing City documentation, conduct a physical assessment of parks, trails and recreational amenities to identify potential needs for improvement, enhancement or renovation, along with opportunities to establish or improve sustainable management. Assess and rate the conditions of amenities and identify existing deficiencies, including a high-level review for ADA compliance' of outdoor recreation elements. Meet with operations staff to discuss facility needs, best management practices or challenges regarding the planned and potential growth of system assets and facilities. Prepare a Conditions Assessment summary report to rate assets and inform cost estimating and capital planning. Deliverables for Task 2: Written summary of past plans • Demographics & community profile as written summary and data files • Working base maps in GIS and PDF formats for project team and field inventory assessments Working draft summaries of individual site assessments noting amenities, conditions and site opportunities Task 3: Community Engagement Task 3.1. Public Involvement Plan Develop a high-level communication and public involvement plan that identifies project and public engagement goals; key stakeholders; decision -making structure; and outreach activities aimed at meeting the project and public engagement goals. The PIP will include suggested outreach and communications tasks for the agency, as well as expectations for the consultant. The PIP will include specific plans for reaching community members who use languages other than English and people who have low incomes. The consultant will develop this section in collaboration with the Human Services Program Manager (HSPM) and it will assume members of the City Partnership Committee will lead outreach to those communities. Task 3.2. Parks & Planning Board Sessions (N=3) Meet with the Parks & Planning Board as a unique stakeholder at the onset of the project. The initial session will focus discussions on visioning, challenges, opportunities and potential partnerships. Meet with the Board up to two additional times for progress updates and guidance as the PROS Plan progresses. Prepare meeting materials for each meeting. Two additional meetings are noted in Task 6 for review and discussion of the draft PROS Plan. 1 Not intended to constitute a comprehensive ADA assessment or the compilation of a formal ADA Transition Plan. Packet Pg. 164 7.5.a Task 3.3. Random -sample Mail Survey Working closely with staff, design and implement a statistically valid, random sample mail survey to identify general community sentiment and preferences, needs, demand and the general use of parks and recreation facilities and to inform and guide the direction and development of the Plan. The survey will be prepared for mail distribution, printed as a double -sided 11 x 17 and mailed with a pre -addressed return envelope (reply postage not included). We propose a random sample of 2,500 residents using GIS-based information or third -party retail residential mailing list, with reminder postcards to follow. The aim is to have at least 300 surveys completed by resident households. We will compile and analyze the data and prepare summary findings as a technical memorandum to highlight key subgroup responses (age, gender, etc.) and core attitudes toward recreation issues. Task 3.4. Community -wide Online Survey (Translated) Prepare an online version of the mail survey for the general public and segregate the dataset from the random -sample mail survey. Translate and administer the online survey in English, Spanish, Korean and simplified Chinese. Compile and analyze the data and integrate findings into the mail survey technical memorandum. This assumes the HSPM and members of the City Partnership Committee will lead the outreach to people in the community who use languages other than English. Coordinate with the Highway 99 Renewal Plan on survey development and implementation. Task. 3.5. Virtual Public Meetings (N=2) Plan, help promote, conduct, and report the results of two distinct virtual public meetings using Zoom. The first session will occur after the completion of the community survey to validate survey findings and explore additional community needs. The second will occur later in the project and focus community dialogue on project ideas and potential priorities. We will provide the online platform and will provide technical support leading up to and during the public meeting. The public meetings will take place online and will be formatted to both provide information and to gather feedback. The public meetings will be up to 1.5 hours long and include polling questions and up to three breakout rooms. The polling questions and a recording of the public meetings will be posted on the website after each meeting. Promotion will be conducted prior to the public meeting to encourage participation. This will include: Draft social media posts for the City to post on its social media channels (the City will finalize and post), as part of the social media toolkit described in task 3.8 Draft a short 1-2 paragraph story for the City to include in the City's newsletter (the City will finalize and include in the newsletter) • Draft content to post on the City's website (the City will finalize and post) Draft emails to partner groups and organizations (the City will finalize and send through their databases and social media platforms) As an optional service, we will provide staff to provide live interpretation in Korean, Mandarin, and Spanish at both meetings and work to efectively incorporate interpreters into the sessions. The consultant will translate the polling questions into Korean, Spanish, and simplified Chinese for in -meeting polling. We will also draft emails to partner groups and organizations in Korean, Spanish, and simplified Chinese. Packet Pg. 165 7.5.a Task 3.6. Stakeholder Interviews & Forums Conduct up to two topic -oriented, small group discussions via Zoom geared toward targeted stakeholder interests, plus up to five one-on-one interviews, to gather information about community needs, challenges and priorities. Potential stakeholders may include the City's recreation and cultural art program users, Edmonds School District, sport groups, and service clubs such as Rotary and other community based organizations. An initial list of potential stakeholders will be discussed during the kick-off meeting, and it is assumed that the City will lead stakeholder outreach/contact for the group and individual sessions. Task 3.7. Meeting in a Box Develop a "meeting in a box" City staff and Partnership Committee member to use to engage business owners and residents who use Korean, simplified Chinese, and Spanish. Will also have English language content to use with community groups who use English. The "meeting in a box will include Participant agenda in English, Korean, simplified Chinese, and Spanish Facilitation guide in English, Korean, simplified Chinese, and Spanish Event plan in English, Korean, simplified Chinese, and Spanish • Email invitation content and flyer in English, Korean, simplified Chinese, and Spanish Consultant will provide one two-hour training on using the toolkit and up to three hours of phone support for implementation. The consultant will meet once with the HSPM and other City staff to review the meeting in a box goals and project specific details. City staff and members of the City Partnership Committee will lead the meetings, potentially in collaboration with community leaders. Task 3.8. Social Media Content Prepare social media toolkit to include content for up to 6 posts with text and graphics in English, Korean, Spanish, and simplified Chinese for distribution via the City's social media platforms. The City will finalize and post all these deliverables on their social media channels. The toolkit will include recommendations for timing. Specific timing will be determined by the City, in consultation with the consultant team. This assumes the HSPM and members of the City Partnership Committee will coordinate for community -based organizations and community leaders who use languages other than English to share the posts through their social media channels. Task 3.9. Pop-up Meeting Support Prepare display materials for one round of consultant -led pop-up events likely to occur in mid - late summer 2021. We will provide one multi-lingual staff member for the pop-up event in English and either Korean, Mandarin, or Spanish. Prepare a flyer in English Korean, simplified Chinese, and Spanish that summarizes the information provided on the display boards. We will prepare up to 6 displays (30"x40" PDFs) for use by staff to solicit community feedback, and it is assumed that City staff will print and mount the displays. It is anticipated that the City conduct additional pop-up sessions utilizing these materials, as staff resources allow, and prepare summary notes and photos from each pop-up event for use by the consultant team. Our team can staff and suppport additional pop-up events as an optional service. Packet Pg. 166 7.5.a Task 3.10. Project Website (Optional) Design, host and develop initial content for a static website. Update the website up to 8 times Assumes five pages total and that initial content and the 8 updates will be translated into Korean, simplified Chinese, and Spanish. Conservation Technix will provide graphics. Deliverables for Task 3: • Draft and final Public Involvement Plan • 3 Parks & Planning Board sessions, including preparation of materials (plus those in Task 6.1) • 2,500-piece mail survey (including printing, sorting & outbound postage) • Online survey in Survey Monkey in English, Spanish, Korean & simplified Chinese • Survey summary memorandum • 2 group, plus 5 individual stakeholder sessions • 2 virtual public meetings via Zoom Meeting in a Box materials, including agenda, facilitation guides, event plans and content in English, Spanish, Korean & simplified Chinese Social media & promotions content • 1 Pop-up community event, plus materials for City staff to conduct additional events Task 4: Community Needs Assessment Task 4.1. Level of Service Assessment Assess the City's current and future levels of service utilizing inventory data, GIS and national data. Coordinate with staff on the approaches to service standard assessments, which may include NRPA's Parks Metrics data, comparable jurisdictions and local history. Review current park classifications in terms of hierarchy, appropriateness and function, and discuss the potential for locally relevant revisions to classifications to fit with local recreation needs, staff direction and an estimate of financial implications. Task 4.2. Recreational Assessment & Gap Analysis Develop a programming matrix to highlight the range of recreation and cultural arts offerings, areas for potential cooperation and local deficiencies. Analyze local demographics and use national and regional sports/exercise survey data to provide insight into likely programs, activities and service demand. Prepare a programming gap analysis where possible deficiencies are identified, as well as program strengths are recognized, and map areas of focus, methods of delivery and required resources for future recreation and cultural arts programming. Conduct a system gap analysis utilizing GIS modeling and findings from the inventory assessment. Summarize findings and statistics and specifically address potential park, trail, and maintenance improvements to meet the service demands requested by the community and stakeholders. • Analyze the park, trail and open space system against distribution and proximity criteria, along with transportation, geographic and other barriers. Packet Pg. 167 7.5.a • Assess park service area needs and identify future demand for parks, amenities and recreation facilities. • Make informed recommendations about potential candidate acquisition areas that maximize resource utility, while managing potential long-term development and operating costs. • Evaluate opportunities to leverage, connect with or coordinate with adjacent park and open space agencies. • Evaluate service standards and re -align them as appropriate to meet the community's vision and existing and planned park system assets. • Identify and summarize partner opportunities or local competitors for recreation programming and offerings. Deliverables for Task 4: • Recreation and cultural arts program review • Working draft program area matrix and gap analysis summary Service area (walkshed) maps illustrating distribution gaps for parks and trails • Working draft levels of service assessment highlighting equity and recommendations on service standards Task 5: Preliminary PROS Plan Development Task 5.1. Draft Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan The draft Plan will outline a framework for the improvement and growth of City recreation amenities, trails and parks to the specific needs of the community. This framework will help clarify funding, program objectives, development or resource goals, and it will set a long-range vision for the City and provide clear action items and strategies for implementation. The Plan will include a compilation of all the analyses and recommendations from the planning process and will include chapters detailing the system inventory, outreach, community needs, goals and implementation strategies - consistent with RCO guidelines. The Plan will incorporate the following: • Clear vision, goals and policies for park, open space and service delivery • Priority actions based on community guidance, funding opportunities and fiscal realities • Action steps for planning, acquisitions and maintenance, and conceptual ideas for underdeveloped sites • Strategies and recommendations regarding system management and performance measures • Identification of potential funding sources, financing options, grants and strategic partnerships Task 5.2. Capital Facilities Plan Develop a 6-year Capital Facilities Plan that identifies in priority order and sequences the actions necessary to implement Plan recommendations. Generate order of magnitude cost projections for all proposed park and recreation components, renovation and redevelopment, potential land acquisition and potential new development. Utilize the 6-year project list as baseline data for the park impact fee rate study. Prepare a strategy and priorities for phased implementation. Conduct Packet Pg. 168 7.5.a a preliminary review of existing PIF rates in relation to the draft Capital Facilities Plan to assess the degree to which the existing rates capture the intended capital cost projections in the PROS Plan. Task 5.3. Administrative Draft Plan Incorporate one round of edits to address input and recommendations received from staff into an Administrative Draft for circulation to and review by the Planning Board, City Council and the general public. Task 5.4. SEPA Checklist Prepare a non -project SEPA Checklist to address the potential environmental impacts resulting from Plan recommendations. We will coordinate with staff to generate the appropriate determination and rely on staff to publish the SEPA Checklist and aggregate comments received. Deliverables for Task 5: Preliminary draft PROS Plan (.pdf) Working draft Capital Facilities Plan, project costing and sequencing Administrative draft PROS Plan (.pdf) Draft & final Non -Project SEPA Checklist for city distribution Task 6: Review & Approvals Task 6.1. Board Review Participate in up to two study sessions with the Parks & Planning Board for their review of draft and final iterations of the PROS Plan. Highlight key considerations about policies, strategies, capital priorities. Edits directed by the Boards will be incorporated into revised documents and provided to staff for circulation to City Council. Task 6.2. City Council Review Attend up to two sessions with City Council to present the draft PROS Plan to review the key findings, financing measures, policy recommendations and implementation strategies. It is assumed the City will lead the preparation of ordinance or resolution materials, and lead and facilitate requisite hearings for final adoption. Task 6.3. Revisions & Final Documentation Incorporate final comments to finalize the PROS Plan and produce the PROS Plan in booklet format, delivered in print (5 copies) and electronic format (PDF). A data drive of all deliverables (e.g., maps, graphics, tables, content, GIS data, etc.) will be provided in digital formats at project completion. Coordinate with staff for submission of the final Plan to RCO, along with the Self - Certification Form. Deliverables for Task 6: Up to 2 work sessions with Parks & Planning Board Packet Pg. 169 7.5.a • Up to 2 sessions with City Council, including participation at 1 hearing for PROS Plan review and adoption • 5 bound, printed color copies of final PROS Plan • Draft RCO Self -Certification Form for city submittal to State • Data drive (thumb drive) including raw GIS datasets, GIS map files (.mdx), final versions of interim reports such as survey summary and focus group notes, PDFs of PROS Plan and map inserts, native files of PROS Plan (.indd, .xls, etc.) Fee Proposal To complete the scope of work identified in the Scope of Work section, we propose a total not - to -exceed cost of $138,596, excluding any optional services noted below. Staff rates and a fee summary by task are noted below. We will work with the City to prepare a revised scope and budget, consistent with the available resources. Staff Rates PositionStaff Conservation Technix Principal $ 175 Senior Associate 1 $ 155 Senior Associate 11 $ 130 Associate $ 105 PRR, Inc Principal in Charge $ 206.50 Website £t Graphics Lead $ 206.50 Subject Matter Expert $ 200.88 Language Services Manager $ 198.77 Spanish Language Specialist II $ 196.88 Korean Language Specialist II $ 196.88 Russian Language Specialist 11 $ 196.88 Graphic Designer $ 189.29 Chinese Language Specialist II $ 178.98 Social Media Advisor $ 158.32 Project Manager $ 154.89 Web Developer $ 150.59 Russian Language Specialist 1 $ 150.59 Spanish Language Specialist 1 $ 123.92 Deputy Project Manager $ 113.58 Graphic Designer $ 111.00 Chinese Language Specialist 1 $ 55.00 Korean Language Specialist 1 $ 55.00 Packet Pg. 170 7.5.a Fee Summary Task 1: Project Initiation & Management $ 8,174 48 $ 2,800 $ 5,374 Task 2: Existing Conditions & Baseline Analyses $ 13,290 88 $ 13,290 $ - Task 3: Community Engagement $ 81,047 462 $ 28,610 $ 52,437 3.1. Public Involvement Plan 35 $350 $5,569 3.2. Parks & Planning Board Meetings (3) 22 $3,730 3.3. Mail Survey (incl printing & outbound postage) 44 $9,670 3.4. Online Survey (4 languages) 36 $2,610 $3,673 3.5. Virtual Public Meetings (2) 118 $4,700 $15,545 3.6. Stakeholder Discussions (2 group, plus 5 indiv) 26 $4,230 3.7. Meeting in a Box 101 $700 $17,172 3.B. Social Media Content 33 $350 $5,357 3.9. Pop-up Meeting Support (1) 47 $2,270 $5,120 Task 4: Community Needs Assessment $ 11,600 76 $ 11,600 $ - Task 5: Preliminary Plan Development Task 6: Plan Reviews & Approval Direct Costs $ $ $ 16,620 5,260 2,605 108 32 $ 16,620 $ - $ 5,260 $ $ 2,605 $ - - TOTAL $ 138,596 814 hrs $ 80,785 $ 57,811 Project Website Virtual public meeting interpretation (both meetings) $ $ 40,242 4,800 $ 875 $ $ 39,367 4,800 Pop-up Meeting Support (additional event) $ 5,510 $ 390 $ 5,120 *Note optional service #2 Virtual publice meeting interpretation (both meetings) for $4,800 has been added to the scope of work and fees to result in total contract price of $143,396. Packet Pg. 171 7.5.b 2022 PROS Plan Focus Recommendation Summary February 9, 2021 The last part of January and early February, the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services (PRSC) Department requested input from five city advisory groups regarding the PROS Plan update scoping and areas of focus. The Director and Deputy Director provided a memo and PowerPoint presentation in agenda materials and presented the PowerPoint presentation and lead a discussion during the meeting. The groups included the Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee (MCAC), Planning Board, Edmonds Arts Commission (ECA), Diversity Commission and Youth Commission. Summary points of input are listed below, more detailed notes and meeting minutes are available in addition. Mayor's Conservation Advisory Committee —January 14, 2021, 4:00pm, Regular Meeting PowerPoint presentation given, feedback and input solicited. Presentation emailed to the group later that day and invited any other comments or suggests being emailed within two weeks from meeting date. Reminder emailed on February 8, 2021. 1. Preservation and conservation of undeveloped land, open space and the urban forest (2). Opportunities for "green washing". 2. Watershed identification for potential funding opportunities. 3. Land acquisition priorities and strategy. 4. Equity analysis of system (recommended one from City of Seattle) (2) 5. Access for disabled community 6. Wildlife corridors and adjacent areas. Wildlife habitat. 7. Trail corridors and connections throughout city system 8. Priority of active restoration of parks and open spaces (Marsh implied, but not stated) 9. Water views and access (2) 10. Tree canopy 11. Inventory of private parks Planning Board Meeting, January 27, 2021, 7:00pm, Regular Meeting PowerPoint presentation given, feedback and input solicited. Feedback reminder emailed on February 9, 2021. 1. Request for robust public outreach during the plan update and it needs to be accessible, clear and have plenty of opportunities to participate in a meaningful way. 2. Expansion of trail system within park sites and between communities. Edmonds Arts Commission Meeting, February 1, 2021, 4:00pm, Regular Meeting PowerPoint presentation given, feedback and input solicited. Feedback reminder emailed on February 8, 2021. 1. Equity and access — both physical spaces and especially as related to neuro-divergent communities and issues. (2) 2. Equity and access — programming gaps (2) 3. Equity —10 minute walk from a park, more focus of this outside of The Bowl. 4. Land acquisition closer to Hwy 99 (2) Packet Pg. 172 7.5.b 5. Inclusion of arts and cultural elements in the PROS plan. (2) 6. Inclusion of embedded aspects of culture, cultural heritage and the arts in public infrastructure and facilities ensuring cultural stories are not lost in discussion of public spaces. (2) 7. Environmental priority and environmental design to include art (2) 8. Cultural art aspect included in PROS plan considering lack of Community Cultural Plan update. (2) Diversity Commission, February 3, 2021, 6:00pm, Regular Meeting PowerPoint presentation given, feedback and input solicited. Feedback reminder emailed on February 10, 2021. 1. Concern about lack of equitable geographic distribution of both park facilities and programs with emphasis on the SE portion of City of Edmonds. Concern about marginalizing populations because of millions being spent in downtown Edmonds for parks, facilities, and programs. 2. Requested consideration of cultural competency qualifications in consultant selection. 3. Inclusion of non-traditional stakeholders in the public engagement process. 4. Staff qualifications and training dealing with situations of racially or disabled program participants and park and facilities visitors. 5. Addressing ADA issues and compliance in parks and recreation facilities. Youth Commission — February 3, 2021, 6:00pm, Regular Meeting PowerPoint presentation given, feedback and input solicited and discussion led by Shannon Burley, Deputy Director. Feedback reminder emailed on February 10, 2021. 1. Concerns about low and deteriorating maintenance level of existing parks, especially trails (3) and Yost pool. 2. Lack of public use space at Yost (seating, "free space", picnic area) 3. Sufficient facilities to hold large scale community events. 4. Community center facility availability in Eastern Edmonds — Old Woodway HS example. 5. Limited recreation facilities for use around Hwy 99. Currently school facilities, but those are closed or not accessibly at various times. Lack of parks and recreation space adjacent to Hwy 99 (2"1 comment) 6. Need for special event recognizing Indigenous Peoples Day and ongoing public education (2) 7. More opportunities for water access at Lake Ballinger. 8. Lack of community awareness of volunteer work opportunities. 9. Equity and access along Hwy 99 corridor (2) 10. More plantings in the parks and open spaces to support insects and pollinators. 11. Parkland/view area at Edwards Point (2) 12. Senior citizen programming 2 Packet Pg. 173 7.6 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/27/2021 Findings of Fact to Support adoption of Ordinance 4217 Regarding Prohibition of Removal of Landmark Trees Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Preparer: Kernen Lien Background/History The City Council adopted Emergency Ordinance No. 4217 at the March 2, 2021 Council meeting. In accordance with RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220, the City Council is held a public hearing on Ordinance No. 4217 at the April 20, 2021 council meeting. Staff Recommendation Adopt the findings of fact to support the adoption of Ordinance No. 4217 as provided in the attached resolution. Narrative The City Council has been reviewing new tree -related regulations throughout the first quarter of 2021. The primary focus of the updated tree regulations is retaining trees when a property is being developed or redeveloped. During review of these regulations the City Council expressed a desire to broaden tree regulations to apply to all properties, not just properties that are being developed. The City is beginning a Stage 2 of tree regulations update that will apply to all properties, not just those that are being developed. Ordinance No. 4217 was adopted as a 6-month ordinance to protect larger trees while the City develops the next stage of tree regulations. Ordinance No. 4217 applies to all properties within the City of Edmonds. The City Council wanted to protect the largest trees while additional regulations are being developed. As such, this ordinance applies to "landmark trees" which, for the purposes of Ordinance No. 4217, is defined as any tree with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of twenty-four inches or more. The ordinance allows landmark trees to be removed if they are documented to be hazard or nuisance trees or if tree removal is approved with and permitted through a building permit, subdivision, or other land use approval. Section 5 of the ordinance provides: Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on this interim regulation within sixty (60) days of its adoption. In this case, the hearing shall be held on April 20, 2021 unless the City Council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date. No later than the next regular Council meeting immediately following the hearing, the City Council shall adopt findings of fact on the subject of this interim regulations and either justify its continued imposition or cancel the interim regulations. Packet Pg. 174 7.6 A public hearing was held on April 201h after which a majority of the Council directed the city attorney to prepared findings of fact to continue the imposition of the interim regulations in Ordinance 4217. The attached resolution provides the findings of fact for the continuation of this ordinance. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Draft Findings of Fact Resolution Exhibit 2: Ordinance No. 4217 Exhibit 3: 2021-03-02 City Council Minutes Excerpt Packet Pg. 175 7.6.a RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT TO SUPPORT THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 4217, WHICH ESTABLISHED INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT PREVENT THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LANDMARK TREES. WHEREAS, the city council adopted Ordinance 4217 on March 2, 2021; and WHEREAS, the city council held a public hearing on Ordinance 4217 on April 20, 2021 to determine whether the interim development regulations adopted by that ordinance were justified and should continue for the remainder of its six-month period of applicability; and WHEREAS, several people spoke at the above -referenced public hearing, both for and against the -a L ordinance: and O c 0 WHEREAS, many of the arguments offered in favor of the ordinance made points consistent with c the whereas clauses of Ordinance 4217; and 13 a d WHEREAS, many of the arguments offered against the ordinance were less persuasive due to the }' temporary nature of the ordinance; now therefore, a a 0 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY Cn RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: a� Section 1. ADOPTION OF FINDINGS. The city council hereby adopts as its findings of fact to 13 support the adoption and continuing effectiveness of Ordinances 4217 the Whereas clauses U_ contained in Ordinances 4217 as well as the following supplemental findings: c A. It takes a long time for a tree to grow from its planted size to a size of twenty-four inch DBH or larger. B. The permanent landmark tree regulations to be adopted later this year may allow for some removal of landmark trees in certain circumstances where removal is deemed appropriate. C. Careful thought and deliberation should be given to the crafting of those permanent landmark tree regulations to ensure that any future removal of landmark trees is not harmful to the public, health, safety, and welfare or that such harm is offset by other competing societal values and benefits. D. Extending the effectiveness of Ordinance 4217 for roughly another four months until September 2, 2021 is reasonable considering how long it would take to replace landmark trees that may be cut without sufficient justification if the ordinance were to be repealed now. Packet Pg. 176 7.6.a Section 2. CONTINUANCE OF MORATORIUM. In light of the findings of fact adopted in Section 1, above, the effectiveness of Ordinance 4217 shall continue and not terminate until September 2, 2021, unless it is expressly repealed by earlier council action. RESOLVED this day of , 2021. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, MIKE NELSON ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Packet Pg. 177 7.6.b CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO.4217 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM EMERGENCY REGULATION TO PROHIBIT THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LANDMARK TREES ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM REGULATION, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, the City Council is in the process of adopting new tree regulations; and WHEREAS, the City Council wants to consider adopting an additional regulation that would provide greater protection to trees of especially significant size; and N WHEREAS, such additional regulation for the City Council's consideration may apply to p all private properties in the City; c .2 Q. WHEREAS, it will take several months for the City to evaluate and consider the merits, -00 scope, and details of such a regulation; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt the following interim regulation to protect o landmark trees while this work can be done; NOW, THEREFORE, a 0 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DOES ORDAIN AS a, FOLLOWS: S c i- Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this interim regulation is to temporarily protect certain landmark trees from tree removal as that term is defined in ECDC 23.10.020.S. This temporary protection will allow the City adequate time to adopt a permanent regulation to govern the removal of such trees. For the purposes of this ordinance, a "landmark tree" shall be defined as any tree with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of twenty-four inches or more. Section 2. Applicability. The exemption contained in ECDC 23.10.040.A shall have no applicability to the provisions of this ordinance. This ordinance shall not apply to any tree Packet Pg. 178 7.6.b removal associated with and permitted through a building permit, subdivision, or other land use approval. Section 3. Prohibition. For as long as this ordinance remains in effect, it shall be unlawful to direct any act of tree removal toward a landmark tree, as that term is defined in Section 1, above, unless the landmark tree also meets the definition of hazard tree in ECDC 23.10.020.G or nuisance tree in 23.10.020.K. Section 4. Duration of Interim Regulations. The interim regulations imposed by this Ordinance shall commence on the date of the adoption of this Ordinance. As long as the City holds a public hearing on the interim regulations and adopts findings and conclusions in support of the interim regulations (as contemplated by Section 5 herein), the interim regulations shall not L O terminate until six (6) months after the date of adoption, unless it is repealed sooner. c .2 Q. Section 5. Public Hearing on Interim regulations. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390 and a as RCW 35A.63.220, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on this interim regulation within L O sixty (60) days of its adoption. In this case, the hearing shall be held on April 20, 2021 unless the a City Council, by subsequently adopted resolution, provides for a different hearing date. No later ° N tM than the next regular Council meeting immediately following the hearing, the City Council shall S c U- adopt findings of fact on the subject of this interim regulations and either justify its continued imposition or cancel the interim regulations. Section 6. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be unconstitutional or unlawful by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. PA Packet Pg. 179 7.6.b Section 7. Declaration of Emergency_. The City Council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this Ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the Council, and that the same is not subject to a referendum. Without the immediate adoption of these interim regulations, the City faces the possible removal of landmark trees. Therefore, the interim regulation must be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and to prevent the removal of landmark trees. This Ordinance does not affect any existing vested rights. Section 8. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published by an approved summary consisting of the title. Section 9. Effective Date, This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth herein, as long as it is approved by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the Council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. If it is only approved by a majority of the Council, it will take effect five days after passage and publication. APPROVED: l MANOR MIKE NELSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Cl ER , SC TT EY u_ Packet Pg. 180 7.6.b APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARADA FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: March 2, 2021 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: March 2, 2021 PUBLISHED: March 5, 2021 EFFECTIVE DATE: March 2, 2021 ORDINANCE NO. 4217 !7 LL Packet Pg. 181 7.6.b SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 4217 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 2„d day of March, 2021, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 4217. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM EMERGENCY REGULATION TO PROHIBIT THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LANDMARK TREES ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM REGULATION, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 2nd day of March, 2021. -a O c 0 r Q. CI Y CLERK, SCASSEY a OT Packet Pg. 182 7.6.b Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Dicy Sheppard being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH921288 ORDS 4216-4218 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 03/05/2021 and ending on 03/05/2021 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such public tion is $42.0 - Subs *bed and sworn bBfDT8. me on this Linda Phillips z�— Y Public day of f anlNaehington i+xPites08z7 A.A A , f Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds - LEGAL ADS 114101416 SCOW PASSEY Packet Pg. 183 Classified Proof 7.6.b ORDINANCE SUMMARY of the City Of E'lm'nds, Washlnl%on On the 2nd clay of March. Z021, she CISy Council of the CItV al EdmeRds, passed the faaOWing Oh7lnant,!, the summaries of said ordinances ton0itfn9 eI We% arm ofoulded as follows: RANCE L3_14 AN ORDINANCEODINOF EDMONl7S, WASHINGTON. AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 4211 AS A RESULT OF "NTICtPA7E0 'TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME $DILL BECOME EFFECTIVE ORDINA NO.4217 AN ORDINANCE OF �H CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,. ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM EMERGENCY REGULATION To PROHIBIT THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LANDMARK. TREES ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE FIERIOD OF THE INTERIM REGULATION, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE NO 4218 AN ORDINANC8 OF OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. REPEALING EXISTING TREE CUTTING REGULATIONS, ADOPTING NEW TREE RELATED REGULATIONS, NEW CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION DESIGN REGULATIONS, AND ESTABLISHING A NEW TREE FUND The full text of these OrdinOneas will DO m9310a upon request. DATED this 2nd Onyy Of March, 2021. CITY CLERK. SCOTT PASSEY Published: March 5, 2021, EDH921288 LL Proofed by Sheppard, Dicy, 03/08/2021 09:45:49 am Page: 2 Packet Pg. 184 7.6.c canopy around the trees which he assumed was relative to the DBH size, but he doubted they actually measured the tree crown diameter. Surveyed locations of tree are not always required and he assumed the tree canopy diameter would be estimated. Councilmember Distelhorst relayed his understanding that it would be a best guess rather than a measurement. Mr. Lien displayed a site plan that illustrate tree locations with the DBH with some sort of canopy around it. He pointed out a 40" tree and the canopy, a smaller tree with a smaller canopy, an 18" tree with a slightly bigger canopy, and a grove of trees and their canopy. Site plans typically show a canopy but he assumed it was an estimate rather than measured. Councilmember Distelhorst observed that would be acceptable under Council President Paine's amendment. Mr. Lien said he would expect to see that but rather than estimated crown diameters it would be a little related to what was actual on the ground. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO ADD "ESTIMATED" PRIOR TO "TREE CROWN DIAMETER." COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE ACCEPTED THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. Councilmember K. Johnson said she will vote against the amendment for the simple reason that the tree a crown for conifers is insignificant compared to the drip line which show the broadest part of the tree. Confers' more global shape is equivalent to the crown line of tree. She viewed this as an added step that -W developers did not need to provide as the current regulations were adequate. For trees more closely a associated, the site plan illustrates protection for groups of trees. Q- Mayor Nelson restated the motion: ° r AMEND SECTION 23.10.060.B.2.A.II TO ADD "AND ESTIMATED TREE CROWN DIAMETER." �a c UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; a AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING NO. AI Council President Paine suggested continuing the discussion next week and moving on to the remaining agenda items. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. 9. NEW BUSINESS ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING EMERGENCY INTERIM REGULATIONS RELATED TO LANDMARK TREES Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the packet contains an emergency interim ordinance for six months that can be revisited prior to six months. The intent of the ordinance is to apply not only to development but apply broadly to all private properties and prohibit the removal of trees greater than 24" diameter at breast height (DBH) during the interim period unless they are hazardous. The intent of the ordinance, proposed by Council President Paine and Councilmember L. Johnson and supported by Mayor Nelson, was to recognize the Council intends to revisit private property tree regulations. As that will take several months to complete, the emergency interim ordinance will preclude cutting of those trees during the interim period. Ms. Hope explained the ordinance also sets a public hearing date of April 20, 2021 to discuss continuing or changing the ordinance. If approved by a super majority, the ordinance could go into effect Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 17 Packet Pg. 185 7.6.c immediately upon adoption. She referenced Section 3 Prohibition, which states, "For as long as this ordinance remains in effect, it shall be unlawful to direct any act of tree removal toward a landmark tree." A landmark tree is defined as 24" DBH unless it meets the definition of a hazard tree or nuisance tree. Councilmember K. Johnson asked how the ordinance will be enforced. She recalled driving down the street recently and seeing that a row of trees had been removed from the backyard of a house and asked how that will be prevented. Ms. Hope agreed that was the most challenging issue with this prohibition. If a tree code is adopted in the future that applies to all properties, it will also raise issues related to review criteria, enforcement, etc. and will require extra resources. There are definitely fewer 24" DBH trees so it will not necessarily affect all the properties in the City. Enforcement would be via seeing it or someone reporting it. If the emergency interim ordinance is adopted, the City will try to get the word out but violators could be subject to penalties. Councilmember K. Johnson said she often hears chainsaws in her neighborhood and trees greater than 24" DBH being topped or cut down. She pointed out once you hear a chainsaw, it is too late as the tree is already being cut down and they usually start at the top and work their way down unless they are logging it for the wood. She suggested once this is adopted, sending a notification to the major tree companies so they know not to cut those trees in Edmonds without permission. Council President Paine said she was glad to have this emergency interim ordinance drafted that protects and preserves landmark trees which are the biggest. She was hopeful it would maintain the status quo and allow the subdivision tree code to be completed as well as put together the resources and planning for an 0. effective urban forestry program, look at canopy data through the canopy study and develop a thoughtful 3 tree code via an extensive public process like was done in 2015. The ordinance will provide that time and 0 prevents impacts on the tree canopy. A lot of the tree canopy has been removed in the last couple years and it would be a shame to lose more. The ordinance will provide time for a more thoughtful tree code that covers all properties. c Councilmember Buckshnis said she was excited about this, but it should not use a definition that is not in ii the code; she suggested rather than "landmark tree," using "significant tree", and instead of 24" DBH, °- using 12" DBH because a 12" DBH is 60 years old. She agreed with Councilmember K. Johnson's concerns and referred to an application for tree and vegetation removal that the applicant applied for after w the fact to remove 2 hazard trees and 11 additional trees. She emphasized tree are being cut down and she preferred to err on the side of caution and use language already in the code. She concluded this is a great step and she applaud the Council for taking it. Councilmember L. Johnson thanked the Administration for hearing their concerns and for working with them to put this together. At the bare minimum, this will protect old growth trees that could never be replaced and grown to the size they are in our lifetime. This is the minimum that can be done; it is really important and should have been done a while ago to protect those trees. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Mayor Nelson, Council President Paine, Councilmember L. Johnson and the Administration for their work on this. He appreciate the landmark tree and the focus on the 24" DBH. He feared going down to 12" DBH would be more difficult and may be too broad a focus for an emergency ordinance. As with the moratorium, his preference is not to legislate via emergence ordinance and moratorium in general. He hoped having this in place for six months provided the time necessary for public outreach and a process by the Administration and whatever resources the Administration needed to complete that work and to work with residents to have a fuller code and ensure the Council did not continue to legislate via emergency ordinance and moratorium. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 18 Packet Pg. 186 7.6.c Councilmember Olson said her concern with things that arise on short order is the unanticipated consequences. She asked if this would apply to someone doing a renovation on their property or was that covered in another way related to the development aspect. She asked if there could be an exception or caveat that would allow a Council hearing for a tree that someone feels they need to address in the six month period and would provide some flexibility for things that may arise that the Council is not thinking about right now. Ms. Hope said the ordinance does not cover trees going through a permitted development process because that has different requirements. This is related to other areas where people are choosing to cut trees for various reasons. As written, the ordinance would apply to roughly 90% of properties in the City. Mr. Lien clarified it would not impact trees being removed with a reviewed development. This ordinance does not apply to any tree removal associated with a permit through a building permit, subdivision or other land use approval. It is intended to preserve large trees on developed single family properties while the other regulations are being developed. He concluded trees reviewed with a development proposal could still be removed. Council President Paine said she asked similar questions of Ms. Hope regarding a smaller tree diameter. a The challenge is there is not enough code enforcement as well as seeking a balance between preserving 13 large trees and hoping to have good compliance with the understanding the City is seeking greater tree a canopy and the ability to monitor it. She had inquired about 12" or 16" DBH and was convinced the 24" m DBH during the interim period would be more successful and not overstrain resources. r- 0 a Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding that trees associated with a permit for a short plat or 3 subdivision could be removed because the moratorium ends March 10'. She expressed interest in c extending the moratorium because she was uncertain the code would be approved by March 10'. She concluded if a developer submitted a permit for a subdivision for a property with a lot of trees, they could be removed regardless of size after March 1 Ot' when the moratorium expires. Mayor Nelson said the issue before the Council is the emergency interim ordinance, not the emergency moratorium. S Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out Mr. Lien's statement that this ordinance would not apply to tree removed as part of a subdivision. She asked whether subdivisions should be included in this emergency ordinance since the moratorium ends March 10'. Mr. Lien answered the thought was that the regulations that the Council reviewed in the previous agenda item would be adopted; the new Section 23.10 referenced in the emergency ordinance has regulations that preserve trees with development. If that regulation is not adopted by the time the moratorium expires (Ordinances 4200 and 4201), the regulations would revert to the current tree code. This ordinance may need to be amended if it is adopted prior to the other ordinance because it specifically references Section 23.10. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained when the emergency interim ordinance was drafted, it was assumed the tree code would already be adopted and this would be next. Realizing the Council potentially wants to make more amendments to the tree, he proposed adopting the tree code tonight with the amendments that were made and come back next week and continue to make amendments. The result would be instead of making amendments to a draft code, the Council would be amending an already adopted code. That would address the concern about the moratorium expiring. He believed if the Council waited until next week, the moratorium would be expired at the time of next week's Council meeting. Council President Paine said as she understands the emergency moratorium, when the conservation subdivision code is adopted, the moratorium will expire. Ms. Hope answered yes, the way it is currently written. Mr. Taraday said there is a repealer section in Section 4 of the tree code ordinance that expressly repeals the tree moratorium because the new tree code goes into effect. An argument can be made [Mr. Taraday discontinued participation in the virtual meeting]. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 19 Packet Pg. 187 7.6.c COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Buckshnis said Mr. Taraday and she have been discussing the fact that approving the tree code repeals Ordinances 4200 and 4201, the moratorium on subdivisions and short plats. If the Council approves the tree code as Mr. Taraday suggested, she has more amendments that she feels would solidify the tree code. She was leery of approving the tree code tonight. Ms. Hope said the tree ordinance in the packet specifically repeals the moratorium which otherwise would expire March 10'. If the Council adopts tree regulations as amended, and comes back next week to make further amendments, that may be preferable to extending or creating a new moratorium. Mr. Taraday said there is language in Ordinance 4200 that tries to avoid this situation from occurring by stating something like the ordinance will not be presumed to have been repealed or expired but the Council will do that by ordinance. He was uncertain that language had been tested in court; it was included as a potential safety net. He would prefer not to rely on that language and would rather the Council not accidentally allow the moratorium to expire. Ms. Hope said by adopting the proposed tree regulations with the amendments approved tonight, the moratorium would be ended, but next week Council could consider making additional amendments to the adopted tree code. That would prevent the unintended expiration of the moratorium expiring or creating a new moratorium on the fly. Mr. Taraday agreed. Councilmember K. Johnson said the Council has gotten off subject. The issue before the Council is the emergency ordinance and the Council should make a decision on that before deciding on other things. Councilmember Buckshnis explained if the Council approves this emergency ordinance tonight, it refers to definitions in the tree code which haven't been approved. If the Council approves the tree code, it removes the moratorium. She asked if the Council could approve the tree code and remove Section 4. Mr. Taraday said Section 4 of the tree code ordinance could be removed. He did not want to represent to the Council that the moratorium was bulletproof and remained in effect by virtue of removing Section 4 because Ordinance 4200 specifically states it is a 4 month moratorium and the 4 months expire on March I Oth COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE INTERIM EMERGENCY TREE ORDINANCE FOR LANDMARK TREES AND MOVE BACK TO DISCUSSING THE CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION CODE WITH THE AMENDMENTS MADE SO FAR AND COME BACK NEXT WEEK. Councilmember Distelhorst relayed his understanding that the emergency ordinance references code that does not yet exist until the Council adopts the tree ordinance which is why the tree ordnance needs to be adopted first. Mr. Taraday said the ordinances certainly were not intended to be adopted in the order that is currently being considered but a few minutes' difference would not be a problem. Councilmember Olson suggested an option would be holding an emergency meeting on Friday afternoon to discuss the remaining tree code amendments and the existing moratorium issue. Mayor Nelson said he was not available on Friday. Councilmember Olson said the Council could have a meeting without the Mayor. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she also was not available. Council President Paine restated the motion: U- Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 20 Packet Pg. 188 7.6.c TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4217, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN INTERIM EMERGENCY REGULATION TO PROHIBIT THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LANDMARK TREES ON A TEMPORARY BASIS, SETTING SIX MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM REGULATION, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED TO AMEND TO CHANGE "LANDMARK" TO "SIGNIFICANT" AND CHANGE "24" DBH" TO THE DEFINITION OF SIGNIFICANT TREE WHICH IS 12" DBH. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1); COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS ABSTAINING. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO ADOPT THE AMENDED DRAFT TREE ORDINANCE AS DISCUSSED EARLIER TONIGHT, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING EXISTING TREE CUTTING REGULATIONS, ADOPTING NEW TREE RELATED REGULATIONS, NEW CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION DESIGN REGULATIONS, AND ESTABLISHING A NEW TREE FUND. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was leery of doing this when it was not complete. There have been examples in the past where there has been an attempt to bring ordinances forward and the minority could not get it done. She hoped there was a promise that additional amendments could be considered, noting she has about nine more amendments. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO AMEND BY REMOVING SECTION 4, "ORDINANCES 4200 (MORATORIUM) AND 4201 (ASSOCIATED INTERIM REGULATIONS) ARE HEREBY REPEALED." Councilmember Buckshnis hoped the Council would spend quality time to consider all the amendments and address the moratorium next week or when it expires. She felt it was premature to have Section 4 in the ordinance. As City Clerk Passey began to take a roll call vote (Councilmember K. Johnson abstained and Councilmember Distelhorst voted no), Councilmember Olson raised a point of order that the original moratorium stated the moratorium would expire when the tree code was passed or when it expired, whichever came first. Ms. Hope recalled it stated a 4-month period which would be March 10' unless Council acted to repeal it sooner. Mr. Taraday read from the ordinance, "The moratorium imposed by this ordinance shall commence on the date of adoption of this ordinance. The moratorium shall not terminate until four months after the date of adoption unless it is repealed sooner. The Council shall make the decision to terminate the moratorium by ordinance and termination shall not otherwise be presumed to have to occurred." He explained that is the language he referred to earlier as untested. He suggested if the Council's intent is not to have the moratorium repealed right away, amending Section 4 to read, "The effectiveness of Ordinance 4200 shall be extended to March 24, 2021" which would give the Council two more weeks to resolve anything outstanding in the tree code. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with waiting two weeks, anticipating at 10:14 p.m., the Council could be meeting half the night trying to make all the amendments. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO EXTEND FOR 5 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Nelson restated the motion: U- Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 21 Packet Pg. 189 7.6.c TO AMEND BY REMOVING SECTION 4, REPEALING ORDINANCES 4200 AND 4201. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-2-1); COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS, AND OLSON, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO; AND COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS ABSTAINING. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO AMEND TO ADD A NEW SECTION TO THE ORDINANCE, "ORDINANCE 4200 IS EXTENDED TO MARCH 24, 2021." Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the motion needed to include Ordinance 4201. Mr. Taraday recommended they be handled as a package as they were originally adopted as a package. He requested adding "effectiveness" so the motion stated, "The effectiveness of Ordinances 4200 and 4201 will be extended to March 24, 2021." Council President Paine restated the motion: TO AMEND TO ADD A NEW SECTION TO THE ORDINANCE, "THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ORDINANCES 4200 AND 4201 IS EXTENDED TO MARCH 24, 2021." Councilmember K. Johnson asked which ordinances these were, whether it was the moratorium ordinance. Council President Paine answered yes and Ordinance 4201 was the associated interim regulations. a Q. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 0 r MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. c COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, c TO EXTEND FOR 7 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (6-1) COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- U- MONILLAS VOTING NO. 2. 4TH AVENUE CULTURAL CORRIDOR PUBLIC PROCESS Due to late hour, this item was postponed to a future meeting. 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson reported today the President and Governor announced additions to those eligible for immediate access to the vaccine - school educators and licensed childcare workers. As more people become eligible, hopeful the availability of vaccines will also increase. The numbers in Snohomish County continue to drop, yesterday's report was 109 cases/100,000 (previously 119/100,000). That is still not enough fast enough so he encouraged the public to continue wearing masks, washing hands, and watching their distance. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Olson wished all be well and happy. Councilmember Distelhorst said March is Women's History Month. He is honored to serve alongside his colleagues on Council. International Women's Day is March 8', a big day in his household because in Mongolia where his wife and two daughters are from, it is actually a national holiday. While he lived in Mongolia, it was a widely celebrated holiday Anyone interested in learning more about notable figures, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 2, 2021 Page 22 Packet Pg. 190 7.7 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/27/2021 Introduction Regarding Private Code Amendment to ECDC Section 20.75.045.13, entitled Unit Lot Subdivision - Applicability Staff Lead: Mike Clugston, Planning Department: Planning Division Preparer: Michael Clugston Background/History A private developer, represented by Citizen Design Collaborative, has proposed to add the Downtown Business zones to the areas in Edmonds where the unit lot subdivision process can be used (File AMD2020-0003). Unit lot subdivisions are currently only allowed in the General Commercial, Multiple Residential, and Westgate Mixed Use zones. While this change would apply to all the Downtown Business (BD) subdistricts, Citizen Design would like to use the process at the site of their proposed 14- unit townhome project at 614/616 51" Avenue South, which is currently under review by the Architectural Design Board. Staff Recommendation Listen to the introduction, ask questions, and schedule a public hearing on the proposed amendment. Narrative The unit lot subdivision (ULS) process was adopted in 2017 to provide opportunities for dividing fee simple ownership of land to create townhouses, rowhouses and similar fee -owned dwelling units as an alternative to both condominium ownership and traditional single-family detached subdivision. A ULS does not permit uses or densities that are not otherwise allowed in the zoning district in which the subdivision is proposed. Each project where a unit lot subdivision is used is first reviewed and approved to verify compliance with all applicable building, fire, public works, and zoning codes. The ULS then follows and inserts property lines between dwelling units, typically along shared walls and enclosing a small private yard. Because the requested code amendment is a Type V legislative decision, the Planning Board reviewed the change in accordance with ECDC 20.80.020. When staff introduced the applicant's BD -zone proposal to the Planning Board on February 10, 2021, it included an additional option for discussion. While the applicant's proposal would allow the unit lot process to be used in one additional zone, it seemed reasonable to further broaden the applicability to include any zone where multifamily residential is allowed on the ground floor. For example, ground floor multifamily is also allowed in the Office -Residential and Firdale Village Mixed Use zones. Rather than listing specific zones where the unit lot process may be used, it would be more efficient to broaden the definition to include all zones where ground floor multifamily is allowed rather than wait for Packet Pg. 191 7.7 additional code amendments that might arise in the future. The Planning Board moved both options to public hearing but initially indicated a preference for the broader language. At the public hearing on March 24, 2021, staff provided a map showing the existing zones where the ULS process is allowed, the proposed zones where ULS would be allowed if the code amendment is adopted, and the location of the five (5) unit lot projects that have received approval or are currently under review. The Board took testimony and discussed both options but had some concerns about whether there was a difference in the quality of construction between buildings built for condominiums versus those built for unit lot subdivision. It was ultimately determined that buildings in both types of ownership must meet adopted building codes and the Planning Board recommended the applicant's BD - only amendment to Council. Fxhihitc The BD -only code amendment language is included as Exhibit 1 and the minutes from the February 10 Planning Board meeting are included as Exhibit 2. The map shown at the Planning Board hearing is included as Exhibit 3, and the minutes from the March 24 hearing are included as Exhibit 4. A follow-up memo from staff regarding how building codes are applied to condominiums and unit lot subdivisions is attached as Exhibit 5. The project application materials are included as Exhibit 6. Attachments: Exhibit 1- Planning Board recommended code language - Unit lot subdivisions in BD Exhibit 2 - February 10, 2021 Planning Board intro excerpt minutes Exhibit 3 - Map of Unit Lot Subdivisions and Applicability in Edmonds Exhibit 4 - March 24, 2021 Planning Board hearing excerpt minutes Exhibit 5 - Memo regarding building codes, condos and ULS Exhibit 6 - AMD2020-0003 Application materials Packet Pg. 192 7.7.a 20.75.045 Unit lot subdivision. A. Purpose. The unit lot subdivision process provides opportunities for dividing fee simple ownership of land to create townhouses, rowhouses and similar fee -owned dwelling units as an alternative to both condominium ownership and traditional single-family detached subdivision. Unit lot subdivisions determine compliance with the relevant dimensional standards of ECDC Title 16 by analyzing whether the parent lot complies, but not requiring that each newly created lot within the unit lot subdivision (the unit lot) complies, with those dimensional standards. A unit lot subdivision does not permit uses or densities that are not otherwise allowed in the zoning district in which the unit lot subdivision is proposed. B. Applicability. The provisions of this section apply exclusively to the subdivision of land for single-family dwelling units, townhouses, and rowhouses and may be applied only in the following zones: multiple residential, downtown business, general commercial, and Westgate mixed -use. A single lot within a unit lot subdivision may contain multiple dwelling units when the unit lot contains all such dwelling units within one building. Flats are permitted as an element of a unit lot subdivision only when a single lot within a unit lot subdivision contains the entire building in which flats are located. C. Association with Site Development — Application Timing. In the case of a vacant lot or a redevelopment site, a preliminary unit lot subdivision can only be submitted in conjunction with or preceding a development site plan as required by Chapter 20.10, 20.11, or 20.12 ECDC, or in the case described in ECDC 2O.1O.O2O(B)(3) submitted in conjunction with or preceding a building permit. For existing developed sites, a preliminary unit lot subdivision application may be submitted at any time. If the subdivision involves creating unit lot lines within common walls, a building permit application is required in order to verify that the walls meet the separation requirements in effect at the time of the subdivision application. D. Conformance with Standards of the Parent Lot. The parent lot must comply with and is vested to the applicable development standards (ECDC 2O.75.O3O(E)) in effect at the time a complete application for preliminary unit lot subdivision is submitted. As a result of the unit lot subdivision, the individual unit lots within the subdivision may be nonconforming with respect to the bulk and dimensional standards required by ECDC Title 16. As with dimensional standards, compliance with access standards, including but not limited to fire lanes, drive aisles, turnarounds, and access of/to the parent lot from/to the street will be evaluated based on the parent lot's compliance with such requirements, and not based on whether individual unit lots meet such standards. E. Future Additions and Modifications. Subsequent platting actions, additions or modifications a to the structure(s) may not create or increase any nonconformity of the parcel lot. Changes requiring permitting that affect only the interior of building units will be evaluated for compliance with the requirements only for that unit. Any exterior changes will be evaluated for x compliance by considering whether the parent lot would still comply with applicable w development standards. Any application for such external changes will require authorization of E a The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4201, passed November 2, 2020. Packet Pg. 193 7.7.a all owners of affected unit lots or approval of the HOA where changes to commonly owned tracts are proposed. F. Homeowners' Association Ownership of Common Areas. Any commonly used areas or facilities within a unit lot subdivision, including but not limited to common access, garage or parking areas, common open space or recreation space, common courtyards, commonly used stormwater facilities or side sewers and other similar features, must be owned and maintained by a homeowners' association with the right to assess the individual unit lot owners as necessary to properly maintain and repair such areas. Appropriate documentation regarding the rights of the homeowners' association must be submitted for recording with the final plat. G. Maintenance Agreements for Building Exteriors. Maintenance agreements must be executed and recorded as an element of the final unit subdivision plat or short plat for maintenance of all building exteriors except in cases where all dwelling units are detached. The maintenance agreement must require equal participation by all owners within any one building and must be recorded on the final unit lot plat. The requirement does not apply to detached single-family dwelling units. Common wall construction must meet currently adopted building codes. H. Parking on Different Unit Lots Allowed. Within the parent lot, required parking for a dwelling unit may be provided on a different unit lot than the lot with the dwelling unit as long as the right to use that parking is formalized by an easement on the final plat. I. Notice of Unit Lot on the Final Plat. The fact that the unit lot is not a separate buildable lot and that additional development of the individual unit lots may be limited as a result of the application of development standards to the parent lot must be noted on the final plat. J. An application for final unit lot plat will not be accepted until all foundations, including common wall foundations, are installed and located on the face of the final plat by the land surveyor of record. K. Review. Unit lot subdivisions of four or fewer lots are processed and reviewed as short subdivisions while five or more lots are formal subdivisions pursuant to Chapter 20.01 ECDC and the requirements of this chapter. [Ord. 4173 § 1 (Att. A), 2020; Ord. 4154 § 4 (Att. C), 2019; Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017]. a The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4201, passed November 2, 2020. Packet Pg. 194 REVIEW OF INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE (#4210) AMENDNG EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) 17.75, ENTITLED "OUTDOOR DINING," AND A RELATED SECTION IN ECDC 17.70 Mr. Chave reviewed that the City Council adopted Ordinance 4210 on December 15, 2020, as an interim ordinance. The main affect was to change the Outdoor Dining Permit from what had been a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), which required a hearing by the Hearing Examiner and a lengthy review process, to an Administrative Approval that could be done by staff. Because Ordinance 4210 is an interim ordinance that expires after six months, the Board is being asked to review it and provide a recommendation about whether it should be adopted for a longer period of time or permanently. Chair Rosen asked Mr. Chave to articulate between the "Outdoor Dining" use that is the subject of the interim ordinance and "Streeteries." Mr. Chave explained that a variety of activities are allowed within the rights -of -way, but streeteries are a new type of use that came about during the pandemic. They are basically the temporary use of rights -of -way to help businesses survive. Because streeteries are allowed in ECDC 18 (Engineering and Public Works Standards), they are not something the Planning Board reviews or makes recommendations on. Ordinance 4210 relates to on -site outdoor dining, which typically occurs as an extension or accessory to a restaurant in an enclosed building. Sometimes it takes the form of patio dining or outdoor open decks. Board Member Robles asked if Ordinance 4210 would apply to the temporary structures (tents, etc.) that have expanded into parking spaces. Mr. Chave answered that the ordinance is not applicable to tents and other structures that are located within the rights -of -way. However, it could allow outdoor dining to be located in on -site parking areas, as long as the parking spaces are not part of a business's required parking. Chair Rosen asked how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirement could potentially be impacted by outdoor dining areas. Mr. Chave answered that the applicant would still have to comply with all of the building code requirements, including making sure that access was ADA compliant. Board Member Pence asked if there have been any applications for outdoor dining since Ordinance 4210 was passed in December. Mr. Chave said he believes so, but he would need to ask the Building Official for this specific information. Board Member Monroe referred to ECDC 17.75.010(2), and asked how the 4-foot wall, hedge or fence was arrived at. He also asked how they arrived at the 50% or 30-seat limit. Mr. Chave said these requirements were part of the previous code that had been in place for many years. The substantial change was not requiring a CUP for the use. Board Member Pence observed that eliminating the CUP requirement from ECDC 17.75.020 would make ECDC 17.75.020 (Secondary Uses Requiring a Permit) functionally the same as ECDC 17.75.010 (Permitted Secondary Uses). If that is the case, then ECDC 17.75.020 could be eliminated entirely. Mr. Chave agreed it might be possible to combine the two sections. However, the language related to building and fire permits in ECDC 17.75.020 would need to be added to ECDC 17.75.010. He commented that there has been some debate and uncertainty about when and how the building and fire permits apply. Board Member Pence said he believes in having codes as neat and tidy and easy to follow as possible, and having two separate sections that are functionally indistinguishable is not good bill drafting. He suggested that the permanent ordinance combine the two sections in a way that accomplishes the intent. The remainder of the Board concurred. Mr. Chave said the intent of the ordinance is to make it clear that outdoor dining must be the secondary rather than predominant use of the property and that some buffering would be required. Chair Rosen referred to ECDC 17.75.010(A)(5), which appears to be motivated by safety. If the intent is to separate vehicles from patrons, perhaps it should be spelled out that the barrier must be suitable to protect the safety of the diner. Mr. Chave advised that a public hearing on the ordinance is tentatively scheduled for March 24r''. CODE AMENDMENT TO BROADEN APPLICABILITY OF THE UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION PROCESS Mr. Clugston explained that this application is a privately -initiated Development Code amendment. As a Type V application, the Planning Board conducts a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council. He explained that the Planning Board Minutes February 10, 2021 Page 2 Packet Pg. 195 7.7.b Citizen Design Collaborative is proposing to add the Downtown Business (BD) zones to the areas in Edmonds where the Unit Lot Subdivision Provision is applicable. He reviewed that United Lot Subdivisions are currently only allowed in the General Commercial (CG), Multiple Residential (RM), and Westgate Mixed use (WMU) zones. He said the applicant has submitted a parallel application for design review for a 14-unit complex at the old Baskin Robbins and Curve site. The proposal is to construct residential and live/work units on the site and then apply the Unit Lot Subdivision Provision on top of the buildings once constructed. However, this isn't currently allowed because the property is located in the BC zone. Mr. Clugston said there have been a number of Unit Lot Subdivision Projects over the last several years in the RM, WMU and CG zones that have worked out very well. Staff believes the proposed amendment makes sense in those areas in the BD zone where multifamily residential is allowed on the ground floor. The amendment might also be applicable to other areas of Edmonds, and staff is suggesting the Board consider the option of making the amendment more general to cast a broader net to include all zones where ground -floor multifamily dwelling units are allowed. This would include Office Residential, Firdale Village Mixed Use and Downtown Business zones, as well as any future subarea plans that allows ground -floor residential units. Board Member Pence noted that Unit Lot Subdivisions were only written into the code in 2017. He asked why the provision was written so narrowly to apply only to a limited set of zones. Mr. Clugston said he doesn't recall exactly why. But, generally, the RM, CG and MU zones were areas where they anticipated that Unit Lot Subdivisions would occur first. Five of the six projects were in RM zones. Based on these projects' success, staff believes it makes sense to allow them in the other zones, too. Mr. Chave said, sometimes, there are unusual configurations of property, and you don't always see how a multifamily use that fits this kind of development could occur. That may be why they missed applying the use more broadly. Board Member Pence agreed that application of the provision should be broadened as recommended by staff. Chair Rosen asked the worse concern staff can imagine someone might raise at the public hearing. Mr. Clugston said he can't think of one at this point. The look of the development on the ground would not change, as Unit Lot Subdivision would simply drops property lines on walls. It is an alternative to the condominium process, and he felt it makes sense to allow it wherever ground -floor multifamily units are allowed. Vice Chair Crank said the only concern she foresees is about the look and feel of the downtown core. She noted a recent story that was posted on MY EDMONDS NEWS about the design of the proposed project has already caused a stir. Mr. Clugston said the proposed amendment is a separate issue from the design. Whether or not the amendment is adopted, the applicant could build the units as long as Design Review and Building Permit approval are obtained. The question is how ownership will be divided up. The applicant could construct the units and then go through the condominium process, and the City would have no say whatsoever. If the amendment is adopted, the applicant would go through a separate process (Unit Lot Subdivision). In either case, the look of the buildings would not change. He agreed that this is something that would need to be clearly explained at the public hearing. Board Member Cheung asked if the proposed amendment could result in parking impacts. Mr. Clugston answered no, and advised that parking would be addressed as part of the Design Review and Building Permit processes. Board Member Monroe asked for reasons why developers might want to use the Unit Lot Subdivision option as opposed to the already established provisions in the code. Mr. Clugston answered that, currently, there is no provision in the code that would allow the applicant to do a subdivision. Right now, Unit Lot Subdivisions are only allowed in RM, CG and WMU zones. The applicant is requesting an amendment to allow the use in the BD zone to specifically take advantage of the fee simple option as opposed to the condominium process or rentals. Board Member Monroe asked why Unit Lot Subdivisions are an advantage over the condominium process. Mr. Clugston said his understanding is that the condominium process is more difficult, is not a public process, and it is hard to get insurance for the units. The zero -lot -line process used in other cities is the process that a lot of developers use to create fee -simple lots. Board Member Monroe reviewed that the adoption of the proposed amendment would not change the density allowed, the look and feel of development or the parking requirements. He noted that condominiums haven't been built in Washington for a number of years because of insurance issues, and the Unit Lot Subdivision Provision would make it easier for developers. He said anticipates that the greatest concern that might be raised at the public hearing is that the amendment would density Edmonds and particularly the downtown core. Vice Chair Crank agreed with that concern. Planning Board Minutes February 10, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 196 7.7.b Board Member Pence suggested one reason developers do not like to do condominiums has to do with builder's liability. Under Washington's Condominium Law, builders have a very long period of time when they are liable for defects in the buildings, and they have been hit with some major lawsuits by homeowner associations. With Unit Lot Subdivisions, all of these issues go away. Board Member Robles noted that builder's liability lasts for eight years. In addition, there are building envelop laws associated with condominiums. You can't simply flip a building from an apartment to a condominium. You have to make sure that the building is structurally sound and that the building envelope, itself, meets a new standard. The windows have to retain certain energy requirements and other requirements would apply, as well. He voiced concern that the proposed amendment would be a quick way for developers to get around a significant amount of regulation associated with the condominium process. Board Member Cloutier observed that once a property is subdivided, each new division would have to meet all of the standards for construction. Mr. Chave said Unit Lot Subdivisions should be thought of as a different form of ownership: condominium versus subdivision. The standards and requirements would be the same for either. Chair Rosen asked if the potential concerns that the amendment would change the character or increase density could be considered fatal flaws that lead the Board to recommend denial. Mr. Clugston emphasized that the amendment would not result in changes in the character of an area or increased density. He referred to the "Purpose" section, which clearly states that "Unit Lot Subdivision does not permit uses or densities that are not otherwise allowed in the zoning district in which they are proposed. " Board Member Monroe said he appreciates that the proposed amendment would not change density. However, it should be noted that the current condominium law is holding back densification. By removing that dam, they could see a tidal wave of redevelopment in the downtown. He said he isn't a huge fan of the proposed amendment, as it will not do anything to address housing for the "missing middle." It seems it will simply make rich people richer. He suggested it is disingenuous to imply that the City isn't making it easier to develop this type of unit in downtown Edmonds. Board Member Pence agreed that the code change related to ownership options would make the construction of town homes a more attractive option for developers. However, it is important to consider that town homes are, by definition, a low to moderate density development for a downtown area. If they receive push back from the public, he doesn't believe it will be well-grounded. Vice Chair Crank asked if a Unit Lot Subdivision would include the ground floor. If so, could commercial be part of that ground -floor level? Mr. Clugston explained that the subdivision could apply to a live/work unit where the ground floor is a commercial use, with residential uses above. But primarily, the developments would be entirely residential. Board Member Pence asked if ground -floor commercial is required in the BD zone along 5' Avenue, or is it just an option the developer is choosing. Mr. Clugston answered that commercial is required on the ground floor along certain street fronts, including 5' Avenue. The applicant's solution is to develop live/work units, where there is a commercial use on the ground floor with residential above where the operator or owner of the business would live. Board Member Pence noted that some cities require the occupant of the ground -floor space to have a business license to establish the voracity of the business use so it doesn't become just another town home. He asked if the City would require a license. Mr. Clugston agreed that would be something to consider, as it makes sense to have the uses separated in some way. Board Member Monroe commented that the intent of the first -floor commercial requirement is to activate the space. Spaces that are occupied by businesses that do not invite the public in goes against the intent of the zoning. Mr. Clugston advised that any commercial use can be located on the ground floor in theory, and there is currently a broad range of businesses in the downtown area (office, service, retail, etc.). Mr. Chave added that, historically, live/work units are found back east. When the country was young, that was fairly typical. The use is not quite as common in the western United States because developers tended to build out because there was so much space. However, with the new urbanism that has occurred over the last two decades, live/work situations are becoming more common. They are seeing more demand or interest from people Planning Board Minutes February 10, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 197 7.7.b who want to live close to where they work. Board Member Monroe commented that if the live/work units must be owner - occupied, people would have to move if their businesses close down. Vice Chair Crank said she plans to seek feedback from a friend who owns live/work space in Seattle. His optician business is on the ground floor, and he lives above. Vice Chair Crank asked if the proposed amendment would override the ground floor commercial requirement in the BD1 zone. Mr. Clugston answered no. Chair Rosen asked if the Board would have an opportunity to weigh in on how the regulations associated with Unit Lot Subdivisions are enforced. Mr. Chave said the proposed amendment is related solely to the Unit Lot Subdivision provision, and is unrelated to the ground -floor commercial use or other zoning requirements. Board Member Cheung asked if the owner of a live/work unit could use the ground floor space for a business, but rent out the upper floor to someone else. Mr. Clugston noted that the City hasn't permitted any live/work unit development to date. The use and owner -occupancy requirement will need further thought. However, that is a separate question from the proposed amendment. Chair Rosen suggested the Board Members keep the questions raised in their minds as they become further informed at the public hearing on March 24r''. In preparation for the hearing, he suggested that the Board provide feedback to staff about whether the amendment should be geographically specific to the BD zone or opened up to a broader area. Board Member Monroe voiced concern that the amendment might be more difficult to adopt if it is applied broadly. Mr. Clugston didn't believe that would be the case because Unit Lot Subdivisions are already allowed in many other parts of the City. The amendment would simply allow a developer to drop property lines down on a use that is already allowed in the zone. Vice Chair Crank said she is open to consider a broader application of the amendment to other zones in the City, but she isn't ready to recommend its application in the BD zone at this time. Chair Rosen asked if the applicant could develop the same project under the current zoning if the amendment is denied, and Board Member Monroe answered that the project would not likely pencil out. Board Member Cloutier requested that staff provide the Board with a before and after map to illustrate the areas that would be impacted by the proposed amendment based on the two options. Chair Rosen asked if the Board could recommend denial of the amendment now. Mr. Chave answered no and explained that the Planning Board must conduct a public hearing before making a recommendation to the City Council. The Board indicated general consensus that the amendment should be presented in the broader context at the public hearing. The description for the hearing should make it clear how the amendment evolved, and that it is being sparked by a very specific request for a very specific property. BOARD MEMBER PENCE MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT MOVE TO A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE BASIS OF THE BROADER APPLICATION. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPOINTMENT OF NEW STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE Chair Rosen asked about the process for appointing a new Student Representative to the Board. Mr. Chave said staff would advertise the position next week. He recalled that, in the past, the Board set up a subcommittee to interview the candidates and make a recommendation to the Board. The Board agreed to follow that process, with Board Member Robles taking the lead. Planning Board Minutes February 10, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 198 7.7.c I y Snohomish County Park 52 Z Q 2 _ F- EDMON MAIN- T F D2 6th AiT. S 212222 82nd1Pl. W- LU Q e°w�°i 71298 80th Ave. W rn Proposed Subdivision Zoning (BD, OR, FVMU) Existing Subdivision Zoning (CG, RM, WMU) O Subdivided Unit Lot Site �c i 168TH ST! G) E II 176TH ST SW1— d O t� 4 —C 180TH ST SWUj O y Q U 2 Q ~ (n 0 188TH ST SW � LYNNWOOD--�� D L•��P C E LU a W 2 H_ 00 200TH ST S1 � r� 204TH ST SW L) 208TH ST SW 4MI H S TJS W 7236 212th St. LU c > n . _I I J , MOUNTLAKE TERRACE 228TH STSt s . `rn w u 00 �I 236TH ST'_ 244TH ST SW 24 ' March 20 Packet Pg. 199 7.7.d PUBLIC HEARING ON CODE AMENDMENTS TO BROADEN APPLICABILITY OF THE UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION PROCESS (FILE NUMBER AMD2020-0003) Mr. Clugston advised that this is a code amendment request from a private applicant, Citizen Design Collaborative, who has proposed a 14-unit townhome project at 614/615 5t1i Avenue S that is currently under review by the Architectural Design Board. He explained that Unit Lot Subdivisions (ULS) are currently only allowed in the General Commercial (CG), Multifamily Residential (RM), and Westgate Mixed -Use (WMU) zones. The applicant's proposed amendment would expand Staff subsequently proposed an alternative amendment that would further broaden the applicability language to include any zone where multifamily residential development is allowed on the ground floor. He pointed to the following attachments that were included in the Staff Report: • Attachment 1 — Cover letter from the request from the applicant, Citizen Design • Attachment 2 — Draft code amendment • Attachment 3 — Minutes from the Planning Board's February 10, 2021 meeting • Attachment 4 — A Map of ULS applicability in Edmonds Mr. Clugston reviewed that the ULS process was adopted in 2017 to provide opportunities to divide fee -simple ownership of land to create townhouses, rowhouses and similar fee -owned dwelling units as an alternative to both condominium ownership and traditional single-family detached subdivisions. At that time, it was felt that the ULS process would apply best to the CG, RM and WMU zones. When the proposed amendment came in, staff agreed that the ULS process could work well in the BD zones, and felt it could be further broadened to include the Office Residential (OR) and Firdale Village Mixed Use (FVMU) zones. He recalled that staff discussed both options with the Planning Board at their February 101 meeting, and the Board determined it would be appropriate to move the broader language to a public hearing. Mr. Clugston said that, as he prepared for the hearing, he noticed that some additional clarity was needed. As a result, he proposed the following small change to the language the Board considered at the last meeting. • ECDC 20.75.045(B) — Applicability. The first sentence would be changed to read, "The provisions of this section apply exclusively to the subdivision of land for single-family dwelling units, townhomes, and rowhouses in any zone where ground floor dwelling units or live/work units are allowed. " Live/work units are considered a residential building type according to the Building Code, and the change makes the language more specific as to where a ULS could occur. Mr. Clugston referred to the map (Attachment 4) showing the zones where ULS is currently allowed, the proposed zones where ULS would be allowed if the code amendment is adopted, and the location of the five ULS projects that have received approval or are currently under review. He summarized that the amendment would encompass the BD zones, as well as a few parcels in the OR and FVMU zones. He said staff believes the proposed amendment would create the ability for some interesting new projects in those areas. He reminded them that all projects would require design and building permit review before a ULS could be applied over top of them, and a ULS would not change density or allowed uses. It is simply a way to create fee -simple lots that have townhouse -type units on them. Chair Rosen opened the public hearing. Craig Pontius, Citizen Design Collaborative, said Mr. Clugston did a great job presenting the proposed amendment. He said the intent of the amendment is to provide an alternate means of ownership for project types that are already permitted under the code. Presently, the ECDC allows the construction of live/work units and townhomes in the BD zones, but they cannot be subdivided and sold fee simple. This requires them to be condominiumized instead. The intent is to provide some flexibility to property owners in the zone in terms of how the ownership structure of a given project will be put together. Dr. John Hogue, Edmonds, said he is a member of the City's Economic Development Commission (EDC), and serves on the EDC's Neighborhood District Subcommittee, of which Firdale Village is one. However, he was present to speak only as a private citizen. He said he is opposed to expanding the ULS provision to the BD, OR and FVMU zones, as he felt it would further erode existing commercial space set aside for businesses and stifle job creation and business recruitment for the City. If the City truly wants live/work in Edmonds, he suggested they stop prioritizing housing at the expense of commercial space. Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2021 Page 2 Packet Pg. 200 7.7.d He recalled that, at the last Planning Board meeting, Mr. Clugston stated that ULS has worked very well in the Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) zone. However, this is highly debatable, as two commercial spaces are still vacant two years after Westgate Village opened. The housing above restricts the types of businesses that can use the commercial space. Because the housing is maximized, the footprint of the ground floor commercial space is minimized, and the commercial spaces at Westgate Village are small. The lack of tenants is not due to the pandemic; it is due to incentivizing housing. He expressed his opinion that the WMU zoning has not worked well at all, and he is afraid the same situation will play out in the BD and FVMU zones if they start to incentivize housing de facto by making it easier to do a ULS. Michelle Douch, Edmonds, said she has followed this process, along with the Housing Commission's work on the Housing Action Plan. She recalled that, as originally proposed, the amendment would only apply to the BD-3 zone. She only recently learned that it has been expanded to include the entire BD zone, as well as the OR and other zones where ground floor multifamily residential is allowed. She is concerned that the proposal would change the zoning in multiple areas of the City under the cover of a single project. She feels that transparency is lacking for the community to know this is happening. The intent of the Housing Strategy is to create neighborhood village plans, transitional zones, etc. that allow for this type of development, which means there will be other smaller areas in the City that would be allowed to have tract townhome development. Because the proposed amendment would be applied to a much greater area of the City, she suggested that the process be slowed down to allow for greater public involvement. They should consider its impacts beyond just this one project. Mr. Pontius clarified that the proposed amendment is intended to modify an ownership model rather than allowable uses. Regulations related to parking, design, etc. would remain unchanged. The amendment is intended to address how the property is owned post construction, and the City would retain its ability to limit uses in a given zone, require design review, etc. The ULS would occur after all of the permits have been reviewed and approved, rather than something that is done to establish properties in order for entitlement to take place later. Again, he said anything that is constructed would have to be compliant with the current code, but it could be divided and sold off. As no one else indicated a desire to testify, Chair Rosen closed the public portion of the meeting. Board Member Cloutier observed that a lot of the public concern appears to be that the number of residential units allowed to be developed would increase if the amendment is approved. However, based on the Board's discussion at the last meeting, the density would not change. The number of residential units allowed would not change. The only thing that would change is the manner in which ownership of the units is handled. Mr. Clugston agreed that is correct. Board Member Cloutier summarized that, if approved, the amendment would not make more units available for residential use than is allowed under the current code. Mr. Clugston again agreed that is correct. Board Member Robles said he understands that condominium development is required to pass certain standards in terms of building envelope, ceilings, windows, etc. He asked if the ULS process would enable developers to skirt these standards or if the standard of build would be the same. Mr. Clugston said he is not familiar with specific condominium requirements, but the Building Division will review all projects to make sure they comply with the applicable building requirements. While he is not an expert on these requirements, it is likely the International Residential Building Code would apply. Again, Board Member Robles observed that the requirements to build a condo include some stringent building standards, and that adds cost to construction. There is also some associated construction liability. He asked if these requirements would be equally applicable to ULS ownership as they are to condominium ownership. Mr. Chave said his understanding is that the multifamily building code standards are applicable to all multifamily development, regardless of ownership. However, he acknowledged that there may be some differences as far as insurance rates, liability, etc. Board Member Monroe asked what problem the proposed amendment is trying to fix. He also questioned if the amendment would allow developers to skirt quality standards. He voiced concern that the Board doesn't have enough information, at this time, to consider the full consequences of the amendment. Mr. Chave said the only difference would be that of ownership. It would be a choice of whether a person wants to own the entire unit separately (fee simple) or be part of a larger condominium organization. Board Member Monroe commented that there are liability requirements that protect condominium owners that would not be required for ULS. He asked if that would have an effect on the quality of construction. Mr. Chave explained that a condominium association would have certain rules for how they operate, and a single owner would operate differently. Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 201 7.7.d In terms of liability, there might be differences in insurance, whether it is joint insurance for the entire building versus an individual unit, but this would not impact the building standards that apply. He concluded that only the Building Official could provide a definitive answer to address this concern. Chair Rosen suggested the Board could delay its recommendation until the Building Official could answer the Board's questions and concerns, or they could make a recommendation now that is contingent upon the Building Official's response. Board Member Monroe asked why the condominium model has largely failed in Edmonds. If the answer is tied to liability or quality, he felt the Board should explore the issue further before making a recommendation. Mr. Chave responded that staff s understanding is that the proponents would prefer to do a ULS. If that doesn't work, they will simply go ahead with a condominium. Board Member Monroe asked how many condominiums have been constructed in the City over the past 15 years, as his understanding is that condominium development in the State of Washington has been arrested due to liability and quality issues. Mr. Chave said there were particular issues in the 1990s with how certain materials were being used or applied and that is where the issues of liability lawsuits and bank reluctance came into play. A lot of condominiums were being built using this cheap and easy method of construction, but these problems have largely been solved over the intervening years. But again, he said he isn't an expert in this field. He suggested the Board ask the applicant to respond to why he is interested in doing a ULS as opposed to a condominium. Mr. Pontius said he can't speak to this issue directly. The decision was made by the developer, and he was directed to pursue the option. His somewhat limited understanding is that, from the developer's perspective, the target market prefers the fee - simple ownership model to the condominium -association model. Board Member Monroe asked how many condominiums the developer has constructed in the State of Washington over the past 15 years. Mr. Pontius said he has only been in the profession for the past 7 years, so he hasn't done very many. He said he could follow up with his colleagues to see how common they are. His firm typically does apartment buildings that are sometimes condominiumized and sometimes held for rental. This decision is made by the owner later in the process. However, their townhouse developments are usually ULS rather than condominiumized. Vice Chair Crank said she would prefer to delay the Board's recommendation, as she feels that some subject matter expertise is missing in order for her to make a definitive recommendation. On a larger scale, she said she is feeling quite uncomfortable making a recommendation for the whole when the amendment was submitted to address one particular project. She doesn't want to make a blanket recommendation based on one particular project only to find out later that it isn't appropriate for some areas. Board Member Cloutier voiced concern that these questions were not raised at the last meeting, and Board Member Robles answered that they were. Board Member Cloutier said he did a quick search and there are no different rules for construction of condominiums. A condominium is a method of ownership of an apartment, townhouse or other building envelope. The building envelope and how it is subdivided is what determines the rules for construction in the code. Condominium associations can establish their own rules, but that is not the Board's concern. The Board's concern is about the use of land. In this proposal, the use of land would not change in any way except how it is owned. He questioned how changes in how the land is owned would impact the community. Board Member Robles observed that there is a litany of requirements associated with converting apartments to condominiums, including the air tightness, insulation, window quality, door quality, water vapor penetration through the skin of the building, sealants, etc. It is barely feasible, particularly since the new condominium laws were enacted in 2015 to protect the owners. The Planning Board's mandate is to do what is in the best interest of the citizens. The laws are there for a reason, and he isn't entirely sure they have fleshed out the cost and benefit to society in having this one project influence other future projects. While he is not recommending denial at this time, the Board needs some definitive answers to address the concerns. Mr. Chave said the Board could recommend approval of the amendment for must the BD zones, consistent with the applicant's original request. The only reason staff suggested the larger applicability was the desire to avoid piecemeal changes over time. He commented that converting rental units to condominiums is an entirely different issue because it involves a single property owner dividing the building into individual ownerships. With ULS and condominiums situations, there are separate owners for each unit and the building standards do not vary. When converting an older rental building, the Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 202 7.7.d Building Official will look much more carefully at how the building complies with the current building codes. With new construction, developers would have a choice as to the type of ownership they are building for, but the constructions standards would remain the same. Board Member Cheung observed that the proposed amendment would not prohibit condominium development. It would simply open it up to allow townhome development, too. Mr. Clugston said it would allow both fee -simple and condominium ownership. Board Member Cheung questioned the Board's interest in deciding whether one ownership option is better than another. He said he doesn't know how allowing only condominium ownership would benefit the City. Unless he hears that the City has a special interest in only allowing condominiums, he is ready to forward a recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Robles said his concerns are related to building standards. If he was assured that the building standards would be the same for either condominiums or ULS, he would support the proposed amendment. Board Member Cheung noted that staff has indicated that the only change would be related to ownership and all other building standards would apply in either case. Board Member Robles said he wants to make sure that is, in fact, the case. He wants assurance that the proposed amendment would not open the door for a developer to build a lower -quality project than what would be required for a condominium development. Board Member Monroe didn't disagree with the comments provided by Board Members Cloutier and Cheung. However, he felt it would be entirely appropriate for the Board Members to consider the potential consequences. They should acknowledge that condominiums are more difficult to build because they come with strings attached and developers can be held responsible for poor quality. These same requirements would not apply to ULS projects. The amendment would make ULS projects easier to build, and they could presumably have worse quality. Even if the quality were the same, there would be no recompense to sue the developer once they are done. Vice Chair Crank said she is hesitant to make a blanket recommendation based on one particular project. She would feel better about making a recommendation now if the Board had the ability to come to consensus on the original amendment that would apply only in the BD3 zone. Chair Rosen reviewed the Board's potential options as follows: • Continue the hearing to a future date and request more information from staff. • Make a recommendation on the original amendment proposal, which would only apply to the BD3 zone. • Make a recommendation on the broader amendment, as presented in the Staff Report. • Make a recommendation on either the broader amendment or the original amendment, but make it conditional Board Member Cloutier referred to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 64.55 (Multifamily Construction Defect Claims), which applies equally to condominiums, apartments, etc., and simply address how a building is constructed. Again, he said there are no separate laws that only apply to condominiums. In a transfer of ownership, the code name is condominium and the exact same building requirements apply. He said he doesn't see any reason to object to the proposed amendment or postpone a recommendation. He suggested that the Board consider two recommendations. First, they could make a recommendation on the applicant's original proposal, which would only apply to the BD3 zone. Second, the Board could make a recommendation on whether or not the proposed amendment should be applied more broadly, as recommended by staff. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICANT'S ORIGINAL PROPOSAL FIRST, AND THEN CONSIDER ITS BROADER APPLICATION TO OTHER ZONES IN THE CITY AS A SEPARATE DISCUSSION. VICE CHAIR CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Clugston clarified that the applicant's original proposal was to apply the ULS process in all of the BD zones throughout the downtown area. It was not specific to the applicant's property or even just the BD3 zone. Staff s proposal was to expand the amendment to also apply to the OR and FVMU zones. Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 203 7.7.d VICE CHAIR CRANK MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE APPLICANT'S ORIGINAL PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO APPLY THE UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION PROCESS IN ALL OF THE BD ZONING DISTRICTS. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION. Board Member Robles asked why the applicant's proposal was so broad to include all of the BD zones. Mr. Clugston said the applicant requested to change the applicability of the ULS process to add the BD zones. It was not specific to the BD3 zone. Again, staff suggested that the amendment be expanded to include the OR and FVMU zones. Board Member Monroe said he has environmental concerns regarding the proposed amendment, as well as how it might impact the City's housing strategy. He is also concerned about the points raised by Dr. Hogue about its potential impact to commercial development. The Board has an opportunity to postpone its recommendation to allow more time to get it right. Board Member Cloutier again asked how the amendment would change the density allowed, the number of units or housing availability. The only change would be to ownership. The issue to be addressed in the housing strategy is having units that are affordable, and the amendment would not have any impact. He suggested that the Board Members should have raised all of these issues and requested additional information at their earlier discussion in February. It is not acceptable to raise these concerns late in the process because it appears to be throwing up roadblocks as an excuse not to get things done. Once again, Mr. Clugston referred to the map (Attachment 4) and pointed out that the ULS process can be applied in all of the red areas, which is a mixture of RM zones primarily along 212t' Street SW, 76r' Avenue W, 196t1i Street SW and Edmonds Way, as well as the WMU zone in the Westgate area and the CG zones along Highway 99. There haven't been any ULS projects in that WMU zone yet, but there have been some in the RM and CG zones throughout the City. The applicant's request is to add the BD zones, and staff added three parcels zoned OR and the FVMU zone. He concluded that the process is already used in a number of locations, and it is just one more option in the toolbox that developers have. Board Member Robles asked why the amendment was not initiated by staff or the Housing Commission. If it is such a great underlying strategy for the City, it should come from the City staff rather than from a developer. He cautioned that it isn't possible to understand all of the condominium laws based on one Google search. There is more to it than that. Again, he asked why staff didn't propose the amendment. Mr. Clugston said the original application of the ULS process came through a private -developer request in 2016-17, and the Board reviewed and recommended approval of the request to apply the ULS process in the CG, WMU and RM zones. While staff could have proposed an amendment to apply the ULS to additional zones, it wasn't on their radar until it was brought up by a private developer to address his project in the BD3 zone. In both cases, the ULS amendments were proposed by developers. Mr. Chave added that it is also a question of timing. Staff has a lot of code amendment issues on their plate, and it hadn't occurred to them to propose the change. The developer felt it was important enough for their project to submit a development code amendment. Board Member Robles said he supports approving the change for just the project area, but the Board needs to have a broader discussion, as well as more information, before it can be applied to other zones in the City. Board Member Cheung commented that the fact that staff recommended a broader application of the amendment leads him to believe that they think it is a good thing that will allow developers more options. Board Member Monroe asked if staff s intent is to encourage more development in the BD, OR and FVMU zones. Mr. Chave disagreed that the proposed amendment would encourage more development. From staff s perspective, it would provide more housing ownership options, which is a good thing. Staff doesn't believe the only choice for multifamily housing should be apartments or condominiums. It makes sense to allow developers to sell individual units, and it is actually quite common for the townhouse model where units are set up on individual lots. That is basically what the applicant is proposing. In the applicant's case, it would also allow live/work units where the ground floor space is commercial, with residential above. However, each unit would still be owned separately. Chair Rosen recognized that the City is currently undertaking a larger discussion about housing, and the proposed amendment could have potential impacts on that strategy, as well as how the public is engaged in the discussion. CHAIR ROSEN MOVED THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO APPLY TO THE PROJECT AREA ONLY. Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 204 7.7.d Mr. Chave cautioned that the Board could recommend approval of the amendment for the BD3 zone only, but it cannot recommend changing the zoning for an individual property when talking about the overall zoning code. CHAIR ROSEN MOVED THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO APPLY ONLY TO THE BD3 ZONE SPECIFICALLY. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE AMENDMENT. Board Member Cloutier questioned if the Board Members have a clear understanding of exactly which properties in the downtown are zoned BD3. If not, then he cautioned against singling them out for the change. Chair Rosen said his motion to amend was intended to draw a smaller circle around the proposal. THE MOTION TO AMEND FAILED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE. THE MAIN MOTION WAS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF 4-2, WITH CHAIR ROSEN, VICE CHAIR CRANK, AND BOARD MEMBERS CHEUNG AND CLOUTIER VOTING IN FAVOR AND BOARD MEMBERS MONROE AND ROBLES VOTING IN OPPOSITION. Mr. Chave advised that the Board's recommendation will be presented to the City Council for a public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) 17.75, ENTITLED "OUTDOOR DINING," AND A RELATED SECTION IN ECDC 17.70 Mr. Chave reviewed that the City Council adopted Interim Ordinance 4210 on December 15, 2020, partially in response to the limitations placed on dining during the pandemic. For several months, outdoor dining was the only way to accommodate patrons, other than take out. It was noticed that the City's codes pertaining to outdoor dining were extremely restrictive and required a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), which could take two or three months to process. The ordinance clarified the conditions pertaining to outdoor dining and streamlined the process for approving this type of use on a commercial property. Specifically, it eliminated the CUP requirement entirely, but still required that outdoor dining located directly adjacent to residentially -zoned properties must comply with the landscape requirements in the existing code or be screened by a building and/or 4-foot wall, hedge or solid fence. Mr. Chave advised that, previous to the interim ordinance, seating was limited to 10% of the existing interior seating or 12 seats, whichever was greater. This typically equated to just a few tables, and anything beyond that required a CUP. The interim ordinance increased the seating capacity to 50% of the existing interior seating or 30 seats, whichever was greater. In addition, a requirement was added that any dining area adjacent to vehicle parking had to be separated by landscaping, curb stops, wall or other suitable barrier. Although the CUP requirement was eliminated, the interim ordinance clarifies that building and/or fire permits would still be required for some elements associated with outdoor dining such as canopies, electric heaters, etc. He concluded that the proposed amendment would make the interim ordinance permanent. Chair Rosen opened the public hearing. As no one indicated a desire to provide testimony, Chair Rosen closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Chave recalled that, at the Board's last discussion on the proposed amendments, Board Member Pence suggested that some of the provisions in the ordinance could be combined for greater clarity. He observed that ECDC 17.75.010 deals with the land use standards, ECDC 17.75.020 talks about when a building or fire permit would be required, and ECDC 17.75.030 talks about buildings and structures having to comply with the building and fire codes. Perhaps the latter two could be combined, but ECDC 17.75.010 addresses something totally different. Again, he said the way the ordinance is currently constructed is fine, but it might make sense to combine the last two sections. Vice Chair Crank said she would support combining ECDC 17.75.020 and ECDC 17.75.030. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC 17.75, ENTITLED "OUTDOOR DINING," AND A RELATED SECTION IN ECDC 17.70 TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND AMENDED TO COMBINE ECDC 17.75.020 AND ECDC 17.75.030. VICE CHAIR CRANK SECONDED THE Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 205 7.7.e of EDM � O Ins. tg90 Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM April 22, 2021 Edmonds City Council Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Are there differences in construction between condominium - owned buildings and fee -simple -owned buildings like those constructed as part of unit lot subdivision projects? This question came up at the March 24, 2021 Planning Board public hearing on the unit lot subdivision applicability amendment. Some Board members were concerned that condominium projects would be held to a higher building code standard than a fee -simple unit lot subdivision project. The City's Building Official, Leif Bjorback, confirmed that all multifamily development projects, whether ultimately rented or owned as a condominium or fee -simple, are reviewed against either the International Building (IBC) Code or the International Residential Code (IRC). There is a difference in which code applies, however. Party walls for condominiums are constructed to the standards of the IBC while fee -simple party walls like for unit lot projects are typically built to IRC standards, which are more robust than those under the IBC. Packet Pg. 206 I 7.7.f I City of Edmonds Land Use Application ❑ ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW • ' • • ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # ZONE ❑ HOME OCCUPATION DATE REC'D BY ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE RECEIPT # ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING DATE ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ❑ STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ® OTHER: CODE TEXT AMENDMENT • PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD • PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION AMENDMENT APPLIES THROUGHOUT BD ZONES PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) UNIT LOT SUBDIVISIONS IN BD ZONES CODE AMENDMENT PROPERTY OWNER N/A PHONE # N/A ADDRESS N/A E-MAIL N/A FAX # N/A TAX ACCOUNT # N/A SEC. N/A TWP. N/A RNG. N/A DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) AMEND EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 20.75.045.13 TO ALLOW UNIT LOT SUBDIVISIONS IN THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS (BD) ZONES. DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) SEE ATTACHED. APPLICANT JACOB YOUNG PHONE # 206.535.7908 ADDRESS 10 DRAVUS STREET, SEATTLE, WA 98109 E-MAIL JYOUNG@COLLABORATIVECO.COM FAX # N/A CONTACT PERSON/AGENT SAME AS APPLICANT. PHONE # ADDRESS E-MAIL FAX # The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits erewith ubmitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the beh f of the o er as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE 10.15.2020 Property Owner's Authorization I, , certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. Revised on 8122112 B - Land Use Application Page 1 of I Packet Pg. 207 7.7.f CITIZEN DESIGN COLLABORATIVECO.COM DATE October 15, 2020 206.535.7908 TO City of Edmonds Development Services 121 5th Avenue N WE ARE FAMILY Edmonds, WA 98020 DESIGNING INSPIRED SPACE PROJECT Unit Lot Subdivisions in BD Zones Code Amendment TO CREATE COMMUNITY SUMMARY Citizen Design appreciates the opportunity to propose this code text amendment to the Edmonds Community Development Code [ECDCL We believe that the proposal is consistent with the applicable portions of the 2017 Comprehensive Plan and will be in the best interest of the City and its residents. Specifically, the proposal would amend ECDC Section 20.75.045.B to add the Downtown Business [BDl zones in the list of zones in which unit lot subdivisions [ULS1 are allowed. Thiswould a[low zero- lot -line development, such as townhouses, to be subdivided for sale. Under present code, such developments must be held in common, condomiumized or permitted as Planned Residential Developments. If adopted, it is anticipated that the proposed amendment would encourage townhouse development due to the relative ease of selling unit lots versus condominium units. Such development could only take place in zones where it is currently allowed as the proposed amendment is limited to ULS applicability. We trust that this narrative and the attached supporting documents provide sufficient information to review the proposed amendment. If any questions arise, please feel free to contact our office. Humbly Submitted, Citizen Design CRITERION 1: CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed amendment affects properties with several Comprehensive Plan designations. These include Retail Core, Arts Center Corridor, Downtown Mixed Commercial, Downtown Convenience and Downtown Mixed Residential. All of them are located within the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center overlay per the 2017 Comprehensive Plan Map. The 2017 Comprehensive Plan lists several framework goals for Activity Centers. These include pedestrian orientation, mixed uses, community character, and providing balanced redevelopment. [2017 Comprehensive Plan, pp. 43-441 More specifically, the Plan's Goa lA.6 states that the City's objective is to Ipjrovide greater ULS Code Amendment 12020 Packet Pg. 208 7.7.f CITIZEN DESIGN residential opportunities and personal services within the downtown, especially to accommodate the needs of a changing population." [Ibid., p. 461 Similarly, Goal EA specifically calls for "...a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing, commercial and cultural activities." [Ibid., p. 481 In addition to the Activity Centers goals discussed above, the Land Use Element includes several goals specific to residential development. Residential Goal B states, "A broad range of housing types and densities should be encouraged in order that a choice of housing will be available to all Edmonds residents..." [Ibid., p 671 The proposal supports this call for a variety of housing types by allowing townhouse -style construction to be subdivided for sale, thus encouraging townhouse development. When combined with the apartment and single-family residential typologies already present, this contributes to the variety of options available to residents. It is to be noted that the proposed amendment affects only the use of the ULS process. All proposed developments will also need to comply with applicable zoning code in effect. Thus, adoption of the proposed amendment will not permit townhouse construction in areas where it is not currently allowed. Since this is the case, the proposed amendment is expected to have a neutral effect on the compatibility of existing and proposed development. This is in accordance with the 2017 Comprehensive Plan's Housing Goal F, "Provide for a variety of housing types that respects the established character of the community." [Ibid., p. 941 It is also in accordance with the 2017 Comprehensive Plan's Economic Development Goal B, which calls for "...balancing the needs for housing, commerce and employment development with neighborhood character, amenitites and scale.- [Ibid., p. 1121. CRITERION 2: RELEVANCE TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE The proposed amendment is expected to encourage the development of townhouses and their sale to individual owners. This may result in an increase in owner -occupied housing. Such housing is typically well -maintained as the occupants have a clear incentive to do so. The presence of housing more generally in mixed -use districts can also increase public safety via the "eyes on the street" effect. Although the proposed amendment will not allow housing to be constructed in areas where it is not already allowed, it may encourage such development. CRITERION 3: PUBLIC BENEFIT The primary public benefit to the City as a result of adopting the proposed amendment is its encouragement of owner -occupied, townhouse -style housing. This has the potential to further diversify the City's existing housing stock, which is in alignment with several of the City's goals in the 2017 Comprehensive Plan. Under present code, a project which seeks to establish the equivalent of unit Lots is required to follow the Planned Residential Development [PRD1 process. This process is more labor intensive for both the City's Development Services Department and the project proponent, and it is designed to allow the potential for alternative development standards. Not all projects require this flexibility, and allowing the use of the ULS process instead may reduce the burden on the Development Services Department. ULS Code Amendment 12020 Packet Pg. 209 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/27/2021 Council Committee Minutes Staff Lead: Council Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A. For information only. Narrative The Council committee meeting minutes are attached. Attachments: PPW041321 PSPP041321 FC041321 Packet Pg. 210 8.1.a PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING April 13, 2021 Elected Officials Participating Virtually Councilmember Laura Johnson Councilmember Luke Distelhorst CALL TO ORDER Staff Participating Virtually Phil Williams, Public Works Director Rob English, City Engineer Angie Feser, Parks, Rec. & Cultural Serv. Dir. Shannon Burley, Dep. Parks, Rec. & Cultural Serv. Scott Passey, City Clerk The Edmonds City Council virtual online PPW Committee meeting was called to order at 4 p.m. by Councilmember Distelhorst. 2. COMMITTEE BUSINESS Presentation of a Settlement Agreement for Dayton Street Pump Station Project Mr. English explained the bulk of construction work was completed in early 2020. During pump startup and testing, it was determined the three pumps provided by the contractor (Grundfos) were drawing more electricity than specified by the construction contract. Grundfos offered to design new motors that would draw the electricity specified in the contract specifications. The settlement agreement will, 1) provide three pump motors (two installed and one backup) at no cost, installation and testing, and 2) pay the cost of additional power associated with the pumps currently in operation. Staff has negotiated the attached draft settlement agreement with the pump manufacturer (with approval of the contractor); the City Attorney is working to finalize the agreement. Once complete, staff recommends placing the agreement on the Consent Agenda for approval. Mr. English responded to questions regarding other associated costs (none). Action: Future Consent Agenda once the settlement agreement is finalized. 2. Civic Park - Project Construction Contracts Ms. Feser advised no action is required, this is an update in preparation for the construction project. Presentations to full Council and consideration of several contracts are scheduled at the April 20t" and 2711 meetings. She reviewed: • Project background 0 2016 - 8 acres acquired 0 2017 — Master Plan adopted with assistance of Walker Macy 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 • Project design highlights o Hazel Miller Meadows o Promenade o Lawn/athletic fields o Perimeter Path 1/3 mile (alt #2 — rubber surface) Packet Pg. 211 8.1.a 04/13/21 PPW Committee Minutes, Page 2 o Sports courts with multi -purpose use o Field House/Boys & Girls Club o Above ground skatepark o Scramble wall (Alt #3) o Water feature (Alt #1) o Shade pavilion o Restroom and storage o Petanque grove o Inclusive playground supported by Rotary commitment of $250,000 Project funding sources for construction Grants $=3,470,000 General Fund $1,853,000* Bonds $3,700,000 Donations $400,000** REET 2 (Fund 125) $1,305,092 REET 2 (Fund 126 $71,816 Park Impact Fees $1,352,620 Total $12,152,428 *Currently $2M allocated from General Fund as authorized by City Council, but only the $1.85M was needed to cover expenses in this initial budget amendment **Edmonds Rotary has committed to contributing $250,000 and another $55,000 provided by the City's bench/picnic table donor program Grants State of Washington/RCO $1,350,000 Snohomish County Conservation Futures $ 450,000 Hazel Miller Foundation $1,500,000 Verdant $ 170,000 Total $3,470,000 Contracts requiring Council authorization 1. Project construction Base bid, Alternates (4) #1 -Water feature #2 - Rubber track surface #3 - Scramble wall #4 - Tree grates Bids opened April 8th, 7 bids received, staff still processing 2. Construction Inspection (KBA) 3. Construction Administration Consultant (Walker Macy) Other project expenditures for construction 1. Construction o Owner provided RR, furnishings o Management Reserve (12%) o Sales tax (10%) 2. Construction Support o Testing & inhouse engineering 3. Construction Preparation o Permits o Inhouse engineering related to permitting 4. Stormwater mitigation (Yost Park) $Unknown $613,251 $ 97,473 5. Public Art (1 %) Next steps o Finalizing construction services contract o Identifying any necessary additional funding sources o Presentation to full Council April 20th and 27th for consideration of authorization Packet Pg. 212 8.1.a 04/13/21 PPW Committee Minutes, Page 3 Questions and discussion followed regarding including the bids and additional costs in the April 201h meeting packet, base bid versus the four alternatives, bids submitted in 2020 versus 2021, asphalt track treatment if the rubber surface is not funded, ability to upgrade the track to rubber in the future, and interactive water feature. Action: Presentation to full Council April 20th and 27th 3. Edmonds Marsh Right of Entry Agreement Ms. Feser explained the City owned Edmond Marsh property is adjacent to Port property and portions of the paved pedestrian path, boardwalk and landscaping on Port property are maintained by the City. Permission from the Port is necessary for the City to access those areas. She responded to questions regarding maintenance provided by the City and work done by the City in the past under a previous right of entry agreement. Action: April 20th Consent Agenda 4. Presentation of a Local Agency Professional Services Agreement with CM Design Group, LLC for the 76th Ave Overlay Project Mr. English recalled earlier this year the Council approved an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lynwood for this project, a 2" grind and overlay and updated pedestrian curb ramps on 76th Ave between 196th and Olympic View Drive . Edmonds secured a federal grant in 2018 to fund a significant amount of the Edmonds portion of the project. The City published an RFQ in accordance with the City's Purchasing Policy to design the project, three firms responded and the selection committee chose CM Design Group. A contract fee of $150,529 was negotiated which included a 10% management reserve ($13,684). However, this federal contract does not allow a management reserve so it will be removed, reducing the contract fee amount to $136,844. The cost of this project is shared with Lynnwood; Edmonds' portion is $88,523 and Lynnwood will pay the difference. One of the reasons Edmonds' portion is larger is 10 of the 14 ramps are on the Edmonds side. The ramps require additional design effort and federal documentation related to the grant. Edmonds' cost will be paid by the grant and a local match funded with REET. Questions and discussion followed regarding appreciation for upgrading the ADA facilities, there being no requirement for Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) firms, DBE firms that will be involved in the project, changing the channelization, and benefits of combining the project with Lynnwood. Staff was asked to follow up with Councilmember Distelhorst regarding DBE firms. Action: April 201h Consent Agenda 5. Presentation of a 10-ft Dedication for 70th Ave W right-of-way adjacent to 15809 70th Ave W Mr. English explained a proposed 3 lot subdivision was submitted on 70th Avenue (two new homes and retention of existing home). Per the official street map, 70th requires a 10-foot street dedication on the east side adjacent to proposed development. Staff was asked to provide committee members the date the application was submitted. Action: April 201h Consent Agenda 6. Presentation of a Pedestrian Easement at 8609 244th St. SW Packet Pg. 213 8.1.a 04/13/21 PPW Committee Minutes, Page 4 Mr. English advised this multi -family project on 244' includes 3 multi -family structures that provide 11 unit lots. The frontage improvements required a 7-foot sidewalk as well as an additional 0.5 foot pedestrian easement across the property width to provide clearance around the mailbox. Action: April 20th Consent Agenda 7. Project Update on Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project Mr. Williams reviewed: • Project overview map 0 100th Ave W to 244th St SW/205th St SW to Walnut o Bowdoin Way from 9th Ave S to 84th Ave W o 80' Ave W from 228th St SW to 220th St SW • Project summary o Citywide project to add bike facilities on both sides of street o Funded by $1.85M Sound Transit Access grant o Adds over 6 miles of bike facilities Efforts to date: 0 2009-2019 Citywide Bike Plan/TIP/Sound Transit Grant Pursuit o July 2020 Public hearing with City Council o August 2020 City Council approved accepting funds o Oct/Nov 2020 Blueline selected to assist City with outreach and design o Nov/Dec 2020 Survey, parking study, traffic analysis completed o Dec 2020 Listening sessions held with the community o Jan 2021 Preliminary design alternatives submitted to City for review o Feb 2021 Public outreach — website, survey, Zoom meeting o April 2021 Project update to Council Alternatives for Bowdoin/Walnut St (from Five Corners to 9th Ave S) o Alternative 1 ■ Removes all parking ■ Bike lane in each direction o Alternative 2 ■ Parking on north side ■ Westbound sharrow ■ Bike lane on east side ■ 11' travel lane does not provide enough space for cars to safely pass bikes that are using the shared lane o Alternative 3 ■ Parking on north side ■ Provides only a single eastbound bike lane ■ Cars and bike users would share a westbound lane requiring cars to pass bikes if necessary o Alternative 4 (new and recommended) ■ Parking provided on north side of street ■ Bike lane in each direction ■ Car travel lane widths are reduced ■ This alterative developed after the public meeting Questions and discussion included a preference for bike lanes and a suggestion not to lead with an alternative that eliminates parking and/ or reference the no parking alternate but not present it. • Alternatives for 9th Ave S/100th Ave W (from Walnut to SR 104) o Alternative 1 ■ Removes all parking Packet Pg. 214 8.1.a 04/13/21 PPW Committee Minutes, ■ Bike lane in each direction o Alternative 2A (recommended) ■ Bike lanes in both direction with 2'buffers ■ Parking on west side ■ 11'foot travel lanes o Alternative 2B ■ Parking on east side ■ Bike in each direction o Alternative 3 ■ Parking on west side ■ Bike lanes in both directions ■ 4' buffer on east side with no parking ■ Larger bike lane on west side Questions and discussion followed regarding adding pedestrian crossings and support for the 2' buffer on both sides in Alternative 2A. Recommended configuration 100th Ave W & 220th St SW Intersection o Configuration minimizes lane offset that is currently present o Northeast corner of the intersection will be widened in order to provide bike lanes through the intersection along the curb o Northbound right turn lane has been removed; however, free right turn movements are not currently allowed at the intersection Alternatives for SR 104 & 1001h Ave W Intersection o Alternative 1 ■ Bike lanes in each direction ■ One through lane in each direction o Alternative 2 ■ One bike lane northbound and sharrow lane with bike ramps southbound ■ Two through lanes in each direction ■ This configuration narrows the lane width from 13' to 11' to provide two through lanes o Alternative 3 ■ Sharrows through intersection and bike on/off ramps to the sidewalk for shared walkway ■ This configuration is expected that curb lane adjustments will need to be made to provide enough room on sidewalks to allow peds and bicycles Committee requested staff provide the PowerPoint. Action: Presentation to full Council for action on April 27th 8. Report on Construction Bids for the Phase 8 Sewerline Replacement Project Mr. Williams relayed the bid is fully qualified under the engineer's estimate. He responded to a question regarding cost differences between the bidders on Schedules A, B and C. Action: April 201h Consent Agenda 3. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 5:04 p.m. Packet Pg. 215 8.1.b PUBLIC SAFETY, PERSONNEL & PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING April 13, 2021 Elected Officials Participating Virtually Councilmember Kristiana Johnson (Chair) Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas 1. CALL TO ORDER Staff Participating Virtually Phil Williams, Public Works Director Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director Shane Hope, Development Services Director Angie Feser, Parks, Recreation & Cult. Serv. Dir. Michelle Bennett, Police Chief Shannon Burley, Dep. Parks, Rec. & Cultural Serv. Dir. Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Leif Bjorback, Building Inspector Emily Wagener, Human Resources Analyst Scott Passey, City Clerk The Edmonds City Council virtual online PSPP Committee meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m. by Councilmember Fraley-Monillas. 2. COMMITTEE BUSINESS 1. Interlocal Agreement with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) Ms. Hope explained HASCO currently owns and operates three properties in Edmonds. The Interlocal Agreement would allow HASCO the ability to provide additional housing in Edmonds should the opportunity arise and having an ILA in place would allow them to move forward more quickly with any such opportunity. The Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission recommended the City enter into an ILA with HASCO. Councilmembers Distelhorst and Councilmember Olson, who served as liaisons on the Housing Commission, assembled information for this agenda item. Ms. Hope reviewed: • 3 HASCO sites in Edmonds • What the draft ILA does not do o There are no preferences, incentives, or concessions o No code, zoning or density changes o Does not guarantee more HASCO properties o No City financing for possible properties as part of this ILA • What is included in the draft ILA o Establishes HASCO as the City's official housing authority o Allows HASCO to operate within geographic limits of the City, like any other property owner o Creates partnerships for ■ Research on housing statistics relevant to the City and Snohomish County, as well as information on best practices in affordable housing ■ Coordination on possible regional partnerships with neighboring jurisdictions, non-profit organizations, or other groups as the parties deem appropriate ■ Regular communications between appropriate HASCO and City staff to provide information on existing housing programs available to City residents Recommendations from recent studies focused on housing development o Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission — January 2021 o Snohomish County Housing Affordability Regional Task Force (HART) — January 2020 Packet Pg. 216 04/13/21 PSPP Committee Minutes, Page 2 o Edmonds Housing Needs Study — December 2018 Conclusions o Edmonds remains a highly challenging jurisdiction as real estate prices are extremely high o Edmonds-HASCO partnership could focus on collaboration with existing resources and regional partnerships with other organizations or neighboring cities o Creates opportunity to explore long-term solutions Action: Presentation to Council on April 27t" with action 2. Code Amendment to Restore Planning Board Appointment Schedule Ms. Hope explained over the years some Planning Board appointments have gotten out of synch with the original schedule established in the code in the 1980s. Mr. Taraday explained the packet contains an ordinance with redlined changes. Since the packet was prepared, significant information was brought to his attention that changed his interpretation of the ordinance. The scenario originally created in the code contemplated two positions would rotate off the board every year. Over the years, terms have gotten off that schedule and the proposal is to return to that schedule. His approach was not to have term exceed four years. In addition to term length, other minor revisions were made to replace outdated language. Questions and discussion followed regarding the original intent to have two positions rotate off per year versus this proposal which has four terms ending in 2022, how the terms got off track, changing the roster and not the ordinance and allowing positions to self -correct, scenario where positions would have 5-year terms, intent of the ordinance to return to 4-year terms with 2 positions rotating off every year, past practice of having the alternate fill the vacant position for the remainder of the unexpired term, concern no changes to the ordinance were necessary, and the date that terms expire. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested Councilmember K. Johnson confer with Mr. Taraday Discussion regarding this agenda item continued following the conclusion of Agenda Item 6. Action: Presentation to full Council on April 20t" 3. New Building Division Job Description Mr. Bjorback explained this is a request to approve the creation of a new job description for a non - represented Permitting Supervisor. A supervisory position is needed due to increased procedural and technological demands on permit staffing. Staff worked with Ms. Neill-Hoyson on the new job description. Any increase in salary will be offset by continued high levels of revenue from building permits. He responded to questions regarding this being as an internal promotional opportunity, and staff that the position will supervise. Councilmember K. Johnson requested a copy of the department organizational chart. Action: Consent Agenda with organizational chart 4. Renewal of Interlocal Agreement with Edmonds School District for Issuance of Keys to Access School Buildings in Emergencies Chief Bennett relayed this is the renewal of an ILA for issuance of keys to officers for Edmonds School District buildings in case of an emergency and outlines how officers can use the keys. She responded to a question regarding the policy defining when officers can enter school district buildings. Action: Consent Agenda Packet Pg. 217 8.1.b 04/13/21 PSPP Committee Minutes, Page 3 5. Human Services Program Manager Job Description Revision Ms. Feser relayed effective April 1, 2021 the Human Services Division was relocated to the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department and the Human Services Program Manager now reports to the Director of that department. The proposed revision to the job description reflects the change in staff reporting. Questions and discussion followed regarding the Mayor's decision to relocate the Human Services Division, employees who will be relocated to the Frances Anderson Center, potential facility improvements to accommodate staff at the Frances Anderson Center, and advice from legal counsel to have any changes to job descriptions approved by Council Action: Consent Agenda 6. PFML Policy Changes Ms. Wagener explained the City developed a Paid Family & Medical Leave (PFML) policy in response to the State's voter approved PFML Program. The City's policy allows employees to supplement their PFML payments with their available paid leave as long as the combined total of payments does not to exceed 100% of the employee's gross wages. After one year of administering this program, it was discovered this 100% maximum negatively impacts part time and lower wage employees due to how PFML calculates leave payments. The effect is that part time and lower wage employees subject to the 100% maximum do not receive enough in supplemental payments to continue to pay their benefit premiums while on leave. Staff requests revising the current PFML policy to allow supplementation for a combined payment maximum of 150% for those who are not able to cover their benefit payments while on leave at the 100% maximum. Action: Presentation to full Council. Discussion continued regarding the Code Amendment to Restore Planning Board Appointment Schedule (Agenda Item 2.2) related to allowing five year terms, allowing terms to self -correct by doing nothing, language in the code that terms are limited to 4 years, concern doing nothing ignores the 4- year term limit in the code, requirement for some type of legislative action to address the issue, ability for Planning Board members to serve more than one term following reappointment, and how appointments are made. 3. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 5:52 p.m Packet Pg. 218 8.1.c FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING April 13, 2021 Elected Officials Participating Virtually Staff Participating Virtually Councilmember Vivian Olson Dave Turley, Finance Director Councilmember Diane Buckshnis Angie Feser, Parks, Rec. & Cultural Serv. Dir. Phil Williams, Public Works Director Shannon Burley, Dep. Parks, Rec. & Cult. Serv. Dir. Scott Passey, City Clerk 1. CALL TO ORDER The Edmonds City Council virtual online Finance Committee meeting was called to order at 6 p.m. by Councilmember Buckshnis. 2. COMMITTEE BUSINESS 1. Civic Park - Proiect Construction Contracts Ms. Feser provided a project update in preparation for the construction project: • Project background 0 2016 - 8 acres acquired 0 2017 - Master Plan adopted with assistance of Walker Macy 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 • Project design highlights o Hazel Miller Meadows o Promenade o Lawn/athletic fields o Perimeter Path 1/3 mile (alt #2 — rubber surface) o Sports courts with multi -purpose use o Field House/Boys & Girls Club o Above ground skatepark o Scramble wall (Alt #3) o Water feature (Alt #1) o Shade pavilion o Restroom and storage o Petanque grove o Inclusive playground supported by Rotary commitment of $250,000 • Project funding sources for construction Grants $ 3,470,000 General Fund $1,853,000* Bonds $3,700,000 Donations $400,000** REET 2 (Fund 125) $1,305,092 REET 2 (Fund 126 $71,816 Park Impact Fees $1,352,620 Total $12,152,428 *Currently $2M allocated from General Fund as authorized by City Council, but only $1.85M was needed to cover expenses in this initial budget amendment N M 0 U U_ c as U a Packet Pg. 219 8.1.c 04/13/21 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 2 **Edmonds Rotary has committed to contributing $250,000 and another $55,000 provided by the City's bench/picnic table donor program Grants State of Washington/RCO $1,350,000 Snohomish County Conservation Futures $ 450,000 Hazel Miller Foundation $1,500,000 Verdant $ 170.000 Total $3,470,000 • Contracts requiring Council authorization 1. Project construction $Unknown Base bid, Alternates (4) #1 -Water feature #2 - Rubber track surface #3 - Scramble wall #4 - Tree grates Bids opened April 8'h, 7 bids received, staff still processing 2. Construction Inspection (KBA) $613,251 3. Construction Administration Consultant (Walker Macy) $ 97,473 • Other project expenditures for construction 1. Construction o Owner provided RR, furnishings o Management Reserve (12%) o Sales tax (10%) r 2. Construction Support E o Testing & inhouse engineering 0 3. Construction Preparation — o Permits c o Inhouse engineering related to permitting 0 4. Stormwater mitigation (Yost Park) -- 5. Public Art (1 %) N • Next steps o Finalizing construction services contract v o Identifying any necessary additional funding sources U_ o Presentation to full Council April 20'h and 27'h for consideration of authorization a� E Questions and discussion followed regarding other construction costs reflected in the $12M construction cost, funding source options, potentially scheduling a special Finance Committee meeting, discussion during the design process about peat and water on the site, soil testing to a determine peat levels, and whether another bond will be required. Action: Presentation to full Council April 201" and 27'" 2. February 2021 Monthly Financial Report Mr. Turley reviewed: • Finance highlights: o Finance Department busy with final closing entries for 2020 and preparing annual report. Overall, close is going well. o Annual audit is scheduled to begin May 3, finished by June 30 o Last year the audit began May 18, slightly late start due to COVID-19 o Will no longer be called Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Have not determined new name. o City website has a brand-new look and feel o Through February, revenues and expenses all appear reasonable o Financially — sales tax and REET revenues continue to come in strong Packet Pg. 220 04/13/21 Finance Committee Minutes, 8.1.c e3 In response to questions submitted o Graph of total sales tax collections by year 2015-2020 ■ 2015 $6,741,838 ■ 2016 $6,824,467 ■ 2017 $7,395,113 ■ 2018 $8,406,297 ■ 2019 $8,452,715 ■ 2020 $8,317,046 ■ 2021 Anticipate $8.5-8.6M o Sales tax by category 2016-2020 o Graph of BID dues receipts by month (Jan 2019-March 2021) o Bid Dues Receipts by Year 2014-2020 ■ 2014 $82,301 ■ 2015 75,874 ■ 2016 77,353 ■ 2017 84,253 ■ 2018 89,567 ■ 2019 86,026 ■ 2020 67,611 o Overtime in Public Works due to snow and rain events end of December and in January Questions and discussion followed regarding what is included in miscellaneous retail, adding a 2019 column in the report, decreasing telephone utility tax, election candidate filing fee, Sno-Isle Library payment for custodial, water utility construction, fuel consumed at the WWTP, repair and maintenance in Finance, and Parks salaries. Action: Consent Agenda 3. April Budget Amendment Mr. Turley reviewed April budget amendments M • Parks planning support services c • Edmonds Marsh planning services • Public Works purchase of mini excavator • Utility Fund Reserve Policies and Utility Expansion Fee Update • Increase to salaries/benefits from new Teamsters and AFSCME labor contracts • Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Q Questions and discussion followed regarding the need to complete the PROS Plan update to be eligible for RCO grants, concern administration of the Human Services Program is impacting costs in the Parks Department, whether Human Services administration could be paid from funds allocated to Human Services, deferred small capital projects, and parks maintenance levels during COVID. Action: Presentation to full Council. 4. PFD Financial Presentation Committee members requested a special Finance Committee meeting be scheduled with the PFD. Action: Schedule special meeting. 3. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 6:59 p.m. Packet Pg. 221 8.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/27/2021 Outside Boards and Committees Reports Staff Lead: Council Department: City Council Preparer: Maureen Judge Background/History Outside Boards and Committee Reports will be added to the end of the Council meeting packet for the last meeting of the month. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The Council is asked to review the attached committee reports/minutes from Councilmembers Buckshnis and Fraley-Monillas. Attachments: EPFD Minutes 02-25-2021 Proposed_Mar_26_2021_PSSRC Draft Retreat Agenda Lake Ballinger Watershed Forum Minutes Jan21 EPFD Minutes 03-25-21 Packet Pg. 222 8.2.a Edmonds Public Facilities District Board of Directors Virtual Online Meeting February 25, 2021 The Edmonds Public Facilities District Board virtual meeting convened at 7:31 a.m. via Zoom. EPFD Board Members Present ECA Staff Present David Brewster, President Joseph Mclalwain, Executive Director Ray Liaw, Vice President Matt Keller, Director of Operations Bill Willcock Greg Hinton Other Guests Present Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, City Council Liaison EPFD Board Members Absent Suzy Maloney 1. Call to Order ECA Board Members Present David Schaefer, Vice President Board President Brewster called the meeting to order. 2. Land Acknowledgement Board VP Liaw read the Land Acknowledgement statement. 3. Board President's Comments Board President wished ECA Board Member Andy Cline, who was hospitalized after a fall at his jewelry store, a speedy recovery. 4. Consent Agenda • EPFD Board Meeting Minutes — 1-28-2020 • EPFD Disbursement Report — December 2020 • EPFD Disbursement Report — January 2020 The spelling of Jim Kristian name was corrected in the 1-28-2020 minutes. Board President Brewster reported the disbursement reports were approved by the Admin & Finance Committee. BOARD VP LIAW MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. BOARD MEMBER WILLCOCK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. Old Business • Prior Action Items Review Mr. Keller reviewed progress on action items from the previous meeting and identified outstanding items (see Action Items below). With regard to providing an estimate of revenue potential for new Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes February 28, 2021 Page 1 Packet Pg. 223 8.2.a streaming equipment, Mr. Mclalwain reported TJ Loehman prepared an analysis of the cost of using the equipment which can be used in preparing presentation budgets as well as passing those costs on to rental clients. He will provide updated numbers to several committees who are working on that. 6. PFD Board Business 2021 Operating Budget — Q1 Modification Update Mr. Keller provided an update on the process, relaying he is working with department directors to gather information on additional expenses and revenues. He anticipated presenting a first draft at the Board's March meeting. 7. Finance, Facilities & Operations • Finance Report — January 2020 DRAFT Mr. Keller reviewed the Statement of Revenue, Expenses and Changes in Net Position (Income Statement, highlighting the contribution received from the City; rental activity in the gym by sports groups, the church and the school; payroll slightly higher due to a greater level of activity expected in February and anticipated matching revenue; and tax revenues performing above expectations. Cash Management — Jan -June 2021 — Tool Presentation Mr. Keller reviewed the EPFD/ECA Monthly Cash Flow Projections for 2021 (tracking cash and expenses by month and YTD total), a tool developed at the Admin & Finance Committee. He highlighted total revenue receipts, expenses, net increase cash, non -operating revenue (sales tax revenue and debt service payments) and total operating and debt service cash. The report anticipates a return to operations in September and shows expenses related to presentations and a list of potential initiatives to eliminate negative cash position. Discussion followed regarding the conservative, middle of road approach to estimates; greater than expected January revenue; estimates in the report related to Center Stage/spring fundraising event and the Gala; potential 2021 special donor pandemic contribution; and potential initiatives to address an anticipated $170,000 shortfall. • SBA Opportunities: Shuttered Venue Operating Grant Update Mr. Keller relayed he has been provided preliminary guidance and checklists for the application and is working to gather that information. The portal to apply has not yet opened; he is monitoring it daily. An SBA representative assured that the PFD/ECA qualified for this grant as a government entity and primary operator of the venue, unlike the PPP program. This grant would allow a request up to 45% of lost earned revenue comparing 2020 to 2019 (not including contributions). • Streaming Equipment Update Mr. Keller reported the final critical components were received by Morgan Sound and installation is scheduled on March 15 with testing that week. Discussion followed regarding ECA technical staff assisting with installation and training of other ECA staff. 8. Executive Report / Steering Committee Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes February 28, 2021 Page 2 Packet Pg. 224 8.2.a • Long Term Vision and Planning Mr. Mclalwain reported the Steering Committee has had two meetings to review the draft vision originally created by David Schaefer and Mike Rosen. The committee is wordsmithing, asking questions, getting to a place of clarity regarding the future and what the north start looks like. He thanked Board President Brewster and others for recent work to update the existing mission, vision and values. Board President Brewster relayed the committee takes this effort seriously and has spent 2-3 meetings on it. He thanked David Schaefer for accommodating this effort in the Steering Committee's regular work. The committee is getting close to bringing to the boards a vision concept that will drive the business and take the ECA into the future on solid footing. 9. Marketing & Business Development • CRM Migration, New System (Audience View) Mr. Mclalwain reported CRM migration is underway; he recognized Jim Kristian, who worked hard with Vendini in the past to improve reporting mechanisms and is working on the switch to Audience View, learning the system and training staff. He reported on ticket sales via Audience View, updating the seating chart due to renovation of the theater, reporting provided by Audience View, flexibility to explore dynamic pricing, and Audience Views' marketing tools. Data from the old fundraising system has not yet been migrated to Audience View; it will be exciting to have the ability to see and manage a patron's full history in one system. He summarized migration requires patience, and it was fortunate this could be done during a slower period, providing an opportunity to work out the kinks. Discussion followed regarding completing migration by reopening, anticipation the kinks in the system will be worked out by early May, plans to migrate donor data after the May fundraising event, plans to begin promoting the 21/22 season in spring/summer, timeframe for having the system operational for marketing, perfecting the ability to sell tickets first, and Audience View assisting with transforming ticket buyers to package purchaser to donors. 10. Programming • Programming Taskforce Mr. Mclalwain reported the team met recently to discuss the great work being done in committees and task forces as a result of the 2020 retreat to identify ways to generate new revenue in early 2021 until the ECA can reopen safely, securely and in a better financial position. That led to conversations in committees regarding fundraising, ticket sales, and new activities in 2021 before audiences return to the venue for live events. He proposed to the team the idea of developing a single theme, tagline, brand, a way to tell a story that encompasses the May event, summertime events and then pivoting to the Gala in September to celebrate the end of those activities and the reemergence of the 21 /22 season. Mr. Mclalwain was hopeful this could include a revival of the seat naming campaign. Only about 10% of the seats were sold in a past effort to sell the naming rights for the auditorium seats. A new campaign could encourage people to put their own name, a quote, a family member's name, a beloved artist, a local hero during the pandemic, etc. on a seat. At $1,000 each, the seat campaign has the potential to generate a great deal. Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes February 28, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 225 8.2.a Board President Brewster reported on July/August events that will include live performances on the lawn, virtual only performances, and a combination of live and virtual speaking engagements. After considering up 50 ideas, the Programming Taskforce narrowed them to these. The Marketing & Business Development Committee focused its meeting on an umbrella vision for this new programming that encompasses regular summer programming, the seat campaign and other efforts to announce the ECA's reemergence in the fall. 11. Hosting Mr. Mclalwain reported the Board Governance Committee is working on committee development. He hoped to expand the Hosting Committee due to several people expressed interest in a recent survey. Board VP Liaw looked forward to bringing the energy from Programming, Marketing & Business Development and Philosophy Committees to the Hosting Committee. 12. Philanthro • Current Grant Requests Mr. Mclalwain reported staff is working on several important grant requests; he recognized Christina Kourteva for her efforts. He announced the Hazel Miller Foundation had approved a $50,000 request and may invite the ECA to submit a special grant request for $10,000 directed at dementia inclusion work which could include Window to the Arts. • Spring Event (Center Stage Replacement) Mr. Mclalwain commented the organization entered 2021 unsure whether there would be a May event. The Philanthropy Committee is focused on a single event/story that is not Center Stage but in a similar timeframe, great energy and a kickoff. The committee has not begun planning as they are awaiting a theme. The event is envisioned as a 45-60 minute online experience, with live broadcasts from the stage, prerecording testimonials/performances and a story to make it exciting and engaging. Discussion followed regarding efforts to drive philanthropy via individual doors, other fundraising campaigns, bandwidth of two development staff working half-time, energy/effort to cultivate relationships with current donors, and the options of reaching out to individual donors instead of an event. 13. Inclusion & Accessibility, Education & Outreach Development of Equity Statement — Process, Timeline Mr. Brewster reported a task force within Inclusion & Accessibility, led by Diana White and Liz Dawson, is focused on producing an equity statement. • Equity Training: Next Steps Mr. Mclalwain reported following staff equity training, Michelle Osborne and he discussed the transformation of the organization, the way it does business and interacts with the community, how to ensure everyone who walks in the door feels welcome and ownership, the progression of the training process and policy development, how to transform the way the organization hires and retain employees, the next evolution of the land acknowledgement, access for people with disabilities, etc. Ms. Osborne suggested determining what the organization wants to accomplish Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes February 28, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 226 8.2.a over the next several years and send her an RFP and she will respond with ideas for pacing and engaging in a variety of activities/training to ensure it there is a well thought out, holistic approach. Ms. Osborne also mentioned as cisgender white male in his position, he needs to recognize due to his own privilege and position that he may not see or respond to things that need to be done. She recommended considering a mentor on retainer to coach him to be a better manager of his team. Discussion followed regarding support for the RFP that Ms. Osborne suggested and mentor for Mr. Mclalwain, importance of equity training, and potential grants to fund equity training. 14. New Business At Board VP Liaw's request, it was agreed to schedule on the March agenda an update/overview regarding the strategy for refinancing bonds, fresher on government financing, outstanding loans/bonds, questions that have been asked of the financial consultant, options for proceeding, timeline, history and opportunities. 15. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 8:49 a.m. Next EPFD Board Meeting: Thursday, March 25, 2021 - 7:30 AM ACTION ITEMS: 1. Correct the spelling of Jim Kristian in 1-28-2021 minutes (page 4, Item 9) 2. Provide EPFD Board an update on the 5-year financial plan (carried forward from previous months' action items) 3. Schedule on March agenda update/overview regarding strategy for refinancing bonds, fresher on government financing, outstanding loans/bonds, questions that have been asked of financial consultant, options for proceeding, timeline, history and opportunities. 4. Present first draft 2021 Operating Budget — Q1 Modification at Board's March meeting. Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes February 28, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 227 8.2.b Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council Retreat March 26, 2021 / 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM / Virtual Meeting via Zoom https://zoom. us/e/91398731931?Pwd=d Et6SOF0 RVBzW n ITM Epta E5zQkJ DUT09 +1 253 215 8782 Meeting ID: 913 9873 1931 Passcode: 332796 DRAFT AGENDA Retreat Purposes: • Reach agreement on investment strategy • Discuss role of salmon populations in the effort • Affirm values we've embraced following Shared Strategy (e.g., no watershed left behind/the WA way, harvestable levels of salmon, tribal treaty rights, maintaining community -based framework and engagement, move process forward in a way that attracts more resources) • Recommendation for SRC members to take back to their watersheds and approve at next meeting Desired Retreat Outcomes: • Unified SRC position on a strategic approach to recovery through an investment strategy. Why are we doing what we're doing, is it making a difference, and is there another way of going about this to get to recovery? • Come to a consensus that we are doing the right things in the right places for salmon recovery, and if we're not, how do we shift? • A renewed confidence that our work in the watersheds is going to the best places and is the most effective based on the SRC's investment strategy. TOPIC• AD NOTES 1 9:00 AM OPENING, CHAIR David REMARKS, Troutt INTRODUCTIONS, INTENT OF RETREAT 2 9:15 AM SRC EXECUTIVE Chance for SRC EC COMMITTEE PANEL members to share their perspectives on the retreat outcomes and any new investment ideas. 3 9:45 AM WATERSHED ROUND Bill Blake One slide and 7min per ROBIN watershed (5min for Page 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 228 8.2.b • Are you doing the right projects for salmon recovery in the right places? What is the biggest challenge(s) in bringing forth priority projects for funding in your LE? • If applicable, tell us about a high priority project that got away or couldn't get done and why it couldn't be completed. presentation, 2min for questions) Chance for LEs to respond to the SSAG's comment that we might not be doing the right projects in the right places. SRC members should think about how the SRC can help address the challenges shared. 11:15 AM Break 4 11:30 AM BREAK-OUT GROUPS — Facilitators All ideas are valued and DISCUSSION AND include noted and starred using RANKING OF VALUES TO members the annotation tool BE IMPLEMENTED of the ER according to THROUGH AN preference. INVESTMENT STRATEGY and • Proposed Strategy 1: Boards Note that these Flip the PSAR Teams strategies can be allocation so that the combined (i.e., not first $30M goes mutually exclusive). towards capacity and the Large Cap list. Think about the Anything over $30M implications around would go towards the how these strategies PSAR regular round would work in practice. projects. • Proposed Strategy 2: Narrow the focus of our PSAR Large Cap RFP to focus in on a specific priority rather than a general "regionally significant project" criteria (e.g., specific populations that are limiting harvest, protection rather than restoration projects, populations that are doing well and also not doing well/both ends of the tail). Page 2 of 3 0 a m m m E 0 U c L R 0 m aD O c m a� Q r cc a� L a� Q: cc L r a Packet Pg. 229 8.2.b • Proposed Strategy 3: A new allocation formula, which may include staggering distributions or a portion of distributions temporally to be able to provide a watershed certainty a larger pot of money would be available during their funding period to complete larger scale expensive projects. • Proposed Strategy 4: Over time, assess and ground -truth all elements of the allocation formula • Proposed Strategy 5: Affirmative selection of status quo • Other proposals from SRC members? 12:4S PM LUNCH BREAK S 1:15 PM REPORT -OUT FROM PSP Break-out group leads BREAK-OUT GROUPS facilitators report out to full group. • Discussion of future investment strategy to implement results of break-out groups — idea harvesting 6 2:15 PM DISCUSSION ON FUTURE David Reach agreement on INVESTMENT STRATEGY Troutt approach(es) to a future investment strategy (either status quo or something else) and discuss implementation. 7 3:45 PM WRAP-UP AND NEXT David STEPS Troutt 8 4:00 PM CONCLUDE WITH A GIANT VIRTUAL HUG! Page 3 of 3 r a Packet Pg. 230 8.2.c LAKE BALLINGER/MCALEER CREEK WATERSHED FORUM MINUTES City of Mountlake Terrace Remote Meeting Via Teleconference January 19, 2021 Welcome and Introductions a. Approval/updates today's agenda b. Approval of minutes from November 17, 2020 meeting Attendees: • Diane Buckshnis — Councilmember, Edmonds • Mark Phillips — Councilmember, Forum Vice -chair, Lake Forest Park • Steve Woodard — Councilmember, Forum Chair, Mountlake Terrace • Laura Reed — Stormwater Program Manager, Mountlake Terrace • Patrick Johnson — Stormwater Technician, Edmonds • John Featherstone —Surface Water Utility Manager, Shoreline • Cory Roche, Community Services Coordinator — Lake Forest Park • Jeff Betz — Recreation & Parks Director, City of Mountlake Terrace • Kari Quaas — Community Engagement Project Manager, Snohomish Conservation District • James — Resident • Ed Boehmer — Mountlake Terrace resident • Warren McAndrews — Edmonds resident • Julie Rose — Edmonds resident • Angela Ewert — Representing Jared Mead, Councilmember, Snohomish County • Phillip Hill — City Administrator, Lake Forest Park • Derek Fada — Environmental & Surface Water Supervisor, Lynnwood • Tricia Shoblom — Lakes Specialist, Department of Ecology • Ken Courtmanch — Parks Supervisor, Mountlake Terrace High lake levels — resources are available Patrick Johnson, Edmonds Stormwater Technician, discussed the fact that there has been an unusually large amount of rain in the past few weeks, a condition that City of Edmonds is describing as an "atmospheric river." Due to the extensive flooding experienced in other parts of Edmonds, he was surprised that the number of residents who have called or emailed with flooding concerns has been lower than in past years. He suggested that this may be due to a combination of factors, including dry periods between storms, the weir being kept clear of debris, and the September 2020 lily removal with burlap barrier to prevent regrowth at the lake outlet. Packet Pg. 231 8.2.c Patrick then invited residents to comment on flooding that they have experienced. Warren McAndrews, Edmonds resident, stated that he had observed flooding was a foot higher last year during heavy rains. Julie Rose, Edmonds resident, commented that her crawl space and lawn were flooded, and that lake residents with fixed docks had to make some adjustments to prevent damage, but that it was "a lot less scary" than last year's high water on Lake Ballinger. Laura Reed, Mountlake Terrace Stormwater Program Manager, said she would gather data on high water levels at the McAleer Creek weir to present to the Forum at the next meeting. III. Updates on maintenance of McAleer Creek for lake flood prevention Laura Reed, Mountlake Terrace Stormwater Program Manager, briefed the Forum on the following activities by Mountlake Terrace Operations Crews to keep McAleer Creek between Ballinger Lake and 1-5 clear of obstructions that might cause flooding. McAleer Creek is walked weekly all year to look for obstructions, and more frequently during wet weather. This winter 3 beavers have been relocated and 1 beaver dam has been removed. The 1-5 culvert is being checked during high water periods, upstream and downstream. The water flow appears to be moving quickly out of Lake Ballinger and through McAleer Creek. IV. Improvements to Ballinger Park —fishing pier, boat launch, viewing platform, creek restoration Jeff Betz, Mountlake Terrace Recreation and Parks Director, provided the following updates: •Environmental and recreation improvements are at the 90% design phase for the fishing pier, boat ramp, boat dock/launch, and shoreline improvements on east side of Lake Ballinger. oJeff anticipates construction will be able to start July 1- August 31. This is the period where construction is allowed to occur in order to protect fish. The Lake Ballinger swimming beach would be closed during construction. eThe restroom at the Lake Ballinger swimming beach has been installed with final concrete work scheduled for next couple of months. eThe design of the new asphalt pathways is being finalized and will be going out to bid soon. •Grants have been submitted for the Ballinger Park west side project aspects. Jeff Betz provided the following updates: o Early indications of grant applications indicate this project has scored well, so the project may receive funding. The final decision is anticipated by June, 2021. o Premera will donate $100,000 towards project. o Viewing platform ■ New viewing platform is not yet funded. Community involvement for Packet Pg. 232 8.2.c project will be 2022. If funded, the viewing platform would be constructed in summer 2022 or 2023. ■ The viewing platform design will need to be vetted by residents and project aims to hear from all voices on the location and design. ■ The Parks department is aware that there are concerns from residents about the viewing platform. Warren McAndrews, Edmonds resident, confirmed this understanding. ■ The Ballinger Park/Hall Creek Restoration project is a different project on the north end of the lake. o The next step in the process is to hire an engineering firm to help with the project including community meetings where residents will review 30, 60, 90% designs. o Ed Boehmer, Mountlake Terrace resident, asked: Will the beach area closure force people to the north end of the park to recreate? Is that acceptable? ■ Jeff Betz stated that more signage will be added in the NGPA (native growth protection area) and more education will be provided to people on where to swim. o Warren McAnders asked: Can we install split rail fencing to protect new plantings? ■ Jeff Betz replied that we can but not near the Hall Creek area. Once plantings go in during the Hall Creek project the plants will be protected. V. Announcements • Kari Quaas, Snohomish Conservation District Community Engagement Project Manager, stated that the annual Snohomish Conservation District native plant sale is taking place now, along with a youth art contest. • Angela Ewert, representative for Snohomish County Councilmember Jared Mead, stated that Councilmember Mead wanted to attend the Forum meeting but was unable due to an emergency wisdom tooth extraction. • Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds Councilmember asked if the ILA (interlocal agreement) needed to be revised each time a new member joins. • Laura Reed replied no, the ILA is drafted to allow latecomers to the group. The Forum is expected to add the City of Shoreline and Snohomish County soon. • John Featherstone, Shoreline Surface Water Utility Manager, expects that the Forum ILA will be signed by the City of Shoreline on January 25t" during the next council meeting. VI. Public Comment • Ed Boehmer, Mountlake Terrace resident, thanked to Jeff Betz and Parks folks for trimming up trees and increasing the feeling of safety in Ballinger Park. • Mark Phillips, Lake Forest Park Councilmember asked: Does Mountlake Terrace use Beavers Northwest to relocate the beavers? This is a company that relocates beavers from places they are not wanted to places they are wanted. Packet Pg. 233 8.2.c • Laura Reed committed to discussing the organization and beaver removal with Tim Nye, Mountlake Terrace Storm Supervisor, and getting back to the Forum on the result at the next meeting. • Kari Quaas stated that Snohomish Conservation District can also connect the Forum with other resources for beaver relocation. • Julie Rose, Edmonds resident, stated that there was a plan in the early 2010s that outlines steps to flood mitigation. She asked if the Forum can get updates on where we are in this plan. • Laura Reed confirmed with Julie that she was referring to the 2009 Greater Ballinger/McAleer Creek strategic action plan, and committed to reviewing the plan and presenting what has been accomplished since the plan was written and what remains to be completed at the next Forum meeting. VII. Determine date and location of next meeting The next meeting will take place on April 13th at 2 pm on Zoom. VIII. Adjournment Packet Pg. 234 8.2.d Edmonds Public Facilities District Board of Directors Virtual Online Meeting March 25, 2021 The Edmonds Public Facilities District Board virtual meeting convened at 7:33 a.m. via Zoom. EPFD Board Members Present David Brewster, President Ray Liaw, Vice President Suzy Maloney Bill Willcock Greg Hinton ECA Board Members Present David Schaefer Vice President Rick Canning, Board Member Call to Order ECA Staff Present Joseph Mclalwain, Executive Director Matt Keller, Director of Operations City Staff Present Dave Turley, Finance Director (Ex-Officio) Other Guests Present Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, City Council Liaison Board President Brewster called the meeting to order. 2. Land Acknowledgement Board Vice President Liaw read the Land Acknowledgement statement. 3. Board President's Comments Board President Brewster welcomed ECA Board Member Rick Canning to the meeting. Mr. Canning and ECA Board President Cheryl Foster have been tutoring ECA board members regarding ECA finances. His services are also available to any PFD board member interested in a deeper dive into the finances. Recognizing there will be some turnover on the ECA board between now and the end of May, Board President Brewster advised he will be scheduling one-on-one conversations with each PFD board member to connect with them, discuss how they fit in the organization, and answer any concerns. 4. Consent Agenda • EPFD Board Meeting Minutes — 2-28-2020 • EPFD Disbursement Report — February 2021 Mr. Keller advised the disbursement report was approved by the Admin & Finance Committee. BOARD VP LIAW MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. BOARD MEMBER MALONEY SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. Old Business Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes March 25, 2021 Page 1 Packet Pg. 235 8.2.d • Prior Action Items Review Mr. Keller reviewed progress on action items from the previous meeting and identified outstanding items (see Action Items 1 & 2 below). 6. PFD Board Business 7. Finance, Facilities & Operations • Finance Report — February 2020 DRAFT Mr. Keller reviewed the Statement of Revenue, Expenses and Changes in Net Position (Income Statement), highlighting the increase in expenses with corresponding increase in revenues, net positive operating surplus compared to budget, unanticipated grant revenue, intergovernmental tax revenue that exceeded budget, and net surplus positive compared to budget. Discussion followed regarding increase in payroll due to rental event, implementing new equipment and updates in preparation for reopening, and unanticipated grant revenue related to completion of theater project (reimbursement received in 2021 instead of 2020). Mr. Keller reviewed the Statement of Net position (Balance Sheet), highlighting assets trending slightly ahead due to foundation donations, lower accounts payable, and significant payments made on credit cards since the last meeting. • Monthly Cashflow Analysis Report Mr. Keller described the purpose of this report and highlighted updates made to the report related to total operating and debt service cash at year end, increased revenues, and potential revenues/savings the report does not include (Shuttered Venues grant, renegotiation of bond sale, not making a bond interest payment, partnerships, additional development activity, etc.). He summarized there were a lot of options for closing the gap a net positive by year end was likely. Questions and discussion followed regarding transfer in and out from non -operating during lean periods, future transfers back into non -operating, rental assumptions, sales tax revenue that will exceed debt service in the future which provides opportunity to discuss what to do with those funds over time, language in the ILA with Snohomish County that states debt service is paid first, and the potential need to revise the ILA language if the funds are used in a more programmatic manner. Board suggestions included: 1) italicizing or providing a background color for projected months to differentiate between actual and projected, and 2) showing actual and projected transfers back into non -operating. • Report to City of Edmonds Finance Committee - Recap Mr. Keller reported the March 91h meeting with the City Council Finance Committee where the PFDs financials were shared was a very positive meeting. The PFD was invited back to discuss future business plans through COVID and the bond refinancing. Discussion followed regarding a request to Inform board members of Finance Committee meeting dates/times, link on the City's website to the March 9th Council Finance Committee meeting, date of next meeting with the Council Finance Committee (April 13th), topics to be discussed with the Finance Committee and Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes March 25, 2021 Page 2 Packet Pg. 236 8.2.d preference the PFD Board sees the bond refinancing information before is presented to the Council Finance Committee. • SBA Opportunities: SVOG Update Mr. Keller announced the portal will open April 8t"; staff is finalizing the numbers and submission materials. This grant would allow the PFD to capture approximately 45% of the revenue earned in 2019 compared to the impacted period in 2020 and could be up to $700,000. Mr. Mclalwain advised there are different rounds of funding depending on the amount of revenue lost; the first round is for a 90% loss and the second round is a 70% loss; the ECA's loss is 70-75%. Questions and discussion followed regarding the timeline for application submittal and decisions, maximum funding levels, potential additional funding from Congress, and a request to update the board regarding progress/status on the SVOP grant including when the grant is submitted and which round ECA qualifies for. • Streaming Equipment Update Mr. Mclalwain reported streaming equipment was received and installed last week following a delay due to COVID-related manufacturing issues. Last Saturday's Kidstock! Danny's Dance Party was streamed via the new equipment with the help of a third party contractor (previous cost of $1500-$1600 to bring in equipment was reduced to $750). Staff is analyzing how to manage the equipment financially, the equipment capabilities, the best platform to use, and whether anything is missing. The purchased equipment included a stationary camera that can be controlled remotely, but 1-2 mobile cameras will need to be rented on occasion until they can be purchased in the future. The church has offered loan their camera to the ECA at no cost but it will also be necessary to occasionally rent additional equipment. He described the platforms being considered; negotiating/contracting with artists and revenue sharing for view -from -home tickets; developing descriptions of equipment, how rental clients can utilize the equipment, cost, scalability, etc.; potential for streamed tickets; the need for more bodies to operate cameras; and plans to utilize the steaming equipment this summer for six of the nine events. Discussion followed regarding the Hosting Committee's concern about timing and missing opportunities, benchmarks for actively marketing the streaming opportunity, determining costs and confirming abilities before marketing, developing a timeline for marketing materials, showing the Kidstock! event to potential rental clients, opportunity to market ECA within the Mandolin platform, cost and percentage of ticket sales Mandolin charges, and what other presenting venues are doing. • 2012 Bond Refinancing Update & Next Steps Mr. Keller reported he is waiting on bond refinancing scenarios from financial adviser Piper Sandler. Once a group of staff and committee members have reviewed the information and developed a strategy, a presentation will be created to seek guidance and preferences from the PFD Board. • 2021 Operating Budget — Q1 Draft Modification Presentation Mr. Keller advised the 2021 Operating Budget Q1 draft modification was reviewed by the Admin & Finance Committee yesterday. The committee will review it again and incorporate more Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes March 25, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 237 8.2.d feedback before requesting PFD Board approval next month The report includes the original budget, revised budget, net change, and comments. He highlighted increased renal activity, additional foundation money, revenue from the seat campaign, Center Stage replacement event, increased expenses due to summer series, assumption staff will return to 3/4 time over the summer and full-time in September, updated tax revenues based on actuals from the prior year, and final net position of $28,000 more than original budget. Approval of 2021 Q1 Operating budget will be on next month's agenda. 8. Executive Report / Steering Committee • Long Term Vision and Planning Mr. Mclalwain reported the Steering Committee is continuing the process of developing a vision and mission that more accurately reflects the balance between hopes and dreams for the future, reinforces the strategic business plan approved in 2018, and updates the values. He thanked ECA Board VP David Schaefer and ECA Board Member Mike Rosen as well as the entire Steering Committee for keeping that process on track. He anticipated the committee will be close to bringing something to the ECA and PFD boards following their next meeting. The document being developed will help the organization respond to opportunities, create internal programs, etc. Board President Brewster explained in the past, the organization did not have a clear way to evaluate opportunities and compare them with the strategic business plan which led to a process of re -envisioning the mission, vision, guiding principles and values to better align with the strategic business plan as well as evaluate opportunities and partnerships. 9. Marketing & Business Development • Promotion of Spring and Summer Programs Mr. Mclalwain reported the tentative date is Wednesday, May 26th. He envisioned an hour long event that will focus on, 1) the reemergence of summer programs and getting back to live performances, 2) education and outreach, and 3) elevating equity and inclusion work. 10. Programming • Spotlight Summer Series Mr. Mclalwain highlighted performers confirmed for the summer series and Board President Brewster identified potential speakers. Discussion followed regarding the intent to bring programming back to the community in a budget neutral position, using the summer to test drive the equipment and the process of getting people in and out of the building, sponsors of mystery and canceled shows, and differences between the May event and Center Stage. 11. Hosting • Update Board VP Liaw reported the Hosting Committee, joined by other board members, have been discussing revenue sources, when to begin marketing, rental rates, and developing a framework for negotiating and evaluating requests to be more strategic. The committee also plans to discuss community partnerships, and a scholarship process for rental clients. Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes March 25, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 238 8.2.d 9. Philanthropy • Spring Event (Center Stage Replacement) • "Next Stage" Seat Campaign Mr. Mclalwain relayed the seat campaign is being revived as part of the effort to generate new revenue in 2021. The campaign invites the community to put a name on a seat and support the organization with a $1000 investment. Seats can be named to honor a family member or loved one, a hero during the pandemic, a favorite quote, a favorite artists that has appeared on the EC stage, etc. Staff is developing marketing materials and a promotion plan, anticipating the campaign will begin after the May event and continue until December 31, 2021. There are currently 166 named seats, leaving over 500 available for investment. • Grants Mr. Mclalwain reported Christina Kourteva is working to redirect grants received from TourWest, for artists unable to appear at the ECA, to new artists. ArtsWA has received additional funding and support for COVID-related opportunities and partnership and programming opportunities. The Hazel Miller Foundation provided a $50,000 grant and invited the ECA to apply for additional support; they are very interested in the dementia inclusion series. The ECA received $10,000 from NEA for a dance program that did not happen and NEA offered a waiver to use those funds for general operations. The Susan Elizabeth Foundation, which provided a multiyear grant to create and fund a portion of Mr. Keller's position, is offering an opportunity for an equally creative and capacity building item. 13. Inclusion & Accessibility, Education & Outreach Development of Equity Statement Board President Brewster reported a group of committee and non -committee members, led by Diana White and Liz Dawson, is working on an equity statement modeled after the Edmonds School District statement but appropriate for the PFD/ECA. It is important that this organization be recognized as a place of equitable treatment and consideration for the entire community. Mr. Mclalwain said one of the examples being considered is the Cuyahoga Arts Council which has a succinct and clear statement along with specific categories, action items and measurable outcomes over time. • Equitable Treatment/Conditions — Artists and Audiences Mr. Mclalwain reported artists who are thinking about touring the country are nervous and concerned about moving between venues and traveling. Some have new specific COVID-related contract riders related to who is backstage, sanitation and security, etc. which require additional planning and investment in the backstage area. The same consideration needs to be given to audiences; the lobby has been updated with barriers, equipment, dots on the floor, etc. but it will take a lot of care, patience and time to get patrons in and out of the facility. Mr. Mclalwain reported another new expectations in the riders is related to equity, for example gender neutral restrooms and other matters related to transgender rights/needs which may require some structural investments. This is a movement occurring nationwide that the ECA needs to be part of. He anticipated large grant requests related to infrastructure issues such as an elevator and gender neutral restroom reconfigurations. Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes March 25, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 239 8.2.d Board President Brewster commented it was highly appropriate that the organization address the issue of gender neutral restrooms and provide an open and accessible experience to all. He cited the Starbucks on Pike & Borden and the new Hugo House on Capitol Hill as examples of gender neutral restrooms. He acknowledged that will require investment in design and construction at the ECA and needs to be seriously considered in the next 1-2 years. Board Member Willcock suggested putting this on the Facilities and Operation Committee agenda. 14. New Business 15. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 9:02 a.m. Next EPFD Board Meeting: Thursday, April 22, 2021 - 7:30 AM ACTION ITEMS: 1. Provide EPFD Board an update on the 5-year financial plan (carried forward from previous months' action items) 2. Once numbers are available from the financial adviser, present 4-5 options for bond refinancing to the Board 3. In the Monthly Cashflow Analysis Report a. Italicize or provide background color for projected months to differentiate between actual and projected b. Show actual and projected transfers back into non -operating' 4. Inform PFD board members of date/time of future Council Finance Committee meetings 5. Notify board regarding progress/status on the SVOG grant including when the grant is submitted and which round ECA qualifies for 6. Schedule approval of 2021 Q1 Operating budget on next month's agenda Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes March 25, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 240