Loading...
2021-05-04 City Council - Full Agenda-28541. 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 MAY 4, 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 20, 2021 2. Approval of claim checks and wire payments. 3. EPOA Law Support Collective Bargaining Agreement 1/1/20 - 12/31/22 Edmonds City Council Agenda May 4, 2021 Page 1 NEW BUSINESS 1. Marina Beach Park Renovation Grant Match Certification (5 min) 2. Introduction Regarding Private Code Amendment to ECDC Section 20.75.045.13, entitled Unit Lot Subdivision - Applicability (15 min) 3. Update on Development Activities (25 min) 4. Interlocal Agreement with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) (25 min) 5. Project Update on Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project (60 min) 8. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. Council Committee Minutes (0 min) 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda May 4, 2021 Page 2 6.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/4/2021 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of April 20, 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: 04-20-2021 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 3 6.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING DRAFT MINUTES April 20, 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 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec. & Cultural Serv. Dir Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr. Emily Wagener, Human Resources Analyst 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 Councilmember Olson read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO POSTPONE ITEM 8.1, INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY (HASCO), TO MAY 25, 2021. Councilmember K. Johnson said she did not have any particular objection to the ILA, but wanted the City Council to consider the Citizen Housing Commission's (CHC) recommendations more globally and develop a process for moving forward. Postponing this will provide plenty of time to have a robust Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 1 Packet Pg. 4 6.1.a discussion on this topic. She reminded the Council that the CHC's recommendations were presented to the Council but they were not prioritized, no information was provided regarding how the votes were cast by commissioners and there was no sense of what should be done first in terms of the ability to move quickly through some items and postpone others. She felt strongly that the Council needed to have that discussion before moving forward. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the CHC did no work on low income veterans, disabled and senior housing which is what HASCO is involved with. The ILA with HASCO is related to low income housing and has nothing to do with the CHC. The CHC made several recommendations that the Council needs to work through, but has nothing to do with HASCO. She encouraged Councilmembers not to support the amendment because it would slow the process of assisting those who need low income housing. Councilmember Olson clarified although there may be other reasons to enter into an ILA with HASCO, it was one of the CHC's recommendations. She supported postponing the ILA due to public input regarding this recommendation that was missing from the agenda packet. She agreed with Councilmember K. Johnson's suggestion to take a more global approach to the CHC's recommendations before proceeding with any of the other recommendations. She suggested the Council hold a retreat or a Council meeting with that as a main topic so the Council can determine how to proceed with each of the CHC's recommendations such as the process and prioritization for each one. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed the process needs to be slowed down and the Council has not had a retreat to discuss the Council's opinions since it seems four Councilmembers opinions are voted on all the time. Council President Paine raised a point of order, requesting Councilmembers speak to the motion. Mayor Nelson ruled point taken and requested Councilmember Buckshnis to speak to the motion on the floor. Councilmember Buckshnis said citizens are very upset over the housing element as it stands, the recommendations and transparency issues. She agreed with the motion to postpone the ILA with FIASCO and recommended a more global approach to prioritizing the CHC's recommendations instead of moving them through without study sessions. She did not have a problem with the ILA, her objection was to how the process was occurring. Councilmember Distelhorst said the director of HASCO had been scheduled to be present tonight; it was scheduled some time ago and it would be very disrespectful to cancel within an hour of the presentation. Additionally, the Council heard the same thing in 2019 when the Housing Needs Assessment was presented to Council, slow down and create a Housing Commission. The CHC has presented their policy recommendation and now the Council is again hearing slow down. A developed recommendation was provided to Council 3-4 different times; this was considered by committee and a presentation to Council was scheduled tonight. He summarized it was prudent to proceed with the presentation and Council can make a decision as they see fit. Council President Paine recommended having the first review tonight and bringing it back to a future meeting if other information needs to be provided. She disagreed this was being rushed, but supported having a discussion regarding the ILA. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she wanted to hear from HASCO, commenting the Council has heard from them 1-2 times a year for the last several years and she did not think postponing this item would solve anything. The process has been slowed and unfortunately the same people who were successful in slowing the process before are again sending emails suggesting the Council not proceed with the HASCO ILA. She pointed out HASCO directly relates to low income housing whether it is senior, veterans, or disabled Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 2 Packet Pg. 5 housing. HASCO is a great organization that does good work and partners with various agencies to serve unserved populations. She preferred to hear from HASCO about the ILA and their plans and perhaps delay action until next week. She was uncomfortable with kicking the can down the road because the Council is repeatedly hearing from the same people who are not interested in having low income housing in Edmonds, something that is obviously needed based on the number of homeless in Edmonds. Councilmember K. Johnson said at the committee meeting, it was Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' preference to put this on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, expressing a preference that Councilmembers' names not be used or fingers pointed. Mayor Nelson requested Councilmembers refrain from identifying specific Councilmembers. Councilmember K. Johnson explained there are two members on the committee; one wanted the HASCO ILA to go directly to Consent. There was no presentation from HASCO at the committee meeting so this is a new discussion item tonight. This is not something that needs to be rushed and she preferred to have the presentation tonight and table a decision to a future meeting which would not be disrespectful. When information is presented to a committee, it should be a complete presentation and not repackaged for the presentation to Council. Her intent was not to slow the process down but to have time to learn how this recommendation, made by the CHC, fits into the Council's plans for proceeding with all the CHC's recommendations. This item is premature because the Council has not had that discussion. For those reasons she supported postponing this agenda item and rescheduling the presentation from HASCO to May 25. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented HASCO has nothing to do with market rate housing and above. She read her packet before the committee meeting and looked up information online so she was able to comprehend what was said during the committee meeting and was comfortable putting it on Consent. She encouraged the Council not to support the amendment to postpone. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT 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. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD AS NEW BUSINESS ITEM 9.1, COUNCILMEMBER REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST. Councilmember Olson explained this was discussed at great length at a previous meeting approximately a month ago. She provided the packet via email and looked forward to having either a large or small discussion and resolving the issue. Council President Paine said she had no objection to adding this to the agenda. She requested the materials provided be included in the minutes packet. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if Mr. Pruitt's objections had been provided to Council. Councilmember Olson asked if he had an objection to the City reimbursing her as an employee of the City. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas responded he has an objection because he believes Councilmember Olson has implied bias and every aspect of what she did was related to his color. He has spoken with the City's HR Director and Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested guidance from the HR Director would be of assistance. Mayor Nelson advised the HR Director was not available this evening. Councilmember Olson commented that would not be relevant anyway. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 6 6.1.a Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said it was quite important to understand the principle behind a request of this size without getting preauthorization and the interest behind it. She has information she would be more than happy to provide. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, stating the amendment is just whether to add something to the agenda and it was not appropriate to provide information regarding how a Councilmember felt it should have been handled. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she did not intend to provide information at this point, but it if was added to the agenda, she would provide the information that Mr. Pruitt has provided her. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED 6-0-1, COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS ABSTAINING. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ;��r117 I �1►[y �[K�]u lu I �1►Y K� Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. He reminded Audience Comments were regarding any topic other than the public hearing later on the agenda regarding the Emergency Ordinance 4217 regarding Prohibition of Removal of Landmark Trees. Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, relayed she and her husband own a small construction company and perform quality remodels on existing homes. Trees are wonderful and a renewable resource and are owned by property owners who also pay taxes. Owners are now penalized for building on land with large trees instead of being encouraged to build homes that would help with the housing crisis and prevent more urban sprawl. They did not object to 30% retention and replacing trees as required but the new penalties are exorbitant. She questioned penalizing citizens who are adhering to the guidelines; the City is acting as if they own the trees, extorting private property owners with large trees to pay the City for the trees' worth, essentially forcing them to pay twice for their own property. It is a pay to play game and is discriminatory. The constitution protects property rights through the 5t' and 14t1i amendments due processes clauses and more directly through the 5' amendment's takings clause; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. Edmonds City Council is charging land owners for their trees for the City's public agenda and it is unconstitutional. The Council should protect the citizens' rights and allow landowners to do what every property owner in Edmonds has done before them while adhering to the new guidelines without penalty. All of Edmonds was a dense forest 100 years ago; there are nearly 18,000 homes in Edmonds which required the removal of nearly 100,000 old growth trees for them to be built. Many beautiful views and their taxes reflect that. Until Councilmembers themselves are willing to pay penalties for trees removed for their houses to be built in years past, they should not require others desiring a home to pay them. If more trees is a goal, she recommended the Council consider a tax incentive or penalty for homeowners whose properties do not contain the number of trees the Council wished they have. Her parents, now 86 years old, purchased an acre of land 4 years ago and they have been working with the City hoping to build one level homes so she could care for them. The City has now enacted a moratorium without notification which she felt was illegal. Marlin Phelps, said those who believe justice was served for George Floyd today by the verdict in Derek Chauvin's trial, unfortunately are probably mistaken. Like Scott Lee Kimball who pled guilty in Boulder County District Court, the Chauvin trial was held at the Hennepin County District Court. The problem is constitutionally, a county district court cannot hear a felony case, the most egregious acts are gross misdemeanors. Derek Chauvin and Scott Lee Kimball both likely entered a deal to which their cases are kept out of the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Prisons which means Derek Chauvin will unlikely ever serve Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 7 6.1.a his sentence at a prison appropriate to the nature of his crimes. Both he and Scott Lee Kimball have every constitutional right to have those guilty verdicts overturned and those crimes vacated. It is an egregious act for a judge to hear a case in which he is not constitutionally allowed to hear. Derek Chauvin's trial should not have been heard in that court nor should Scott Lee Kimball's case have been heard in the Hennepin County District Court. Scott Lee Kimball has close connections to Edmonds. Beth Fleming, Edmonds, an Edmonds resident for 13 years, challenged the City Council to honor their elected positions as leaders in the community to strive for greater excellence. She recognized and appreciated how hard Councilmembers work and the time they devote to the City. However, she found the dysfunctionality and discourse occurring between Councilmembers very discouraging and the bickering and disfunction embarrassing. The Council has multiple important and interdependent initiatives to consider such as the tree code, climate action plan, and housing opportunities; they cannot be taken apart and piecemealed. They require the Council to step up and put their heads together to have meaningful debate and honest and respectful discourse in order to reach the best solution for the City. Councilmembers are the stewards of the City, their legacies rest on how they work together to address these initiatives and whether or not they are successful. Citizens depend on Councilmembers and need transparency, professionalism and open dialogue and the Council is not functioning in that manner now. Councilmembers are elected to their positions and in honor of that, citizens ask that they step up and behave like leaders. She questioned whether the Council would follow in the footsteps of other cities on these comprehensive initiatives or rise to new levels of discussion and ideation to deliver an innovative approach. She hoped Edmonds could be the city that innovates a completely new approach to these initiatives. She challenged the Council to be the leaders they were elected to be because citizens need more. Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig, Edmonds, explained on December 16', 1980, the Council created the Planning Board through adoption of Edmonds Municipal Code 10.40.02. The end of each board member's term is December 31'. The alternate position is appointed and confirmed and moves into a numbered position upon any vacancy. The board's schedule of appointments, legally established in EMC 20.10.02, is to be administered by City Administration. The 1980 City Council followed a traditional pattern for manning the board. Every year a staggered cycle moves pairs of board members (Positions 1 & 2; 3 & 4; 5 & 6; 7 & Alternate) through the board as they serve four-year terms. At the end of the position's term the citizen can be terminated or reappointed and the citizen can leave the position at any time. The vacant position is then filled by the board member serving as the alternate for the remainder of the term. At the term end, the board member is either terminated or reappointed. This staggering of terms provides both fluidity and continuity. The code is not broken; the schedule is set and needs no revision. What needs correction is aligning the informal roster to the code. Recently, there have been a few Planning Department clerical mistakes, usually one year off, which tumbled some board positions. Fifty percent of the current appointments are in line with the code. A minor adjustment of the informal roster is needed. Please provide direction to the Mayor to administer the schedule of appointments as established by the 1980 City Council in EMC 10.40.020. She expressed her sincere appreciation for being able to serve the City as a member of the Planning Board in recent years. Jess Blanch, Edmonds, speaking as a former Citizens Housing Commissioner and someone who has dedicated her career to ensuring everyone has a healthy, safe and affordable home, expressed support for the ILA with HASCO. An ILA authorizing HASCO to compete on the open market to purchase existing housing without going through a lengthy process to get approval from the City Council will help preserve homes and their affordability. HASCO works to keep rents as low as possible within their operating requirements and works to preserve housing affordability for residents of Snohomish County. She urged the Council to consider and pass an ILA with HASCO tonight due to the need in the community and because there is no time to waste in ensuring more affordability in the community. The CHC learned a lot over the course of a 18 months and she encouraged the City Council to consider all their recommendations with as Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 8 6.1.a much urgency as possible due to the housing crisis facing the region. There is no time to waste or say that things are moving too fast because slowing things down has only exacerbated the problem. 7:35 Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, encouraged the Council to ask questions of HASCO, commenting there are some misconceptions of what HASCO does and does not do. HASCO does provide fair market housing, in fact looking at their website, of the 2,439 housing units they administer, 68% are fair market apartment rentals. The ILA also has other implications. HASCO has good intent and mission but more could be accomplished by working more closely with them. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. Councilmember K. Johnson requested Items 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 be removed from the Consent Agenda as the minutes were not included in hardcopy packet. Council President Paine reminded Council that the normal minute taker had surgery and will return to the normal schedule with the May 4t' minutes. Councilmember Olson commented it was not appropriate to approve the minutes if Councilmembers have not seen them and she supported pulling them from Consent Agenda. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out those three minutes were related to executive sessions and the only content is the topic, times and who was in attendance. Councilmember K. Johnson said she thought these were the Council committee meeting minutes. Realizing they were special meeting minutes, she did not need to pull them. Mayor Nelson advised Items 1, 2, and 3 would remain on the Consent Agenda. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 16, 2021 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2021 3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 6, 2021 4. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 6, 2021 5. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT 6. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM GRANT KENDALL 7. EDMONDS MARSH RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT 8. HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAM MANAGER JOB DESCRIPTION REVISION 9. FEBRUARY 2021 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT 10. NEW BUILDING DIVISION JOB DESCRIPTION Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 9 6.1.a 11. APPROVE A 10-FT DEDICATION FOR 70TH AVE W RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 15809 70TH AVE W 12. APPROVE LOCAL AGENCY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CM DESIGN GROUP, LLC FOR THE 76TH AVE OVERLAY PROJECT 13. APPROVE PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT AT 8609 244TH ST. SW 14. AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE PHASE 8 SEWERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT 15. RENEWAL OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR ISSUANCE OF KEYS TO ACCESS SCHOOL BUILDINGS IN EMERGENCIES 7. PUBLIC HEARING 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON EMERGENCY ORDINANCE 4217 REGARDING PROHIBITION OF REMOVAL OF LANDMARK TREES Development Services Director Hope provided an introduction to the agenda item. Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien provided an overview of the ordinance, explaining Interim Ordinance 4217 prohibits the removal of certain landmark trees for a period of six months. The ordinance defines a landmark tree as a tree with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 24 inches or larger with DBH measured at 4.5 feet above the ground. The stated purpose of the ordinance is to temporary protect landmark trees to allow the City time to adopt permanent regulations governing the removal of landmark trees. The ordinance applies to all landmark trees in the City except for under two circumstances, 1) trees that are determined to hazard or nuisance trees as defined by the ECDC 23.10.020, and 2) trees associated with and permitted through a building permit, subdivision or other land use approval. Mr. Lien explained when this ordinance was adopted, it was adopted at the same time as Ordinance 4218 which adopted the tree regulations that apply to tree retention with development, ECDC 23.10. The exception for trees associated with and permitted through a building permit, subdivision or other land use approval was included because regulations were being adopted that dealt with tree retention with development. Ordinance 4217 is similar to the subdivision moratorium adopted by the Council via Ordinance 4200 which put a hold on subdivision applications that contained a certain density of trees. Ordinance 4200 was adopted to allow time for the City to work on tree regulations for new development which the Council has been working on and adopted a revised version last week. During review of the new tree regulations, Mr. Lien said the public and City Council expressed a desire for a more expansive set of regulations that provide protection for trees on all properties regardless of whether they are being developed. Ordinance 4217 provides protection for the largest trees while the next stage of tree codes are being developed, landmark trees 24" or greater. Consideration of Stage 2 of the tree code update will begin next week at the Planning Board. Councilmember Buckshnis said she did not necessarily agree with Mr. Lien's comment about a subdivision moratorium and that this emergency ordinance took the place of it. Developers can still cut down landmark trees because section 2 provides that exemption. Mr. Lien said he compared this ordinance to Ordinance 4200 because Ordinance 4200 was adopted to allow time for the City to develop tree regulations that apply to development. Ordinance 4217 is not intended to replace Ordinance 4200, but was adopted in a similar vein, where the City Council wants to adopt more expansive tree regulations that apply to all properties regardless of whether they are being developed and in the interim wanted to protect the largest trees. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 10 6.1.a Councilmember Buckshnis said in the same vein as homeowners cannot cut trees over 24", but developers can. That needs to be made very clear; developers can still cut down trees in subdivisions. Mr. Lien said anyone developing their property can cut down a tree if it is approved with a building permit and subdivision under the new tree regulations that were recently adopted. Ms. Hope clarified with development there are permits, site plan review, etc. which is an extensive process, compared to other properties that are not being developed, there is currently not much process unless it is a critical area. Council President Paine recognized Councilmembers have been receiving a lot of emails from the public. Some of the confusion is due to the code work that has done over the last several weeks; trees on vacant properties being developed will be governed by the regulations adopted last week. Mr. Lien agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis clarified the Council has never gone over the subdivision flexible code to make any amendments and it is not mandated so subdivisions can in fact still remove trees and developers can still cut down significant and landmark trees. Councilmember Distelhorst recalled the Council reviewed the subdivision conservation chapter extensively every time the tree code was reviewed and had opportunity to make amendments. He was glad it had been adopted and was now available for low impact development. Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing. He invited participants and described the procedures for the public hearing. Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, said her parents have been trying to divide their property for 4 years and so far have paid $100,000 to comply with the many city, county and fire department requirements for geologists, arborists, architects, surveys and engineers. The additional cost for penalties they will most likely have due to many old trees on the property will be $100,000 - $200,000 in addition to the $100,000 they have already paid. Sadly her parents are getting older and more fragile with the recent disappointing delays voted in by the City Council since November without notice on a moratorium. Moratoriums hurt people and incomes and restrict actions to build home for people who need them. The City is targeting the livelihood of specific property owners intending to build; this has been used as a method to manipulate the laws in place to target specific individuals and is clearly discrimination brought on by specific Council and board members. These laws are dangerous for the City's reputation. Many citizens have stated their concerns and haven't been given any consideration. The loss of their dream of being neighbors to her parents and daughter, which they were told in the beginning by planning employees was possible, is heartbreaking. The City of Edmonds has made building new homes difficult for small contractors by constantly moving the goalposts while moving building elevations to 6 stories for large contractors, mostly likely contractors outside the City. Forcing out mom and pop contractors will bring large, out of town contractors with money and influence to bypass these laws, clearcutting for their needs. Housing material costs have doubled and tripled in the past few months; the Council is making Edmonds an unlivable place for people who just want to have a home for themselves. They have a beautiful, remodeled home near the property that they used to train five young men in the construction field at their own expense. Their neighbor has been using the City to harass them and require permits while the neighbor has done more work without permits. If these new laws stand, her parents should be reimbursed by the City for the $100,000 they have paid to comply with City requirements and the potential loss of earnings. Fred Gee, Edmonds, a 10-year resident, said he loves trees, the forest and the old growth. However, he strongly disagreed with the new tree ordinance and did not feel it was an emergency to pass this onerous restriction on private property rights in Edmonds. They have several large trees on their property and feel it is their right to cut them down when they need to when they become too large. New restrictions and regulations do not encourage people to plant trees, instead they discourage tree planting due to the worry Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 11 6.1.a over possible restrictions on what can be done with them in the future. Homeowners should be allowed to decide on their own what's best for their property. Most people like trees and want trees on their property but he feared trees 24" in diameter would be cut down to avoid being regulated by this emergency ordinance. He did not agree with taking away private property rights of Edmonds homeowners. Edmonds is not a gated community with rules regulating the height of grass, bushes, etc. People live in Edmonds to have the freedom to maintain their property in the manner they see fit for their own use. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, said in the past 18 months, she has spent more than $1800 to address safety and maintenance of a single tree. Work has been limited to safety, improving the clearance to her house, reducing the risk of branch failure and inspecting topping done decades ago for decay and significant cavities. She also spent a day hand -digging and transplanting a maple tree improperly planted near this tree, just 26' from her son's bedroom. She shared this so the Council knew the significant effort citizens take to maintain large trees on their property. She asked the Council to cancel the emergency, interim regulations because she ardently believed the City needs to form a partnership with property owners if they want to preserve large trees and the City's actions are contrary to the formation of that necessary partnership and conflict with the stated goal. After receiving the emergency ordinance flyer, she was surprised to visit the City's website and learn the extent to which the process to adopt tree regulations has already taken place. When she moved to Edmonds in 2019, she reached out to the planning and engineering departments to identify and discuss her interest in tree regulations and questioned why she had not been previously notified, especially since she had previously expressed her interest to the City. With regard to the emergency ordinance, this is not an emergency. The City's statement of urgency in the ordinance is possible removal of landmark trees; the possible removal of trees with a diameter of 24" has been in place since prior to the City incorporation. There is nothing about the statement of emergency that establishes emergent new facts unless the City contends the undertaking of a normal regulatory process is the cause of the emergency which she said was clearly established by the whereas clauses. She was upset by the City's action because the statement of emergency is clearly a false pretense, strips citizens of their normal, fair regulatory process by removing the right to referendum, and strips property owners from their rights to manage property, property owners who have clearly demonstrated their desire to maintain trees. Last year she saw a City employee in her backyard; when approached, he quickly left saying he was looking for a water meter. She submitted a public record request to determine if he was actually trying to survey her property for trees. Citing the lack of notice, an emergency ordinance that strips citizens of their fair, regulatory process, and the potential illegal entry of her property, she reiterated the need to form a partnership with landowners. Partnerships happen when people feel they are being treated fairly; cancelling this emergency ordinance is the first step toward forming a partnership that will be necessary to preserve large trees. Maria Sickle, Edmonds, said citizens feel ordinances are being passed without any notification. Increasing the cost of tree cutting also increases the cost of housing development. She recalled from the March 10' meeting that Snohomish County is behind in housing development. When the cost of development is increased, it increases the cost of housing. Small construction companies will be unable to build in Edmonds because they cannot afford the high cost of tree cutting and the small home building companies will go elsewhere and big, out-of-town development companies will do exactly what the City does not want, clear-cut all the trees because they can afford to. The small construction companies care about the area and want to make it look nice for future generations, but the tree code is going backwards on that point. The moratorium has been a way to manipulate laws and target specific individuals with the intent to build such as development in Perrinville and she feared taxpayers' money would be used to defend lawsuits. She urged the Council to rethink laws before implementing them and consider what they are looking for before approving them. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 12 6.1.a James Leach, Edmonds, observed this is a very contention topic and suggested it be voted on. He questioned why this was considered an emergency and assumed as an emergency ordinance, it was not going through the standard process and when something does not go through a standard process, it looks like an end run to avoid notice to the citizenry. He requested responses to his questions. Mayor Nelson advised the public hearing is an opportunity for public comment, not for question and answer. Kristina Stapleton, Edmonds, a homeowner with landmark trees on her property, spoke in favor of the ordinance. Her neighbor has been cutting trees that block her view and she was sad to see them go because they are part of what makes Edmonds a beautiful place. She said just because a person has landmark trees on their property does not mean they do not support ordinances that protect them and she was happy landmark trees were being protected. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, a 42+ year resident, thanked the Council for passing the ordinance, finding it necessary while the Council works on a tree code that applies not only to developers but also to all residents of Edmonds. The City has been working for five years to develop a tree code to preserve trees; a green environment is Edmonds' heritage and he was pleased the City has tried to preserve it. While the City has been working on a code that makes sense for the trees and citizens, hundreds of trees have been cut down including clearcutting of lots for development. In his estimation, trees could have been left around the perimeter but that is not happening so it is clear a tree code is needed to protect the trees for the betterment of everyone. In response to some commenters, these restrictions shouldn't be a surprise; the City has been working on this for at least five years. Two years ago the City passed an Urban Forest Management Plan and everyone knew where Edmonds was headed. He suggested Section 2 of the ordinance needed to be revised to clarify people are currently not allowed to obtain permits to remove landmark trees. As currently worded, it suggests the permit process will proceed as normal and someone can apply for a permit and begin cutting down landmark trees. The Council should also discuss why this ordinance does not apply to significant trees, the core of the tree code. He questioned why significant trees were not used instead of landmark trees. Kimberly Bailey, Edmonds, spoke against the ordinance applying to residents and developers. The majority of large trees that are lost are on lots clear-cut for development where they take down every tree and blade of grass and leave the dirt bare. The City Council does not have the right to tell property owners what they can do with their own property. She also objected to reference to heritage trees and nothing about the type or quality of the tree; if it is big enough, it counts. For example, a huge holly tree which is also an invasive species and even Parks removes them. Size alone does not make a tree valuable. The Tree Board cites the right tree in the right spot; sometimes after 20-25 years what was the right tree in the right spot is no longer the right tree in the right spot. This ordinance is poorly designed and does not serve taxpayers well. Susie Schaefer, Edmonds, a 40+ year resident, said she has seen a lot of trees removed in Edmonds. She referred to the land acknowledgement read at the beginning of the Council meeting and suggested the City was losing its heritage due to tree removal. She believes in native trees and agreed with the previous speaker that large holly trees are not native and squeeze out native trees. For anyone that does not know which trees are native, they can learn about them when the Demo Garden is redone and reopens. All she sees are trees being cut down, none being replanted to realize the Northwest heritage. She often tells kids complaining about the rain that they are tough, Northwest kids. People in this area should be tough and should respect their heritage. This area was forested in the past and she continues to see trees removed for development. The world is changing rapidly and people need all the oxygen they can get. They need to think about climate change every day and actions need to reflect that. She summarized she was in favor of trees. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 10 Packet Pg. 13 6.1.a Mr. Lien relayed staff s recommendation to continue the interim ordinance through its current expiration date while staff works on the tree regulations. Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the ordinance would be in effect until December 2nd and then would expire. Mr. Lien agreed it would expire December 2nd, six months from March 2nd. Councilmember Distelhorst clarified this was a temporary ordinance until regulations were developed. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled she wanted to put this on the agenda last week so she could remove Section 2. She asked if there were permits that had already been issued and if Section 2 were removed, would developers be treated exactly the same as homeowners. Mr. Lien answered a number of permits have been submitted. One of the tree cuttings mentioned during public comments was related to a permit approved two years ago. He was aware of only one application that has been submitted that would be subject to the new tree regulations. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled when this was quickly approved on March 2nd, she wanted to add significant trees. She asked whether significant trees could be added to landmark trees. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said there is no legal reason but it is a significant policy change. Councilmember Buckshnis said she knew it was a significant policy change, but the March 2nd minutes illustrate how quickly this was done and there were not really any discussions about it. Mr. Taraday acknowledged it was a policy issue so the Council could change its mind. He recalled from that discussion the thought was that significant trees had been adequately addressed through the development regulations that the Council had since adopted and that interim regulations were a tool to deal with important situations and at the time only landmark trees warranted that treatment. That did not mean the Council couldn't adopt other regulations related to significant, but at the time it was the Council's decision to limit it to landmark trees. Councilmember Buckshnis said the Council never vetted 23.075 or 048 for which she had a number of amendments. At the March 2' meeting, Mr. Lien provided examples related to low impact development and then the Council suddenly approved the entire tree code and attachments without a code number. She wanted it to be very clear how this occurred which is why there have been so many concerns about the process. She expressed support for including significant trees in the ordinance. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the difference between significant and landmark trees. Mr. Lien answered the new tree code defines a significant tree as a 6" DBH and a landmark tree as a 24" DBH. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas summarized the difference was the size of the tree. Council President Paine recalled when this emergency interim ordinance was developed, the discussion on March 2' included the inability to do code enforcement related to trees. She assumed there had been a lot of inquiries to Development Services about the possibility of trees being cut down. She asked approximately how many subdivision applications the City receives a year and how many are vested under the older tree code. Mr. Lien said in reviewing the past 10 years, the City averages about 10 subdivisions per year, both formal (5 or more lots) and short plats. Council President Paine asked about the number of permits for vacant lots. Mr. Lien said he would need to do more research to determine how many subdivisions are vested and how many have received preliminary approval. Once a subdivision receives preliminary approval, the developer has five years to finalize it. He would need to research the last five years to determine how many preliminary approved subdivisions were still in process. He did not know how many vacant properties there were throughout the City. The City is largely developed and vacant lots are few and far between. Some of the properties left vacant are vacant for a reason, primarily because they are more difficult to develop. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 11 Packet Pg. 14 6.1.a Councilmember Olson also recalled enforcement and the administrative burden of including a greater number of trees was part of the consideration. The Council has several options, vote yes or no to continue the ordinance or make amendments. Mr. Taraday anticipated an amendment would take the form of a new interim ordinance as that would be the cleanest way. Councilmember Olson asked if that would require a new hearing process. Mr. Taraday said it would. Councilmember Olson referred to Ms. Seitzs' comments about the emergency designation of the ordinance, recalling she understood the urgency of the ordinance. She asked if it was an issue legally to use an emergency ordinance when trees have been growing all this time. Mr. Taraday answered the Growth Management Act specifically contemplates that interim regulations of this type and other types would be adopted essentially without notice with the idea that there would be a public process after the fact, especially considering that these are just temporary regulations. That is why the GMA created this tool; it is a temporary regulation so that the City can preserve in the short term what needs to be preserved and allow time to have a thorough, deliberative process to determine the best policies for the City over the long term. All the regular public hearings and public processes occur as part of the development of the permanent regulations. These are temporary regulations and the GMA specifically contemplates that ordinances of this nature would be adopted without notice on an emergency basis in order to preserve the status quo. Councilmember L. Johnson clarified this ordinance covered landmark trees 24" DBH or larger and was an effort to protect the largest trees on properties without permits while the City works on the second portion of the code. If the Council used the definition of significant tree versus landmark trees and expanded it to include subdivided lots, the City would be preventing the removal of any trees 6" or larger on any property in Edmonds. Ms. Hope agreed, if the ordinance was changed to significant trees, 6" DBH, and Section 2 was removed, it would apply to all trees other than nuisance, hazard type trees. Councilmember L. Johnson wanted it to be clear what was involved if the ordinance was expanded to include significant trees versus landmark trees. As someone who worked on the ordinance, the effort was to protect the largest trees, those that could not be replaced within our lifetime while the City works as quickly and diligently as possible to craft and enact the second portion of the code. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested changing the ordinance to any tree with a diameter of 18" DBH and call it a landmark tree since there are no definitions in the code as it was voted down. Mr. Lien said there is a definition of landmark tree within the ordinance itself, defining it as a tree with a 24" diameter. The definition is in Ordinance 4217 and not in the code because the code does not specifically address landmark trees. Councilmember Buckshnis said the definition of landmark tree could be changed to 18", noting she was uncertain how the definition of 24" was developed. She wanted to keep the moratorium for building permits in Ordinance 4200 which expired March 24'. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO REMOVE SECTION 2. Councilmember Buckshnis said she and many other citizens found this process very disheartening. She did not like how March 2nd played out as she had many amendment that will never come forth, especially in 20.75.048. She objected to quickly passing the tree code ordinance to create the emergency ordinance. If homeowners are prohibited from cutting down trees, it is important to prohibit developers so everybody is treated the same. That is the reason she is requesting Section 2 be removed. Mr. Taraday commented Councilmember Buckshnis likely only wants to remove the last sentence of Section 2 as she probably likes the first sentence of Section 2. Mr. Lien displayed 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 removal associated with and permitted through a building permit, subdivision, or other land use approval." He explained the exemption in ECDC 23.10.040.A is developed single family properties not capable of being Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 12 Packet Pg. 15 6.1.a subdivided that have no critical areas; those properties are exempt from the tree regulations adopted in ECDC 23.10. The thought behind the second sentence is the City has tree regulations that apply to development in ECDC 23.10. There are no tree regulations that apply to all tree removal on developed properties without critical areas. The intent of the ordinance was to protect the most significant trees, the landmark trees, while regulations are adopted. Mr. Taraday said the removal of the second sentence of Section 2 is a major policy change that could potentially, depending on where trees were located on a developable property, prevent development. He wanted to be sure the Council understood that. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Mr. Taraday to repeat what he just said. Mr. Taraday said if the second sentence of Section 2 were removed from the ordinance, landmark trees could not be removed from even a property that is being subdivided or property with a building permit. If someone came in with a subdivision application and the second sentence of Section 2 was removed and there were a bunch of landmark trees on their property, those trees would have to remain and it was not feasible to build around the trees, there would be no developable area left. Mr. Lien said that would apply not just to subdivisions but also building permits. For example, if someone wanted to build an accessory structure, addition to their house or an improvements that required the removal of a landmark tree, those would also be impacted. He summarized it would affect not just subdivisions but any land development. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to 23.10.040 which talks about removal of trees on improved single family lots. She agreed with Mr. Taraday, she would keep the first sentence. This is only a temporary ordinance to allow the City to finish the code and provide sufficient information to administration for the existing code and the code being created and if homeowners were prohibited from removing trees, developers should be treated in the same manner. Councilmember Buckshnis revised her amendment to remove the second sentence from her amendment and leave the first sentence because it refers to single family lots. Council President Paine asked if that sentence if removed, would the ordinance need to be rewritten followed by an additional public hearing process because it is such a substantial change. Mr. Taraday said that would be his recommendation as that is a brand new interim regulation. Council President Paine asked if a public hearing process would be required if the definition of landmark trees was changed. Mr. Taraday answered he believed so. Councilmember K. Johnson asked for clarification; at one point Councilmember Buckshnis wanted to remove Section 2 entirely and later she wanted to remove the second sentence so it did not apply to development. Mayor Nelson restated the motion: STRIKE THE SECOND SENTENCE OF SECTION 2 (THIS ORDINANCE SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY TREE REMOVAL ASSOCIATED WITH AND PERMITTED THROUGH A BUILDING PERMIT, SUBDIVISION, OR OTHER LAND USE APPROVAL.) Councilmember K. Johnson relayed her understanding of the intent was to apply the emergency ordinance equally among both developers and homeowners. She asked if removal of the second sentence would allow landmark trees to be removed with development. Mr. Lien answered removal of the second sentence would have the opposite effect. Removing it, the prohibition against removal of landmark trees would apply to building permits, subdivisions and land use. Including the sentence in Section 2 provides an exception for building permits, subdivisions and other land use approval. Councilmember Olson recalled when Councilmember L. Johnson provided the definition of significant trees, she cited 6" DBH. The Council can define whatever term it wants such as 12" DBH for protection as a significant tree. She relayed she felt very stressed and conflicted; the emergency situation has been Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 13 Packet Pg. 16 6.1.a impressed upon her in the Talbot Road area with the creek and the runoff and she knows trees play a role in rainwater so obviously no development in a forested area is better than any mitigation for stormwater. Legally if something is zoned for construction and construction is not allowed, even if the ordinance is temporary, there may be businesses that go out of business over this. She questioned whether the City would then on the hook legally for those bills. The City would be well served if a philanthropist who wanted to protect forested land in Edmonds came forward and made the landowners an offer they could not refuse and stop monkeying around with moratoriums and other things that are just a can of worms. She felt very stressed and after having her head in this for many months, she was unclear how to proceed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if Section 2 currently excluded developers. With regard to the first sentence, Mr. Lien explained in the original adopted tree code, developed single family properties with no critical areas that are not capable of being subdivided are not subject to the new tree regulations in 23.10. By excepting them in Section 2, that means the exemption does not apply when it comes to landmark trees. There is still a prohibition on removal of landmark trees on developed single family properties. The second sentence is in regard to tree removal associated with development; including the second sentence says the prohibition against removal of landmark trees does not apply to building permit, subdivision or other land use approval. What applies to building permit, subdivision or other land use approval is the tree code adopted by the Council in 23.10. Ms. Hope pointed out 23.10 prevents clearcutting properties with development and sets up a lot of regulations, penalties, incentives, etc. that would apply with development. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was still perplexed. She referred to the second sentence and asked if a building permit could be single family or multi -family. Mr. Lien answered a building permit could be single family, multi -family, commercial development, etc., anything that requires a building permit. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said removing the second sentence takes away the exemption for any building permit. Mr. Lien agreed, explaining if the second sentence was removed and someone had a building permit for expansion of their house or an accessory structure and there was a landmark tree in the way, they would not be able to proceed with development if it required removal of the landmark tree. They would have to find a way to work around the landmark tree or wait until the ordinance expires and new regulations are adopted. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed that would apply to single family and multi -family. Mr. Lien agreed, anything that required a building permit. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed if the second sentence is removed it takes away the equal application. Mr. Taraday asked what she meant by equal application. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said it would apply to single family as well as multi -family. Ms. Hope said it would apply to any building permit, whereas with only the first sentence, any developed property that is not having anything done to it, they cannot cut down a landmark tree. It exempted property where there was development already under the new rules, requirements, penalties and incentives adopted by the Council. Since existing development does not have those rules in place, it was her understanding that Council wanted to stop the removal of really large trees on those properties until there was time to decide what to do about them. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if this would stop construction for someone was in the middle of building. Mr. Taraday answered no. Ms. Hope said it would only apply to applications that hadn't vested. If someone wanted to start a new project such as a garage, it would apply. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS, AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO CONTINUE ORDINANCE NO. 4217 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 WHICH IS THE SIX MONTH MARK. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 14 Packet Pg. 17 Councilmember Olson preferred to wait until next week to provide Councilmembers time to think about it so she will not support the motion. Mr. Taraday said the ordinance requires at the very next meeting after the public hearing, the Council adopt findings either to continue the ordinance or not. He can certainly provide two versions in next week's packet, but it would be helpful if the Council could provide direction tonight on the findings to be included in next week's packet. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Olson, the Council needs time to digest this. She was uncertain what a second ordinance would include. Mr. Taraday clarified the Council has two choices next week; 1) adopt findings to justify the continuing applicability of this ordinance until September as originally planned, or 2) adopt an ordinance repealing the interim regulation. He was unclear which one the Council wanted him to draft. Council President Paine requested Councilmembers support the motion to allow the work that is being done by Development Services on the Stage 2 to continue which is scheduled to come to Council on May 18' following review by the Planning Board. She supported developing with all due haste a comprehensive tree code that addresses all trees on all properties. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED TO AMEND TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ORDINANCE AND BRING BACK INFORMATION TO MAKE FINAL DECISION NEXT WEEK. Councilmember Olson raised a point of clarification, asking whether that was an amendment. Councilmember K. Johnson said the maker of the motion wants to take action tonight but findings need to be prepared and there are two options for next week. The Council needs to give direction to the City Attorney so he can bring back findings and a package for action next week. All the Council needs to do tonight is give the attorney direction. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if this needed to be voted on at today's meeting or next week's meeting. Mr. Taraday said he meant next week's meeting. The ordinance states at the meeting after the hearing. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the Council could not pass it tonight, but it could be on the Consent Agenda next week. Mr. Taraday said he understood Council President Paine's motion to essentially do what this amendment is expressly directing, giving him direction to bring back findings to justify the continuance of the ordinance applicability until September 2" a. He appreciated the clarification provided by the amendment and said action would be necessary next week either way. Councilmember L. Johnson said she was comfortable waiting for this to come back to Council next week. Councilmember Distelhorst said his interpretation was the same as Mr. Taraday's; he understood Council President Paine's motion to be moving toward adopting findings. That is the action tonight, to give the City Attorney direction regarding findings to prepare for next week. The amendment and the motion seem to be one in the same. Council President Paine agreed the intent of her motion was to have findings prepared for approval on the Consent Agenda next week. The findings can be pulled if further discussion is needed. Councilmember L. Johnson suspected the findings would be pulled from Consent which requires additional time and suggested scheduling it on the agenda instead. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 15 Packet Pg. 18 6.1.a Mayor Nelson asked if the amendment included putting the findings on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember K. Johnson said it did not. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Paine restated the motion: TO EXTEND THE EMERGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE TO SEPTEMBER 2"D. MAIN MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS, AND OLSON VOTING NO. Mayor Nelson asked Mr. Taraday if he had the direction he needed. Mr. Taraday said based on the vote, he will draft findings for adoption at next week's meeting that will justify the originally scheduled continuation of the ordinance through September 2" d Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. 8. NEW BUSINESS 1. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY (HASCO) Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced Duane Leonard, Executive Director, HASCO, commenting this is the first time he has presented to Council. Following Mr. Leonard's presentation, Councilmembers Distelhorst and Olson will provide slides and then she will discuss the Citizens Housing Commission's (CHC) recommendation and next steps. Immediate action is not proposed tonight, it is intended to set the groundwork and to consider next steps. Mr. Leonard reviewed: • HASCO created in 1971, celebrating its 50t' anniversary this year What is a Public Housing Authority o The US Housing Act of 1937 created the US Housing Authority. ■ Washington State passed "enabling legislation" that is now codified as Chapter 35.82 RCW in 1939 o HASCO is a Local Government Agency established to received Federal resources with no ability to assess local taxes o There are 37 Housing Authorities in the State, many are similar, but all operate according to local housing plans. o Declaration of Necessity ■ Shortage of safe, sanitary, housing that is impacting the public welfare ■ Conditions cannot be cured by private enterprise ■ Remedying these conditions is a public purpose ■ Declared a matter of legislative intent to immediately work to solve the problem What is our role in the community? o We work in collaboration with local government and non -profits and others to bring people together on housing issues o HASCO does this in three main way: ■ We rent units that we own. We are a landlord. ■ We assist families with their rent ■ We collaborate and advocate on housing issues Photos of HASCO communities (hasco.org) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 16 Packet Pg. 19 6.1.a • HASCO Assists Families with Rent (Housing Choice Voucher - Section 8 Program) o The Section 8 Program assists families with rent. The voucher holder pays approximately 30% of their income for rent and the voucher will pay the rest o Demographics ■ Over 70% of the families on the program are elderly or have a disabled family member - 29% Non -Senior Non -Disabled Households - 9% Non -Disabled Senior Households - 37% Non -Senior Disabled Households - 25% Disabled Senior Households ■ Average annual income is $16,800 ■ Children make up 36% of those assisted • Advocate and Collaborate o Advocate at Federal, State, and Local levels of government on housing issues o Collaborate with Social Service Agencies and Non -Profits o Bring together private landlords and homeowners with renters • Importance of Advocacy and Collaboration o Regional Problems Needs Regional Solutions - Non one can do this alone o % Change in Rent vs. Household Income 2010-2019 ■ All Unit Average - 49% ■ Median Household Income - 7% • Estimated Need o Approximately 77,000 families in need of voucher assistance ■ Everett Housing Authority and HASCO meet approximately 12.8% of need ■ Approximately 87% of the need is unmet • Rated and Respected o S&P Global Ratings A+ o Affordable Housing Accreditation Board accredited • In conclusion o Safe, stable, affordable housing has always been needed and necessary, now more than ever o Housing Authorities are local government agencies specifically created to address the issue of housing o HASCO can help move the community discussion forward with real examples of successful outcomes Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Mr. Leonard for his presentation and for meeting with Councilmember Olson and him this spring to discuss an ILA. He reviewed information related to the City of Edmonds - HASCO ILA HASCO cannot freely operate within any city unless an ILA is executed to establish HASCO as a city's official housing authority. Map of HASCO current and proposed operating areas in Edmonds HASCO in Edmonds o Edmonds Highlands on SR-104 ■ 120 units, 1-313R, 1-213A apartments ■ Currently 113 of 120 units rented to residents below 80% AMI (requirement is 60 of 120 units). Of those units, 60 are rented to individuals at 50% AMI or below o Olympic View ■ 45 units, senior and persons with disabilities only o Sound View ■ 43 units, senior and persons with disabilities only What the draft ILA does not do o There are no preferences, incentives, or concessions Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 17 Packet Pg. 20 6.1.a 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 (Lynnwood adopted ILA with HASCO in 1991) ■ 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: ■ Execute an interlocal agreement (ILA) with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) allowing HASCO to operate within Edmonds geographic boundaries. (14-1 vote) o Snohomish County Housing Affordability Regional Task Force (HART) - January 2020: ■ Then -Mayor Earling and Director Hope participated on HART ■ Encourage cities to enter into cooperation agreements with HASCO and Everett Housing Authority. o Edmonds Housing Needs Study - December 2018: ■ Institutional capacity for administering rental assistance is limited. Although providing rental assistance may contribute needed resources to these programs, administration by the City may be difficult given the current lack of local capacity. Coordination with existing public housing agencies such as HASCO would be more effective. o Koenig Report on Homeless in Edmonds ■ Recommended a partnership with HASCO Conclusions o Edmonds remains 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 Recommendation: Authorize Mayor to sign ILA with HASCO Councilmember Olson explained in the contracting world, it is not uncommon to have a blanket purchase agreement, but that does not require any purchase orders be issued. It establishes terms and accomplishes pre -negotiations which is similar to an ILA. The agreement would allow 14ASCO to proceed with a purchase without seeking authorization from Council on a one-off project basis. The ILA puts that authorization in advance. Often in real estate opportunities go very fast; it is critical to give HASCO this authorization if the Council wants them as the City's housing authority. She shared her own perceptions from the vetting done this spring;14ASCO has an amazing track record. She was impressed by the quality, upkeep and maintenance of their properties and they are good neighbors. HASCO has a great track record doing this work and demonstrating they understand their mission. By law half the units have to be rented at 80% AMI, but in fact they surpass that in one of their buildings with 120 units, 113 are at or below 80% AMI and of those, 60 are at or below 50% AMI. Councilmember Olson said she has heard concern from citizens about the redistribution of the tax burden; that is fair because the taxation is challenging for a lot of residents who are paying their own way. People Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 18 Packet Pg. 21 6.1.a are stretched and taxes impact what they have available to spend. If the Council approves the ILA, HASCO has the exact same opportunity that every other non-profit has. If the City says yes to HASCO, that does not mean affordable housing will not be done by other non -profits, but they may be non -profits that do not have as good a track record of upkeep and maintenance. The more need there is, the more likely others will address the need instead of HASCO. Ms. Hope relayed the CHC has discussed an ILA with HASCO as well as many other ideas. The CHC also gathered input from the community via an online open house and survey. CHC survey #2 posed the question, "what is your level of support for the idea to expand cooperating with the countywide housing agency HASCOT' This received some strong support and strong opposition from the public, a virtual tie; 295 respondents strongly or somewhat supported the idea and 294 strongly or somewhat opposed the idea. Survey #4 posed a similar question and received a bigger portion of responses that strongly opposed the idea, 128 opposed or strongly opposed and 84 strongly or somewhat supported HASCO's presence in Edmonds. She noted online surveys are interesting and useful, but are not statistically valid. Ms. Hope explained following the surveys, the CHC has further discussion. For example, one commissioner was concerned HASCO did not provide enough low income housing for tenants and its nonprofit status meant the housing was not taxed. Following further discussion, most CHC members felt HASCO's service was useful and needed because they provide housing for an income level that the private sector could not and that HASCO's existing communities in Edmonds fit in well. Ultimately the CHC decided on a 14-1 vote to recommend Edmonds execute an ILA with HASCO to provide services in Edmonds. While theoretically and legally the Council could vote on an ILA tonight or put it on Consent, that is not staff s proposal. Staff understands this is the full Council's first meeting on this topic and that there will be one or more meetings for the Council to consider this issue and make a decision. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if Edmonds had signed an agreement with HASCO in the past. She served with then -Mayor Earling on the Joint Housing Task Force with Lynnwood and recalled there was discussion about Edmonds doing an agreement with HASCO in the past. Mr. Leonard answered the proposed ILA would be a blanket agreement; twice before Edmonds has approved HASCO purchasing property in Edmonds and those are the properties 14ASCO currently owns. When HASCO purchased Edmonds Highlands in 2001, the Council approved a specific agreement for that property. The same was done when HASCO purchased Olympic View and Sound View in 2005 or 2006. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas recalled that Joint Task Force was interested in the Rodeo Inn, but that fell through when the owner did not want to sell. She recalled then -Mayor Earling set up a tax rebate of $100,000 to be used in a joint venture with other cities in the area who would also provide funding. Ms. Hope said that ultimately was not done because the project fell through. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the HASCO senior housing is located behind the grocery store; there are HASCO properties in the City that people do not know about because they are not identified as HASCO properties. Those properties provide an opportunity for seniors and disabled persons to live in Edmonds. She was supportive of this opportunity and thanked Mr. Leonard and Councilmembers Distelhorst and Olson for putting this package together and moving it forward. Councilmember L. Johnson expressed appreciation for the presentation, commenting she learned a great deal. This appears to be an excellent opportunity to partner on housing for low income, seniors, those with disabilities and children with an agency with a proven track record that goes above and beyond the minimum requirements. This is also an opportunity for regional cooperation; she recalled being excited about the Rodeo Inn when that opportunity arose and disappointed when it fell through and she wanted the opportunity to explore opportunities when they arise. She asked why the City wouldn't do this, noting the only thing she came up with was not prioritizing serving and helping low income, senior, disabled individuals and children. She was very supportive of moving the ILA with HASCO forward next week and Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 19 Packet Pg. 22 6.1.a was appreciative of the work that has been put into this from the various groups throughout the years. It has taken awhile but she was glad the Council had finally reached this point. Councilmember Buckshnis said obviously money was required to purchase properties. She was familiar with Rick Steves' generosity related to the property he donated to the Y because Councilmember K. Johnson and she are involved with the Rotary who maintains that property. She asked if there were opportunities to purchase properties. Mr. Leonard said prices are increasing rapidly which makes doing affordable housing very difficult. For example, when he started with HASCO in 1995, HASCO was able to get very good bank financing. HASCO does not have a revenue stream or taxing authority but a lot of the projects in early years, the bank would finance 110% of the purchase price, the entire amount plus 10% for immediate rehab. Over time, prices have escalated and after the 2008/2009 recession banks lost the ability to provide that type of financing. Mr. Leonard explained when HASCO purchased Edmonds Highlands in 2001, it was the most expensive development they had ever purchased; $60,000 per unit for 120 units. In 2018 HASCO purchased a similar property in Mukilteo, $302,000 per unit for 230 units. The previous owners of the Mukilteo property had only owned it for 30 months and were in the process of upgrading units and had also increased rents an average of $250/month in the 30 months they owned the property. HASCO has owned the property since September 2018 and although rents have not been lowered, they have not been increased. As a public agency, their goal is over a period of time to keep rents constant or lower thereby bringing affordability to the community. As a result the residents have more money to spend at local businesses, one of the goals HASCO tries to achieve. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how HASCO interacts with Affordable Housing Authority (AHA). Mr. Leonard answered HASCO is a member of AHA and also acts as the fiscal agent for AHA. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether citizens indicated in the surveys why they went from not minding a partnership with HASCO to strongly opposing it. Ms. Hope answered there is no information available regarding that; it could be there was a push by people opposed to it or other reasons. In the first survey, which had a larger number of respondents, there were few clear comments opposing it. There were comments about not wanting low income housing, fear of crime, concern with property taxes, but most of the concern was about providing low income housing. Council President Paine commented this is eye-opening data. She recalled AHA shared similar data regarding the unmet need. She was supportive of an ILA with Edmonds to allow HASCO to provide very affordable, stable -priced housing. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the ILA would allow HASCO to carte blanche purchase property anywhere in the city limits of Edmonds. Ms. Hope said her understanding was it would allow 14ASCO to purchase property without going through a long process with the City if they meet the criteria in the ILA. It is unlikely to happen often because HASCO does not have a great deal of resources. She assured the Council would be informed and likely Mr. Leonard would make a presentation to Council. Mr. Leonard said they never view anything as carte blanche authority; they view an ILA as a partnership and if they ever surprised a city, they have not done their job. For example, before HASCO purchased Edmonds Highlands, there was a due diligence period of 6 months with two 30 day extension, 8 months to get financing in place and get in front of the Council to ask permission. Sellers today will not take a purchaser seriously if it takes 8 months to close; they want immediately closing. For example, the project in Mukilteo closed in 45 days which is not enough time to get in front of the Council for approval. That is the reason HASCO is seeking an ILA. He assured HASCO would discuss with the Mayor any project they were interested in purchasing prior to acting. He summarized HASCO did not want to surprise anyone, they wanted to be a partner. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 20 Packet Pg. 23 6.1.a Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out HASCO was not asking the City for money or financial support for construction, but rather approval to act without going through a bunch of hoops. Mr. Leonard agreed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said there is no cost to the City and expecting HASCO to come to the City before making a purchase is unreasonable in today's market. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED THAT THE COUNCIL CONCLUDE FOR TONIGHT AND PUT THIS BACK ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT WEEK. Ms. Hope suggested putting it on the agenda the week after or whatever worked for the Council President. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON WITHDREW THE MOTION. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO SCHEDULE THIS ON THE MAY 4TH AGENDA. Councilmember K. Johnson was glad this item was not on the Consent Agenda, recalling she requested a presentation to full Council. She supported the Council having a more global discussion about how all the CHC's recommendations come to the Council and requested that staff and the Council President schedule that very soon. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1) COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON ABSTAINING. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND TO 10:30. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested adjourning the meeting and postponing the items that the Council had not gotten to. She envisioned the Council would need until 11:00 p.m. to complete all the agenda items and the Council had already been in their chairs continuously since 6 p.m. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if a motion to adjourn was debatable. Mr. Taraday said it was not. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, FRALEY- MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of personal privilege, suggesting in the Thursday meetings, consideration be given to the timeframe for agenda items. Her research found items were taking close to three times the amount of time allocated on the agenda and perhaps more accurate timeframes would be less tiring and frustrating. Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, pointing out a point of personal privilege is something like the room is too hot or the windows need to be opened. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said her point of personal privilege was related to comfort and understanding. She reiterated her request for more accurate timeframes for agenda items. MOTION CARRIED (5-1-1), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO, AND COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON ABSTAINING. 2. PARKS, RECREATION & OPEN SPACE (PROS) PLAN UPDATE CONSULTANT AGREEMENT Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 21 Packet Pg. 24 6.1.a Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Director Angie Feser reviewed: Purpose of a PROS Plan o The Plan is a 6-year guide and strategic plan for managing and enhancing parks, open space, trails and recreation opportunities in Edmonds. Policy Strategy Guide o Built on Public Process o Communication Tool o Grant Eligibility PROS Plan Components o Goals and objectives o Capital Improvement Program (CIP) o Implementation strategies o Strategic focus based in gap analysis ■ What are our strengths? ■ How should we serve our community? ■ Where should we focus our efforts? Current PROS Plan o History ■ 2008 Parks, Recreation & Open ■ Space Comprehensive Plan ■ 2014 PROS Plan ■ 2016 Update o Proposed Consultant Scope of Work ■ Update the Existing Sections (4) ■ System Need ■ System Concept, Goals and Objectives ■ Action Plan ■ Funding Plan o Goals & Objectives 1) Collaborations and Leadership 2) Parks and Open Space 3) Shoreline Use and Access 4) Natural Resource and Habitat Conservation 5) Recreation Programs and Activities 6) Cultural Services 7) Park Operations and Maintenance Process of this PROS Plan Update Start Up/ Existing Needs T Public Involvement 'n"r1;t;n„Q / Assessment Goals & Final Plan strategies > Draft Plan Feb 2022 T T T T T Enhanced Public Involvement - Community engagement - advisory groups, stakeholders, public meetings, events, surveys, correspondence, online communications, etc. Consultant Selection o Request for Qualifications (RFQ) ■ 5 City Advisory Boards/Commissions gave input on project focus ■ March 15, 2021 - three submittals ■ City Staff Evaluation Team - Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Dept Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 22 Packet Pg. 25 6.1.a - Development Services Dept - Unanimous decision Enhanced Public Involvement Tasks - allowing diversity, equity and inclusion o Translated to three languages (Spanish, Korean, Chinese) ■ On-line survey ■ Email communications ■ Social media toolkit ■ Pop-up event materials and on -site translation ■ Virtual Public Meeting live interpretation o Highway 99 Renewal Plan collaboration 2022 PROS Contract Fee PSA Contract $138,596* Virtual public meeting interpretation for both meetings (optional service) $ 4,800 Contract Total $143,396 * The $ 8,586 cost of Highway 99 Renewal Plan cost covered by Development Services Department Councilmember Buckshnis said she had been in meetings all afternoon and felt it was disrespectful to expect Councilmembers to sit past 10 p.m. She relayed a question many have been asking, will the addition of the Public Involvement Plan (PIP) result in delay or not completing the PROS Plan in a timely manner. Ms. Feser said it has been integrated as part of the proposal and the consultant can make the deadline with the additional work. It is simply planning the community engagement component. She has worked with this consultant before and he has never missed a deadline in her experience with him, his references are stellar and he would not have committed to this work if he did not feel he could deliver it according to the timeline. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled there have been many complaints about open houses during COVID including people answering anonymously, unknown whether they are citizens of Edmonds, etc.; the issue of transparence is a concern to the public. She asked if there were plans for in -person open houses. Ms. Feser answered the project is set up to function according to whatever guidelines are in place at the time. There are in -person pop-up events such as the Farmers Market and virtual town halls could become in - person or a combination of in -person and virtual. Some people want to meet in -person and the PIP includes that such as "meeting in a box" that allows meeting with community members on their turf in -person and face-to-face. She was hopeful there would be opportunities for more in -person engagement this summer and fall, but it is set up to run virtually if needed. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed a citizen's question about why a firm from Portland which requires additional expense for travel was selected when there are many well-known firms in Washington that can prepare a PROS Plan. Ms. Feser answered she shared with Council the list of projects this consultant has done; they have been in the region for 15 years with more than 100 projects. With a majority of work being virtual, the consultant can work from Portland and still provide materials and set up and hold virtual meetings. The consultant has included $600 for travel in the budget if needed for the entire project. The subcontractors that does the community engagement is located in Seattle and will be doing the in -person meetings and are not charging for travel. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the PIP could be under Human Services and just concentrate on the PROS Plan. She asked what other cities have combined a PIP and PROS Plan. Ms. Feser said the PROS Plan is seen as an opportunity to start developing relationships with these communities. It is a fun conversation to have with communities about parks and recreation programs and a good way to start relationships. There needs to be a reason to do outreach; the PROS Plan is the conduit to begin forming those relationships plus the Highway 99 improvement can be added to capture the audience on Highway Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 23 Packet Pg. 26 6.1.a 99 at the same time. The equity and social justice component of this is an up and coming and desirable topic. Other Parks Departments such as Lynnwood are updating their PROS Plans and this is a big element for them as well. Councilmember Buckshnis said diversity, equity and inclusion is part of the consideration for WRIA 8 grants. In talking with friends in Parks & Recreation, they were unaware of anyone combining the PROS Plan and the PIP. Councilmember Distelhorst expressed his support for including the PIP, commenting support for that was very apparent when Ms. Feser presented to the Diversity Commission. Parks, recreation and open space are not necessarily equitably distributed throughout the City, including physical space, finance and budget. It is an excellent opportunity to begin to build that relationship with underserved communities and it makes perfect sense to overlay it with the Highway 99 Plan. He recognized the subcontractor doing the public participation work as a real regional leader and professional group that does public participation and engagement on major projects throughout the region and he was excited to have them working on this project. Councilmember K. Johnson referred to Task 2.3 in the scope of work which includes GIS to analyze the parks, trail and recreation system and areas with optimal parkland and trail access. She suggested also including open space, noting parks different from open space. Task 2.4 is a park inventory and she requested adding an inventory of capital facilities owned by the Parks Department such as the Meadowdale Playfield, Wade James Theater, etc. and identifying the square footage and the lease agreements. She recalled discussion a few years ago about doing an assessment of those facilities for the purpose of identifying their condition and possible redistribution of tenants. Councilmember K. Johnson inquired about the City Partnership Committee that will lead outreach for the PIP that is referenced in Task 3. Ms. Feser answered the City Partnership Committee is an ad hoc group comprised of community organizations and is where the Human Services Program Manager's relationship with those organizations will be used. This temporary committee will be formed to introduce and welcome the City to those communities to talk about the PROS Plan. The committee has not yet been formed, City staff provides the names and the consultant forms the committee. Councilmember K. Johnson said she participated in the PROS Plan update in 2014 and 2016; the City did not have a Human Services Program Manager at that time, but many groups were included such as Planning Board members and City Councilmembers in an overall steering committee. Ms. Feser responded when staff solicited feedback from advisory groups, representation was requested and meetings will be held with them periodically throughout the process to provide updates and gather feedback. That is different from the group identified in Task 3. Councilmember K. Johnson pointed out the City Council has not been interviewed regarding the ideas for the PROS Plan. She asked how the City Council would be incorporated into the PROS Plan process. Ms. Feser answered the Council's feedback on the PROS Plan will be incorporated via the Council's goals. Councilmember K. Johnson said she has been involved in many large planning processes and the kickoff is a key opportunity to bring all the affected individuals together. Observing that the kickoff planned for this update was only City staff, she asked if not including everyone was a missed opportunity for coordination and communication. Ms. Feser said that could be considered if that was the Council's recommendation. Councilmember K. Johnson referred to Task 3.1, pointing out she did not recall that the Human Services Program Manager functioning as part of the PROS Plan was part of the job description. Ms. Feser answered the position would be used minimally to identify connections that need to be developed. She will not be running community meetings or involved with all the components of the PROS Plan. She will be used as a resource to identify community leaders. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested looking at the recreation Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 24 Packet Pg. 27 6.1.a program such as the petanque club, the Penguins at Yost Pool, etc. Ms. Feser agreed stakeholders included user groups. Councilmember K. Johnson said she had many more questions. Council President Paine acknowledged the Council was unlikely to complete the agenda items, commenting it was important that Councilmembers get their questions answered early. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO EXTEND FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION FAILED (4-3) DUE TO LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY, COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS AND K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Olson announced her appointment of Darrol Haug to the Economic Development Commission. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND FOR FIVE MINUTES. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the intent was to postpone the rest of agenda to next week so Councilmembers can get their questions answered. She noted there are citizens very interested in the PROS Plan which is why Councilmembers re -ask questions. Councilmember L. Johnson raised a point of order, requesting that discussion pertain to the motion on the floor. Councilmember K. Johnson said Councilmember Buckshnis' question was relevant; whether the purpose of extending the meeting was to continue discussion of the PROS Plan or for Council comments. Councilmember L. Johnson said her intent was to have Council comments. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO EXTEND TO 10:40. 3. CODE AMENDMENT TO REALIGN PLANNING BOARD APPOINTMENT SCHEDULE 4. PAID FAMILY & MEDICAL LEAVE (PFML) POLICY CHANGES 9. OLD BUSINESS 1. COUNCILMEMBER REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS 12. ADJOURN The meeting extension expired and the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:31 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 25 Packet Pg. 28 6.1.a Public Comment for 4/20/21 Council Meeting: From: Carreen Nordling RUBENKONIG Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 4:59 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comment Mayor, City Council, Members of the City Administration- Good Evening. I am here to discuss the operation of the Edmonds Citizen Planning Board. Here are some facts. The City Council of December 16t", 1980 gave legal form and function to the Board through adoption of Edmonds Municipal Code 10.40.02. The end of each board member term is December 315Y . The Alternate Position is — as the other Board Members— Appointed and Confirmed to serve on the Planning Board and moves into a numbered position upon any vacancy. The Board's Schedule of Appointments, legally established in EMC 20.10.02, is to be Administered— in its form and function— by City Administration. The 1980 City Council followed a traditional pattern for manning the Board. A staggered cycle of every year, moves pairs of Citizen Volunteers (Positions 1 & 2; 3 & 4; 5 & 6; 7 & Alternate) through the Board as they serve four-year terms. At the end of the Position's term the Citizen can be terminated or reappointed. At any time, the Citizen can leave the Position. The vacant position is then filled by the Board member serving as the Alternate for the remainder of the term. At the term end the citizen volunteer is either terminated or reappointed. This cycling, this staggering of terms of service, provides both fluidity and continuity to the Board and its responsibilities. Every year there is change of paired positions. The citizen volunteer position is either terminated or reappointed. The legal Schedule of Appointments is not to be confused with the Planning Department's informal Roster. The Schedule of Appointments administered by the City Staff is to enforce the schedule as legally laid out in the Code. THE CODE, EMC 10.40.02 IS NOT BROKEN. The Schedule is set and needs no revision. What needs correction is aligning the Informal Roster of the Planninia Department to the Code. The Code Mandated Schedule of Appointments has moved through the past 40 years of city governance. It works well. Recently, there have been a few Planning Department clerical mistakes —usually one year off— which tumbled some Board positions from the orderly system of Board Appointments. These things happen. 50% of the current appointments are in line with the Code. With the exception of Position #1, the others are only a year off from the orderly Schedule of the Code. This is a minor adjustment — not of the Code — but the Informal Roster of the Planning Department. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 26 Packet Pg. 29 6.1.a The Schedule of Appointments for the Planning Board was set forth by the City Council to steadfastly move through the Decades — as it has done— providing Form and Function to the Responsibilities of the Edmonds Citizen Planning Board. Please provide direction to the Mayor to administer the Schedule of Appointments as established by the 1980 City Council in EMC 10.40.020. Thank you for your time. And accept my sincere appreciation for being able to serve the City as a member of the Edmonds Citizen Planning Board in the recent past years. Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig, 04-20-2021 From: Joan Bloom Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 20214:37 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Hearing on Emergency Ordinance 4217 Regarding Prohibition of Removal of Landmark Trees Council, Please revise Section 2 of Ordinance No. 4217 to REMOVE the sentence that says: "This ordinance shall not apply to any tree removal associated with and permitted through a building permit, subdivision, or other land use approval." The landmark tree (>24" diameter) protection ordinance needs to apply throughout Edmonds (no exceptions/exemptions) until the tree removal regulations are resolved for all private properties according to the goals and objectives of the City's 'Urban Forest Management Plan.' I further request that you do everything possible to save the Perrinville Woods from the planned development. Please seek funds to buy back as much of the property as possible, do everything in your power by lobbying for Federal infrastructure funds, and/or seek local Conservation funding to purchase the property. The damage that will be done to the environment, to the wildlife, and to the property of home owners down stream of and surrounding Perrinville Woods will be massive if development is allowed to proceed as proposed. Many adjacent trees on nearby properties will be compromised and cause further damage in the future. A destructive domino effect is the only possible result of this proposed development. Regards, Joan Bloom Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 27 Packet Pg. 30 6.1.a From: Ken Reidy Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 3:45 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov>; 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> Subject: PUBLIC HEARING on Emergency Ordinance 4217 Dear City Council (others blind cc'd), Ordinance 4217 claims it was effective March 2, 2021. Is this true? Councilmember Fraley- Monillas abstained from voting on Ordinance 4217. As all 7 Councilmembers voted the night of March 2, 2021, did not all 7 have to vote yes for the Emergency Ordinance vote to be unanimous? Does an abstaining vote count as opposition to the Motion if there is no declared "conflict of interest" claimed prior to the Motion? Council also voted on March 2, 2021 under the false representation that a super majority was required. There is no way to know how Council would have voted had Council been properly informed that only one vote was needed for the vote on an Emergency Ordinance to fail. This concept also applies to many other Emergency Ordinance votes in the past. How many of those votes would have been different? There is no way to know. What a mess. Nobody made a Motion to pass Ordinance 4217 as a regular Ordinance. No vote was taken on anything other than the Motion that declared an Emergency. The Ordinance Title for Ordinance 4217 declares an Emergency even though Councilmember Fraley-Monillas abstained. Are all Ordinances put forth as an Emergency Ordinance subject to referendum if they do not receive a unanimous vote? Please explain the answer and provide legal support for the answer. In an April 2, 2021 email, I specifically requested: Please make sure what is and isn't subject to referendum is explained in detail to City Council and the public. This can be a confusing area and it would help all if a solid, detailed explanation is provided. My request was ignored. Ordinance 4217 also makes the following Declaration of Emergency: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 28 Packet Pg. 31 6.1.a 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. This Declaration of Emergency contains falsehoods. City Council has been misguided about this process until very recently. Citizens recently informed City Council that a unanimous vote is required. This has been true since 1985 when Edmonds adopted the powers of initiative and referendum. Why have so many Emergency Ordinance votes been taken under the representation that an Emergency Ordinance can take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the Council? For example, the motion to pass Ordinance 4189 failed 6-1. Has anybody reported the Ordinance 4189 situation to the State Auditor yet? Please advise all Edmonds Citizens about the unanimous vote requirement for Emergency Ordinances mentioned in the MRSC publication (If the code city has adopted the powers of initiative and referendum, the vote must be unanimous and include a statement of urgency.) RCW 35A.11.090(2). Ordinance 4217 states in Section 1. that "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 is an error. The reference should be to ECDC 23.10.020.T. Ordinance 4217 has another error in Section 3. Nuisance Tree is defined in 23.10.0201, not 23.10.020. K. Ordinance 4218 also has at least one error. It states in 23.10.050 that removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040.E Hazard and Nuisance Trees, or through an approved modification of a Landscape Plan. ECDC 23.10.040.E deals with routine landscaping and maintenance of vegetation, not Hazard and Nuisance Trees. I believe Council passed yet another Ordinance last week that contains this same error. I do not believe that flawed Ordinance is effective yet. Council may want to vote to reconsider this new Ordinance for the purposes of fixing this error and reviewing the Ordinance for other errors before it is effective. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 29 Packet Pg. 32 6.1.a Also, how do all the problems with Ordinances 4217 and 4218 impact the Ordinance passed by Council last week? What about the problems with Ordinances 4200 and 4201? Should any of these Ordinances been subject to referendum? Ordinance 4218 has great problems that City Council should consider addressing immediately. After Council President Susan Paine suggested during the March 2, 2021 Council Meeting to continue the discussion about Draft Tree Regulations and Subdivision Code Amendment to the following week, the Council moved on to New Business. That "New Business" involved what would become flawed Ordinance 4217. After the Main Motion on Ordinance 4217 was voted on, the "New Business" Agenda Item was finished. Instead of moving on to the next Agenda Item, Council President Paine made a Motion related to the Draft Tree Regulations and Subdivision Code Amendment. Mayor Nelson failed to tell her that the New Business Agenda Item was complete and the next item on the Agenda was for the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Public Process. Council President Paine's bizarre motion was made roughly 40 minutes after she had suggested continuing the discussion about Draft Tree Regulations and Subdivision Code Amendment "next week". Council President Paine's motion made no mention of an emergency and did not declare an emergency. Despite this, the City is acting like Ordinance 4218 passed as an Emergency Ordinance. Nobody made a motion to pass an Emergency Ordinance. The Ordinance title for Ordinance 4218 does not declare an Emergency. The Ordinance title for Ordinance 4217 does declare an Emergency. Despite this, the City is acting like they both were effective March 2, 2021. Furthermore, please appreciate the convoluted mess found in the Ordinance Title for flawed Ordinance 4218: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING PRIOR TREE CLEARING REGULATIONS, ADOPTING NEW TREE RELATED REGULATIONS, NEW CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION DESIGN REGULATIONS, AND ESTABLISHING A NEW TREE FUND RCW 35A.12.130 states that no ordinance shall contain more than one subject and that must be clearly expressed in its title. The title to flawed Ordinance 4218 contains more than one subject. At a minimum, establishing a New Tree Fund had to be done via a separate Ordinance as it is a different subject. This flaw is in addition to what I mentioned earlier - that the Ordinance Title does not declare an emergency. Please stop passing new laws that contain errors. We already have plenty of errors in our city code, a code that has needed to be rewritten since at least 2000. Please figure out how to properly pass Emergency Ordinances and what is and isn't subject to referendum. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 30 Packet Pg. 33 6.1.a Please go back and address all Ordinances voted on in the past under the false representation take they could take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the Council. Thank you. Ken Reidy From: cdfarmen@ Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 3:29 PM To: Buckshnis, Diane <Diane.Buckshnis@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Misstatement of my email to council Hi Diane, I am openly being personally criticized by some individuals who say I am purposefully overstating the facts around the number of trees removed from the lot behind my home to get gain a more restrictive tree retention code, especially for the Seaview Woods. In trying to learn the basis for that criticism, I found that during the March 2, 2021 council meeting, you cited receiving a letter from me stating 57 trees were being cut down to build a 4,000 square foot home rather than 31 trees which I said were removed. Here is what appeared in the March 2nd council meeting minutes. Referencing page 9 of those March 2, 2021 minutes: Councilmember Buckshnis agreed the issues cannot be considered in silos; issues include housing, stormwater, and trees that are being cut down and not replaced with native or trees with like diameters. She commented a tree with a 12-inch diameter is 60 years old. The Council received a letter from Mr. Farmen stating 57 trees were cut to build a 4,000 square foot home. What I actually stated in my letter to the council was there were a total of 35 trees in the grove, 31 being removed. Here is a copy of my letter to the council: Dear Council Members, 1 thought I would send you the attached photo to show in real life the importance of why we need tougher tree code standards. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 31 Packet Pg. 34 6.1.a The photo clearly demonstrates how the current tree code lacks the tree retention requirements sufficient to control the unbridled amount of clear -cutting of mature trees. This 15,000 sq ft lot borders my property. It had a grove of 35 predominantly mature Douglas fir trees. According to the tree faller, the trees in this grove were estimated to be between 80 and 100 years old. The tallest tree of all trees in the grove was a 160 ft tall Douglas fir. After two days of logging this past week, only 4 trees remain standing. It was cleared to accommodate a 3,100 sq ft 2 story home with a 795 sq ft attached ADU. Had the footprint of the new home been moved 25 ft to the north, a small grove of 7 or 8 trees could have been saved. The trees standing in the background of the photo are on the adjacent property, They were part of the grove prior to the main lot being subdivided. 1 also learned that a truckload of logs could bring in as much as $4,500 per load at local sawmills. It was expected the logs from the 31 trees removed, would provide enough logs for up to 4 truckloads valued at $18,000 to $20,000. The point here is that the penalty should be sufficient so the market value of the logs does not offset the penalty making the penalty an irrelevant issue for the developer. Respectfully submitted, Duane Farmen It would be important to me in resolving the complaint against me if you would correct the minutes from the March 2, 2021 council meeting, at tonight's council meeting, indicating the actual number of trees being removed was 31, not 57. I respectfully ask you to do this so my integrity and character are not permanently tarnished. Thank you, Duane Farmen From: ACE President Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 3:29 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Regarding Item 8.1 HASCO ILA on Council Agenda for tonight's meeting Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 32 Packet Pg. 35 6.1.a Council, We urge you not to take action on the HASCO ILA this evening for the following reasons: Not enough notice was given to citizens that might be interested in commenting on this issue. Director Hope's Housing News Update on April 14, six days ago, referenced the ILA would be on the Council agenda on April 20. Citizens responding to the online CHC open house and survey strongly opposed an ILA with HASCO by a margin of almost 2 to 1. Director Hope gave mixed messages to Council members about whether or not there could be a vote on the issue tonight. PSPP committee was told by Hope that Council could act on the 20th or another date. In response to Council member Buckshnis' email, Hope said "(Note: a final decision is not expected at this meeting.)" Although public funds were spent on public engagement, NO data about public input to the CHC regarding the HASCO ILA was included in your packet tonight. We also have concerns about information that is being provided to Council about the affordability of HASCO properties. In a reply to email questions from an ACE board member, Duane Leonard said the following: "the affordability restrictions that apply [to the Edmonds Highlands property] come from the housing authorities law codified in Chapter 35.82, specifically RCW 35.82.070 (5). The requirement here is that 50% of the units be rented to persons below 80% of the area median income." Please note that 80% of the AMI for Snohomish County is $66,700/1 person, $76,200/2 person, $85,000/3 persons, $95,250/4 person. (NOTE: taken from SnoCo Home rent and income information) Given that there are 100 seniors on the Section 8 waiting list for the other two Edmonds HASCO properties, why is Edmonds Highlands not also ALL section 8 housing to accommodate demand? The Edmonds Highlands property has been operated property tax free for 20 years, and is currently valued at 19.716 million dollars. For the amount of taxes that are thus being shifted to the un-exempt taxpayers, shouldn't we be getting more for our money? Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 33 Packet Pg. 36 6.1.a Finally, we are concerned that approval of the HASCO ILA will lead directly to another recommendation by the CHC which is the 0.1% sales tax increase to go to "affordable and supportive housing for low income households". Council member Luke Distelhorst has already demonstrated his support of this sales tax increase by lobbying the Citizens Housing Commission on January 14, 2021, just prior to their final votes on January 28. Here is an excerpt from the agenda for the 1-14-21 meeting: "Council Member Distelhorst will speak to the AHA letter at the Housing Commission's January 14 meeting." Quote from the "letter he had supported": "AHA would like to draw attention to three perspectives that we believe makes clear the need to support adoption of a 0.1% sales tax for affordable housing." Again, we urge you, do NOT take action on the HASCO ILA tonight. There are a number of non- profit organizations that provide supportive and affordable housing in Snohomish County. There is nothing in the ILA that clarifies what "official" authority HASCO will have over future housing and housing policy in Edmonds if this agreement is enacted. Respectfully, Dr. Michelle Dotsch, ACE President Joan Bloom, ACE At -Large Board Member and former Edmonds City Councilmember From: Freddy Gee Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 12:17 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Tree Ordinance To Whom it may Concern Regarding the Tree Ordinance, I strongly disagree with this "emergency tree ordinance" First let me state that I love trees and grew up in Washington and spent most of my life here. Much time has been spent in the forest. We currently own a home in Edmonds with some mature trees on the property. We had no intention of cutting them down soon. However the moves the City Council is making to try and punish people with trees on their property makes no sense. You should be encouraging people to plant trees -- not punishing them by regulation. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 34 Packet Pg. 37 6.1.a Please stop this governmental over -reach and trying to regulate what people do with trees on their private property. Thank you, Freddy G, At Your Service From: Katy Levenhagen Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 10:13 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Good Morning, I am writing to encourage City Council Members to reconsider the recent ordinance tonite designed to protect the green spaces of Edmonds to preserve it's green character. While Edmonds indeed needs to protect the existing trees in both public, city owned and privately owned land from clear cut ...any established laws need to apply to both developers and private homeowners alike. It is at the very least an oversite and absolutely absurd to have a law in the city for any length of time that allows developers to clear cut or randomly cut down the large trees (over 24" DBH) when homeowners cannot. I strongly oppose the proposed tree cutting ordinance, allowing developers to cut down trees. Any tree that is 24" DBH, (diameter at breast height) should be protected regardless of where it is! Homeowners should not be the only ones restricted from cutting larger trees while the developers are getting a free pass to cut trees "at -will". Thank you for your consideration of my and many others' requests. Sincerely, Katy Levenhagen Edmonds, WA 98026 From: Ken Reidy Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 6:26 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 35 Packet Pg. 38 6.1.a 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 20, 2021 City Council Meeting City Council is being presented with a complicated proposal to Realign the Planning Board Appointment Schedule that redefines when a term expires and results in the Mayor being able to appoint four new Planning Board members at the "commencement" of 2022. The new proposed Ordinance continues to promote falsehoods: 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, 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, position 7 and the alternate position require special treatment to return to a staggered state; The TRUTH is that of the eight planning board positions (seven numbered positions, plus one alternate), positions 5, 6, 7 and alternate have expiration dates that are consistent with the original appointments. Position 1 could have easily been synched with its original appointment cycle months ago had Council addressed that Council was provided false information on December 15, 2020; and The TRUTH is that conforming all positions to expiration dates that would be consistent with the December 16, 1980 original appointments can be done without creating five-year terms for positions 2, 3, and 4; and The TRUTH is that the full city council has not even met in an Open Public Meeting yet to discuss the idea of creating any five-year terms; and The TRUTH is that position 7 and the alternate position do not require special treatment. The draft Ordinance itself confirms this for position 7! The draft Ordinance states that only Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 36 Packet Pg. 39 6.1.a positions 5, 6, and 7 have expiration dates that would be consistent with the original appointments! 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 City Council for tonight'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. From: Michael Lynn Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 5:32 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Tree cutting ordinance Good Day Edmonds City Council, I am writing this email in opposition to the proposed tree cutting ordinance, allowing developers to cut down trees, but not private property owners. We had a double lot behind our house clear cut to build 2 new houses around 14 years ago, with the very first wind storm and subsequent wind storms within 2 months every one of our 7 plus pine, cedar and other tall trees blew down, 2 following on different neighbors roof. It seems ridiculous to me that an ordinance designed to protect the green aspects of our beautiful city, allows developers to clear cut or randomly cut down the nice large old growth trees. I strongly support the moratorium on this ordinance until September so more research can be done. Lets don't ruin our very livable and green city. Thank you for your consideration of my and many others' requests. Regards Michael Lynn Edmonds Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 37 Packet Pg. 40 6.1.a From: Amy Lentz Sent: Monday, April 19, 20214:01 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Emergency Tree Code Ordinance Dear Council Members: I am writing in opposition to the proposed emergency ordinance related to the cutting of trees greater than 24" in diameter. For the second time since I have moved here, it appears the City is once again considering legislation to limit what individual property owners can do with trees on their property. The last time this was before the City, the public outcry was great enough to fill the entire Council chambers and the foyer with residents who were against this type of infringement on individual's property rights. Ultimately, the proposal was rejected. Moreover, this is not the first time the idea of restricting individuals' ability to maintain their property has been discussed. In 1990, when the first Tree Cutting Ordinance was adopted, the primary concern was whether the ordinance would "take away individual property rights by not allowing residents to cut down trees in their yards." Edmonds' New Ordinance Limits Tree Cutting, Anne Koch, Seattle Times, October 18, 1990. However, this concern was addressed by limiting application of the ordinance to those properties that could be subdivided into three or more lots or that lie in environmentally sensitive areas. Now, 30 years later, it appears the same concerns are again being raised. I recycle. I compost. I walk and ride bicycles whenever possible. I bring cloth grocery bags to the store. I recreate in the outdoors. I have planted trees in our yard. I am green. However, I do not support the proposed emergency ordinance. In sum, the emergency ordinance discourages landowners from planting, maintaining, and preserving trees on their property, does not apply equally to all landowners, is overreaching, and creates an unnecessary and expensive bureaucracy. In anticipation of the City's potential limitation on removing large tress, we recently debated cutting the sole large blue spruce in our backyard and even obtained several estimates. Prior to hearing about the potential limitation, we had not been overly concerned with the tree. However, the threat of the City's limitation spurred the activity. This is certainly an unintended consequence - but foreseeable nonetheless. Rather than deter homeowner's from cutting trees through penalties and invasion of individual property rights, perhaps the City should figure out a way to encourage others to keep Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 38 Packet Pg. 41 6.1.a their trees through on -going education about the benefits to all and financial incentives for maintaining and planting new trees. Thank you for your consideration. Amy Lentz Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 39 Packet Pg. 42 6.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/4/2021 Approval of claim checks and wire payments. Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #247102 through #247202 dated April 29, 2021 for $887,395.93 and wire payments of $200.00 & $417.67. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim checks 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 04-29-21 wire 04-29-21 wire 04-30-21 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 04-29-21 Packet Pg. 43 6.2.a vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 04/29/2021 10:18:13AM City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun vi 247102 4/29/2021 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 43578 MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROI y MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROI E 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 90.0( a 10.4% Sales Tax a� 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 L Total : 99.3E -o c 247103 4/29/2021 000135 ABSCO ALARMS INC 78152 FIRE STATION 17 - TROUBLESHOO �a N FIRE STATION 17 - TROUBLESHOO U 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 490.1 t 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 50.9 1 M Total: 541.11 Z 0 247104 4/29/2021 078347 ACTIVE INTEREST MEDIA HOLDCO 444352 WOTS: ONLINE AD: MAY/JUNE '@ WOTS: ONLINE AD: MAY/JUNE > 0 117.100.64.573.20.41.40 1,715.0( a Total : 1,715.0( Q 247105 4/29/2021 064088 ADT COMMERCIAL 13937358 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC SAFE ALARM MONITORING Public Safety N 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 112.5( 139537353 ALARM MONITORING - PARKS MAII c ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS I 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 27.5£ ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS I 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 27.5£ 139537354 ALARM MONITORING - FS #16 t ALARM MONITORING FOR FIRE ST 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 34.1, 139537355 ALARM MONITORING - FS #17 Q ALARM MONITORING FOR FIRE ST 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 78.3< 139537356 ALARM MONITORING - MUSEUM ALARM MONITORING FOR Museum Page: 1 Packet Pg. 44 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 247105 4/29/2021 064088 ADT COMMERCIAL (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 139537357 ALARM MONITORING - WASTEWAT ALARM MONITORING - WASTEWAT 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 139537359 FIRE INSPECTION - FS #17, MUSEI fire inspection Fire Station #17, 275 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 fire inspection - Museum 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 fire inspection - Public Safety 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 Tota I : 247106 4/29/2021 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 27647 FLOWER PROGRAM PLAQUES FLOWER PROGRAM PLAQUES 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 Total 247107 4/29/2021 074306 AMWINS GROUP BENEFITS INC 6810992 MAY PREMIUMS LEOFF 009.000.39.517.20.23.10 FIRE 617.000.51.589.40.23.10 247108 4/29/2021 074718 AQUATIC SPECIALTY SERVICES INC 20301 247109 4/29/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 6560000031721 Total ; YOST POOL/SPA SUPPLIES: CHEM YOST POOL/SPA SUPPLIES: CHEM 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total WWTP: 4/21/21 UNIFORMS, TOWEL 6.2.a Page: 2 Page: 2 Packet Pg. 45 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 247109 4/29/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 3 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) vi Mats/Towels m 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 51.4E E Uniforms: 3 Lab Coats $0.17 each = a 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.5" 10.4% Sales Tax 3 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 5.3E 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.0E Y 656000028151 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 61.4< E 10.4% Sales Tax .@ 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 6.4( 656000031722 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE o PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE �a 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 61.1 E o 10.4% Sales Tax a 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 6.3 � Q 656000031723 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS r FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS N 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 29.5E N 10.4% Sales Tax c 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 3.0 � w 656000033637 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS E PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 2 U 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.6" }; PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.1- E PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS U 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 6.1- Q PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.1- PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.1- Page: 3 Packet Pg. 46 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 4 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 247109 4/29/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued) PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0E E 10.4% Sales Tax a 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.1; 10.4% Sales Tax 3 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6z 10.4% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6z Y 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6z u 10.4% Sales Tax E 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.6' 'sa 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6z O 656000033638 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS o 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 9.2� a FLEET DIVISION MATS Q 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 19.3E r 10.4% Sales Tax N 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 rn 0.91 N 10.4% Sales Tax c 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 2.0' N Total : 292.51 •� 247110 4/29/2021 064452 ARMSTRONG SERVICES 4590 WWTP: 4/2021 JANITORIAL & COVI 4/2021 JANITORIAL SERVICE a� 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 880.0( E Total: 880.0( 0 �a 247111 4/29/2021 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0322096-IN WWTP: 4/14/21 DIESEL FUEL Q ULSD #2 DYED - BULK fuel (include 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 3,991.8( 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.32.00 415.1 E Page: 4 Packet Pg. 47 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 247111 4/29/2021 071124 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM (Continued) 247112 4/29/2021 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 71304 247113 4/29/2021 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 247114 4/29/2021 002800 BRAKE & CLUTCH SUPPLY 247115 4/29/2021 078343 BRIDGE MASTERS RENTALS F"�11 Description/Account ROUGH BOX - BRIDGES ROUGH BOX - BRIDGES 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 ROUGH BOX - NELSON ROUGH BOX - NELSON 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 Total Total ; 1248052 FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 542.80 GF FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 542.80 GF 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 Total 99627 UNIT 11 -BOLSTER UNIT 11 -BOLSTER 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 99628 FLEET - PARTS (RETURNED) FLEET - PARTS (RETURNED) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 99638 FLEET - PARTS (RETURNED) FLEET - PARTS (RETURNED) 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total 559 E4MB BRIDGE MASTERS RENTALS E4MB BRIDGE MASTERS RENTALS 332.000.64.594.76.65.00 Total 6.2.a Page: 5 Amoun 4,406.9( r_ m E �a 627.0( L 3 627.0( c 1,254.0( N Y V a� t 911.0" E 911.01 0 �a 794.1( o a a 77.8, Q N -397.0E N 0 -38.9- E 397.0E a� 38.9" 871.9: a 3,750.0( 3,750.0( Page: 5 Packet Pg. 48 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 6 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 247116 4/29/2021 076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC 5755141 ROADWAY - ASPHALT & ASPHALT I ROADWAY - ASPHALT & ASPHALT E (D 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 223.0E E 10.1 % Sales Tax a 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 22.5< Total: L 245.61 '3 247117 4/29/2021 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 94998967 STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASE- STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASE- y 125.000.68.542.61.31.00 145.8� U 10.1 % Sales Tax 125.000.68.542.61.31.00 14.7E U 95004561 STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASE- E STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASE- 125.000.68.542.61.31.00 355.7, p 10.1 % Sales Tax 125.000.68.542.61.31.00 35.9E p Total: 552.31 a a Q 247118 4/29/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 26535310 PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CON' PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CON N 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 290.9( c) 26535312 BUILDING COPIER (ONR12044) C2E N Building copier (ONR12044) C2501F- 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 32.6z E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 3.3� 26535313 PLANNING COPIER CONTRACT- c Planning Copier Contract- E 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 36.2E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 3.7, Q 26535314 P&R PRINTER IRC2501F CONTRAC' P&R PRINTER IRC2501F CONTRAC' 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 123.5E 26535315 PARK MAINT IRC2501F COPIER COI Page: 6 Packet Pg. 49 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 7 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 247118 4/29/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) PARKS IRC2501F COPIER CONTRAi m 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 86.0E E 26535317 CONTRACT CHARGES FOR IMAGE a contract charges on image runner 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 643.2( .3 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 66.8� 26535321 CANON MONTHLY CONTRACT & UE B/W Usage 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 1.0£ Color usage E 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 Monthly contract charge 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 26.4z o 10.4% Sales Tax 7a 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 3.1E o 26535322 INV 26535322 - EDMONDS PD a 3/21 BW METER USAGE- WXD0187 a Q 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 21.7� r 3/21 CLR METER USAGE- WXD018, N 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 110.8( N 4/21 -CONTRACT CHARGE- WXDO 0 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 185.7z N 10.4% Sales Tax E 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 33.1 u 26535325 INV 26535325 - EDMONDS PD }; 4/21 FAXBOARD CONTRACT CHAR 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 36.0, E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 3.7E Q 26535328 INV 26535328 - EDMONDS PD 4/21 -CONTRACT - 3BB01296 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 70.8E 4/21 - CONTRACT - 2WU12307 Page: 7 Packet Pg. 50 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 8 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 247118 4/29/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 70.8E 4/21 - CONTRACT- 2WU09103 E 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 70.8E a 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 22.1 - 3 26535330 INV 26535330 - EDMONDS PD 4/21 -CONTRACT CHARGE- 3AP01: 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 175.9E N 4/21 - CONTRACT CHARGE - 3AP01 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 175.9E 10.4% Sales Tax E 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 36.6E Total: 2,334.5( 0 247119 4/29/2021 077353 CAPITOL CONSULTING LLC 004 STATE LOBBYIST APRIL 2021 '@ STATE LOBBYIST APRIL 2021 0 001.000.61.511.70.41.00 3,750.0E a Total : 3,750.0( Q 247120 4/29/2021 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY302770 FLEET - COMPRESSED OXYGEN N FLEET - COMPRESSED OXYGEN c� 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 50.9E 10.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.20 5.3E E Total : 56.31 'ca 247121 4/29/2021 078348 CHRISTENSEN, MYRLEEN 2005735.009 REFUND: RENTAL CANCELLATION: REFUND: RENTAL CANCELLATION: 001.000.239.200 190.0( t Total: 190.0( 247122 4/29/2021 074559 CLARK, PATRICK CLARK 04/21 CLARK 4/21 EXPENSE CLAIM - IDAI Q PER DIEM - IDAHO 4/11-4/15/21 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 220.5( Total: 220.5( Page: 8 Packet Pg. 51 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 9 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 247123 4/29/2021 070323 COMCAST BUSINESS 8498310300732547 PUBLIC WRKS - DIGITAL CABLE Public Works - 7110 210th S SW m 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 2.3( E Public Works - 7110 210th S SW a 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 11.0E Public Works - 7110 210th S SW 3 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 11.0E Public Works - 7110 210th S SW �a 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 11.0E Y Public Works - 7110 210th S SW 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 10.6z Total : 46.1 F E 247124 4/29/2021 005965 CUES INC 584917 SEWER - PARTS E U SEWER - PARTS p 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 735.4- Freight p 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 L 9.4E a 10.4% Sales Tax Q' Q 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 77.4 � .r Total : T 822.3' N d) 247125 4/29/2021 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 21-4079 CITY COUNCIL MIN'S 4/6, & COUNC council min 4/6, councl, finance, ppw, c 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 N 1,155.6( E Total: 1,155.6( 247126 4/29/2021 076517 DUENAS, ERIC ED4.9.21 WWTP: EDUENAS EXPENSE CLAIN EDuenas 4/6/21 Trip to EcoRemedy ( °� E 423.000.76.535.80.43.00 49.2, t Total: 49.2, M .r Q 247127 4/29/2021 007253 DUNN LUMBER 7897957 PM: SUPPLIES ACCT E000027 PM SUPPLIES: LUMBER: FLOWER 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 1,364.3- 10.4% Sales Tax Page: 9 Packet Pg. 52 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 10 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 247127 4/29/2021 007253 DUNN LUMBER (Continued) 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 141.8E 7917777 FIRE STATION 20 - SUPPLIES/ TRE, E FIRE STATION 20 - SUPPLIES/ TRE, ca 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 a 2,781.81 10.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 292.0E Total: 4,580.1; 247128 4/29/2021 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 00010114554 PM SUPPLIES: CAP VALAVE, PUNC N PM SUPPLIES: CAP VALAVE, PUNC t 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 93.0, 10.4% Sales Tax E 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.6, U Total: 102.65 0 247129 4/29/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 2233 PM SUPPLIES: DRILL BIT > PM SUPPLIES: DRILL BIT o a 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 17.9� Q 10.4% Sales Tax -- 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.8, N 2241 PM SUPPLIES: CORNER BRACE c� PM SUPPLIES: CORNER BRACE N 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 15.1 £ 10.4% Sales Tax E E 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.5E 2247 PM SUPPLIES: SPRAY PAINT PM SUPPLIES: SPRAY PAINT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 25.5E E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.6E 2248 PM SUPPLIES: SHUT-OFF VALVES, Q PM SUPPLIES: SHUT-OFF VALVES, 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 63.9E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 6.6E Page: 10 Packet Pg. 53 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 247129 4/29/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 247130 247131 247132 4/29/2021 008410 EDMONDS PRINTING CO 4/29/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 2249 2255 R26467-8 2-26950 2-29118 4-34080 4/29/2021 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR189857 6.2.a Page: 11 PO # Description/Account Amoun PM SUPPLIES: ROPE, HOOK SCRE a0i PM SUPPLIES: ROPE, HOOK SCRE E 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 198.3E a 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 20.6< .3 PM SUPPLIES: PUSH BROOM, NUT PM SUPPLIES: PUSH BROOM, NUT 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 23.3E Y 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 a� 2.4' Total: 380.2E WATER QUALITY BROCHURES & M WATER QUALITY BROCHURES & M o 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 698.0( '@ 10.4% Sales Tax o 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 72.5E a Total : 770.55 Q LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTRE/ N LIFT STATION #3 729 NORTHSTRE/ c� 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 114.4E LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / E 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 58.6( 'ca LIFT STATION #14 7909 211TH PL S' LIFT STATION #14 7909 211TH PL S' 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 58.6( E Total: 231.6f �a WWTP:3/16-4/15/21 COPIES Q 3/16-4/15/21 COPIES 423.000.76.535.80.45.00 108.4' 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.45.00 11.2 Page: 11 Packet Pg. 54 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 12 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 247132 4/29/2021 008812 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINE (Continued) Total : 119.6F 247133 4/29/2021 047407 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT 312 000 093 ES REF # 94513310 7 E E 01-21 Unemployment Claims 001.000.39.517.78.23.00 10,142.6" Total : 10,142.61 .3 247134 4/29/2021 069469 ENNIS-FLINT INC 255836 STREET - SUPPLIES & 5TH MAIN S1 c 5TH & MAIN SUPPLIES/ STOP & RU fd 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 N 1,327.0z Ix STREET - SUPPLIES 30' WHITE LIN 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 t 9,737.2E u 10.4% Sales Tax E 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 138.0- E 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 o 1,012.E '@ Total: 12,215.0( o L 247135 4/29/2021 008975 ENTENMANN ROVIN CO 0158074-IN INV 0158074-IN EDMONDS PD - AC, a ASST CHIEF BADGES Q 001.000.41.521.10.24.00 216.0( r CORPORAL BADGES 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 216.0( N INSURANCE, PACKAGE & HANDLII\ o 001.000.41.521.10.24.00 12.5( Freight M 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 16.0( Total: 460.5( a� 247136 4/29/2021 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH924773 EDH924773 - ACCT14126500 - EDM E t UNCLAIMED PROPERTY AD 4-16/21 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 18.2( Q EDH924810 ORDINANCE 4220 ordinance 4220 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 16.8( Tota I : 35.0( Page: 12 Packet Pg. 55 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 13 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 247137 4/29/2021 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0968914 WATER INVENTORY WATER INVENTORY (D 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 11724.2f E 10.4% Sales Tax a 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 179.3, Total : L 1,903.5, .3 247138 4/29/2021 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 9241256 WWTP: PO #548 3.5 GPF 110 ROYA c PO #548 3.5 GPF 110 ROYAL 3.5 F\ y 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 118.6( U 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 12.3' Total: 130.9: 247139 4/29/2021 002500 GALLS LLC DBA BLUMENTHAL 018060241 INV 018060241 - ACCT 1001074529 U G-SHIELD FACE COVERING PACK .- '@ 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 250.0( o 10.4% Sales Tax a 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 26.0( Q 018120646 INV 018120646 - ACCT 1001074529 REEBOK BOOTS - BROWN N 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 100.0( c� 10.4% Sales Tax N 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 10.4( N Total: 386.4( E 2 247140 4/29/2021 012199 GRAINGER 9848763786 PM SUPPLIES: TOILET BRUSHES V U PM SUPPLIES: TOILET BRUSHES V 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 85.9E E 10.4% Sales Tax t 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 8.9z 9862728335 PM SUPPLIES: KEYES PADLOCKS Q PM SUPPLIES: KEYES PADLOCKS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 109.5E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 11.3� Page: 13 Packet Pg. 56 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 14 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 247140 4/29/2021 012199 GRAINGER (Continued) 9875941651 WWTP: PO 549 EYE WASH BOTTLE PO 549 EYE WASH BOTTLES 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 17.7, 9.8% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 1.7z Tota I : 235.1 247141 4/29/2021 076542 GRANICUS 139055 CIVIC STREAMING, AGENDAAND K civic streaming, agenda and minuts 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 1,417.5- 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.48.00 147.4< Total: 1,564.9z 247142 4/29/2021 012560 HACH COMPANY 12421366 WWTP: PO 510 600MV ORP SOLN, PO 510 600MV ORP SOLN, 1 L 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 81.4� 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 8.4£ Tota I : 89.9 , 247143 4/29/2021 074804 HARLES, JANINE 527298 PHOTOGRAPHY & INSTAGRAM SEI PHOTOGRAPHY & INSTAGRAM SEI 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 300.0( Total : 300.0( 247144 4/29/2021 012900 HARRIS FORD INC 22523 UNIT 105 - SUPPLIES/ TOUCH UP P UNIT 105 - SUPPLIES/ TOUCH UP P 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 13.9� 10.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 1.4, Total : 15.4E 247145 4/29/2021 076810 HAUGHIAN, NICHOLAS HAUGHIAN 04/21 HAUGHINA 4/21 EXPENSE CLAIM - PER DIEM - IDAHO 4/11-4/15/21 Page: 14 Packet Pg. 57 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 15 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 247145 4/29/2021 076810 HAUGHIAN, NICHOLAS (Continued) 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 220.5( Total: 220.5( 247146 4/29/2021 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 32 REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 203.0( Total : 203.0( 247147 4/29/2021 074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC 2019-251 TOURISM PROMOTION & MARKETI TOURISM PROMOTION & MARKETI 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 1,866.0( Total: 1,866.0( 247148 4/29/2021 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 31 REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 009.000.39.517.20.23.00 30.1 REIMBURSEMENT 009.000.39.517.20.29.00 2,850.0( Total: 2,880.1 247149 4/29/2021 075966 HULBERT, CARRIE BID-04262021 BID/ED! PROGRAM MANAGER APR BID/ED! PROGRAM MANAGER APR 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 2,766.E , Tota I : 2,766.E , 247150 4/29/2021 076488 HULBERT, MATTHEW STIEG BID-ED2021-04 BID/ED! PHOTOGRAPHY APRIL 202 BID/ED! PHOTOGRAPHY APRIL 202 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 600.0( Total : 600.0( 247151 4/29/2021 073518 INNOVYZE INC Q-90690 INNOVYZE SOFTWARE RENEWAL INNOVYZE SOFTWARE RENEWAL 421.000.74.534.80.49.20 2,951.0( INNOVYZE SOFTWARE RENEWAL 422.000.72.531.90.49.20 2,371.3� INNOVYZE SOFTWARE RENEWAL Page: 15 Packet Pg. 58 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 16 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 247151 4/29/2021 073518 INNOVYZE INC (Continued) 423.000.75.535.80.49.20 2,371.3� Total: 7,693.71 247152 4/29/2021 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 300-10085493 PM: GLOVES PM: GLOVES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 272.5( 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 28.3z Total : 300.8z 247153 4/29/2021 071254 INT'L WATER TREATMENT NA 0784 F.A.C. - PARTS FOR BOILER F.A.C. - PARTS FOR BOILER 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 1,099.0( Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 295.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 144.9E Total : 1,538.91 247154 4/29/2021 075474 LEACH, JENNIFER 04/08/2021 CLAIM FOR EXPENSES REIMBURSEMENT FOR PURCHASE 001.000.64.571.23.31.00 14.1 E Total : 14.1E 247155 4/29/2021 074693 LETTERWORKS SIGN DESIGN BID-1201 BID/ED! AFTER HOURS PARKING S BID/ED! AFTER HOURS PARKING S 140.000.61.558.70.49.00 271.7z 10.4% Sales Tax 140.000.61.558.70.49.00 28.2E Total : 300.0( 247156 4/29/2021 074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLY CO 044115 01 PM: IRRIGATION SUPPLIES PM: IRRIGATION SUPPLIES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 941.1 , 10.4% Sales Tax Page: 16 Packet Pg. 59 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 17 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 247156 4/29/2021 074263 LYNNWOOD WINSUPPLYCO (Continued) 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 97.8E ED Total: 1,039.0( E 247157 4/29/2021 019582 MANOR HARDWARE 117488-00 E4MB FISHING PIER SUPPLIES R Q- E4MB FISHING PIER SUPPLIES 332.000.64.594.76.65.00 199.4( 10.5% Sales Tax c 332.000.64.594.76.65.00 �a 20.9z y Total: 220.3z U 247158 4/29/2021 068489 MCLOUGHLIN & EARDLEY GROUP INC 0255620 E185PO - PARTS/ SUPER LED LIGH E185PO - PARTS/ SUPER LED LIGH E 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 304.3< 10.4% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 o 31.6E '@ 0255656 E185PO - PARTS E185PO - PARTS o a 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 420.21 Q 10.4% Sales Tax -- 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 43.7- N Total : 799.9( c) N 247159 4/29/2021 075266 MORGAN MECHANICAL INC S21-4995 WWTP: PO 310 100 BLDG REPAIR - o PO 310 100 BLDG REPAIR - REPAIF 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 1,240.1 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 128.9E Total: 1,369.11 247160 4/29/2021 021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC ME171430 UNIT 14 - PARTS/ GOVERNER VALV t UNIT 14 - PARTS/ GOVERNER VALV Q 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 21 8z 9.8% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 2.1 , Total: 23.9E Page: 17 Packet Pg. 60 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 247161 4/29/2021 072746 MURRAYSMITH INC 247162 4/29/2021 018950 NAPA AUTO PARTS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice 20-2775.00-13 20-2967.00-4 3276-907615 247163 4/29/2021 067834 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS 6090457 247164 4/29/2021 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 247165 4/29/2021 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM PO # Description/Account EOGA SERVICES THRU 3/31/2021 EOGA SERVICES THRU 3/31/2021 423.000.75.594.35.41.00 EOJB SSERVICES THRU 3/31/2021 EOJB SSERVICES THRU 3/31/2021 421.000.74.594.34.41.00 Total UNIT 64 - PARTS/ BRAKE PAD UNIT 64 - PARTS/ BRAKE PAD 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total PM: CIVIC STADIUM PANELS PM: CIVIC STADIUM PANELS 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 Total : 0613472-IN WWTP: PO 545 LEL SENSOR VENT PO 545 LEL SENSOR VENTIS, BLUE 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Total 0760167-IN FLEET - FILTERS FLEET - FILTERS 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 6.2.a Page: 18 Amoun m 12,023.4� E, R a� L 21298.8( .3 14,322.25 c �a Y 92.4E 9.7' •� 102.1E 0 �a 0 218.8E a a Q 22.7E " 241.6' N N 0 325.9E 15.4' U 29.0' 3.0, Page: 18 Packet Pg. 61 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 247165 4/29/2021 024302 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM (Continued) 247166 4/29/2021 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S010836741.001 247167 4/29/2021 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS 247168 4/29/2021 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 247169 4/29/2021 065787 PATRIOT DIAMOND INC 3685-128300 3685-129792 Description/Account Total : WWTP: PO 542 CARLO GAVAZZI CL PO 542 CARLO GAVAZZI CLP2EA1 C 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Total UNIT 47 - PARTS/ LIFT SUPPORT UNIT 47 - PARTS/ LIFT SUPPORT 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 UNIT 91 BED COATING UNIT 91 BED COATING 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total 00101506 UNIT 121 PARTS UNIT 121 PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Total A12074 STREET - CONCRETE BLADES STREET - CONCRETE BLADES 125.000.68.542.61.31.00 Freight 6.2.a Page: 19 Amoun 32.0: C m E �a 549.71 45.1 E c �a 61.8 , y 656.7E t E 48.51 4- 0 5.OE 0 a 29.9E Q 3.1, N 86.6< c� N 0 N 338.7- 43.6E a� 39.7, t 422.1 , a 2,042.0( Page: 19 Packet Pg. 62 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 247169 4/29/2021 065787 PATRIOT DIAMOND INC 247170 4/29/2021 078350 PB ELECTRONICS 247171 4/29/2021 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 247172 4/29/2021 064167 POLLARD WATER Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 125.000.68.542.61.31.00 Tota I : 140447 INV 140447 - EDMONDS PD REPAIR CORDS - GHD 14989 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 SERVICE RADAR GHD 14989 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 Freight 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 1 M11231 1 M24945 W PO17188 247173 4/29/2021 071559 PUBLIC SAFETY PSYCHOLOGICAL SV 1338 Total : PED CROSSING: PED BUTTON EXl PED CROSSING: PED BUTTON EXl 126.000.68.595.33.65.00 10.4% Sales Tax 126.000.68.595.33.65.00 WWTP: PO 543 HANDY B, AAA BAT' PO 543 HANDY B, AAA BATTERIES, 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 Total WATER - VITA-D CHLOR TABLETS WATER - VITA-D CHLOR TABLETS 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Total INV 1338 EDMONDS PD 3/9/21 EXA SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT 3/9/21 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 Total 6.2.a Page: 20 Page: 20 Packet Pg. 63 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 21 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 247174 4/29/2021 068697 PUBLIC SAFETY TESTING INC 2021-228 PLACEMENT FEE FOR ACTING POI PLACEMENT FOR INTERIM POLICE (D 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 7,000.0( E 2021-32 SUBSCRIPTION FEES - Q1 a 01 FEES 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 833.0( .3 PSTI21-60 POLICE CHIEF BACKGROUND INVE BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION FC 001.000.22.521.10.41.00 3,146.2E Y Total: 10,979.2E u t 247175 4/29/2021 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200002411383 YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN E 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,192.9, 2 200007876143 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON o OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON '@ 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 248.8E p 200011439656 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE a FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE Q' Q 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 200016558856 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME N CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,385.8E 200016815843 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / N E 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 784.4E n 200017676343 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7 U FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7 c 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 342.1 ' E 200019895354 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 188.3( Q 200020415911 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 28.8� PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; Page: 21 Packet Pg. 64 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 247175 4/29/2021 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY (Continued) aIPllyziVi110011 l 220023412418 247176 4/29/2021 075769 QUADIENT LEASING USA INC N8837235 247177 4/29/2021 073885 RANDOLPH, PAMELA PR-4.19.21 247178 4/29/2021 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC PO # Description/Account 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 WWTP: 3/22-4/21/21 METER 00039C 3/22-4/21/21 METER 000390395 200 423.000.76.535.80.47.63 Total MAIL POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE F mail machine lease feb to may 2021 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.45.00 Total WWTP: PRANDOLPH 4/6/21 EXPEN Pamela Randolph: Expense Claim for 423.000.76.535.80.43.00 Total 5-031442 UNIT 76 - BATTERY UNIT 76 - BATTERY 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 6.2.a Page: 22 Amoun 109.71 y E 109.7, a a� 109.7, 3 109.7, Y 109.7z t E 329.2E '� 0 1,765.7< 6,920.9° o a a Q 1,542.6( rn N 160.4< 1,701W y E 933.4.E c 933.4; E t �a a 95.1 z Page: 22 Packet Pg. 65 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 23 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 247178 4/29/2021 064769 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC (Continued) Total : 105.0: 247179 4/29/2021 073066 SAFARILAND LLC 1010-365251 1010-365251 - CUST 3000703 - EDM, E E 3 - WIRE RADIO ADAPTERS �a 001.000.41.521.21.35.00 299.9, Total : 299.9� .= 3 247180 4/29/2021 066918 SEDOR, NORMAN 33 REIMBURSEMENT c REIMBURSEMENT fd 009.000.39.517.20.29.00 N 5,700.0( Total: 5,700.0( t 247181 4/29/2021 036955 SKY NURSERY T-1770298 PM: FLOWER PROGRAM PLANTS E PM: FLOWER PROGRAM PLANTS 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 29.0( 10.3% Sales Tax 0 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 2.9� > Total: 31.95 a 247182 4/29/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200202547 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95- a Q PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95- 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 r 18.3, N 200398956 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ; N FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST : c 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,078.5" 200611317 LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V 2 U 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 154.0( 200638609 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON E 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 t 233.3( 200723021 TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI Q 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 25.31 200739845 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH Page: 23 Packet Pg. 66 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 247182 4/29/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 24 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) vi 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 18.1 y 201431244 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC E PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC ca 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 a 17.7z 201551744 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � 3 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,511.0( 201572898 TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME Y U 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 39.8' t 201942489 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; E 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 88.7, Z PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; p 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 337.3" �a PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; o L 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 337.3- PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; Q .r 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 337.3- T PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; N 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 337.3- N PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; c 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 337.3- N 202250627 9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPED BED E 9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPED BED 2 U 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 16.6( }; 202291662 CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1; CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1, E 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 4,620.2, 202439246 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER Q 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,329.9, 202540647 SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 191 SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 191 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 14.3 Page: 24 Packet Pg. 67 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 25 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 247182 4/29/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 203652151 FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191 FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191 E 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 257.8E a 204425847 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 88.7( 220216386 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 M; PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MF 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 74.6E 220547574 TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH S1 t TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH S1 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 76.1 222704272 WWTP:3/11-4/12/21 FLOWMETER' 3/11-4/12/21 FLOW METER 2400 H p 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 18.8E �a 222704280 W WTP: 3/21-4/91 /21 METER 10001 p 3/21-4/91/21 200 2ND AVE S / METE a 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 23,839.7( Q Total : 37,208.5z _. T N 247183 4/29/2021 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2021-6738 INV 2021-6738 - MARCH 2O21 - EDN c� 86.5 BASE RATE @ $142.63EA N 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 12,337.5( N 20.5 BOOKINGS @ $128.88EA E 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 2,642.0z 2 8 VIDEO CT HRS @ $207.96EA U 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 1,663.6E 2021-6760 INV 2021-6760 EDMONDS PD - JAIL E TRANSPORT TO PROVIDENCE 001.000.39.523.60.41.00 41.6E +° HOSPITAL CARE - PROVIDENCE Q 001.000.39.523.60.41.00 1,003.7E TRANSPORT TO PROVIDENCE 001.000.39.523.60.41.00 39.8( INMATE MEDS MARCH 2O21 Page: 25 Packet Pg. 68 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 247183 4/29/2021 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 2021-6760 CREDIT 247184 4/29/2021 075292 SNOHOMISH CO AUDITOR'S OFFICE Young, Ryker 247185 4/29/2021 075292 SNOHOMISH CO AUDITOR'S OFFICE Lynne & Williamson 247186 4/29/2021 037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT IN0077038 247187 4/29/2021 037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT IN0077012 247188 4/29/2021 037303 SO SNOHOMISH CO FIRE & RESCUE May-21 247189 4/29/2021 071585 STERICYCLE INC INV 3005524102 6.2.a Page: 26 PO # Description/Account Amoun 001.000.39.523.60.31.00 44.3f CREDIT MEMO INVOICE 2021-6760 E CREDIT FOR FEB 2021 INMATE ME ca 001.000.39.523.60.31.00 a -2.4( Total : 17,770.41 3 SHORT PLAT: RYKER YOUNG FOR c short plat:ryker young for planning N 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 191.0( Total : 191.0( CRITICAL AREA NOTICE: LYNNE & E critical area notice: lynne & 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 106.5( Total: 106.5( o �a SPRAY PARK PERMIT ACCT AR000( o SPRAY PARK PERMIT ACCT AR000( a 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 496.0( Q Total : 496.0( r N YOST POOL PERMIT ACCT AR0004! YOST POOL PERMIT ACCT AR0004! c 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 802.0( N Total : 802.0( . ea MAY-2021 FIRE SERVICES CONTRi U May-2021 Fire Services Contract Pay a� 001.000.39.522.20.41.50 654,236.4, E Total: 654,236.4: �a INV 3005524102 - CUST 6076358 - E Q MED BOX DISPOSAL 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 54.2, Total : 54.2: Page: 26 Packet Pg. 69 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 27 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 247190 4/29/2021 074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 9166 SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR APF SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR APF (D 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 550.0( E Total: 550.0( a 247191 4/29/2021 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18307104 ROADWAY - SUPPLIES/ BROOMS & L ROADWAY - SUPPLIES/ BROOMS & 3 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 297.1 , 10.4% Sales Tax N 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 30.9- 59043332 WATER - SUPPLIES WATER - SUPPLIES 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 115.5( •� Freight 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 13.21 p 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 13.3� p Total: 470.21 a a Q 247192 4/29/2021 078349 TOLAN, JOHN 2005736.009 REFUND: PROGRAM CANCELLATIC REFUND: PROGRAM CANCELLATIC N 001.000.239.200 24.0( c) Total: 24.0( 0 247193 4/29/2021 074800 TURNSTYLE INC BID-5293 BID/ED! MAINTENANCE OF ED! WE N BID/ED! MAINTENANCE OF ED! WE 140.000.61.558.70.41.00 2,170.0( Total: 2,170.0( a� 247194 4/29/2021 070767 UNITED RENTALS NW INC 192533541-001 FLEET - SCISSOR LIFT E t FLEET - SCISSOR LIFT 511.000.77.594.48.64.20 6,258.6( Q 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.594.48.64.20 650.8� Total : 6,909.4< Page: 27 Packet Pg. 70 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 28 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 247195 4/29/2021 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9877542050 C/A 671247844-00001 Cell Service Fac-Maint m 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 83.2- E Cell Service-PD a 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 44.4, Cell Service-PW Sewer 3 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 41.1 E Total: 168.81 247196 4/29/2021 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 121-270 PM: TREE SERVICE: 6TH AVE N & E U PM: TREE SERVICE: 6TH AVE N & E 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 2,650.0( 10.4% Sales Tax E 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 275.6( U 121-272 PM: TREE REMOVAL: 5TH & WALNI p PM: TREE REMOVAL: 5TH & WALNI 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 575.0( p 10.4% Sales Tax a 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 59.8- Q Total : 3,560.41 .r T N 247197 4/29/2021 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 12214083 PARKS FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES c� PARKS FACILITY MAINT SUPPLIES N 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,312.0( N 10.4% Sales Tax E 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 136.4E n 12214084 PARKS FACILITY MAINT NITRILE GI U PARKS FACILITY MAINT NITRILE GI c 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 920.0( E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 95.6E +° Total: 2,464.1; Q 247198 4/29/2021 078302 WEBER, CAROL 3 VISIT EDMONDS WEBSITE SUPPOI VISIT EDMONDS WEBSITE SUPPOI 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 500.0( Page: 28 Packet Pg. 71 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 29 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 247198 4/29/2021 078302 078302 WEBER, CAROL (Continued) Total : 500.0( 247199 4/29/2021 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 7986 COPY PAPER - 3RD FLOOR COPY PAPER - 3RD FLOOR 001.000.61.557.20.31.00 57.3, COPY PAPER - 3RD FLOOR 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 57.3, COPY PAPER - 3RD FLOOR 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 57.3, 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.31.00 5.9E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 5.9E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.31.00 5.9E Tota I : 189.8' 247200 4/29/2021 076999 WIMAN CORPORATION 00066785 PM: DOG BAG ROLLS PM: DOG BAG ROLLS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2,069.2( 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 215.2( Tota I : 2.284.4( 247201 4/29/2021 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 21-EDM0004 247202 4/29/2021 011900 ZIPLY FIBER 253-007-4989 253-012-9166 APR-2021 RETAINER Monthly Retainer 001.000.36.515.33.41.00 Total SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR) SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR) 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES Page: 29 Packet Pg. 72 vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :18 :13 AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 247202 4/29/2021 011900 ZIPLY FIBER 101 Vouchers for bank code: usbank 101 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.2.a Page: 30 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) vi 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 302.11 253-014-8062 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE E TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE ca 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 a 19.8, TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 36.9( 253-017-4360 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 47.0z TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE t 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 87.3,1 425-697-6502 MUSEUM ALARM LINES - 118 5TH P Museum Alarm Lines - 118 5th Ave N 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 110.6< o 425-712-8347 CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE �a CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE o L 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 75.0( a 425-775-2455 CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5 Q CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUSIC _. 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 T 68.7' N 425-776-3896 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER AL, N FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 0 141.5" N Total : 1,083.w ,E Bank total : _M 887,395.9: c Total vouchers : 887,395.9: t �a a Page: 30 Packet Pg. 73 6.2.b vchlist 04/29/2021 10 :49 :12AM Bank code: usbank Voucher Date Vendor 4292021 4/29/2021 062693 US BANK 1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 1 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds Page Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun N 0808 JH VISA - MARCH c AWC - LABOR RELATIONS INSTITU E 001.000.22.518.10.49.00 200.0( Total: 200.0( 0- aD L Bank total : 200.0( 3 Total vouchers : 200.0( M U aD t U E 2 U 4- 0 �a 0 L Q a r N N O d L 3 r c m E U �a a Page: 1 Packet Pg. 74 6.2.c vchlist 04/29/2021 11:11:01 AM Bank code: usbank Voucher Date Vendor 4302021 4/30/2021 076380 BETTER PROPERTIES METRO 1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 1 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds Page Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun . . ui May 2021 ACCT #00397358 4TH AVE PARKIN( c 4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent - May 2( E E 001.000.39.542.64.45.00 417.E Total : 417.61 a a� L Bank total : 417.61 3 Total vouchers : 417.6 M U a� t U E 2 U 4- 0 0 0 L CL Q r N O M O d L 3 c m E �a a Page: 1 Packet Pg. 75 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 Study 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 Revised4/29/2021 Packet Pg. 76 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 4/29/2021 Packet Pg. 77 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 Force 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 Revised4/29/2021 Packet Pg. 78 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 4/29/2021 Packet Pg. 79 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 ^ vi STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects N FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab E WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station i SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study 3 STIR ESAA c470 Trackside Warning System tv WTR ESKA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating y Y STIR ESDA c474 Bikelink Project d t STIR ESDB c478 Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector v STM ESFD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility WWTP ESHA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications v 4- WTR ESJB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) O M STIR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) > O L SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II Q STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW Q PRK E7MA c496 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) N WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement 6 N FAC E9MA c502 PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South 4 0 SWR EBGA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project d STM EBFB c521 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements E WTR EBJA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement Z STM E8FC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project p L PRK EOMA c536 Civic Center Playfield (Design) d PRK E7MA c544 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) to STM EOFA c546 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 >+ STM EOFB c547 Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project rr d 3 SWR EOGA c548 Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project WTR EOJA c549 Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project L ILL PRK EOMA c551 Civic Center Playfield (Construction) N STM E20FC c552 Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements j_ t PRK E21 FA c556 Yost Park Infiltration Facility R WTR E21JA c558 Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project r Q 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 4/29/2021 Packet Pg. 80 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 4/29/2021 Packet Pg. 81 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 GF Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update s025 EONA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA PRK Civic Center Playfield (Construction) c551 EOMA ^ N PRK Civic Center Playfield (Design) c536 EOMA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) c544 E7MA E PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) c496 E7MA M CL PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) m103 E7MA L_ PRK Yost Park Infiltration Facility c556 E21 FA 3 STM 174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements c521 EBFB STM 175th St. SW Slope Stabilization c560 E21 FB Y c� STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 EBFA STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 EBFC v STM 2021 Stormwater Overlay Program i061 E21 CD STM Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design s022 E9FA ,F O STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE - STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD p L STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG Q' sZ STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA Q STM Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements c552 E20FC N STM Perrinville Creek Recovery Study s028 E21 FC N STM Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project c547 EOFB p STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 ESFD d STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 c546 EOFA E STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB M Z STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD .F STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC IL N STR 2019 Traffic Calming i038 E9AA to STR 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades i045 E9AD c STR 2020 Guardrail Installations i046 EOAA d 3 STR 2020 Overlay Program i042 EOCA N L STR 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program i049 EODB ILL STR 2020 Pedestrian Task Force s024 EODA N STR 2020 Traffic Calming i048 EOAC t STR 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades i047 EOAB U STR 2021 Guardrail Installations i057 E21AB r Q STR 2021 Overlay Program i051 E21 CA STR 2021 Traffic Calming i056 E21AA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps i037 EBDC STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB 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 4/29/2021 Packet Pg. 82 6.2.d PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Project Engineering Accounting 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 i015 E6AB STR Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector c478 ESDB STR Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave i058 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) 055 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 STIR 2020 Waterline Overlay i053 EOCC STR 220th Adaptive i028 EBAB SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 EBGA SWR 2021 Sewer Overlay Program i06O E21 CC SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II c488 E6GB SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s0l l 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 E21CB 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 4/29/2021 Packet Pg. 83 6.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/4/2021 EPOA Law Support Collective Bargaining Agreement 1/1/20 - 12/31/22 Staff Lead: Jessica Neill Hoyson Department: Human Resources Preparer: Jessica Neill Neill Hoyson Background/History Per RCW 41.56.100 the City has a duty to engage in collective bargaining with the exclusive bargaining representative and shall not refuse to engage in such bargaining. Per this requirement, the City has completed bargaining of the EPOA Law Support Collective Bargaining Agreement for the contract term of January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2022. Staff Recommendation Council to approve the collective bargaining agreement for the EPOA Law Support bargaining unit. Narrative The EPOA Law Support bargaining unit has voted on and approved the attached collective bargaining agreement. The collective bargaining agreement has been settled within the authority established by Council. Attachments: EPOA Law Support Final (For Council) Packet Pg. 84 6.3.a AGREEMENT By and between CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON and the EDMONDS POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION (Representing the Law Enforcement Support Service Employees) JANUARY 1, 2020 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2022 2 Packet Pg. 85 TABLE OF CONTENTS 6.3.a ARTICLE I RECOGNITION, ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP & PAYROLL DEDUCTION 4 ARTICLE II GENDER 4 ARTICLE III ASSOCIATION RIGHTS 5 ARTICLE IV HOURS OF WORK, OVERTIME, CALLBACK, JOB SHARE AND PART- 5 TIME EMPLOYMENT ARTICLE V PROBATION, SENIORITY AND LAYOFF'S 9 ARTICLE VI WAGES 10 ARTICLE VII HOLIDAYS 10 ARTICLE VIII VACATIONS 11 ARTICLE IX LEAVES 12 ARTICLE X INSURANCE 16 ARTICLE XI UNIFORMS ALLOWANCE AND OTHER EQUIPMENT 17 ARTICLE XII MISCELLANEOUS 19 ARTICLE XIII NO STRIKE PROVISION 20 ARTICLE XIV DISCHARGE, REDUCTION OR DEPRIVATION OF PRIVILEGES 20 ARTICLE XV GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 20 ARTICLE XVI SAVINGS CLAUSE & MISCELLANEOUS 22 ARTICLE XVII DURATION 23 ARTICLE XVIII ENTIRE AGREEMENT 23 APPENDIX "A" COMPENSATION 25 APPENDIX "B" BILL OF RIGHTS 29 APPENDIX "C" DRUG & ALCOHOL POLICY 32 APPENDIX "D" INFORMATION SERVICES ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY 40 3 Packet Pg. 86 6.3.a AGREEMENT By and between CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON and the EDMONDS POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION (Representing the Law Enforcement Support Service Employees) JANUARY 1, 2020 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2022 THIS AGREEMENT is by and between the CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, hereinafter referred to as the Employer, and the EDMONDS POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION, hereinafter referred to as the Association. ARTICLE I. RECOGNITION, ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP & PAYROLL DEDUCTION 1.1 Recognition -The Employer recognizes the Association as the sole Collective Bargaining representative for all Employees within the Bargaining Unit as specified in APPENDIX "A." 1.2 Association Membership- The Employer recognizes that members of the bargaining unit may, at their discretion, become members of the Association. 1.3 Payroll Deduct - Upon written authorization from the Association to the Employer that an Employee in the bargaining unit has authorized the Association to deduct membership dues, the Employer shall deduct from the wages of that Employee the sum certified as assessments and monthly dues of the Association and shall forward such sum to the Association except that all deductions for the above items must be uniform and regular to accommodate the monthly machine processed payroll. The Association shall indemnify, defend and hold the Employer harmless against any claims made and against any suit instituted against the Employer on account of any check -off of dues for the Association. The Association shall refund to the Employer any amounts paid to it in error on account of the check -off provision upon presentation of proper evidence thereof. 1.4 Cancellation — An authorization for payroll deduction may be cancelled upon written notice to the Association before the 15t1i day of the month in which the cancellation is to become effective, subject to the provisions of this article. 1.5 Association Notification - Within fifteen (15) days from the date of hire of a new Employee, the Employer shall notify the Association of the person's name and contact information and allow the Association the opportunity to meet with the employee as required by law. The Employer shall promptly notify the Association of all employees leaving its employment. ARTICLE II. GENDER 2.1 Wherever the words Employee or Employees are used in this Agreement, they are intended and shall be construed to be gender neutral. 4 Packet Pg. 87 6.3.a ARTICLE III. ASSOCIATION RIGHTS 3.1 Association Officials Time -Off - An Association Official who is an Employee in the Bargaining Unit (Association Board Officer, Negotiation Team Member and/or Shop Steward as appropriate to the specific activity) shall be granted a reasonable amount of release time if on duty while actually conducting contract negotiations, contract administration or discipline representation with the Employer on behalf of the Employees in the Bargaining Unit or actually engaged in preparatory meetings for said activities with the Employee. This does not include research and other preparation activities not specifically enumerated and provided: o They notify the Employer at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the time -off, o The Employer is able to properly staff the Employee's job duties during the time- off, o And the wage cost to the Employer is no greater than the cost that would have been incurred had the Association Official not taken time -off. When Association activities, as enumerated above, must be scheduled during an Association Official's off duty hours, adjustments shall be made to the Official's regular schedule on an hour for hour (straight time) basis. 3.2 Association Investigation and Visitation Privileges - The Business Representative of the Association, with the permission of the Department Head or designee, may visit the work location of Employees at any reasonable time and location for the purpose of investigating grievances. Such representative shall limit activities during such investigations to matters relating to this Agreement; provided however; the labor representative shall not interfere with the operation or normal routine of any department. 3.3 Bulletin Board - The Employer shall provide suitable space for a bulletin board to be used exclusively by the Association. 3.4 Use of Equipment- Bargaining Unit Officials may make occasional but limited use of City owned/operated communication resources (telephone, facsimile, voice mail, electronic mail, copier, computer) for communications; specifically, incidental or minimal use is permitted. Incidental or minimal use is that which is both brief in duration and accumulation and does not interfere with or impact the conduct of official City business due to volume, frequency or impedes Employee's performance of their official duties. In no event will the Association use the City communications resources for internal Association business beyond that permitted for minimal use or for any political use. ARTICLE IV. HOURS OF WORK, OVERTIME AND CALLBACK 4.1 The workweek shall be comprised of four (4) or more consecutive equal days ON duty and two (2) or more consecutive days OFF duty. The sum total of time worked shall not exceed forty (40) hours per week based on an annual average. The Association and the City may mutually agree to reopen Article IV, Section 4.1, for the purpose of negotiating a departure from the status quo on shift hours and days on/days off rotation during the term of this Collective Bargaining Agreement. 4.1.1 The policy of bidding for shift assignments on a seniority basis by rank or within classification shall be recognized, provided seniority may be disregarded for good cause by the Employer. Shift bids for the following year open on September 1 and close on or about October 1 and shall be open for thirty (30) days. Employees shall be notified of the result of the bid on or about October 15. Bid results may be subject to change due to events such as promotion, resignation or other good cause. For the purpose of this article, "on er about" means not to exceed three (3) days. Packet Pg. 88 6.3.a 4.1.2 A workday shall normally include the following based on shift hours: Shifts of 8 hours: One (1) thirty (30) minute meal period, two (2) fifteen (15) minute rest periods Shifts of 10 hours: One (1) forty five (45) minute meal period, two (2) fifteen (15) minute rest periods 4.2 Overtime - Overtime shall be that time worked in excess of the scheduled hours of work which shall be compensated at the rate of one and one-half (1.5) times the Employee's regular straight -time hourly rate of pay. 4.2.1 All approved overtime shall be compensated for in increments of fifteen (15) minutes. Overtime shall be rounded up using normal rounding process so that the major portion of fifteen (15) minutes will be paid as a full fifteen (15) minutes. 4.3 Call Back- The Employee is considered to be on paid status upon being ordered back to work (i.e. notification of a call out) and off paid status when leaving the police facility or other Employer designated work site. In the case of pre -scheduled meetings, court appearances and other scheduled events, paid status commences at the time scheduled for the event and ends when the event is over but at no time less than the three (3) hour minimum as described later in this Section. Employees ordered to report back to duty after going home after their regular shift, or ordered to report back to work on their day off, including time required to be spent in court, either as a witness or in assistance on another officer's case, or in attendance at department meetings shall be guaranteed three (3) hours at the rate of one and one-half (1.5) times the Employee's regular straight time hourly rate of pay. In the event an Employee is not notified by 12:00 noon forty eight (48) hours prior to a scheduled or subpoenaed Court appearance on a regularly scheduled day off that such an appearance is not necessary, the Employee shall be guaranteed two and one-half (2.5) hours at the Employee's regular straight time hourly rate of pay. 4.4 Required Training- On -duty training will be compensated at the Employee's regular rate of pay with shift adjustments allowed as necessary and agreed upon by the Supervisor and Employee. OFF duty required training shall be paid with compensatory time off or paid at the time and one-half (1.5) rate with three (3) hour minimum. 4.4.1 Training While On -Duty - If scheduled training occurs while on duty and consists of eight (8) hours or more; the hours of training shall constitute an entire workday, regardless of the Employee's hours of duty. While attending training on duty and the hours of instruction are less than eight (8) hours due to circumstances such as the instructor releasing the class early from training, the Employee has the option of returning to work or using leave time of their choice to fulfill their training obligations. Scenarios: o Employee attends training that is scheduled for eight (8) hours or more. The training ends early, possibly in seven (7) hours. The Employee must use "leave time" of their choice to complete an eight (8) hour period. o An Employee attends training that is scheduled for less than eight (8) hours. The Employee shall return to duty to complete their obligation to their obligated shift hours of duty. 4.5 Shift Premium - Employees who are assigned to work a regular shift that includes hours between 1900 and 0600 hours, (the "Premium Period") shall receive a shift premium of five percent (5%) of 6 Packet Pg. 89 6.3.a the hourly wage, in addition to their hourly rate of pay. The shift premium shall apply to all hours worked as part of an assigned, regular shift that includes hours within the Premium Period. Employees who elect, but are not assigned, to work regular shifts that include hours within the Premium Period will not receive a shift premium for such shifts. Employees assigned to a shift that is eligible for the shift premium will receive the shift premium for any overtime hours attached to their shift that fall within the Premium Period, but will not receive the shift premium for overtime hours falling outside the Premium Period. Employees whose regular shifts do not include hours within the Premium Period N will not receive the shift premium for overtime hours or overtime shifts worked within the Premium r, Period. N o e. g: Employee works a regular shift from 1800 to 0600 hours. They will receive the shift premium for all twelve (12) hours. If the Employee works three (3) hours overtime from 0600 to 0900 hours, they would not receive the shift premium for the overtime hours. o Employee works a regular shift from 1500 to 0300 hours. The Employee works two (2) hours overtime from 0300 to 0500 hours. The Employee will receive the shift premium for all twelve (12) hours of their regular shift and will also receive the shift premium for the two (2) overtime hours. o Employee normally works a regular shift between 0700 and 1700 hours. The Employee elects to change the work schedule one (1) day to work 1200 to 2200 hours to accommodate an assignment/meeting. The Employee would not receive the shift premium. o Employee elects or is mandated to work an overtime shift between 1800 and 0600 hours. The Employee would receive overtime pay, but would not receive the shift premium. 4.6 Employees shall receive overtime for all shifts rescheduled with less than fourteen (14) days' notice except where there is a bona fide emergency. The fourteen (14) day notification and the one and one half (1.5) times regular straight time hourly rate of pay requirement may be waived by the Association on behalf of the Employee. 4.7 Requests to schedule Compensatory or Holiday time shall be made not less than fourteen (14) days in advance of the requested date, provided, however, that compensatory time may be scheduled with less than fourteen (14) days' notice only when the request would not require the Employer to call another Employee to work in order to meet minimum staffing requirement, provided further that an Employee requesting compensatory time with less than fourteen (14) days' notice shall be allowed the time off if the Employee arranges for a volunteer replacement. Whether the substitute Employee works at the request of the Employer or at the request of another Employee, overtime will be paid. Accumulation of compensatory time shall be limited to a maximum accrual of eighty (80) hours at any one time. Any hours accrued in excess of the maximum shall be paid to the Employee at the next regularly scheduled pay period. It will be the responsibility of the Employee to provide as much notification as possible. Requests submitted less than eight (8) hours prior to the start of a shift, may be denied by a Supervisor. While actually at work, an Employee will be granted a request to leave early if the staffing levels are met and work load allows. 4.8 Job Sharing and Part -Time Employment 4.8.1 Job Share -Definition and Implementation- A job share position is defined as a full-time budgeted position, which is occupied by two (2) part-time Employees. Job sharing shall be implemented, only upon the approval of the Chief of Police or designee. 4.8.2 Job Share -Schedule- Employees will share a full-time position on an agreed upon work schedule, which is convenient to the Employer and the Employees. Examples of schedules that might be used are: 7 Packet Pg. 90 o One Employee works two (2) ten (10) hour days and one (1) five (5) hour day and the other Employee works one (1) ten (10) hour day and one (1) five (5) hour day; o One Employee works three (3) five (5) hour days and one (1) ten (10) hour day and the other Employee works three (3) five (5) hour days; o Each Employee works five (5) hours per day; o Each Employee works forty (40) hours in alternating weeks. 4.8.3 Job Share -Coordination- The Employees will be expected to coordinate with each other so that the responsibilities of the position and the level of required productivity are not adversely affected. 4.8.4 Job Share -Compensation- Each employee will be paid the hourly rate of pay of the established salary for the position. Due to seniority, two (2) Employees may be paid at different steps in the salary grade, however. Whenever one (1) Employee works during vacation, sick leave or other absence of the second Employee, the working Employee will receive additional compensation at the regular rate of pay for excess hours worked up to forty (40) hours in one (1) week. Any hours worked beyond forty (40) in one (1) week will be compensated at time and one-half (1.5). 4.8.5 Job Share -Benefits — Each Employee will be entitled to the following benefits: • Vacation, Sick Leave and Holidays on a pro -rated basis; • Medical, Dental and Vision insurance with the Employer share of the premium pro -rated; • A Term Life Insurance policy paid for in full by the Employer; • Participation in other Employee programs, including but not limited to the Employee Suggestion Program, Perfect Attendance Award, Wellness Program, and Employee Assistance Program; • Participation in the MEBT program; • Participation in the State of Washington Department of Retirement Systems (DRS). If any additional employee benefits are provided to full-time employees, the parties will discuss whether part- time employees will receive the benefits and, if so, at what level. 4.8.6 Job Share -Termination of Position- Should either job share participant leave, the remaining participant will revert back to full-time status until such time as a suitable replacement can be employed. In addition, the Employer reserves the right to discontinue the job share position at any time for legitimate operational reasons. 4.8.7 Job Share -First Right of Refusal on an Open Full -Time Position- Should a job share participant wish to return to full time status and a fall time position is then available, the job share participant shall have first right of refusal to the full time position. 4.8.9 Regular Part -Time Employee -Definition and Implementation- An employee who has successfully completed an orientation period (sometimes referred to as probationary or trial period) and who regularly works less than (40) hours but at least (20) hours a week. Benefits provided to a part-time employee shall be pro -rated based upon the ratio of the regularly scheduled hours per week of the part- time employee to 40 hours per week. E:1 Packet Pg. 91 6.3.a 4.8.10 Regular Part -Time Employee -Schedule- The part-time position schedule will be position specs is and crafted to accomplish the intended purpose of the position and to accomplish the objectives of the department. Where reasonably possible, the employee's work schedule shall be posted at least thirty (30) days prior to the beginning of the applicable work period. Vacation leave, holiday leave and pre - planned sick leave use will be scheduled in advance and in coordination with the unit supervisor. 4.8.11 Regular Part -Time Employee -Benefits- Each Employee will be entitled to the following benefits: • Vacation, Sick Leave and Holidays on a pro -rated basis; • Medical, Dental and Vision insurance with the Employer share of the premium pro -rated; • A Term Life Insurance policy paid for in full by the Employer; • Participation in other Employee programs, including but not limited to the Employee Suggestion Program, Perfect Attendance Award, Wellness Program, and Employee Assistance Program. • Participation in the MEBT program; • Participation in the State of Washington Department of Retirement Systems (DRS). If any additional employee benefits are provided to full-time employees, the parties will discuss whether part- time employees will receive the benefits and, if so, at what level. ARTICLE V. PROBATION SENIORITY AND LAYOFFS 5.1 Probation Period — Non -Commissioned Employees and Employees with Special Commissions shall be subject to a twelve (12) month probation period commencing with their first date of regular employment in a position within the Bargaining Unit. Any probationary period shall be extended automatically for the number of work days equal to the number of work days an Employee was absent in excess of ten (10) work days during the probationary period. Discharge of an Employee during this probation period shall not be subject to Section 15.1. 5.2 "Seniority" shall be defined as total length of service in the Bargaining Unit computed from the Employee's most recent first compensated day of regular employment within the Bargaining Unit, excluding the portion of extended leave of absence in excess of thirty (30) days and excluding periods of layoff less than twelve (12) months. 5.2.1 "Seniority by Rank" as used in this Agreement shall accrue from the effective date of promotion to the Employee's current rank. 5.3 The Employer shall provide the Association with a list of all current Employees of the Bargaining Unit with their respective seniority dates on July 1 st of each year and shall post a copy of same on the Association bulletin board. 5.3.1 An Employee shall lose all seniority in the event of discharge or voluntary termination or layoff in excess of twelve (12) months. 5.4 Layoffs- Positions within the Bargaining Unit shall be assigned to "work units" as follows: Police Services: Senior Police Services Assistant, Police Services Assistant Animal Control/Ordinance Enforcement: Senior Animal Control/Ordinance Enforcement Officer, Animal Control/Ordinance Enforcement Officer Crime Prevention: Crime Prevention Coordinator Packet Pg. 92 6.3.a Property: Property Officer In the event of a layoff involving any of these work units, full time Employees, will be laid off by reverse order of seniority within the affected work unit (as contrasted with seniority as defined in Section 5.2). A part-time or job share Employee will be laid off by reverse order of seniority prior to any full-time Employees being subject to layoff. An Employee, whether regular full-time, regular part-time or job share Employee, designated for layoff who held a position in another work unit within the previous two (2) years, who had a documented satisfactory work history in that prior position and who continues to meet the minimum qualifications for the prior position, may displace an Employee occupying the prior position who has less seniority as defined in Section 5.2; provided that upon mutual agreement between the Chief of Police or designee and the Association, the two (2) year limitation in this Section may be waived. An Employee returning to a prior position under this Section will serve a six (6) month probationary period. o e. g: An Employee is facing layoff from the Animal Control/Ordinance Enforcement unit. That same Employee had previously held a position within the Police Services unit within the past two (2) years, had a history of satisfactory performance in that position and continues to meet the minimum qualifications for the position. The Employee designated for layoff may displace an Employee in Police Services who has less seniority as defined in Section 5.2. ARTICLE VI. WAGES 6.1 The classification of work and the corresponding rates of pay covered by this Agreement shall be as set forth in APPENDIX "A" which by this reference shall be incorporated herein as if set forth in full. ARTICLE VII. HOLIDAYS 7.1 The following days are City recognized holidays for all regular full-time employees and regular Part-time employees: New Year's Day Martin Luther King Day Washington's Memorial Day Memorial Day Independence Day Labor Day Veteran's Day Thanksgiving Day Friday following Thanksgiving Christmas Eve Christmas Day January 1 Third Monday in January Third Monday in February Last Monday of May July 4 First Monday of September November 11 Fourth Thursday of November December 24 December 25 7.1.1 All Employees shall be paid for all such holidays regardless upon which day in the week the holiday shall fall. Each day consists of ten (10) hours. This pay shall be in the form of a holiday bank equal to one hundred and ten (110) hours. If any work is performed by such Employee on such holiday, additional compensation at the overtime rate shall be paid, in addition to the day off at a later date. No Employee shall be called to work on such a holiday for less than a minimum call -out time and rate. Employees scheduled to work Monday through Friday 8 hour days, Monday through Thursday 10 hour days, or Tuesday through Friday 10 hour days shall observe holidays which fall upon a Saturday on the proceeding scheduled Friday workday and any holidays which fall upon a Sunday on the following scheduled Monday workday. If a holiday occurs during an Employee's vacation, the Employee shall receive the holiday on a later mutually scheduled date. Employees may use only the holiday hfxrs accrued for the holidays up to an including the date Packet Pg. 93 6.3.a that the employee wishes to use the leave. When employees terminate employment mid -year, they will be paid only for unused holiday hours that have occurred prior to their termination. Part -Time Employees: Regular part-time employees will not have a holiday bank but will be paid for all hours of their normal work schedule for the day on which a recognized holiday falls. Example: if the employee's regular schedule for the holiday is 8 hours, the employee would receive 8 hours of pay. If the employee's regular scheduled for the holiday is 5 hours, the employee would receive 5 hours of pay. If the holiday should fall on the part-time employee's regular day off, the Employee will take the workday immediately prior or immediately after as the holiday as mutally agreed upon by the employee and their supervisor and will be paid according the the above provisions. If operational issues preclude the Employee from taking the workday prior or the workday after off, the Employee and their supervisor shall agree on an alternate holiday for the Employee. It is expected that such alternate holiday will be taken in the same month that the original holiday occurred, excepting unforeseen circumstances which would not allow that, in which case the holiday shall be taken in the following month. It is expected that under normal circumstances regular part-time employees will not be required to work on city recognized holidays. If any work is performed by a regular part-time employee on a holiday, additional compensation at the overtime rate of time and one half shall be paid for all hours worked on the holiday and the Employee shall be afforded an alternate holiday as outlined above. 7.2 On or before December 1 st of each calendar year, all unused and unscheduled "Holiday" hours, up to and including eighty eight (88) hours shall be repurchased by the Employer at the Employee's regular straight time hourly rate of pay. This repurchase will be in the form of a separate check, and not direct deposit. Employees are responsible for monitoring their "Holiday" hour balances and planning use of "Holiday" hours to avoid "use it or lose it" scenarios. Any hours in excess of eighty eight (88) shall be scheduled by the Employee prior to October 30 of each calendar year. Any scheduled but remaining unused holiday hours still in the employee's bank on December 31 of each year shall be forfeited without any additional compensation. However, if the employer requires an employee to cancel a prescheduled holiday off during November or December, upon written approval of the Division's Assistant Chief, the holiday may be carried over to be used within 60 days of the new calendar year. ARTICLE VIII. VACATIONS 8.1 All regular full-time Employees shall receive vacation with full pay annually in accordance with the following: YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT After first 6 months - Second 6 months 2 through 4 years 5 through 10 years 11 through 15 years 16 through 19 years 20 through 24 years 25 years HOURS OF VACATION 48 hours 40 hours 96 hours 136 hours 176 hours 188 hours 200 hours 216 hours This benefit also applies to regular part-time employees on a pro -rated basis. 11 Packet Pg. 94 6.3.a 8.1.1 For the purpose of this article, the term employment shall include any regular full time, and regular part- time (as defined in 4.8.9), employment with the City of Edmonds. 8.2 In the event of termination of employment, the Employee shall be given proportionate vacations earned in the current year, together with any unused earned vacations for, the preceding calendar year before being separated from the payroll. 8.3 The maximum vacation leave carry-over from one calendar year to the next shall be limited to two (2) years' worth of accumulated leave at the Employee's current accrual rate. An Employee who has reached the maximum accrual level may continue to accrue vacation until December 31' at which time any vacation accrued in addition to the maximum carry-over will be forfeited, provided that the maximum accrual subject to cash -out upon separation shall be four hundred and thirty two (432) hours, provided further that this limitation shall not apply when the separation is caused by unanticipated events such as death, disability, illness, involuntary discharge or similar circumstances. Employees are responsible for monitoring their vacation balances and planning vacation to avoid "use it or lose it" scenarios. Where the Employee has failed to appropriately manage their vacation balances, the Employer need not incur overtime to avoid forfeiture. 8.4 In the event scheduling in Superior Court necessitates the appearance of an Employee during the Employee's previously scheduled vacation time, that Employee shall be offered the opportunity of rescheduling the Employee's vacation at a time mutually convenient to the Employee and the Employer as determined by the Chief of Police. Once vacation has been approved and the affected Employee has incurred nonr of indable or unusable expenses in planning for the same, the Employee shall be reimbursed by the City for those expenses. Upon request, the Employee shall assign any tickets or other benefits to the City for which reimbursement is made. Any Employee called back to duty for any reason once the vacation has begun shall be reimbursed for round trip transportation costs involved in returning for duty. Reimbursement for travel shall be made on the same basis as the original mode of transportation. If applicable, mileage shall be paid at the approved IRS rate. For the purposes of this section "vacation" shall include leave of absence, bereavement leave or compensatory time off, including regularly scheduled days off, immediately preceding or following any of the aforementioned time off. 8.5 In order to make provisions for timely vacation schedules, all regular full-time Employees shall bid for vacations for the coming year. Preference in bidding for vacations and scheduling extra days off shall be administered i n accordance with seniority. Vacation bidding for January through December shall open on or about October 15 and close on November 15 and shall be open for thirty (30) days. Notification will be provided on or about December 1. For the purpose of this Section, "on or about" shall mean not to exceed three (3) days. Vacation requests made following the annual vacation bid approval will be on a first come first served basis for the remainder of the bid year. This section does not apply to regular, part-time employees. Employees who request a position transfer may be subject to losing their previously bid time 9.1 Sick Leave- Employees shall receive sick leave accruals under Section 9.8, including a one thousand (1,000) hour maximum annual carryover, accrued at the rate of nine (9) hours per month (pro -rated for regular part-time employees). Sick leave accrued but not taken from one (1) hour to four hundred (400) hours shall be converted to pay at the Employee's regular rate of pay in effect at the date of termination and on the basis of the following schedule: 12 Packet Pg. 95 6.3.a With two (2) week notice - Honorable voluntary quit - 25% of hours accrue . Termination by City Layoff - 25% of hours accrued. Retirement -50% of hours accrued. Sick leave accrued but not taken from four hundred one (401) hours to eight hundred (800) hours shall be converted to pay, upon honorable termination of any nature, for fifty percent (50%) of hours accrued at the Employee's regular rate of pay in effect at the date of termination. At the Employee's option, sick leave accrued but not taken from four hundred one (401) hours to eight hundred (800) hours may be converted to vacation time, on the basis of one (1) hour for every two (2) hours accrued or fifty percent (50%), to be used prior to the Employee's termination date. At such time as the employee elects to convert hours 401-800, the employee will no longer be entitled to accrue sick leave. Hours accrued from eight hundred one (801) hours to one thousand (1,000) hours are not eligible for compensation or conversion. Retirement is defined as being eligible to receive PERS benefits at the time of termination. Employees who terminate based on a disability may elect to either receive one hundred percent (100%) of the unused sick leave balance or remain in a pay status until the sick leave is exhausted. 9.1.1 In the event of death of the Employee, payment for all unused sick leave shall be made to the surviving spouse o r d o in e s t i c p a r t n e r or to Employee's estate if there is no spouse or domestic partner, at this regular straight -time hourly rate of pay. 9.2 An Employee eligible for sick leave with pay shall be granted such leave for: A. Absences resulting from an Employee's mental or physical illness, injury, or health condition; to accommodate the Employee's need for medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of a mental or physical illness, injury, or health condition; or an Employees' need for preventative care; and B. To allow the Employee to provide care for a family member, as defined below, with a mental or physical illness, injury, or health condition; care for a family member who needs medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of a mental or physical illness, injury, or health condition; or care for a family member who needs preventative medical care; and C. When the Employee's place of business has been closed by order of a public official for any health - related reason, or when an Employee's child's school or place of care has been closed for such a reason; and D. For absences which qualify for leave under the domestic violence leave act. E. Forced quarantine of the Employee; F. The death of a member of the Employee's immediate family, as defined in 9.7 For the purposes of sick leave usage under this policy, "family member" is defined as: • A child, including biological, adopted, or foster child, stepchild, or a child to whom the Employee stands in loco parentis, is a legal guardian, or is a de facto parent, regardless of age or dependency status; • A biological, adoptive, de facto, or foster parent, stepparent, or legal guardian of an Employee or the Employee's spouse or registered domestic partner, or a person who stood in loco parentis when the Employee was a minor child; • A spouse; • A registered domestic partner; 13 Packet Pg. 96 6.3.a • A grandparent; • A grandchild; • A sibling. At their election, Employees may use other accrued paid leave in place of or in addition to sick leave for any of the purposes described above. 9.2.1 In the event an Employee shall be entitled to benefits or payments under any program of disability insurance furnished by the Employer, Workers' Compensation Act, or similar legislation of the State of Washington, or any other government unit, the Employer shall pay only the difference between the benefits and payments received under such insurance or Act by such Employee and the Employee's regular rate of compensation that the Employee would have received from the Employer if able to work in accordance with applicable City policies. The foregoing payment by the Employer shall be limited to the period of time that such Employee has accumulated sick leave credits as specified herein. 9.3 The certificate of a physician and/or written report concerning the need for the sick leave may be required by the Employer when an Employee is absent for a period in excess of three days . Unreasonable Burden or Expense for Verification If the Employee believes that obtaining verification for use of paid sick leave would result in an unreasonable burden or expense, they must contact Human Resources orally or in writing by completing the "Employee Verification for Authorized Use of Accrued Paid Sick Leave" form and submit the form to their department for processing. The Employee should indicate that the absence is for an authorized purpose and explain why verification would result in an undue burden or expense. If the Employee chooses to provide this information in writing rather than orally, the Employee may complete the "Employee Verification of Authorized Use of Paid Sick Leave Form" found on the Human Resources webpage or provided by the Employee's supervisor, or the Employee may send an email to Human Resources which provides the same information. Within ten (10) calendar days of receiving the Employee's request, Human Resources will work with the Employee to identify an alternative for the Employee to meet the verification requirement in a way that does not result in an unreasonable burden or expense. The Employee has the right to contact the Mayor if the Employee believes the proposed final alternative still results in an unreasonable burden or expense. If an Employee is not satisfied with the City's final alternatives, they may consult with the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. In addition to the requirements herein, sick leave shall be granted and/or used in accord with applicable laws. 9.4 State Paid Family and Medical Leave Act (PFML) — Employees are eligible for paid family and medical leave consistent with the state PFML which became effective January 1, 2020. The premium costs for leave shall be split so that the Employer shall pay 50% of the premium and the Employee shall pay 50% of the premium, effective the pay period following ratification of this contract. Should City policy allow for "supplementing" of state paid leave, bargaining unit members will be allowed to do so per policy. 9.5 Leaves of Absence- Leaves of Absence may be granted to the Employees by the Employer with the 14 Packet Pg. 97 6.3.a approval of the Chief of Police said absence to be for the benefit of the Employer and/or police education, preserving seniority status provided adequate provision can be made for replacement of the absent Employee during the Employee's absence. Seniority shall not accrue during any leave of absence. 9.6 Jury Leave - An Employee who is required to serve on a jury or as a result of official police department duties is required to appear before a Court, Legislative Committee or Quasi-judicial body as a witness in response to a subpoena or other legally binding directive, shall be permitted authorized leave with pay The Employee shall sign over to the Employer compensation received from the Courts for jury duty and remain on full paid status. 9.7 Bereavement Leave- An Employee shall be granted up to three (3) work -days leave with pay in the event of the death of any member of the immediate family. Additional bereavement leave not to exceed three (3) days may be granted by the Mayor should travel or other unusual circumstances require the additional time. This additional leave shall be deducted and paid from the Employee's accrued sick leave. Immediate family defined as: • Spouse or domestic partner and children, including step children of the Employee; • Mother, Father, Brother, sister of the Employee or spouse or domestic partner; • Grandparents of the Employee or spouse or domestic partner; • Grandchildren Sick Leave Payout Upon Death: In the event of death of the Employee, payment for all unused sick leave up to eight hundred (800) hours shall be made to the surviving spouse o r d o m e s t i c p a r t n e r or to the Employee's estate if there is no spouse or domestic partner, at the Employee's regular straight - time hourly rate of pay. 9.8 Employees will accrue sick leave at the rate of nine (9) hours per month commencing with the date of hire (pro -rated for regular part-time employees). 9.8.1 In the event of significant job related injury or illness to the Employee which is approved as a claim by Washington State Labor and Industries (L&I), the Employee may at the Employee's option: o Be placed on unpaid leave statue and accept the L&I Time Loss Compensation checks o Be placed on paid sick leave status (using accrued sick leave or if insufficient sick leave, then other paid leave shall be utilized) and sign the L&I Time Loss Compensation checks over to the City. The City would then "buy-back" and reimburse the Employee's sick leave bank. 9.9 Light -Duty — In the event an Employee suffers an illness or injury that prevents the Employee from performing their full range of duties for a period in excess of two (2) weeks, light -duty shall be assigned as authorized by the treating doctor pursuant to the terms outlined in Article 9.9.3. 9.9.1 Work Assignments- Light -duty status shall include work assignments within the Police Department that the Employee is released to perform by the Employee's treating doctor until a full release for return to work is authorized. 9.9.2 Rate of Pay/Required Duty- Employees assigned light -duty status shall be paid at one hundred percent (100%) of their normal rate of pay. Regular full-time employees shall work a forty (40) hour workweek schedule as determined by the Employer. Employees may work less than 40 hours per week (including partial days) if so ordered by the treating doctor. 15 Packet Pg. 98 6.3.a 9.9.3 Requested Duty- An Employee with a favorable prognosis for return to full duty by the treating doctor will be assigned light -duty for a maximum period of three hundred thirty six (336) hours (pro -rated for regular part-time employees) unless the Employee is earlier able to resume a full range of duties. The three hundred thirty six (336) hour period includes both full days and partial days on a prorated basis when required by the treating doctor. Such period may be extended upon mutual written agreement of the Employer and the Association on behalf of the Employee when the medical prognosis of the Employee being able to return to full Employment within a reasonable period of time is received by the Employer. 9.9.4 Medical Reinstatement List & Effective Life of List -Names on Civil Service Commission's (CSC) Medical Reinstatement List for a class of Employee shall be in order of separation to be established by the Commission. Names of Employees on the Medical Reinstatement List shall be carried two (2) years from the Employees last date of employment. ARTICLE X. INSURANCE 10.1 Coverage- The Employer shall make available to eligible regular full time Employees and eligible regular part-time employees (on a pro -rated basis), and their eligible spouses and dependents, an insurance program that includes medical, dental, vision insurance and employee assistance plan (EAP) benefit. For the purposes of this article, spouse also includes "registered domestic partner" as defined under Washington state law. This insurance program includes the following: Medical Insurance — Employee shall choose between the Medical insurance plans offered by the City of Edmonds in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. Dental Insurance - Dental insurance is provided through the AWC (Association of Washington Cities) Washington Dental Service Plan F with Option III (Orthodontia). Vision Insurance - Vision insurance is provided through AWC Vision Service Plan ($10.00 deductible). EAP Plan -The Employee Assistance Program is currently provided through AWC. Flexible Spending Account (FSA) — The Employer shall provide and administer an FSA using pre-tax deductions from Employees for qualified medical, childcare, transportation, and other permitted uses as allowed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Code Section 125 for Employees. The Employer shall pay all fees for the establishment and maintenance of the FSA accounts for which it is legally allowed to pay. 10.1.1 The Employer shall pay the costs necessary to provide health, vision, life, dental and disability insurance plans specified in this agreement for all employees in the bargaining unit. The selection of a different/new provider shall be at the sole discretion of the Employer, provided that the benefit levels shall be substantially the same as those benefit levels in effect as of the signing of this agreement. In the event that the Employer receives notice of the termination of any plan specified in this agreement, the Employer will promptly notify the Association and the parties shall commence negotiation regarding replacement coverage and cost. 10.2 The Employer shall pay one hundred percent (100%) of those premiums necessary to maintain medical care, dental care, orthodontic care, vision care, life and disability insurance coverage for each Employee. The Employer shall pay ninety percent (90%) of those premiums necessary to maintain medical care, dental care, and orthodontic c are insurance coverage for each Employee's Dependents. Regular part-time employees shall receive these benefits on a pro -rated basis. 10.3 Health Reimbursement Arrangement/Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association (HRA/VEBA) The Employer will establish an HRA/VEBA for each Employee who is eligible and enrolled or covered by one of the Employer's health insurance plans. The Employer agrees to pay all fees for the establishment and maintenance of the HRA/VEBA accounts for which it is legally allowed to pay. The Employer maintains the 16 Packet Pg. 99 6.3.a right to select the third party management of the HRANEBA. The Employer agrees to make the following contributions to the HRANEBA accounts to eligible Employees: A) 2020 - $800 (Contribution to be made within forty-five (45) days of ratification) B) 2021 - $300 (Contribution to be made within forty-five (45) days of ratification) C) 2022 - $300 (Contribution made January 1, 2022) Employer's contributions for 2021 — 2022 in the amounts of $300 annually will be provided based upon the understanding that the bargaining unit will make a best faith effort to meet the annual participation requirements for the AWC Well City Award as outlined by AWC. Association members, as a group, may elect to make mandatory employee contributions via payroll deductions into the HRANEBA as established by the Employer. Association members, as a group, may elect to have leave cash -outs deposited into the HRANEBA as established by the Employer. Elections for both mandatory employee contributions and leave cash -out contributions may be adjusted by a majority vote of the Association members no more than once per year and with appropriate notice to Employer. 10.4 Liability - Liability insurance for Employees shall be provided by the Employer. The Employer shall provide legal counsel or reasonable attorney's fees for representation and defense of lawsuits and to hold Employees harmless from any expenses, connected with the defense, settlement or monetary judgments from such actions, claims, or proceedings arising out of or incident to acts and/or omissions occurring while the Employee was acting in good faith in the performance or purported failure of performance of the Employees official duties or employment and provided further that the Employee was not engaging in criminal or malicious misconduct. A criminal conviction shall be deemed conclusive but not exclusive proof of criminal misconduct for the purposes of this section. If the City elects to pay reasonable attorney's fees hereafter, no claim for such payment may be made by an Employee prior to the conclusion of a criminal lawsuit. ARTICLE XI. UNIFORMS ALLOWANCE AND OTHER EQUIPMENT 11.1 The employer shall provide the following uniform items to new Employees and replace any of the following items of any employee which in the reasonable opinion of the Employer require replacement: Police Staff Assistants Shirts (Polo); Short sleeve or % sleeve 4 Shirts (Flying Cross: short sleeve 2 Trousers 3 pair Belt 1 Fleece Jacket or fleece vest 1 Shoes or boots 1 pair Badge 1 Dept. Insignia 2 pair Shoulder Patches 4 pair Property Officers Shirts (Polo); Short sleeve or 3/4 sleeve 4 Shirts (Flying Cross: short sleeve 2 Shirts (Flying Cross); short sleeve 2 Turtleneck 1 Trousers 3 pair 17 Packet Pg. 100 6.3.a Belt l Fleece Jacket or fleece vest l Shoes or boots 1 pair Jacket 1 Department Insignia 2 pair Shoulder Patches 4 pair Hat 1 Evidence Tech call out uniform 1 Animal Control Officers Shirts (Flying Cross); long sleeve light blue 3 Shirts (Flying Cross); short sleeve light blue 3 Turtleneck 2 Trousers 3 pair Belt 1 Hat 1 Tie 1 Tie Bar 1 Department Insignia 2 pair Shoulder Patches 7 pair Shoes or boots 1 pair Badges 1 Uniform Jacket 1 Uniform Rain Pants 1 Jump suit 1 Crime Prevention/Community Engagement Officer Shirts (Polo); short sleeve or 3/4 sleeve 3 Shirts (Flying Cross); long sleeve light blue 1 Shirts (Flying Cross); short sleeve light blue 2 Shirts (Flying Cross); long sleeve dress white 1 Turtleneck 1 Trousers 3 Badge 1 Sweater or Vest 1 Tie 1 Tie Bar 1 Shoes or boots 1 Department Insignia 2 pair Shoulder Patches 4 pair Domestic Violence Coordinator Shirts (Polo); Short sleeve or 3/4 sleeve 3 Fleece Jacket or fleece vest 1 11.1.1 In an effort to clarify garments covered by this Section, only items used during employment will be covered. Dry Cleaning/Laundry Service wig be provided based on a weekly average as follows: Packet Pg. 101 • Four (4) items Dry Cleaned or, • Two (2) items Dry Cleaned and four (4) items Laundered. 11.2 The Employee shall be held accountable for all uniform items and all other equipment so assigned to the Employee b y the Employer. Loss or destruction of items of clothing or protective devices shall be replaced by the Employer where said loss was incurred as direct result of the performance of the Employee while on the job, or as the result of an occurrence not due to the Employee's wrongful act or willful negligence. Any uniform items or equipment assigned to an Employee which is lost or mutilated or requires replacement as a direct result of the Employee's wrongful act or willful negligence shall be replaced at the Employee's expense from a supplier designated by the Employer. 11.2.1 All items of clothing, protective devices, and equipment issued by the Employer to each Employee shall remain the property of the Employer. 11.3 No clothing allowance that remains in effect shall accrue during any period in excess of thirty (30) days in which the Employee is on approved disability, and if previously paid it shall be refunded by the Employee through payroll deduction on a pro rata basis. ARTICLE XII. MISCELLANEOUS 12.1 Employees covered under this Agreement may at times, and in some cases, may at all times, perform some duties of a Supervisor. Nothing in this Agreement s h a 11 in any way interfere with carrying out their duties. 12.2 The Association recognizes the prerogative of the Employer to operate and manage its affairs in all respects in accordance with its responsibilities, and the powers and authority which the Employer possesses. 12.2.1 The Employer has the authority to adopt rules for the operation of the Department and conduct of its Employees provided the adoption of such rules are not deemed to be a waiver of the Association's Collective Bargaining Rights. 12.2.2 The Employer has the right to schedule overtime work as required in a manner most advantageous to the Employer and consistent with the requirements on municipal employment and the public interest. 12.2.3 every incidental duty connected with operations enumerated in job descriptions is not always specifically described. Nevertheless, it is intended that all such duties shall be performed by the Employee. 12.2.4 The Employer reserves the Right to discipline or discharge for cause. The Employer reserves the Right to lay-off for lack of work or funds, or the occurrence of conditions beyond the control of the Employer or where such continuation of work would be wasteful and unproductive. 12.2.5 The Employer shall have the Right to assign work and determine the duties of Employees; to schedule hours of work; to determine the number of personnel to be assigned at any time and to perform all other functions not limited by this Agreement. 12.3 Driver's License Checks — While operating City of Edmonds vehicles, all employees must have a valid Washington State Driver's License in their possession at all times. This is required for compliance with state law and is also required by the City's insurance carrier. If possession of a valid driver's license is a requirement in the employee's job description, no less frequently than on an annual basis, the City 19 Packet Pg. 102 will enter the employee's Washington State Driver's License number into the publicly accessed Washington State Department of Licensing webpage to check driver license status. 12.3.1 Employees who operate City of Edmonds vehicles shall immediately notify their respective Assistant Chief through the proper chain of command any time the employee's driver's license for any reason becomes suspended, revoked or is in any way not valid or current. Employees shall not resume operation of any City vehicle until a valid, current driver's license is presented to their respective Assistant Chief. ARTICLE XIIL NO STRIKE PROVISION 13.1 During the term of this Agreement, the Association and/or the Employees shall not cause or engage in any work stoppage, strike, slowdown or other interference with City functions. Employees who engage in any of the foregoing actions may be subject to such disciplinary actions as may be determined by the Employer. ARTICLE XIV. DISCHARGE. REDUCTION OR DEPRIVATION OF PRIVILEGES 14.1 The tenure of Employees covered by this Agreement shall be only during good behavior and any such person may be removed or discharged, suspended without pay, demoted, or reduced in rank, or deprived of vacation privileges or other special privileges for cause. 14.2 The parties shall abide by the terms of the Employees "Bill of Rights" set forth in APPENDIX "B". In the case of Special Commission Employee's, covered by this contract, the "Bill of Rights" set forth in APPENDIX "B" of the Commissioned Officers Contract will be utilized. 14.3 All Employees shall be covered by Civil Service Rules as stated below. An Employee may either "Grieve" discipline or discharge through Article XVI Grievance Procedure or "Appeal" through the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Rules applicable for such Appeal. The parties further agree all other provisions covered by the Civil Service Rules, including applications, examination, eligibility, and appointments, shall be administered by the Employer in accordance with Personnel Policy and Department regulations and standards. All Employees covered by this Agreement shall be "grandfathered" into the system. ARTICLE XV. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 15.1 A Grievance shall be defined as an issue raised relating to the interpretation, application or violation of any terms or provisions of this Agreement. An Employee may either "Grieve" discipline or "Appeal" said discipline to the Civil Service Commission, provided that a Grievance shall not be processed if any Employee has previously filed a Civil Service Appeal over the same matter and provided further, that the subsequent filing of a Civil Service Appeal shall operate to withdraw a Grievance, previously filed over the same matter. 15.1.1 When an Employee has a Grievance it shall immediately be brought to the attention of the immediate Supervisor and the Employee and Supervisor shall attempt to settle the Grievance. If the Grievance cannot be settled, the Employee shall state the Grievance in writing and present it to the Supervisor in accordance with the procedure set forth below. 15.1.2 An Employee and/or the Association may bring a Grievance at the appropriate step: o within thirty (30) days of the occurrence of an alleged Violation,or o within thirty (30) days, 20 Packet Pg. 103 6.3.a of when the Employee and/or Association, by reasonable diligence, should have known ot the occurrence of said Violation, provided that no remedy may be applied retroactively more than sixty (60) days prior to the actual filing of the Grievance. 15.1.3 The immediate Supervisor shall make every effort to resolve the Grievance: o within twenty (20) days. Failure of the immediate Supervisor to resolve the Grievance: o within the twenty (20) day period, shall permit the Employee and/or Association the Right to submit a written demand: o within twenty (20) days, of the Supervisor's answer for resolution of the alleged Violation to the Chief of Police or designee. The Chief or designee shall either schedule a meeting with the Association to discuss the Grievance or respond to the Grievance: o within twenty (20) days. If a meeting is scheduled, the Chief or designee shall be granted: o an additional twenty (20) days, from the date of the meeting to respond. 15.1.4 Failure of the Chief of Police to resolve the Grievance (involving only issues that have a monetary penalty proposed), within the time lines outlined in Section 16.1.3, shall permit the Employee and/or Association the Right to submit a written demand: o within twenty (20) days, of the Chiefs answer for resolution of the alleged Violation to the Mayor or designee. The Mayor or designee shall either schedule a meeting with the Association to discuss the Grievance or respond to the Grievance: o within twenty (20) days. If a meeting is scheduled, the Mayor or designee shall be granted: o an additional twenty (20) days, from the date of the meeting to respond. 15.1.5 If the Association is not satisfied with the City's response, it may submit a demand for Arbitration to the Employer in writing within thirty (30) days. 15.1.6 The Employer and the Association shall immediately thereafter select an Arbitrator to hear the dispute. If the Employer and the Association are not able to agree upon an Arbitrator within ten (10) days, 21 Packet Pg. 104 6.3.a after receipt by the Employer of the written demand for arbitration, the Association may request a list of seven (7) Arbitrators from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. After receipt of same, the parties shall alternately strike the names of the Arbitrators until only one name remains who shall, upon hearing the dispute, render a decision which shall be final and binding upon all parties. The party to strike first shall be determined by a flip of a coin. 15.2 Nothing herein shall prevent an Employee from seeking assistance from the Association or the Association from furnishing such assistance at any stage of the Grievance procedure. 15.3 The expenses of the Arbitrator and the cost of any Hearing Room shall be borne equally by the parties. In all instances, attorney's fees shall be the responsibility of each individual party. 15.4 If either party fails to take the action required within the times provided herein, the party failing to act shall forfeit its Right to further protest the Grievance, denial of the Grievance or interim recommended solution provided that the time frames enumerated herein may be extended with the mutual written agreement of the parties. 15.5 Matters within the Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) shall not be subject to this Grievance procedure unless they are covered by the specific terms and conditions of this Agreement, provided nothing herein constitutes a waiver of the Association's Right to bargain pursuant to RCW 41.56. 15.6 By mutual agreement between the Association Representative and the Mayor's Office or when that step is the lowest level at which a matter may be resolved, an Employee or the Association may initiate a Grievance at the Chiefs level. ARTICLE XVI- SAVINGS CLAUSE & MISCELLANEOUS 16.1 It is the intention of the parties hereto to comply with all applicable law and they believe that each and every part of this Agreement is lawful. All provisions of this Agreement shall be complied with unless any of such provisions shall be declared invalid or inoperative by a court of competent jurisdiction or rendered invalid by operation of federal or state statute. In such event either party may request re- negotiations of such invalid provisions for the purpose of adequate and lawful replacement thereof, provided however, that such finding shall have no effect whatsoever on the balance of this Agreement. 16.2 Definitions —"Days" when used in this contract shall refer to "calendar days" unless otherwise specified. 16.3 AVL: When the Edmonds Police Department begins using Auto Vehicle Locator (AVL) technology in its vehicles which are operated by Edmonds Police Department members, the City agrees that it will not review and use AVL data with the intent of generating any complaints or internal investigations against an Edmonds Police member. AVL data may be used as corroborating evidence to prove or disprove allegations of misconduct made against an Edmonds Police member. Corroborating evidence is evidence which strengthens, adds to or confirms already existing evidence. AVL data shall not be used to monitor or evaluate an Edmonds Police member's performance without precipitating cause. AVL data will be used to enhance officer safety and efficiency and is not intended to replace effective first -level supervisory practices, including knowledge of subordinates' activities on shift. 16.3.1 In the case of Edmonds Police members having assigned take home vehicles, the City shall comply with RCW 42.56.250 and must redact all identifiable information from a records request for AVL data that would disclose a member's residential location and/or address. 22 Packet Pg. 105 16.4 Personal Possessions and Electronic Communications The City cannot assume responsibility for any theft or damage to the personal belongings of City employees, unless otherwise agreed in a Collective Bargaining Agreement. Therefore, the City requests that employees avoid bringing valuable personal articles to work. Employees are responsible for ensuring that their personal belongings are secure while at work. Employees should have no expectation of privacy as to any items or information generated/stored on City owned servers, desktop computers, laptops, tablets, flash drives, portable hard drives mobile phones, or other City owned IT devices. Employees are advised that work -related searches of an N employee's work area, workspace, desk, City provided lockers, computer and electronic mail on the City's N property may be conducted without notice. Use of Personal Electronic Devices for City Business: City employees are strongly discouraged from using their own personal electronic devices to conduct City business. This includes, but is not limited to: desktop computers, laptops, tablets, flash drives, portable hard drives and mobile phones. Should an employee use a personal device to conduct City business, the employee will be required to produce the appropriate records to respond appropriately to requests under the Public Records Act, RCW 42.56. City information, records, data, emails, reports or any other writings pertaining to City business should not be stored on personal devices. All records must reside on the City network. Employees who are unclear on this policy language should consult with the Public Disclosure and Records Management Specialist. 16.5 Electronic and Telephonic Communications Outside of Regularly Scheduled Work Hours Non -supervisory employees are not expected to access City e-mails accounts or City voice mail accounts outside of their regularly scheduled hours of work. This policy does not apply to the police department employees following department policy, to emergency situation, employees on call back, call out and stand-by or when the employee's supervisor has directed the employee to monitor e-mail or voice mail. Please see Appendix D — INFORMATION SERVICE- ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY — for guidelines on use of City computers. ARTICLE XVII. DURATION 17.1 This Agreement shall be effective January 1, 2020 and shall remain in full force until December 31, 2022 and shall remain in effect during the course of negotiations on a new Labor Agreement. 18.1 The parties agree that each has had full and unrestricted right and opportunity to make, advance, and discuss all matters properly within the province of Collective Bargaining: The above and foregoing Agreement constitutes the full and complete Agreement of the parties and there are no others, oral or written, except as contained herein. Each party for the term of this Agreement specifically waives the Right to demand or to petition for changes herein or additions hereto. 23 Packet Pg. 106 CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 6.3.a EDMONDS POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIA4 MIN Mike Nelson, Mayor DATE: ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: Scott Passey, City Clerk DATE: Ross Sutton, EPOA President DATE: 24 Packet Pg. 107 6.3.a APPENDIX "A" to the AGREEMENT by and between CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON and the EDMONDS POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION (Representing the Law Enforcement Support Service Employees) THIS APPENDIX is supplemental to the AGREEMENT by and between the, CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, hereinafter referred to as the Employer, and THE EDMONDS POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION, hereinafter referred to as the Association. APPENDIX A COMPENSATION A.1 Wages and benefits shall be retroactive for all employees who were employed by the city on the date this agreement is fully ratified by both parties, and any employee who was laid off, retired under the PERS system at normal retirement age, retired under the PERS system with an actuarially reduced retirement, or left employment due to disability. No employee who voluntarily left employment or was discharged for cause is eligible for retroactivity. For the purposes of this paragraph, retirement is defined pursuant to RCW 41.40.010(24). A.12 Effective and retroactive to January 1, 2020, the wage schedule shall be adjusted as provided below and the position classifications shall be assignd as provided below. The wage adjustment should be considered an internal and external market adjustment impacting each position individually. Employees in this bargaining unit shall not receive any additional COLA adjustment for 2020. Adjusted wage schedule 2020 Law Support GRADE STEP I STEP H STEP III STEP IV STEP V STEP VI NE-11 $ 5,182 $ 5,441 $ 5,713 $ 5,998 $ 6,298 $ 6,613 NE-10 $ 4,935 $ 5,182 $ 5,441 $ 5,713 $ 5,998 $ 6,298 NE-9 $ 4,700 $ 4,935 $ 5,182 $ 5,441 $ 5,713 $ 5,998 NE-8 $ 4,476 $ 4,700 $ 4,935 $ 5,182 $ 5,441 $ 5,713 NE-7 $ 4,263 $ 4,476 $ 4,700 $ 4,935 $ 5,182 $ 5,441 NE-6 $ 4,060 $ 4,263 $ 4,476 $ 4,700 $ 4,935 $ 5,182 Placement of positions on the new wage schedule Grade Position 11 Senior Animal Control/Ordinance Enforcement Crime Prevention/Community Engagement 10 Animal Control/Ordinance Enforcement Domestic Violence Coordinator 9 roperty Officer 8 Sr. Police Services Assistant* 25 Packet Pg. 108 7 Police Services Assistant 6 Parking Enforcement Administrative Assistant *Police Services Assistant (PSA) shall progress to a Sr. Police Serivices Assistant after 3 years of satisfactory performance as a PSA. Progression to a Senior PSA shall be a cost neutral progression. Employee will advance from a range 7 to a range 8 and shall move back one step. A.1.2 (a) Employees who are employed by the City at the date of ratification of this contract shall be placed on the new salary schedule as outlined in Appendix E. A.1.3 Effective and retroactive to January 1, 2021, the wage schedule shall be increased across-the-board by two percent (2%) PAY GRADE CLASSIFICATION MONTHLY RATES OF PAY 1.02 2021 Law Support GRADE STEP I STEP H STEP III STEP IV STEP V STEP VI NE-11 $ 5,286 $ 5,550 $ 5,827 $ 6,118 $ 6,424 $ 6,745 NE-10 $ 5,034 $ 5,286 $ 5,550 $ 5,827 $ 6,118 $ 6,424 NE-9 $ 4,794 $ 5,034 $ 5,286 $ 5,550 $ 5,827 $ 6,118 NE-8 $ 4,566 $ 4,794 $ 5,034 $ 5,286 $ 5,550 $ 5,827 NE-7 $ 4,348 $ 4,566 $ 4,794 $ 5,034 $ 5,286 $ 5,550 NE-6 $ 4,141 $ 4,348 $ 4,566 $ 4,794 $ 5,034 $ 5,286 A.1.4 Effective January 1, 2022, the wage schedule shall be increased across-the-board by three percent ( 3%.) PAY GRADE CLASSIFICATION MONTHLY RATES OF PAY 1.03 2022 Law Support GRADE STEP I STEP II STEP III STEP IV STEP V STEP VI NE-11 $ 5,444 $ 5,716 $ 6,002 $ 6,301 $ 6,617 $ 6,948 NE-10 $ 5,185 $ 5,444 $ 5,716 $ 6,002 $ 6,301 $ 6,617 NE-9 $ 4,938 $ 5,185 $ 5,444 $ 5,716 $ 6,002 $ 6,301 NE-8 $ 4,702 $ 4,938 $ 5,185 $ 5,444 $ 5,716 $ 6,002 NE-7 $ 4,479 $ 4,702 $ 4,938 $ 5,185 $ 5,444 $ 5,716 NE-6 $ 4,265 $ 4,479 $ 4,702 $ 4,938 $ 5,185 $ 5,444 The monthly rate of pay for regular part-time employees is based on the FTE (40-hour per work week) equivalent, (i.e. 20 hours per week expressed as .50 FTE). A.1.3 Longevity Pay - An Employee shall receive in addition to their monthly rate of pay set forth within Section A.1, monthly Longevity Pay in accordance with the following: SENIORITY PAY MONTHLY LONGEVITY PAY After 5 years 2% of Employee's monthly rate of pay After 10 years 4% of Employee's monthly rate of pay After 15 years 6% of Employee's monthly rate of pay 26 Packet Pg. 109 After 20 years 6.3.a 8% of Employee's monthly rate of pay A.2 Classification and Pay Grades - The classifications covered by this Agreement and their corresponding Pay Grades shall be as follows: CLASSIFICATIONS Senior Animal Control/Ordinance Enforcement Officer Crime Prevention Coordinator Domestic Violence Coordinator Animal Control/Ordinance Enforcement Officer Property Officer Senior Police Services Assistant Police Services Assistant Administrative Assistant Parking Enforcement Officer Any regular part-time Employee for the above positions PAY GRADES NE-11 NE-11 NE-10 NE-10 NE-9 NE-8 NE-7 NE-6 NE-6 Pro -rated A.2.1 The rates of pay set forth within Section A.1 (2, 3, & 4) provide for the maximum time an Employee shall be employed in any one particular pay STEP. The Employer shall have the Right to place an Employee in any pay STEP set forth within Section A.1, in which event, advancement of said Employee to each of the next higher pay STEPS shall be automatic upon completion of six (6) months in pay STEP I and/or twelve (12) months in each higher pay STEP, A.2.2 Generally- Employees shall receive wages according to the six (6) STEP Pay Plan based upon longevity set forth in Section A.1. Each STEP (with the exception of the first STEP which represents six (6) months) represents one (1) full year of longevity with the Employer in a particular job classification. A.2.3 Longevity Increase - Increases to the next higher STEP shall be made after an Employee is paid at a given pay STEP for one (1) full year. If the completion of such year occurs at other than the beginning of a semi-monthly pay period, the increase shall be effective at the beginning of the next semi-monthly pay period. A.2.4 Promotional/Upgrade Reclassification- Promotion shall be defined as movement from one position covered by this Agreement to another position covered by this Agreement with a higher Pay Grade. An Employee promoted from one classification to another shall be placed into the lowest pay Step of the higher classification which still provides for a monthly rate of pay five percent (5%) higher than that currently being received by the promoted Employee. A.2.5 Demotion/Downgrade Reclassification - Demotion shall be defined as movement from one position covered by this Agreement to another position covered by this Agreement with a lower Pay Grade. An Employee demoted from one classification to another shall be placed into the pay Step affording them the same number of months service time that they had prior to the demotion to the lower classification. A.2.6 Transfer Reclassification - Transfer shall be defined as movement from one position covered by this Agreement to another position covered by this Agreement in the same pay grade. 27 Packet Pg. 110 A.2.7 All Reclassifications pursuant to Sections A.2.4; A.2.5 and A.2.6 shall be subject to a six (6) month probationary period. A.3 Tuition Reimbursement - Employees shall be eligible for a reimbursement of up to one hundred dollars ($100.00) per calendar quarter for tuition paid for a job -related course of instruction. If Department or Division rules require the completion of specified courses in order to qualify for promotion in the Department or Division, the Employer shall reimburse the Employee the full cost of tuition for such courses up to eighteen (18) credit hours per year. Reimbursement' shall be made in either case only in the course of instruction is approved in advance by the Department Head or Mayor and the Employee received a grade point average of two (2) or higher. No reimbursement shall be made for any single course in which the Employee receives a grade less than C or grade point less than two (2), or equivalent. Such tuition reimbursement shall be refunded (by payroll deduction if possible) to the Employer if the Employee voluntarily terminates employment within one (1) year following completion of the course. In making such reimbursement, the Employer may use its own funds or funds from other governmental sources. If the City policy, regarding reimbursement rates, is increased during the term of this Agreement, then the reimbursement in the Agreement shall be increased accordingly. A.4 Accreditation Pay- An Employee shall receive, in addition to the monthly rate of pay set forth within Section A. 1, monthly Accreditation Pay equal to one percent (1.0%) as long as the Department is recognized as an accredited agency by the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs or the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies. A. 5 Public Disclosure Specialist- The Public Disclosure Specialist position is to be classified as having an "indeterminate rotation" period. The designated position is not considered a permanent assignment and is subject to rotation at the discretion of the Chief of Police at the end of each annual review. In the absence of extenuating circumstances, candidates will be expected to serve a minimum of three (3) years in the assignment before voluntarily leaving. The Chief of Police will make the selection based upon the Employees applying for the position and their attributes. The term attributes is to include consideration of the career development needs of the individual and the organization. The Public Disclosure Specialist position shall be, at the origination and termination, for just cause. Termination for just cause may occur at any time during the assignment. An Employee who is regularly assigned Public Disclosure Specialist duties shall receive a four percent (4.0%) pay incentive while so acting in such capacity on a full time basis. An employee receiving the incentive pay will be required to obtain/maintain the Washington Public Records Officer certification. The employee will have twelve (12) months in which to obtain the certification and must maintain it as a condition of receiving the incentive pay. The City will pay the associated costs of obtaining/maintaining the certification (time in classes, cost of classes, etc.). A.6 Out of Class Pay - Employees working in a higher classification shall be placed on a step in the salary band for the higher classification which results in a pay increase over their current rate of pay. Employees shall be paid at this rate of pay for each hour assigned to fill in for that position. Hours shall round up or down based on the thirty (30) minute mark of the hour. This includes receiving any compensation for any premium pays attached to a position. 28 Packet Pg. 111 6.3.a APPENDIX "B" to the AGREEMENT by and between CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON and the EDMONDS POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION (Representing the Law Enforcement Support Service Employees) THIS APPENDIX is supplemental to the AGREEMENT by and between the CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, hereinafter referred to as the Employer, and EDMONDS' POLICE OFFICERS'ASSOCIATION (Representing the Law Enforcement Support Service Employees) hereinafter referred to as the Association. APPENDIX "B" BILL OF RIGHTS BA Employee Rights: It is agreed that the City has the Right to discipline, suspend, or discharge any Employee for just cause. B.2 Bill of Rights: B.2.1 In an effort to ensure that investigations made by an Officer as designated by the Chief of Police of the Police Department are conducted in a manner which is conducive to good order and discipline, the Employees shall be entitled to the protection of what shall hereafter be termed as the "Employee Bill of Rights." B.2.2 Every Employee who becomes the subject of an Internal Affairs (FA) Investigation, as defined by department policy, shall be advised in writing at the time of the interview that they are suspected of: (a) Committing a criminal offense; or (b) Misconduct that would be grounds for termination, suspension, or other economic sanction; or (c) Not being qualified for continued employment with the Police Department (such as job competency or fitness for duty). B.2.3 Any Employee who becomes the subject of a criminal investigation shall have all Rights accorded by the State and Federal Constitutions and Washington State law. B.2.4 The Employee under investigation must, at the time of an interview, be informed of the name of the Officer in charge of the investigation and the name of the Officer who will be conducting the interview. B.2.5 Forty-eight (48) hours before an Internal Affairs (IA) Investigation interview commences, any Employee who is the subject of an Internal Affairs Investigation shall be informed, in writing, of the nature of the investigation, that the Employee is considered a "suspect" in the investigation and shall include the 29 Packet Pg. 112 6.3.a following information: • Who is the complainant or the victim, • What reportedly took place, • When it happened, • Where it happened. No forty-eight (48) hour notice is required for, Employees subject to Investigations that will not result in any economic sanction, e.g. a Complaint Investigation; however if the Employee requests to contact an Association Representative appropriate time will be allowed prior to the interview. Employees who are given a forty-eight (48) hour notification may waive that delay by signing a written waiver form. No forty-eight (48) hour notice or Association Representation is required for an Employee listed as a "witness" in an FA or for routine Supervisor/Subordinate inquiries that will not result in any economic sanction. B.2.6 The interview of an Employee shall be at a reasonable hour, preferably when the Employee is on duty, unless the exigency of the interview dictates otherwise. Whenever practical, interviews shall be scheduled during the normal workday of the City. B.2.7 At the cost of the requesting party and in accordance with Washington State Law, RCW 9.73, the Employee or City may request that an investigative interview be recorded, either mechanically or by a stenographer. There can be no "off-the-record" questions. Upon request, the Employee under an investigation shall be provided an exact copy of any written statement the Employee has signed or, at the Employee's expense, a verbatim transcript of the interview. B.2.8 The Employee may be required to answer any questions in an investigation and will be afforded all Rights and privileges to which he is entitled under the laws of the State of Washington or the United States. Prior to being ordered to respond to any question, the Employee will be notified in writing and acknowledge receipt of the following: "You are about to be questioned as part of an internal investigation being conducted by the Police Department. You are hereby ordered to answer the questions which are put to you which relate to your conduct and/or job performance and to cooperate with this investigation. Your failure to cooperate with this investigation can be the subject of disciplinary action in and of itself, including dismissal. The statements you make or evidence gained as a result of this required cooperation may be used for administrative purposes but will not be used or introduced into evidence in a criminal proceeding." Employees who are subject to a Criminal Investigation shall be advised of their Miranda Rights. B.2.9 Interviewing shall be completed within a reasonable time and shall be done under circumstances devoid of intimidation or coercion. Written notice shall be provided forty- eight (48) hours prior to any investigative (IA) interview subject to the notice requirements of Section B.2.2. As noted in Section B.2.5 the Employee may provide a written waiver of the forty-eight (48) hour requirement. The Employee shall be afforded an opportunity and facilities to contact and consult with their Association Representative before 30 Packet Pg. 113 6.3.a being interviewed if requested. The Employee may be represented by the Association Representative to the extent permitted by law. The Employee shall be entitled to such reasonable intermissions as the Employee shall request for personal necessities, meals, telephone calls, consultation with their Representative, and rest periods. B.2.10 The Employee shall not be subjected to any profane language nor threatened with dismissal, transfer or other disciplinary punishment as a way to obtain the resignation of said Employee nor shall the Employee be subjected to intimidation in any manner during the process of interrogation. No promises or rewards shall be made to the said Employee as an inducement to answer questions. B.2.11 Investigations shall be concluded within a reasonable period of time as defined in Section 1020 of the Department Policy Manual. Within a reasonable period after the conclusion of the investigation and no later than forty-eight (48) hours prior to a pre -disciplinary hearing, the Employee shall be advised of the results of the investigation and the potential disposition (which may include a range of possible discipline) and shall be provided a copy of the investigatory file. In the event an investigation is sustained but no discipline is to be imposed because it was not completed within established timelines, the Employee is still entitled to a Loudermill hearing and appeal process. B.2.12 All interviews shall be limited in scope to activities, circumstances, events, conduct or actions which pertain to the incident which is the subject of the investigation. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the Employer from questioning the Employee about information which is developed during the course of the investigation. B.2.13 No Employee shall be requested or required to submit to a polygraph test or to answer questions for which the Employee might otherwise properly invoke the protection of constitutional amendment against self-incrimination, except as required pursuant to Section B.2.8. Nor shall any Employee be dismissed for or shall any other penalty be imposed upon the Employee solely for a failure to submit to a polygraph test or to answer questions for which the Employee might otherwise invoke the protection of any constitutional amendment against self- incrimination; and provided further that this provision shall not apply to either the initial application for employment or to persons in the field of public law enforcement who are seeking promotion. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase in this Article be declared unconstitutional or invalid, for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Article. NOTE: For Employees with Special Commissions involved in a "use of force" type incident, please refer to Section 15.2. 31 Packet Pg. 114 6.3.a APPENDIX "C" to the AGREEMENT by and between CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON and the EDMONDS POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION (Representing the Law Enforcement Support Service Employees) THIS APPENDIX is supplemental to the AGREEMENT by and between the CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, hereinafter referred to as the Employer, EDMONDS POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION (Representing the Law Enforcement Support Service Employees) APPENDIX C Drug & Alcohol Policy 1TV It is the policy and intent of the Employer and the Association to maintain a safe and healthy working environment for all employees, to ensure efficient and safe community service, to protect employees and the City from liability, to safeguard City property and assets, and to comply with all applicable laws and regulations governing substance abuse. The parties are committed to a substance -free workplace and have an obligation to ensure public safety and trust in its services and programs. Accordingly, the manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance, the unauthorized use of prescription drugs, the use of drugs not medically authorized, or the use of any other substance, including alcohol, which would impair job performance or pose a hazard to the safety and welfare of the employee, the public, or other employees is strictly prohibited. Employees who possess or use substances in violation of this Policy may be subject to discipline in accordance with this Policy. It is imperative that employees, who abuse substances, as defined in this Policy, be aware of the seriousness of such misconduct and the potential penalties. In addition to law enforcement measures that could be invoked for criminal violations, such employees may be subject to discipline because of the serious safety, health, and service risks that they create. By avoiding substance abuse, such risks and penalties may be averted. All employees are strongly urged to follow the guidelines in this Policy and utilize rehabilitation services if substance abuse becomes a personal problem. 1.1 Medical Review Officer. 32 Packet Pg. 115 6.3.a The City has designated a licensed individual with knowledge of substance abuse disorders and appropriate medical training to serve as its Medical Review Officer ("MRO"). The MRO shall interpret drug test results for the City. The Medical Review Officer is Drug Free Business MRO Services, Dr. Dee McGonigle, MD, or designee or successor, 18912 North Creek Parkway, Suite 202, Bothell, WA 98011; (866) 448 — 0657. 1.2 Substance Abuse Professional. The City has designated a licensed individual with knowledge of substance abuse disorders and appropriate medical training to serve as its Substance Abuse Professional ("SAP"). The SAP shall determine whether employees who fail a drug or alcohol test or refuse to submit to such a test need assistance in resolving problems associated with substance abuse. The SAP will recommend a course of action to such employees and determine whether they follow through with the SAP's recommendations. The SAP shall also determine the frequency and duration of follow-up testing for any such employees who are permitted by the City to return to work. The Substance Abuse Professional is obtained through Compsych, (800) 570 — 9315. 2. 2.1 EmUlovee. "Employee" includes members of the Edmonds Police Department subject to provisions of this collective bargaining agreement. 2.2 Substance. "Substance" includes drugs and alcohol, as defined below. 2.2.1 pig. "Drug" means any substance that impairs an employee's ability to perform a job or duty, or poses a threat to the safety of the employee or others. This definition includes controlled substances (those substances whose dissemination is controlled by regulation or statute, including, but not limited to, those drugs included in Schedule I and 11 as defined by 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., the possession of which is illegal under Chapter 13 of that title). Such controlled substances are frequently and commonly referred to in familiar terms and specifically include marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, and phencyclidine ("PCP"). Further, this definition of drug also includes over-the-counter drugs and/or drugs which require a prescription or other written approval from a licensed medical practitioner for their use, if the use of such drug(s) is likely to or does impair the employee's ability to perform a job or duty, or poses a threat to the safety of the employee or others. It further includes any other substance capable of altering an individual's mood, perception, pain level, or judgment (e.g., mushrooms, glue). 33 Packet Pg. 116 2.2.2 Alcohol. 6.3.a "Alcohol" means any intoxicating liquor that when consumed to excess will produce some level of intoxication. 2.3 Substance Abuse. "Substance abuse" means involvement with a substance in violation of this Policy. 2.4 Substance Test. "Substance test" includes both drug and alcohol tests, as defined below. 2.4.1 Drug Test. "Drug test" means a urinalysis test for the presence of amphetamines, cocaine, opiates, THC (marijuana), and phencyclidine (PCP). 2.4.2 Alcohol Test. "Alcohol test" means a breath test to determine an employee's alcohol concentration level pursuant to Section 4.6.2, below. 2.5 Passing a Substance Test. "Passing a substance test" means passing a drug and/or alcohol test, as defined below. 2.5.1 Passing.a Drug Test. "Passing a drug test" means that the test result does not show any positive evidence of the presence of a drug in the employee's system that is at or above a determined threshold level. The threshold level for drugs, shall be as set forth in Department of Transportation Standards 49 CFR PART 40 §40.87. An MRO must determine that the results of a drug test: (1) show no evidence or insufficient evidence of a prohibited drug or drug metabolite; (2) show evidence of a prohibited drug or drug metabolite, but there is a legitimate medical explanation for the result; (3) show evidence of a prohibited 3drug or drug metabolite below a determined Packet Pg. 117 threshold level; or 6.3.a (4) are suspect because of irregularities in the administration of the test or chain of custody procedures. Passing a drug test shall be referred to as "testing negative." 2.5.2 Passing an Alcohol Test. "Passing an alcohol test" means that the test result shows an alcohol concentration of 0.02. Passing an alcohol test shall be referred to as "testing negative." 2.6 Failing a Substance Test. "Failing a substance test" means that the test result showed positive evidence of the presence of a substance in an employee's system that is at or above a determined threshold level. This determination shall be made by the City MRO under the same standards as passing a substance test. Failing a substance test shall be referred to as "testing positive." Refusal to submit to testing may result in disciplinary action up to and including termination. 2.7 Under the Influence. "Under the influence" is defined as a condition arising from using a substance, which may limit an employee's ability to safely and efficiently perform a job or duties, or may pose a threat to the safety of the employee or others, and it shall be determined by the presence of a substance in an employee's system as measured by a substance test in accordance with the terms of this Policy 2.8 Impaired. "Impaired" means a diminishing or worsening of an employee's mental or physical condition that is the result of using a substance. 2.9 Medical Authorization. "Medical authorization" means a prescription or other written approval from a licensed medical practitioner for the use of a substance in the course of medical treatment, which must include the name of the substance, the period of authorization, and whether the prescribed medication may impair job performance. This requirement also applies to refills of prescribed drugs. 3. PROHIBITED ACTIVITY. 3.1 Alcohol. 35 Packet Pg. 118 The use or possession of alcohol during working hours, on City property, or in City vehicles is prohibited. Employees are not permitted to report for work or to perform any City business while under the influence of alcohol Employees who report to work with an alcohol concentration at or greater than 0.02, will not be permitted to report to work or remain at work. Additionally, an employee who reports to work with the obvious odor of intoxicating beverages on their breath, but not "under the influence" of alcohol as defined herein will not be allowed to perform any City business and may be subject to discipline. Reasonable exceptions to this policy may be made for the legitimate business needs of the department (i.e. undercover work). 3.2 Dregs. The manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance, a drug not medically authorized, or other substances that impair job performance or pose a hazard to the safety and welfare of the employee, the public, or other employees is prohibited. An employee is not permitted to report to work or perform any City business while under the influence of any drug, including medically authorized or over-the-counter drugs, which impair work performance. Employees who perform safety -sensitive functions must report the medical use of drugs or other substances that could impair safe job performance to a member of command staff or the City's HR Department and provide proper written medical authorization from a licensed medical practitioner that the substance will not adversely affect the employee's ability to safely perform work. It is the employee's responsibility to determine from the licensed medical practitioner whether the prescribed drug would impair safe job performance. Failure to report the medical use of such drugs, or failure to provide proper evidence of medical authorization, may result in disciplinary action, including possible termination. Reasonable exceptions to this policy may be made for the legitimate business needs of the department. (i.e. undercover work). 4. SUBSTANCE TESTING SITUATIONS. 4.1 Testing Based On "Reasonable Suspicion." When a supervisor or Command Staff member reasonably suspects that an employee may be under the influence of or impaired by a substance, the employee shall be required to submit to a substance test. Although an employee may be relieved of duty at any time because of such concerns, a supervisor's or manager's decision to require a substance test must be based on specific, contemporaneous, articulable observations concerning the appearance, behavior, speech, or body odors of the employee. The supervisor or manager making the determination must have received training in detecting the signs and symptoms of substance abuse. Except in emergency situations, the supervisor should consult with another supervisor, Command Staff member, or representative of the Human Resources Department to ensure that adequate grounds for reasonable suspicion exist. 4.2 Refusal to Submit to Testing. Refusal by an employee to take a substance test when directed to do so by his/her supervisor or manager after being advised of the basis for the reasonable suspicion and after being allowed to consult with an Association Representative (which consultation shall not unduly delay testing) may be considered insubordination, and the employee may be relieved of duties immediately pending investigation. Refusing to take a substance test includes: failure to appear for the test within a reasonable time after being directed to do so; failure to remain at the test site until the test is complete; 36 Packet Pg. 119 6.3.a failure to provide adequate breath or urine for testing without a valid medical explanation; failure to cooperate with any directions given during the testing process, including directions for an observed sample collection; use of a prosthetic device that could interfere with the test; or adulteration or substitution of the test sample. Refusal to submit to testing may result in disciplinary action up to and including termination. 4.3 Return -to -Work and Follow-Ug Testing. An employee who has refused to take a substance test, or who has tested positive for a substance, including those employees who have undergone evaluation and/or rehabilitation, will not be permitted to return to work until the employee has passed a substance test, has been evaluated by the SAP, the SAP has confirmed that the employee complied with his/her education and/or treatment plan, and the City determines that the employee is fit to return to duty. When the City, in its sole discretion, decides to return an employee who has tested positive for drugs or alcohol to duty, and there has not been a successful grievance or charge of unfair labor practice relating to the testing process, the employee shall follow the treatment plan as determined by the SAP and shall be subject to follow up random drug testing for a period of not more than twenty four (24) months. 4.4 Right to Representation. In all substance test situations, an employee may request the presence of his/her Association representative. Association representatives shall be immediately notified at the outset of any substances testing situation involving a bargaining unit member. Although an employee may later file a grievance against the direction to submit to substance testing, the employee must take the test when ordered to do so. At any time, the Association, upon request of the employee, will have the right to inspect and observe any aspect of the substance testing process with the exception of individual test results, provided that such inspection does not delay any testing procedure. The Association may inspect individual test results if the release of this information is authorized by the employee involved. 4.5 Urine Specimen Collection. Specimen collections for drug testing shall take place at Lynnwood Urgent Care (Immediate Clinic), 4725 196 St. SW, Lynnwood, WA 98036 during clinic hours and after hours at Swedish Hospital Edmonds, or any other site designated by the City. Employees are required to complete any necessary forms and to cooperate fully with collection and testing procedures. Sample collection shall be in accordance with DOT's Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs, 49 CFR Part 40 ("DOT substance testing procedures"). These procedures are designed to ensure the integrity of the sample while maintaining employee privacy. In certain limited circumstances, employees will be required to provide a urine sample for testing under direct observation. Under no circumstances shall an employee's direct supervisor serve as the collection site person. At the employee's or the Association's option, a sample of the specimen may be requisitioned and sent to a laboratory chosen by the Association for testing. Any request to requisition a sample of the specimen must be made within seventy-two (72) hours of the specimen's collection. The cost of this test will be paid by the Association or the employee. The use or non-use of this option may not be considered as evidence in an arbitration or other proceeding concerning the drug test or its consequences. Any attempt to tamper with a urine sample or otherwise obstruct the testing process shall be considered the same as testing positive and will result in diipline, up to and including termination. Packet Pg. 120 6.3.a 4.6 Test Procedures. All substance testing shall comply with DOT substance testing procedures. These procedures are designed to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the test results and include screening tests, confirmation tests, chain of custody safeguards, and appropriate privacy and confidentiality protections. 4.6.1 Drug testing, during normal business hours, will normally be performed by urinalysis at Pathology Associates Medical Lab, PO Box 2687, 20730 Bond Road NE #205, Spokane WA 94220 (laboratory). Testing required outside of normal business hours shall be conducted at Swedish Hospital, 21601 76th Avenue West, Edmonds, WA 98026. The test involves an initial screening performed by the enzyme multiplied immunoassay test (`EMIT"). Any positive test is then confirmed by a second test of the same sample by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry ("GC/MS"). The City's designated MRO shall receive and interpret test results and report them to the City. Prior to reporting a positive test result, the MRO shall give the employee an opportunity to discuss the test result. If the employee meets with the MRO and fails to present information affecting the test result, or if the employee refuses to meet with the MRO, the MRO will verify a positive test result and will inform the City Human Resources Director or other designated management representative, on a confidential basis, that the employee tested positive. The MRO will also inform the employee at the time the test result is verified that s/he may request a "re -test" within seventy-two (72) hours. (The "re -test" shall be performed at a different laboratory, at employee expense unless the employee passes the re -test.) Upon request, the employee shall be given a copy of the positive test results. 4.6.2 Alcohol Testing. Alcohol shall be tested by means of the Draeger machine currently in use or future equipment which may supersede the Draeger machine (but excluding the P.B.T device). Draeger alcohol tests shall be conducted utilizing one of the WSP Draeger testing sites. The testing shall follow the protocols established for criminal investigations, including the requirement of two breath samples within the proper variance. If the initial test indicates an alcohol concentration of 0.02 or greater, a second test shall be performed to confirm the results of the initial test at the election of the employee. The confirmatory test shall also use a 0.02 blood alcohol concentration level to measure a positive test. If the employee declines to take the second confirmatory test, the first test will be used to determine alcohol concentration. At the employee's option, the employee may submit to a blood specimen to be collected and tested at a laboratory chosen by the employee or Association for testing. The blood specimen could be used to challenge the results of the breath test. The cost of this test will be paid by the Association or the employee. A decision not to use this option or an employee's failure to provide the results obtained under this option may not be considered as evidence in an arbitration or other proceeding concerning the drug test or its consequences. 5. ENFORCEMENT AND DISCIPLINE. The City takes a strong stand against substance abuse and its impact on the workplace. Accordingly, violations of this Policy may be grounds for appropriate disciplinary action, up to and 38 Packet Pg. 121 6.3.a including termination. Additionally, law enforcement authorities will be notified in appropriate situations. Experience indicates that individuals with substance abuse problems best respond to appropriate confrontation, dialogue, and notice about the impact and risks of their situation. Therefore, an employee who is aware of substance use or behavior in violation of this Policy is encouraged to promptly report the behavior to management. To the degree possible, the reporting employee's identity will be kept confidential. .0 1.15 10 111.10 L1301 The City offers employees the use of rehabilitative services subject to coverage limitations and in accordance with the terms of its benefit programs. Employees are personally responsible for seeking appropriate treatment for substance dependency. Employees who voluntarily seek treatment for substance dependencies will be allowed to use personal leave and benefits as for any other illness and will not have job security or opportunities for promotion jeopardized by seeking treatment. However, such employees are subject to the same prohibitions and penalties as other employees regarding the manufacture, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of substances in violation of this Policy. In addition, substance -dependent employees are subject to appropriate disciplinary action, including possible termination, if they do not meet general performance standards, conduct requirements, or other conditions of employment. Employees who refuse to take a substance test, or who test positive for a substance in violation of this Policy, may be given the opportunity to enter a rehabilitation program in lieu of termination. Employees who successfully complete rehabilitation under such circumstances may be returned to work at the City's discretion in accordance with the return -to -work provisions of this Policy. Records of treatment for substance dependency, substance tests, or of employees or applicants involved in other situations related to this Policy will be maintained by the City as confidential medical records. Confidentiality of substance tests cannot be guaranteed if testing results are used by the City in a disciplinary action. Only City management representatives with a "need -to -know" responsibility will be made aware of substance abuse situations or test results. No third party shall be provided with such information without specific written authorization by the employee, except as required or permitted by law. 9. ASSOCIATION HELD HARMLESS The City shall be solely liable for any legal obligations and costs arising out of the provisions of this Policy and/or application of this Policy, except as otherwise provided herein. The Association shall be held harmless for all claims arising out of errors, omissions or negligent acts by the third -party contractors hired by the City to conduct the drug testing under this Policy, including failure to abide by the protocol established by this Policy; and for all claims arising out of the implementation/administration of this drug Policy. 39 Packet Pg. 122 6.3.a APPENDIX "D" to the AGREEMENT by and between CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON and the EDMONDS POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION (Representing the Law Enforcement Support Service Employees) THIS APPENDIX is supplemental to the AGREEMENT by and between the CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, hereinafter referred to as the Employer, EDMONDS POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION (Representing the Law Enforcement Support Service Employees) APPENDIX D Information Services Acceptable Use Policv 1.0 Purpose This documents acceptable use of City of Edmonds Device and Systems Policy, and provides guidance for managing the use of City owned electronic devices and systems by all departments, employees and users of City systems. 2.0 Background The City of Edmonds provides employees with a variety of devices, and technology systems such as telephones, voice mail, computers, facsimile machines, instant messaging, electronic bulletin boards, electronic mail (email) systems, cellular phones, wireless devices, Internet access, and social media. The City recognizes the importance of electronic devices and tools in accomplishing work in an efficient manner. Access to these systems provides rapid exchange of information that improves productivity. It is important, however, that these devices and systems be used in a manner which benefits the government and which is responsible to City taxpayers. The goal of this policy is to ensure economical, effective, and efficient management of communication systems and to ensure that employees use these systems in a professional manner that reflects positively upon the City. This policy establishes privileges and responsibilities for employees, and employees must agree to, and abide by this policy to utilize these systems. 3.0 Scope This policy applies to all employees, contractors, consultants, temporary employees, vendors and any others that are provided access to City of Edmonds communication systems, including those workers associated with any third parties who access these systems. Throughout this document, the word "employee" will be used to collectively refer to all such individuals. This policy also applies to all communications and data systems owned by and/or administered by the City of Edmonds both on and off City property. 4.0 Authority 40 Packet Pg. 123 6.3.a RCW 42.17 Public Disclosure RCW 40.14 Public Records 5.0 Device & Systems Usage Policy_ The City of Edmonds provides access to the vast information resources available through communication devices and systems including, computers, servers, email, voice mail, bulletin boards, instant messaging, cell phones, telephones, wireless devices, tablets, and other telecommunications and information systems. These information resources are for use to help employees work better, faster and smarter, and be well-informed about effective business practices. The facilities to provide that access represent a considerable commitment of City resources. This usage policy is designed to help employees understand the City's expectations for the use of those resources. First and foremost, the City's supplied devices, software, and systems, are provided at significant cost. That means that the City expects these systems to be used for City business -related purposes: to accomplish tasks, communicate with customers, suppliers, and associates, to research relevant topics and obtain useful business information. These systems may be used for private purposes on a limited basis that does not interfere with City business. Employees should have no expectation of personal privacy in using them. The City requires employees to conduct themselves honestly and appropriately in the use of the use of technology provided, and respect copyrights, software licensing rules, proprietary rights and prerogatives of others, just as in any other business dealings. To be absolutely clear on this point, all existing City policies apply to employees conducting business with these devices, software, and systems. This includes especially, but not exclusively, those that deal with intellectual property protection, misuse of City resources, harassment, including sexual harassment, information and data security, and confidentiality. Unnecessary or unauthorized device and system usage costs money, and causes network and server congestion. It slows other users, takes away from work time, consumes supplies, and ties up printers and other shared resources. Unlawful devices or systems usage may also garner negative publicity for the City and expose Edmonds to significant legal liabilities. Internet, postings, blogs, chat groups, social media, newsgroups, and email systems give each user an immense and unprecedented reach to propagate City messages and tell the City story. Because of that power the City must take special care to maintain the clarity, consistency and integrity of the City of Edmonds image and posture. Anything any one employee writes in the course of acting for the City on the communication systems can be interpreted as a formal representation of the City's position. While the City's use of these devices and connections to systems offer many potential benefits, it can also open the door to significant risks to our data and systems if employees do not follow appropriate security discipline. As presented in greater detail, that may mean preventing machines with sensitive data or applications from connecting to a communication system entirely, or it may mean that certain users must be prevented from using certain communication systems or their features, for example remote file access or file transfers. The overriding principle is that security is to be a primary concern of every user. Employees may be held accountable for intentional or reckless breaches of security or confidentiality. Certain terms in this policy should be understood expansively to include related concepts. Document Covers any kind of file, or stream of d4ta, that can be stored, printed, read, or viewed. This Packet Pg. 124 6.3.a would include files for browsers, desktop applications, such as word processing or desk -top publishing, and specialized software programs databases, GIS, and their viewers. Graphics Includes photographs, pictures, video, images, animations, movies, or drawings. Display Includes monitors, flat -panel active or passive matrix displays, monochrome LCDs, projectors, televisions, handheld screens and virtual -reality tools. Audio Includes any sounds, recordings and files containing sounds or voice. All employees provided or granted device, software or systems access will be provided a copy of this policy or a "link" to the policy where it may be viewed and/or printed. Any questions concerning the policy should be directed to the employee's supervisor. If there is any portion of this policy that is not clearly understood by the employee, it is the employee's responsibility to bring the question to the attention of their supervisor for clarification. 6.0 Detailed Policy Provisions 1. Management and Administration 1.1. The City of Edmonds has software and systems in place that can monitor and record all software and systems usage. Most systems such as electronic mail, facsimile transmissions, Internet traffic, and voice mail are technologies that create an electronic record. This is what separates these from other forms of communication such as a telephone conversation. An electronic record, like a paper record, is reproducible and therefore special care must be taken to avoid improper dissemination of protected or confidential information. Electronic records are subject to public disclosure laws to the same extent as are paper records. Electronic records may be inspected for audit or legitimate operational or management purposes. The City reserves the right to inspect any and all files stored in any areas of City systems in order to assure compliance with policy. Electronic records are to be kept, maintained, released, withheld, and destroyed only in accordance with the Public Disclosure Act (RCW 42.17) and the law governing preservation and destruction of public records (RCW 40.14). 1.2. The City's security systems are capable of recording (for each and every user) each World Wide Web site visit, each chat newsgroup or email message, and each file transfer into and out of City systems, and other communications related information. The City reserves the right to monitor and record such uses at any time. No employee should have any expectation of personal privacy as to their communication systems usage or use of any software or hardware provided by the City. The City will review communication systems activity and analyze usage patterns, and may use this data to assure that City communication systems resources are devoted to maintaining the highest levels of productivity. 1.3. The creation or transmission of any kind of sexually explicit image or document on any City system is a violation of the City's policy on sexual4Trassment (see Personnel Policies Section 2.4, Sexual Packet Pg. 125 6.3.a Harassment Prohibited). Some images or documents do not apply to this policy, such as the legitimate needs of public safety agencies. In addition sexually explicit material may not be accessed, viewed, downloaded, archived, stored, distributed, edited or recorded using our network or communication systems unless required for the legitimate needs of public safety. The City of Edmonds uses independently supplied software and data to identify inappropriate or sexually - explicit material. The City may block access to all such sites of which the City becomes aware. If an employee is inadvertently connected to a site that contains sexually explicit or offensive material, the employee must disconnect from that site immediately, regardless of whether that site had been previously deemed acceptable by any screening or rating program. 1.4. The creation or transmission of derogatory, inflammatory or harassing messages or content using the City system (including, without limitation, derogatory, inflammatory or harassing remarks about an individual's race, age, gender, disability, religion, national origin, marital status, military or honorably discharged veteran status, sexual orientation, including gender expression or identity, genetic information or any other protected characteristic) is a violation both of this policy and of the City's Anti -Harassment Policy. 1.5. Use of City communication systems for solicitation of non -City business or for personal gain is prohibited. 1.6. The City of Edmonds communication systems and computing resources must not be used to violate the laws and regulations of the United States or any other nation or the laws and regulations of any county, city, province or other local jurisdiction in any material way. Use of any City resources for illegal activity is grounds for discipline, up to and including immediate dismissal and consistent with applicable law. The City will cooperate with legitimate law enforcement and regulatory agencies for logs, diaries and archives on employee activities. 1.7. Any software or files downloaded via the City's devices, software, or systems into the City's systems may be used only in ways that are consistent with their licenses or copyrights. 1.8. No employee may use City systems to knowingly download or distribute pirated software or data. Any file that is downloaded must be scanned for viruses before it is run or accessed. 1.9. No employee may use a City device, software, or its systems to deliberately propagate any viruses or other code harmful to City data or systems. 1.10. No employee may use City devices, software, or systems to knowingly disable or overload any computer system or network or to circumvent any security feature of the systems. 43 Packet Pg. 126 6.3.a 1.11. Each employee shall identify themselves honestly, accurately and completely (including City department and function where requested) when participating in authorized chats or newsgroups, or when setting up accounts on outside computer systems. 1.12. Only those employees or officials who are duly authorized to speak on behalf of the City to the media, to analysts or in public gatherings may speak/write in the name of the City to any electronic media, such as newsgroup, chat room, blog, or social media. Other employees may participate in electronic media in the course of business when authorized and relevant to their duties, and should be cautious to make it clear when they are expressing an individual opinion as opposed to establishing or representing the City's position or policy on a matter. Where an individual participant is identified as an employee or agent of the City of Edmonds, the employee must refrain from political advocacy and must refrain from the unauthorized endorsement or appearance of endorsement by the City of any commercial product or service. 1.13. The City of Edmonds retains proprietary rights and the copyright to any material posted to any electronic media (including, without limitation, any social media, forum, newsgroup, chat room or World Wide Web) by any employee in the course of his or her duties with the City, unless otherwise provided by law. 1.14. Electronic transmission of protected or confidential City information is governed by the same rules and principles that govern paper transmittals. Protected or confidential City information may include, but is not limited to, certain financial data, personal data, certain proprietary information, security information, trade secrets, and any other material exempted from disclosure, or required to be held confidential by law and City policies and/or procedures. The unauthorized release of protected information - whether or not the release is inadvertent - may subject an employee to penalties or discipline under existing policies and procedures. 1.15. A wide variety of materials may be deemed offensive by colleagues, customers or business suppliers. Employees must be aware of this and not store, view, print or redistribute any document or graphic file that is not directly related to the user's job or City activities, or that is likely to be deemed offensive by a reasonable person. (Exception: Viewing of unsolicited material sent to the employee.) 1.16. Employees must understand that copyright, trademarks, libel, slander and public speech control laws of all jurisdictions in which the City conducts business apply to the City and its employees. Care must be taken so that the use of the City communication systems does not inadvertently violate any laws which might be enforceable against the City. 1.16.1. Employees with device and communication systems access may only download software for direct business use, and they must arrange to have such software properly licensed and/or registered with Informatiou4Services. Downloaded software if subject to a license Packet Pg. 127 must be used only under the terms of its license. 6.3.a 1.16.2. Employees may not download entertainment software or games or play games with others over the communication systems. 1.16.3. Employees may not download audio, images or videos unless there is an explicit business -related use for the material and such downloading does not violate any copyright or licensing requirements. 1.17. Employees may not upload any software licensed to the City or data owned or licensed by the City without explicit authorization from the manager responsible for the system, software or data. 2. Technical 2.1. User identification (IDs) and passwords help maintain individual accountability for communication systems resource usage. However, the issuance of ID's and passwords is not intended to create any personal privacy rights. Any employee who obtains a password of or for a device or system resource must keep that password confidential, except for communication with authorized personnel. City policy prohibits the sharing of user IDs or passwords obtained for access to devices, software and systems. Employees shall not use the password or ID of another user, except in cases of job related necessity.. Employees shall not reveal the password or ID to an unauthorized person or entity. 2.2. Video and audio streaming and downloading technologies represent significant data traffic which cause local network congestion. Employees should schedule communications -intensive operations such as large file transfers, video or audio downloads, mass e-mailings and the like so as not to impact other users of the City's systems. The preferred time for such transfers are the off peak hours between 6:00 PM and 7:00 AM Pacific time. 2.3 Streaming audio/video on City provided smart phones and other similarly capable devices is discouraged due to contractual data limitations with the City's cellular provider(s). 3. Security 3.1. The City has installed a variety of firewalls, application, network address screening programs and other security systems to assure the safety and security of systems. Any employee who intentionally attempts to disable, defeat or circumvent any security facility is subject to discipline up to and including dismissal and possible criminal prosecution. 45 Packet Pg. 128 6.3.a 3.2. Files containing confidential and/or protected data that are transferred in any way across communication systems must be protected. 3.3. Devices that use their own network to create an independent data connection can sidestep network security mechanisms. These independent connections to outside networks can be used by an attacker to compromise City software, systems and networks. Any device used for an independent network connection must be isolated from the City's internal networks. Only approved file sharing applications may be used on City systems. Hotspot connections directly to the City's internal network are prohibited. Questions regarding the application of this section should be directed to Information Services. 3.4. Only those communication systems, services and functions with documented City business purpose will be enabled at the systems firewall. 4. Incidental use 4.1. De minimis use is an infrequent or occasional use that results in little or no actual cost to the City. An occasional brief local phone call, Internet access or email is an allowable de minimis use of communications systems. The cost of a brief local phone call is negligible and need not interfere with job performance. 4.2. The proper stewardship of City resources, including funds, facilities, tools, property, and employees and their time, is a responsibility that all employees share. Accordingly, employees may not use devices, software, or systems for personal benefit or gain or for the benefit or gain of other individuals or outside organizations. Personal benefit or gain may include a use solely for personal convenience, or a use to avoid personal expense. 4.3. Responsibility and accountability for the appropriate use of devices, software, or systems ultimately rests with the individual City official and City employee, or with the City official or City employee who authorizes such use. Employees and officials are cautioned that their own personal use of devices, software, or systems should never interfere with another City official or employee, or obligate another employee to make personal use of City resources. In addition, City employees have an affirmative duty to ensure that any personal use of devices, software, and systems is the most efficient in terms of time and resources. 4.4. Extensive or repeated personal misuse of City resources, including time, significantly undermines public trust in government. Nevertheless, a very limited personal use of City devices, software, and systems that supports organizational effectiveness would not undermine public trust and confidence. 46 Packet Pg. 129 6.3.a 4.5. Subject to restrictions elsewhere in this policy, a City official or employee may make an occasional, but limited, personal use of devices, software, or system resources if : 4.5.1. There is little or no cost to the City; 4.5.2. Any use is brief in duration, occurs infrequently, and is the most effective use of time or resources; 4.5.3. The use does not interfere with the performance of the officer's or employee's official duties; 4.5.4. The use does not disrupt or distract from the conduct of City business due to volume or frequency; 4.5.5. The use does not disrupt other City employees and does not obligate them to make a personal use of City resources; and 4.5.6. The use does not compromise the security or integrity of City property, information, or software. 4.6. The City Code, state and federal laws, strictly prohibit uses of taxpayer resources for private benefit or partisan political purposes. Any use of City resources to support such activity clearly undermines public confidence in government and reflects negatively on City employees generally. In compliance with these provisions, this policy explicitly prohibits, at all times and to any degree, the following private uses of devices, software, and systems and resources: 4.6.1. Any use for the purpose of conducting an outside business or private employment except for those instances, such as in the Police Department, where the private work has been approved by the Department (i.e. Off -duty police/security work in the City of Edmonds). 4.6.2. Any use for the purpose of supporting, promoting the interests of, or soliciting for an outside organization or group, including, but not limited to: a private business, a nonprofit organization, political candidate, a political party, or a ballot issue (unless provided for by law, City code, or other policy). (Note: It is not intended to prohibit forwarding information related to United Way or other organizations related to city government such 47 Packet Pg. 130 6.3.a as the Association of Washington Cities (AWC); it is also not intended to prohibit the use of City resources to communicate information related to Labor Organizations or Labor Laws of the State of Washington). 4.6.3. Any use for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of a person to a public office or for the promotion of or opposition to a ballot proposition. 4.6.4. Any use related to conduct that is prohibited by a federal or state law or rule, or a City code or policy; and 4.6.5. Any private use of any devices, software, or systems property that has been removed from City facilities or other official duty stations, even if there is no cost to the City. 4.7. The general ethics standard is that any use of devices, software, or systems resources other than for official business purposes needs to be brief in duration and frequency to ensure there is little or no cost and the use does not interfere with the performance of official duties. Policy Changes; Other City of Edmonds Policies 5.1. The City of Edmonds Information Services may modify or revise its devices, software, and systems use policies (including these specific regulations). The City will notify the Union of any changes in policy prior to implementation and bargain any such change that affects wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment that constitute mandatory subjects of bargaining. Employees are required to comply with all such subsequent modifications or revisions. Modifications and/or revisions will be posted on a shared network resource, posted on City Web sites, distributed through email, staff meetings or other communication method. 5.2. These devices, software, and systems use policies are in addition to, and do not replace or supersede, any and all other policies promulgated from time to time which are applicable to City employees (including general policies relating to misuse of City assets or resources, sexual harassment, unauthorized public speaking and misappropriation or theft of intellectual property). Misuse or inappropriate use of devices, software, or resources, in violation of these or any other City policy, may result in discipline, up to and including discharge. 6. References: 6.2. Regulatory Codes of Washington (RCW) 42.52.160, 42.52.180, 42.17.190 6.3. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 292-120-035 48 Packet Pg. 131 6.3.a APPENDIX "E" to the AGREEMENT by and between CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON and the EDMONDS POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION (Representing the Law Enforcement Support Service Employees) THIS APPENDIX is supplemental to the AGREEMENT by and between the CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, hereinafter referred to as the Employer, EDMONDS POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION (Representing the Law Enforcement Support Service Employees) Placement of employees on updated 2021 Salary Schedule E.1 Determination of how Employees will be placed on the updated 2020 Adjusted Salary Schedule shall occur as follows: a) Each Employee's step placement as of 12/31/19 shall be determined b) Employees shall be placed on a step on the new schedule which results in at least a one-step increase (minimum 5%) E.2 The above process applied to current Employees results in the following individual changes to Employees. Packet Pg. 132 Employee Title Current Grade Step on 12/31/2019 Current Wage New Classification Grade on new schedule Step on new schedule New wage 2020 2020 % Increase SHOEMAKE, TABATHA SR ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER 10+ 6 $5,996 NA 11 5 $6,298 5.04% SCHICK, JILL A DV COORDINATOR 9+ 6 $5,695 NA 10 5 $5,998 5.32% GILGINAS, JESSICA ANIMAL CONTROL/ ORDINANCE ENFORCE. OFFICER 9+ 4 $5,166 NA 10 3 $5,441 5.32% MANDEVILLE, LYNNETTE PROPERTY OFFICER/EVIDENCE TECH 8 6 $5,388 NA 9 5 $5,713 6.03% BROMAN, MINDYA POLICE SERVICES ASSISTANT 7 6 $5,089 Senior PSA 8 5 $5,441 6.92% COLLINS, AMY M POLICE SERVICES ASSISTANT 7 6 $5,089 Senior PSA 8 5 $5,441 6.92% SCHEELE, DARCIE E POLICE SERVICES ASSISTANT 7 6 $5,089 Senior PSA 8 5 $5,441 6.92% HENDERSON,JENNIFER POLICE SERVICES ASSISTANT 7 4 $4,614 Senior PSA 8 3 $4,935 6.96% KERN, KARLAYNA POLICE SERVICES ASSISTANT 7 2 $4,183 NA 7 2 $4,476 7.00% BURKLANE, AMBER POLICE SERVICES ASSISTANT 7 2 $4,183 NA 7 2 $4,476 7.00% PECK, JENNA PART TIME ADMIN. ASSISTANT 6 2 $3,941 NA 6 2 $4,263 8.17% MORRISON, STEVE PART TIME PARKING ENFORCE 6 3 $4,133 NA 6 3 $4,476 8.30% N N CO) N O 04 C N E d L a C .E m tm O m N r t) N O U O 3 m J Q 0 a w c O c� L O ILL E L O 0. CL Cn 3 J a 0 a w c as E s Q 50 Packet Pg. 133 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/4/2021 Marina Beach Park Renovation Grant Match Certification Staff Lead: Angie Feser Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Nicholas Falk 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 #19 out of 80 projects and qualified for funding. The Recreation and Conservation Funding Board grant awards will finalize the funding on June 29, 2021. Both grants are eligible, and were identified during the application process, to be match for each other. As a result, the City is not required to commit the match for either of the grants. The City, however, will be committed to providing the remaining funding for the project costs, currently estimated at $5,000,000 in 2020 dollars. These funds can be from additional grants or city sources. RCO's deadline is May 10th, 2021 and the two attached forms required the Mayor's signature. A Master Plan graphic of the Marina Beach Park Renovation project is also attached for reference. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends Council authorize the Mayor to sign the State of Washington Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) Certification of Applicant Match forms for two 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 #20-1296 City of Edmonds Certification Sponsor Match Form Project #20-1322 Packet Pg. 134 7.1.a overloo C O 0 Tl overlook r�a� �- 11�1 V me O i} 4 -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. 135 7.1.b Certification of Applicant Match Organization Name City of Edmonds Project NameMarina Beach Park Redevelopment Project Number 20-1296/WWRP - Local Parks The sources and amounts of our matching share will be: Select... Source 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. 136 7.1.c Certification of Applicant Match Organization Name City of Edmonds Project Name Willow Creek at Marina Beach Park Project Number 20-1322/ALEA The sources and amounts of our matching share will be: Select... [Source 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. 137 7.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/4/2021 Introduction Regarding Private Code Amendment to ECDC Section 20.75.045.13, entitled Unit Lot Subdivision - Applicability Staff Lead: Mike Clugston, Planning Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey 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. 138 7.2 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. 139 7.2.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. 140 7.2.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. 141 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. 142 7.2.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. 143 7.2.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. 144 7.2.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. 145 7.2.c y I QP a Q 0 0 S� WOODWAY Snohomish County Park 21222 82nd1PI n4-1 1-'10 8615 244th St. Proposed Subdivision Zoning (BD, OR, FVMU) Existing Subdivision Zoning (CG, RM, WMU) O Subdivided Unit lot Site i 168TH ST, G) E II 176TH ST SW1— d O t� 4 —C O 180TH ST SW 2 LU x a ~ N 0 188TH ST SW LYNNWOOD --�� 'A O E > a W x 0 00 200TH ST S1 � _ r� 204TH ST SW L) 208TH ST SW r sw 6 212th St. W x k MOUN AKE TER CE 228TH STS = w u + a 00 �I 236TH ST'_ 244TH ST SW q4I March 20 Packet Pg. 146 7.2.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. 147 7.2.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. 148 7.2.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. 149 7.2.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. 150 7.2.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. 151 7.2.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. 152 7.2.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. 153 I 7.2.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. 154 7.2.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. 155 7.2.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. 156 7.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/4/2021 Update on Development Activities Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Development Services Preparer: Jana Spellman Background/History Every year, the Development Services Department brings the City Council an update on development activities. Staff Recommendation Consider the information Narrative An update on development activities has been prepared for the City Council. (See attachment.) It includes the following: How the Development Services Department dealt with COVID impacts; General information about permitting and revenues; and Illustrations of development projects. While COVID has added extra challenges, the work has not been dull! Going into 2021, development in Edmonds continues at a healthy pace. Attachments: Dev_Serv_Pres_2021 Packet Pg. 157 7.3.a SHANE HOPE Development Services Director LEIF BJORBACK Building Official DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES CITYOF EDM packet Pg. 158 Development S nnnn nnnn nnnn s Counter service, pre -application meetings, intake appointments. a CIWOF EDM Development SX Packet Pg. 159 7.3.a jklt 9 tr :j .ie�86 rX rHenr4� 2021 12. db-c- I. Ems, ulFr.JdG'Tm rx -57., Fwf t 16K SITE PLAN ok{sPNlnkurv. k,rw",j W1, vocr+ Y..1 I e - +LK,GCry � rFVF.1eJiorls 9JRl3cG /.a.J�rafT•TF'Jcc.4vandDl. �arxrPl �lfAq rNR IP]vILtY@y17pY, A& STRUCTURAL NOTES SH OEHER<•. ecaE Best awa EDI I CDC£ AREA = L7CALJVW`AIGTgN. 1R aEegN PRRAWVTERS FFDLrpi.L WIND WEEDD-Ouk AesX ORTEOOBY II ITTIIITETBNOSPEEO-110MPN IIARD x A.I.+a D E.P U.E. N...+.av 695EEc: E P%Rnr ErTr µTERµ FORCE PROOEOORE roOrLTARCE. r- 1.v BrrE CLA84.0 S.•OUP I{ sEBrNC DE9rOH UT..D 5,•r•m ms`WII RCEFES. SYS.AaS. S..-HA OESgH BASE 9tERR. PSPT /w F•0.a3 RAg1{OATEOORT II q.MS WE LOCAL RODF zs PSF I3NOWv FLOOn w oECHsev w PSF MMOSM ND WECIµ i4iWEG0,NS ARE REWIREB. NDVW BLWW DEPARTMENT MA NWWTIOHS SH REM, ED BY LOCAL A1R188CTnM. MUREPORrrED'T Pr MG M EMMIIM E,muNip swrT TO �080M wS500 PSE 9 mG—uon•. BoT OF LOCIL E—DR FOOTEp SMLL BE 1-V RWMRAF BETOw OUTSOE FansliE0 GRAM. AND Mj8£-ET QgL SNWLO CCrrSIST P PREpCuwATEIV BELLaRACEU. ORArKA.AR SON. FREE W CBauAe —ERI ANODEB03 Fa•L StpOLO as PLACED IN L IirM d LOOSE LETS ANO CCMPRCTEO TOA ruNuMUM M DF%PFACFNT OF THE-1011/u DERSrrc xT G !Jlod 1AD1s1rNRE CGMTEET DOERUNEO ev p1 ABTM D.1551 TEST PROLEWnES TIE SPEC C2MMM F..ri Par MINIMW 5:. SA JS OF CENEM PER CM IO vW OFp BETE AW AMAMON OF PER 600ALL�C—ERVE.M(BSA MCEI ENT MA]WWSLWP31' g€OR€pRTgN pF LUTERUIg TD BE PREVENTED � b BAAS AND UAGERSINLL BE CPNDEWOEFORrAED BARS. AyDgANOu BAR4 [a] SMNABEi!uDEN.INACWRWNCEwmASmVAC,S LWSACESOt BWOrMETERS MALDED WRE FABRICS LCGr M MTM ATMMD314AL BE Mg-M.-X n . OPpNE FULLNEMATVtICE& u.+ ]�Egj$aE(�y-SNRLt REEr THE FaLWrlrq raPwyN 51�5: 4QtMAAOw5U, [IF Rl5 jgEATERt OF VY CAMUEe uu—`rED J: RwPrSTyO 4WELAUEUTEOBEArag pleV >rF•va (yaF-vd ATCANT4EI+ERSI y PAAALLAa BEw9lPSl1 2.OE rR+O rGrAAI •^e_TRreER u.•iL BE KYI ORER ORAOES 9RLLL COHFORR TO TrAyPAORLOPNRMES FOR WESTERR c(DN LlRA6ER•.IxTEST EOrTrOr+ ROOF TRIrSSES grIiMC eE OESS rrcO ErJ"� THE T.P t.ANp Tt� PIST IBC ALL COtWEGTPINSPER IPOTAELEM.P•1 DR AI6 ROOFvrTEDEaar EMDDC..rDrAllnl4 W ATNI'r00 pmTaFOR Trey 086 SRTST AWL ALL SUPPORTENDT REB ANO BODHOARES Wnr1 Ea AT a' O C.+We rlrERrOR SUPPORTS HTrr1 N AT ar O.0 : 5Vi ` etocRlNB NDT REcuRED sru g y I WSTALL MUM 2iW T46 STUR0.IFLODH i2 7S&EATMRQ GM AND VIM (A 5UPPORTEDE0GEZMD8WND0E51 IWATE•O.C.: ANOINTERCR SIIPPORT3 YIlIM rM RT 1r QG. PER BLC 14GNDT R€OWIED M'!iNE COM1TRAClOR B•lAII VEWFY gMENS10N&AHD CCML nOF18 AT JCB RIFE 111E COHiP,SCiDR S1aVZRFKINDETEMALtEl) OWT AS I)RAYA DUNTLEYLPEI ATEDIT USTOOEgNS AHDSlANi ,G T&EBEEN INSTAIAED. REF107 SCALE DILLYANCId. PREfAgRICATED ITE4SPoBE r.AH0.E0 Apo Ir/ iKLCD PER LWAaFALRkER'S REOCAMIEM}ATgN&. pArsAcrulEP rAuea w rw.>«. re, • W/. n.w y�iMro.�i FTW n.w 7 a } TYPICAL SHEAR FLCIW �' y 1 TYPICAL SHEAR FLOW \,5Ij TRUSS PARALLEL TO SW HTS 51 SW TO SW THRU LO RP NTS PLANNING DIVISION Building Permit Submittal Completeness Check roc 1�r6 Prior tD Building Permit intalm a complezeneas check is DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 121 Sth A-- M necessary P: a2S.771A220 This che,clislist ouldinets the Planning Division ww,r.Edmrinish gw _ nrosrdmondsvugoP Prc -:: T-_ - z - e-:'noes in the permit appf€ation. The a_DI=-t-i_=-tde zaa ea.I}teiYi_`iCf]]C-Ir=M1£C2aTidODIlCatlOM1a[C26taM10E- OE Incomplete NIA Height calculations Ileight to k ulations_See handout E841 - Height Calculaim Lnfermarien ler details pn how to or -id e he gh[mlcu lation,. Datum Pu inr Please identify dawn point on the site plan and its eleyntion. The datum puintshould be something permanent such asa xrater meterar anhDle Clevation Vie— Please- identity the lines of average original grade, mavYnuid allowed height, and prepesed height of the building an one of the NeyaTien 4kws. OE Incomplete MIA SM Mira --ol". Shew the required inning setbacks an tl.! ME& plea and pimwe disMA alydm the property fines to all existing and proposed structures. Ca7eot Anp ftAtprAa proposed to encroach into a required setback. ieructu ral Lot €overage Calculations: Providle-rurtu ral lot mveragr ca kulations As a percentage of net lot area Lenclusire uF an r access easement area). Cayerage fneanx the total grou nd coverage Di all buildings or structures un a site m-su red from the outside of external walls or wpportirLS members ur fmm n point two and one-half fee[ in From the outside edge, of a �neileremd reef, whichever vers the greatest arlA. OE Incomplete N/A crwKaweas Critical area detenn ination an [he properly wiNrl uIe last frveyears- Criti[alWinh report if study required. OE Incomplete NA TrLe RetellHnn and PEate[tlon Plan-ECOC 73.ID.C50,C Tree Lmrentory m g2ae.+ OroF-w.-ftLtsr.ut AW14- 1 TYPICAL SHEAR FLOW 31 SW TO SW - JOIST PERP NT CITY OF EDM k packet Pg. 160 Development 5 `�...w� entering city Rail h+VmM wrrlC. __. must use the :.{;+';.. 7.3.a - - hand sanitizer IF NU FEEL SILL STAY 1lUME located just insider'"oir.'R'm. m �° rWy rw r�.rrp •-.� T Y ••... --- - the lobby. - - N.cr..uWrb.vrc. Ifr i, 1 ii /1 i Healih Check Required [* before surfing r in - warkr r� D K V .. - �.. Q . d 2 O 04 AP Nz to �Ne MaCG package ho _�__�: 0g a���ce - � >' dd ACOpte AZ5 JX- AZO Mks 5etJices11�_ Online Submittals, Site E c�elaPmQ�t gill�n� A25 �� Virtual �2�- Checks, Meetings. oe u�����y w9tk5 � • a CITYOF EDM Development S Packet Pg. 161 COVID Impacts to Permitting L City Hall Home Office My Building Permit (MBP) is the City's main portal for accepting and issuing building permits 7.3.a ✓ City Hall remains closed to the public ✓ Majority of staff are telecommuting and/o rotating office shifts E ✓ Customer feedback o 0- CD electronic processes i positive ✓ DRC and Pre-App meetings continue over Zoom - N N Homeowners and the L project team can attend from their homes and/or offices 0 ✓ Customer assistance provided over Zoom, phone and/or email a CITY OF EDV Pmeff acket Pg. 162 Development AkTAh 40 • Development Review Committee (DRC) Meetings Free Project Review Meetings with the Public - o x Ou4211 C:1=:30 4�] o f 1 3a F Meetings offered every Thursday at 1:30 and 3pm 36 meetings held in 2020 Coordination Meetings Amongst Staff eM Bjwback ' i S - b[ngYZM1 JY 4 c Ve� N zrichardson Jeanie R ,, an �i nnao Q 7.3.a COVID Impacts to Construction • March 23rd Governor declares shutdown of all 0 non -essential A) business, including a construction proj ects OOL 0 0 • April241h Phase 1 begins Q • June 51n r N N Phase 2 begins a which allows all 2" construction to ;i resume with the implementation of an on -site safety plan. a CITYOF EDM Packet Pg. 164 Development S '0 rel rriraRf n oFq Apply for Check Permit Status do �wf "'.I��i' View My Dashboard A Getting Started - Resources - About Us Contact Us Help Log In �I 1� r �wrc..w■1� tow 1!/■�N in I '� ::::.... M1a 4 Schedule nspections J I Pay Fees I111pipr001l 1 00 I 1 Sri h� Visit Training and Seminars Streateries • In response to COVID, a Special Event Permit was issued in 2020 to allow for curbside dining • Fall 2020, Special Event Permit extended while regulations are considered • December 2020 Ord. 4209 went into effect • Streatery standards and publications were developed • 14 streatery permits approved to date • Ordinance allows for up to 20 streateries • Uniform streatery design presented by business owners and implemented by many • The public is actively enjoying outdoor dining! kknim L "— I it QR■W ._py 5 , _ 1 r \ � � ■ ..4 Packet Pg. 166 r, 00 I AW -M-M AL - ado 2 E .2 w > 0 C14 0 C %4 Permit history, valuation -Wool of activities, solar, impact E fees and general facility charges (GFQ CITY OF EDMt-,%P-'—r DevelopmentPacket Pg, 167 7.3.a Development Services Permit History $2,000,000 T $1,800,000 $1,600,000 $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 $0 =L+ 0 �D l-- 00 011 O .--i N M It W) �0 � 00 01 K1 �t W) \C � 00 01 O �t tf) � � 00 01 O 00 00 00 00 00 01� 0� 01 01 011 01\ 01, 01 01 01 O O O O O O O O O O - - - - - - - - - - N 01 C 1 01 O) O� 01 01 01 C� 0� C� 01 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Total Devel Svc Revenue # Building Permits CITY OF EDM packet Pg. 168 Development 5 7.3.a Permits Reviewed by development services 2019 vs. 2020 p_ of Permit New Single Family Duplex Apartment/Condo Commercial Mixed Use (Office/condo) Additions / Alterations Single Family Apartment / Condo Commercial Other Mechanical / Plumbing Demolition Miscellaneous Issued # Issued 26 32 $11,692,071 $13,220,676 1(2units) 0 $131,125 4(26units) 2 (202 units) $3,343,502 $27,298,995 0 3 0 $2,456,999 0 0 0 154 148 $9,851,167 $8,678,810 15 18 $1,674,247 $754,563 53 42 $8,263,097 $6,124,564 441/379 17 456 470/333 21 256 MA $9,918,505 $1, 848, 609 1 Packet Pg. 169 7.3.a Engineering Division Right-of-way, side sewer, street use, and encroachment activity 2017-2020 Permits Issued 415 Permit Revenue $421806 Inspection & Review $416,959 Revenue M $58,221 $2491427 447 $411595 391 $55,433 $2231678 $2481499 2D a E 0- 0 > d 0 C 0 CU N O N N I 0 I 0 C 0 Q CITYOF EDM Packet Pg. 170 Development S 7.3.a IMPACT FEES AND GENERAL FACILITY CHARGES (GEC's) FOR 2020 Transportation Impact Fees Parks Impact Fees Water GFC Sewer GFC Storm GFC N d r r V Q $805,648 E 0 0 $553934 2 0 Cu $340,899 " 0 NI fA L $75,154 0 E $42,573 Q CITYOF EDM Development S Packet Pg. 171 7.3.a c -' -- Y Permits Year # of Permits # of Permits % Online 2012 3 0 0% 2013 6 5 83% 2014 39 35 90% 2015 32 29 91% 2016 17 16 94% 2017 14 14 100% 2018 14 13 93% 2019 12 11 92% 2020 11 8 73% Totals 4. , 2 a E 0- 0 0 a CITY OF EDM Packet Pg. 172 Development S 7.3.a 4�384 a� r Building Inspections N� N N L 21775 Engineering o Inspections a CITYOF EDM packet Pg. 173 Development S 7.3.a Building Inspections Avg/working day E 0- 0 d 2399 0 CU (2019) 7.4 (2020) CITYOF EDM Packet Pg. 174 Development 5 7.3.a Number of Building Inspections per Month, 2020 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 January February March April May June July August September October November December a a� E 0- 0 a� m 0 c 0 a� ca r N O N I N N L I I > 0 C w E U 2 Q CITYOF EDM Development S Packet Pg. 175 Key projects N 0 N N N L C w E :i a CITYOF EDM Development 5 Packet Pg. 176 7.3.a M lllllggllll��MMum Graphite ITM M MM Kahlo's Cantina *Studios *Civic Field Waterfront **Von's Bell St APT. Center —� :MM Port Office Building Main Street N WWTP 111 M= Commons ,:CM Carbon A ,� �� Recovery Pine Park _ _. 614 .... � * �w-zaw Paradise Heights +Jat: ii;W Westgate Station Kisar i Apts Brackett' _ Woodway - Reserve iStation * MIT'L` Edmonds I= Crossing Apts oil 9 a■�;� AnthologyuL Ford Hunter , ,III Senior Living milll Townhomessr !� �iilll Sunde yvApollo Apts. onhomes Edmonds Townhomes Nyland Apts. CITY OF EDM Development 5 Packet P=177 ew Single Family Homes 75thAve W ew Single Family Homes Olympic View Dr. 72"d Ave W. ew Single Family Homes 244th St SW ew Single Family Homes aAM r7i,� A.. Olympic View Dr. 82nd PI. W ew Townhomes 82ndPlace Townhomes Waterfront Center 2 ' .-vt 26,000 sf New Commercial 220 Railroad Ave.f AF, � Finaled W .. ahlo's Cantina .4 PINr a + ilk- �.. Fi naled " .L � 7.3.a Packet Pg. 185 Nyland Apartments 19 New Residential Units 8509/8513 244th St. SW F. .fey r � `.•: ':Ty -; y(. {L. �•,�.� }�i :6�` � �. � fir_ ` ' �„ '. .- ru• �s5" • � i� � �f�•, f � i�Q' YFN.J' .ir s $rim, -� � s;-�•.� • , _ 4 aY. X3 `'� Packet Pg. 18E Graphite Studios a I " 11,000 sf New Commercial 202 Main St. Main Street. C mmons Ir RIC _+y mawuai�i f. r �Y6�w�':•a. �•tisY�i.1' Retail, restaurant, and event space � 550/558 Main St. GRE Apartments • il FIE; rA 192 New Residential Units r 23400 Highway 99 r� r. - c m` z• r Issued _ �'Packet-. Paradise Heights it EIS 12 New Residential Units 546/550/ Paradise Lane, In= WE'D Wmml Issued (bldg. A) Applied (bldg. I I 1 41. Edmonds rossin 4+ 'A MIFLL-10 AIL L A' 44.1 10 New Residential Units R`, 23830 Edmonds Way :: , Issuedl 1 ntholociv oV'-'-Ivr dmonds 14 Ali '40 47 01 Y:;P* S, Senior Living App 192 Unitslied 21200 72nd Ave W. Pac et Pg. 192 Kisan Townhomes ..Sig illy. ._J_______. 7V 18 New Residential Units 22810 Edmonds Way 0 M il .. 'M No 0 P. nr,- 'L ,� W 40. *.ad. w. q„,* w3q,�6 w�" Applied 7.3.a a r* Sprague St .f . 1 0 CIVIC 300 6th Ave. N � r r � t � 4 _ � 1 � r - a�F m4 H EADOWS Sprague S# r Te THE GREAT LAWN - Edmonds �. LL #�4 J Applied � 4 mdale 8each PlarK, Enhanced � Ri arian Area ' Replaced Railroad Brld e Picnic Viewpoinl Enhanced :Y Creek h labitat . T 4 42 L-� ' • r ' Restored Pocket � Estuary Improved _ Enhanced Pond t Pirnir Shelter - Tmpinv,-.d lawn RcaLt Parking, and RelocatLd Drairogc Improvemonts f(estruorn watCr a Imp Enclosure Tredime glw�' Pedestrian Trail Swale n - rx �y rrrrrrrr -.,i ysiia]eGpr&bA F E-0 P.nw � qureMH.N �q—in Wan do.. Proposmd Project Site Pla Packet Pg. 996 Mmdaw&le 9garh Park and lm.My R—L—L.— I . _ 1 7.3.a Apollo Apartments i L 51 New Multi -family Units 23601 Hwy 99 J tf�l �aar��rru�� j I I Il.. App Sunde Townhomes li i�11 _ ice■■■' ICI � ■■ ■■■ ■■ ■■■ ■■■ I� �I ■■ ICI ■■ I.iia�mm MEN on _ II _■■�■■� �■■MEN ■■ II � ■ II IL.... q riY.z.ri. iir�iiiii�iii�r�iiiir� --•_ _'-_= _'-_IN I � ,� ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ �, Irrrr '' Irrrr'===' Irrrr "''' = Irrrr &EMU Irrrr:_= ^Irrrr 1 Duplex + 1 Triplex 8629 238th St. SW III I I::I::I::I::I IN Niwwwwil jimmm L" . IMIMIMIM ii Irrrr ■5 I � Design Revie Ford Hunter Townhomes � P KU 4 Unit Townhomes 7528 215th St. SW k .. Ow sy -weft IcExistin _.. s v-^ Apply for So Wastewater Treatment Plant Carbon Recovery rM M.- P PL L or (1: iG 200 2nd Ave S L . I: Ir if Pre-ap � ei6, r%-L. -d ° amp :. VFW mm 1F��mqjjrmt';_:`I \IJ 7.3.a V C d Q 0 a� > d 0 Q N O NI N d �I d �I N + �R *4a., t•f .. 6 Packet Pg. 201 Port Office Building 6,650 sf New Commercial 471 Admiral Way Pre-app § j Wui i:�l'iilnF117:i a 701 peo D M 1: • L h .4 Y 3A ADMIRAL WAY, EDMONDS YACHT CLUB � J 'ORTOFEDMONDS 3000 ADMRAL WAY. RESTAURANTS OF ICE � u AREA OF 1R - y F�\ %2lJNEAR FEET CF i o i P! dhIICFf1 RCihRf1W61 If r' i....- 2 a� 0- 0 N as 0 C O a� Q N O N N I N L I N I > 0 E m u 2 Y Y Q Packet Pg. 203 estgate Station low IF. ;OW &7�A_ r 20 Multi -family Units + 4,704 sf new commercial 9601 Edmonds Way FEW • - -•-- Desin Revie g Wsis z MR rep I I to 7m-T (Pine Park 614 .w M 3 Mixed Use Bldgs. 6145thAve S Design Revie THANKYOU a CITYOF EDM Development Packet Pg. 207 / S 7.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/4/2021 Interlocal Agreement with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Development Services Preparer: Jana Spellman Background/History The Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) has operated for many years within our county. The agency currently owns three properties within Edmonds that provide housing for low-income households. Currently, HASCO's authority to provide housing in Edmonds extends only to the three existing properties. The Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission, after study and consideration, made 15 housing policy recommendations that were submitted to the City Council on January 29, 2021. One of these recommendations was for the City to execute an interlocal agreement with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County to allow the possibility of the agency providing additional housing. (See Attachment 1 for the Housing Commission's recommendation.) Note: While the majority of Commissioners, by a vote of 14-1, supported the HASCO policy recommendation, prior discussion covered a range of issues. At least one Commissioner had expressed concern that HASCO did not provide enough low-income housing for tenants and that its non-profit status meant that the properties were exempt from property tax. However, most Commissioners indicated appreciation that HASCO could serve households at income levels that the private market could not reach and felt that the public partnership was worthwhile. Meanwhile, Councilmembers Distelhorst and Olson (the Housing Commission liaisons) began exploring options to create an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO). An ILA would allow the housing authority the option of providing services to additional low- income households in Edmonds, should HASCO identify a future building or property in which it could operate, consistent with all city codes. No such locations are known at this time. Staff Recommendation Approve the Resolution authorizing execution of the HASCO Interlocal Agreement. This may be done by either: (1) Adoption at the 5/4 Council meeting; or (2) Move to the next meeting's Consent Agenda. Narrative HASCO OVERVIEW At the April 20 City Council meeting, Duane Leonard, Executive Director of the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO), provided information about the countywide agency and its work. After Packet Pg. 208 7.4 that, Information about a potential interlocal agreement with HASCO was presented. (See Attachment 2 for an excerpt from the Council's April 20 meeting minutes and Attachment 3 for the presentation given that night.) As shown in the attached presentation (Slide 2), HASCO currently owns and operates three properties within the City of Edmonds. Two of the properties serve only seniors aged 62+ and persons with disabilities. Combined, these two properties total 88 units; however there are more than 100 people on the waiting list. The third property is general income -restricted, "Fair Market" housing, with a legal requirement to rent at least half of the units to residents with an income below 80% of Area Median Income (AMI). Currently, this property rents 113 of 120 units to residents at or below 80% AMI, with 60 of those units rented to residents at or below 50% AMI. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT & RESOLUTION An interlocal agreement (ILA) has been drafted to allow the housing authority the ability to provide additional housing in Edmonds for low-income households, should an opportunity arise. (See Attachment 4 for the draft ILA.) This ILA does not change any City codes, zones, densities or other planning -related items. It would establish HASCO as the City's official housing authority and allow the agency to buy and operate affordable housing properties in the City in accordance with other City requirements. The proposed ILA also outlines a partnership between the City and HASCO to promote: 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 mutually deem appropriate. Regular communications between appropriate HASCO and City staff to provide information on existing housing programs available to City residents. In addition, a Resolution (see Attachment 5) has been prepared. The Resolution finds that services of the Housing Authority meet a need in Edmonds and authorizes execution of the interlocal agreement. CONTEXT The concept of cooperating or partnering with HASCO has been identified in at least three local and county -wide housing studies, as follows: 1. Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission - January 2021: "Execute an interlocal agreement (ILA) with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) allowing HASCO to operate within Edmonds geographic boundaries." Snohomish County Housing Affordability Regional Task Force (HART) - January 2020: "Encourage cities to enter into cooperation agreements with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) and Everett Housing Authority." Edmonds Housing Needs Study - December 2018: "Institutional capacity for administering rental assistance is limited. Although providing rental assistance may contribute needed resources to these programs, administration by the City may be difficult given the current lack of local capacity. Coordination with existing public housing agencies such as HASCO would be more effective." Attachments: Hsg.Comsn.Recomdtn_HASCO Interlocal.Agreement Exce rpt_CC. Draft. M i n utes_04.20.21 Presentation.On.HASCO_04.20.21 3-18-21 DRAFT Edmonds HASCO ILA - clean (002) Packet Pg. 209 7.4 Resolution Authorizing ILA with HASCO_04.30.2021 Packet Pg. 210 7.4.a Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission Policv Recommendation Title: EDMONDS-HASCO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Policy: Execute an interlocal agreement (ILA) with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) allowing HASCO to operate within Edmonds geographic boundaries. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Housing Authority of Snohomish County is the public housing agency of Snohomish County and receives federal funding to acquire, develop, and operate low-income housing. To do so, HASCO must have an agreement with each city in which it operates. HASCO owns three properties in Edmonds. Some areas of the city are not currently covered by an agreement with HASCO, so the agency cannot acquire property there without an extensive process involving the City Council. This policy would allow HASCO to better compete in the market to purchase property to build and preserve affordable homes in Edmonds. While an ILA would reduce red tape and timelines for property acquisition, HASCO would still be required to meet all permitting and development requirements. Packet Pg. 211 7.4.b EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING Excerpt from DRAFT MINUTES April 20, 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 STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec. & Cultural Serv. Dir Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Mgr. Emily Wagener, Human Resources Analyst Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE The Edmonds ' Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by meeting was opene th the flag salute. 2. Councilmember Olson read the City Coun-cikt original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh ( who since time immemorial have hunted, fis The wredgement Statement: "We acknowledge the ) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determi on, and we honor t sacred spiritual connection with the land and water." 3. City Cl cott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE AGENDA TO POSTPONE ITEM 8.1, INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY (HASCO), TO MAY 25, 2021. Councilmember K. Johnson said she did not have any particular objection to the ILA, but wanted the City Council to consider the Citizen Housing Commission's (CHC) recommendations more globally and develop a process for moving forward. Postponing this will provide plenty of time to have a robust Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 1 Packet Pg. 212 housing. HASCO is a great organization that does good work and partners with various agencies to serve unserved populations. She preferred to hear from HASCO about the ILA and their plans and perhaps delay action until next week. She was uncomfortable with kicking the can down the road because the Council is repeatedly hearing from the same people who are not interested in having low income housing in Edmonds, something that is obviously needed based on the number of homeless in Edmonds. Councilmember K. Johnson said at the committee meeting, it was Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' preference to put this on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, expressing a preference that Councilmembers' names not be used or fingers pointed. Mayor Nelson requested Councilmembers refrain from identifying specific Councilmembers. Councilmember K. Johnson explained there are two members on the committee; one wanted the HASCO ILA to go directly to Consent. There was no presentation from HASCO at the committee meeting so this is a new discussion item tonight. This is not something that needs to be rushed and she preferred to have the presentation tonight and table a decision to a future meeting which would not be disrespectful. When information is presented to a committee, it should be a complete presentation and not repackaged for the presentation to Council. Her intent was not to slow the process down but to have time to learn how this recommendation, made by the CHC, fits into the Council's plans for proceeding with all the CHC's recommendations. This item is premature because the Council has not had that discussion. For those reasons she supported postponing this agenda item and rescheduling the presentation from HASCO to May 25tn Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented HASCO has nothing to do with market rate housing and above. She read her packet before the committee meeting and looked up information online so she was able to comprehend what was said during the committee meeting and was comfortable putting it on Consent. She encouraged the Council not to support the amendment to postpone. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT 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. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKS , TO END THE MOTION TO ADD AS NEW BUSINESS ITEM 9.1, COUNC EMBER REI URSEMENT REQUEST. Councilmember Olson lamed this was discussed at great length at a previo meeting approximately a month ago. She provided �iissue. via email and looked forward t aving either a large or small discussion and resolving th Council President Paine said she had no objec n to addi this to the agenda. She requested the materials provided be included in the minutes packet. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if r. Pruitt's objectiolu had been provided to Council. Councilmember Olson askedjflrChad an objection to the City reimburse er as an employee of the City. Councilmember Fraley-,Njmfillas responded he has an objection because he be es Councilmember Olson has implied bias an ery aspect of what she did was related to his color. He has ken with the City's HR Director a ouncilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested guidance from the HR Dire r would be of assistanc ayor Nelson advised the HR Director was not available this evening. Councilme er Olson co nted that would not be relevant anyway. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 213 Nelson asked if the amendment included putting the findings on the Consent rber K. Johnson said it did not. / AMENDMEIMQCARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Paine re TO EXTEND THE TO SEPTEMBER 2ND. MAIN MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUN EMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND CgVqCIL ir SIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOH N, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON VOTING NO. Mayor Nelson asked Mr. T ay if he had the direction he needed. Mr. a ay said based on the vote, he will draft Endings fo option at next week's meeting that will justify the origina cheduled continuation of the ordinan rough September 2"d elson declared a brief recess. 8. NEW BUSINESS 1. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY (HASCO) Development Services Director Shane Hope introduced Duane Leonard, Executive Director, HASCO, commenting this is the first time he has presented to Council. Following Mr. Leonard's presentation, Councilmembers Distelhorst and Olson will provide slides and then she will discuss the Citizens Housing Commission's (CHC) recommendation and next steps. Immediate action is not proposed tonight, it is intended to set the groundwork and to consider next steps. Mr. Leonard reviewed: • HASCO created in 1971, celebrating its 50t' anniversary this year What is a Public Housing Authority o The US Housing Act of 1937 created the US Housing Authority. ■ Washington State passed "enabling legislation" that is now codified as Chapter 35.82 RCW in 1939 o HASCO is a Local Government Agency established to received Federal resources with no ability to assess local taxes o There are 37 Housing Authorities in the State, many are similar, but all operate according to local housing plans. o Declaration of Necessity ■ Shortage of safe, sanitary, housing that is impacting the public welfare ■ Conditions cannot be cured by private enterprise ■ Remedying these conditions is a public purpose ■ Declared a matter of legislative intent to immediately work to solve the problem What is our role in the community? o We work in collaboration with local government and non -profits and others to bring people together on housing issues o HASCO does this in three main way: ■ We rent units that we own. We are a landlord. ■ We assist families with their rent ■ We collaborate and advocate on housing issues Photos of HASCO communities (hasco.org) Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 16 Packet Pg. 214 7.4.b • HASCO Assists Families with Rent (Housing Choice Voucher - Section 8 Program) o The Section 8 Program assists families with rent. The voucher holder pays approximately 30% of their income for rent and the voucher will pay the rest o Demographics ■ Over 70% of the families on the program are elderly or have a disabled family member - 29% Non -Senior Non -Disabled Households - 9% Non -Disabled Senior Households - 37% Non -Senior Disabled Households - 25% Disabled Senior Households ■ Average annual income is $16,800 ■ Children make up 36% of those assisted • Advocate and Collaborate o Advocate at Federal, State, and Local levels of government on housing issues o Collaborate with Social Service Agencies and Non -Profits o Bring together private landlords and homeowners with renters • Importance of Advocacy and Collaboration o Regional Problems Needs Regional Solutions - Non one can do this alone o % Change in Rent vs. Household Income 2010-2019 ■ All Unit Average - 49% ■ Median Household Income - 7% • Estimated Need o Approximately 77,000 families in need of voucher assistance ■ Everett Housing Authority and HASCO meet approximately 12.8% of need ■ Approximately 87% of the need is unmet • Rated and Respected o S&P Global Ratings A+ o Affordable Housing Accreditation Board accredited • In conclusion o Safe, stable, affordable housing has always been needed and necessary, now more than ever o Housing Authorities are local government agencies specifically created to address the issue of housing o HASCO can help move the community discussion forward with real examples of successful outcomes Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Mr. Leonard for his presentation and for meeting with Councilmember Olson and him this spring to discuss an ILA. He reviewed information related to the City of Edmonds - HASCO ILA • HASCO cannot freely operate within any city unless an ILA is executed to establish HASCO as a city's official housing authority. • Map of HASCO current and proposed operating areas in Edmonds • HASCO in Edmonds o Edmonds Highlands on SR-104 ■ 120 units, 1-313R, 1-213A apartments ■ Currently 113 of 120 units rented to residents below 80% AMI (requirement is 60 of 120 units). Of those units, 60 are rented to individuals at 50% AMI or below o Olympic View ■ 45 units, senior and persons with disabilities only o Sound View ■ 43 units, senior and persons with disabilities only • What the draft ILA does not do o There are no preferences, incentives, or concessions Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 17 Packet Pg. 215 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 (Lynnwood adopted ILA with HASCO in 1991) ■ 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: ■ Execute an interlocal agreement (ILA) with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) allowing HASCO to operate within Edmonds geographic boundaries. (14-1 vote) o Snohomish County Housing Affordability Regional Task Force (HART) - January 2020: ■ Then -Mayor Earling and Director Hope participated on HART ■ Encourage cities to enter into cooperation agreements with HASCO and Everett Housing Authority. o Edmonds Housing Needs Study - December 2018: ■ Institutional capacity for administering rental assistance is limited. Although providing rental assistance may contribute needed resources to these programs, administration by the City may be difficult given the current lack of local capacity. Coordination with existing public housing agencies such as HASCO would be more effective. o Koenig Report on Homeless in Edmonds ■ Recommended a partnership with HASCO Conclusions o Edmonds remains 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 Recommendation: Authorize Mayor to sign ILA with HASCO Councilmember Olson explained in the contracting world, it is not uncommon to have a blanket purchase agreement, but that does not require any purchase orders be issued. It establishes terms and accomplishes pre -negotiations which is similar to an ILA. The agreement would allow HASCO to proceed with a purchase without seeking authorization from Council on a one-off project basis. The ILA puts that authorization in advance. Often in real estate opportunities go very fast; it is critical to give HASCO this authorization if the Council wants them as the City's housing authority. She shared her own perceptions from the vetting done this spring; HASCO has an amazing track record. She was impressed by the quality, upkeep and maintenance of their properties and they are good neighbors. HASCO has a great track record doing this work and demonstrating they understand their mission. By law half the units have to be rented at 80% AMI, but in fact they surpass that in one of their buildings with 120 units, 113 are at or below 80% AMI and of those, 60 are at or below 50% AMI. Councilmember Olson said she has heard concern from citizens about the redistribution of the tax burden; that is fair because the taxation is challenging for a lot of residents who are paying their own way. People Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 18 Packet Pg. 216 are stretched and taxes impact what they have available to spend. If the Council approves the ILA, HASCO has the exact same opportunity that every other non-profit has. If the City says yes to HASCO, that does not mean affordable housing will not be done by other non -profits, but they may be non -profits that do not have as good a track record of upkeep and maintenance. The more need there is, the more likely others will address the need instead of HASCO. Ms. Hope relayed the CHC has discussed an ILA with HASCO as well as many other ideas. The CHC also gathered input from the community via an online open house and survey. CHC survey #2 posed the question, "what is your level of support for the idea to expand cooperating with the countywide housing agency HASCOT' This received some strong support and strong opposition from the public, a virtual tie; 295 respondents strongly or somewhat supported the idea and 294 strongly or somewhat opposed the idea. Survey #4 posed a similar question and received a bigger portion of responses that strongly opposed the idea, 128 opposed or strongly opposed and 84 strongly or somewhat supported HASCO's presence in Edmonds. She noted online surveys are interesting and useful, but are not statistically valid. Ms. Hope explained following the surveys, the CHC has further discussion. For example, one commissioner was concerned HASCO did not provide enough low income housing for tenants and its nonprofit status meant the housing was not taxed. Following further discussion, most CHC members felt HASCO's service was useful and needed because they provide housing for an income level that the private sector could not and that HASCO's existing communities in Edmonds fit in well. Ultimately the CHC decided on a 14-1 vote to recommend Edmonds execute an ILA with HASCO to provide services in Edmonds. While theoretically and legally the Council could vote on an ILA tonight or put it on Consent, that is not staff s proposal. Staff understands this is the full Council's first meeting on this topic and that there will be one or more meetings for the Council to consider this issue and make a decision. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if Edmonds had signed an agreement with HASCO in the past. She served with then -Mayor Earling on the Joint Housing Task Force with Lynnwood and recalled there was discussion about Edmonds doing an agreement with HASCO in the past. Mr. Leonard answered the proposed ILA would be a blanket agreement; twice before Edmonds has approved HASCO purchasing property in Edmonds and those are the properties HASCO currently owns. When HASCO purchased Edmonds Highlands in 2001, the Council approved a specific agreement for that property. The same was done when HASCO purchased Olympic View and Sound View in 2005 or 2006. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas recalled that Joint Task Force was interested in the Rodeo Inn, but that fell through when the owner did not want to sell. She recalled then -Mayor Earling set up a tax rebate of $100,000 to be used in a joint venture with other cities in the area who would also provide funding. Ms. Hope said that ultimately was not done because the project fell through. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the HASCO senior housing is located behind the grocery store; there are HASCO properties in the City that people do not know about because they are not identified as HASCO properties. Those properties provide an opportunity for seniors and disabled persons to live in Edmonds. She was supportive of this opportunity and thanked Mr. Leonard and Councilmembers Distelhorst and Olson for putting this package together and moving it forward. Councilmember L. Johnson expressed appreciation for the presentation, commenting she learned a great deal. This appears to be an excellent opportunity to partner on housing for low income, seniors, those with disabilities and children with an agency with a proven track record that goes above and beyond the minimum requirements. This is also an opportunity for regional cooperation; she recalled being excited about the Rodeo Inn when that opportunity arose and disappointed when it fell through and she wanted the opportunity to explore opportunities when they arise. She asked why the City wouldn't do this, noting the only thing she came up with was not prioritizing serving and helping low income, senior, disabled individuals and children. She was very supportive of moving the ILA with HASCO forward next week and Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 19 Packet Pg. 217 7.4.b was appreciative of the work that has been put into this from the various groups throughout the years. It has taken awhile but she was glad the Council had finally reached this point. Councilmember Buckshnis said obviously money was required to purchase properties. She was familiar with Rick Steves' generosity related to the property he donated to the Y because Councilmember K. Johnson and she are involved with the Rotary who maintains that property. She asked if there were opportunities to purchase properties. Mr. Leonard said prices are increasing rapidly which makes doing affordable housing very difficult. For example, when he started with HASCO in 1995, HASCO was able to get very good bank financing. HASCO does not have a revenue stream or taxing authority but a lot of the projects in early years, the bank would finance 110% of the purchase price, the entire amount plus 10% for immediate rehab. Over time, prices have escalated and after the 2008/2009 recession banks lost the ability to provide that type of financing. Mr. Leonard explained when HASCO purchased Edmonds Highlands in 2001, it was the most expensive development they had ever purchased; $60,000 per unit for 120 units. In 2018 HASCO purchased a similar property in Mukilteo, $302,000 per unit for 230 units. The previous owners of the Mukilteo property had only owned it for 30 months and were in the process of upgrading units and had also increased rents an average of $250/month in the 30 months they owned the property. HASCO has owned the property since September 2018 and although rents have not been lowered, they have not been increased. As a public agency, their goal is over a period of time to keep rents constant or lower thereby bringing affordability to the community. As a result the residents have more money to spend at local businesses, one of the goals HASCO tries to achieve. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how HASCO interacts with Affordable Housing Authority (AHA). Mr. Leonard answered HASCO is a member of AHA and also acts as the fiscal agent for AHA. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether citizens indicated in the surveys why they went from not minding a partnership with HASCO to strongly opposing it. Ms. Hope answered there is no information available regarding that; it could be there was a push by people opposed to it or other reasons. In the first survey, which had a larger number of respondents, there were few clear comments opposing it. There were comments about not wanting low income housing, fear of crime, concern with property taxes, but most of the concern was about providing low income housing. Council President Paine commented this is eye-opening data. She recalled AHA shared similar data regarding the unmet need. She was supportive of an ILA with Edmonds to allow HASCO to provide very affordable, stable -priced housing. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the ILA would allow HASCO to carte blanche purchase property anywhere in the city limits of Edmonds. Ms. Hope said her understanding was it would allow HASCO to purchase property without going through a long process with the City if they meet the criteria in the ILA. It is unlikely to happen often because HASCO does not have a great deal of resources. She assured the Council would be informed and likely Mr. Leonard would make a presentation to Council. Mr. Leonard said they never view anything as carte blanche authority; they view an ILA as a partnership and if they ever surprised a city, they have not done their job. For example, before HASCO purchased Edmonds Highlands, there was a due diligence period of 6 months with two 30 day extension, 8 months to get financing in place and get in front of the Council to ask permission. Sellers today will not take a purchaser seriously if it takes 8 months to close; they want immediately closing. For example, the project in Mukilteo closed in 45 days which is not enough time to get in front of the Council for approval. That is the reason HASCO is seeking an ILA. He assured HASCO would discuss with the Mayor any project they were interested in purchasing prior to acting. He summarized HASCO did not want to surprise anyone, they wanted to be a partner. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 20 Packet Pg. 218 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out HASCO was not asking the City for money or financial support for construction, but rather approval to act without going through a bunch of hoops. Mr. Leonard agreed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said there is no cost to the City and expecting HASCO to come to the City before making a purchase is unreasonable in today's market. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED THAT THE COUNCIL CONCLUDE FOR TONIGHT AND PUT THIS BACK ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT WEEK. Ms. Hope suggested putting it on the agenda the week after or whatever worked for the Council President. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON WITHDREW THE MOTION. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO SCHEDULE THIS ON THE MAY 4TH AGENDA. Councilmember K. Johnson was glad this item was not on the Consent Agenda, recalling she requested a presentation to full Council. She supported the Council having a more global discussion about how all the CHC's recommendations come to the Council and requested that staff and the Council President schedule that very soon. MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1) COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON ABSTAINING. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY CO DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND TO 10:30. Councilmemia.er K. Johnson suggested adjourning the meeting and postponing the items thaf the Council had not gotten t . She envisioned the Council would need until 11:00 p.m. to complete a e agenda items and the Council ha lready been in their chairs continuously since 6 p.m. K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCALMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ADJOURN THE Councilmember Fraley-Monillas as d if a motion to adjourn was d atable. Mr. Taraday said it was not. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION LED (3-4), COU CILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, FRALEY- MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS V G YES; D COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON AND COU L P SIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point o erso 1 privilege, suggesting in the Thursday meetings, consideration be given to the timeframe for enda items. 'Her research found items were taking close to three times the amount of time allocated the agenda and p aps more accurate timeframes would be less tiring and frustrating. Councilmember K. Johnson rai a point of order, pointing out a point o ersonal privilege is something like the room is too hot or t windows need to be opened. Councilmember ley-Monillas said her point of personal privilege was lated to comfort and understanding. She reiterated he equest for more accurate timeframes for a2end tems. CARRIED (5-1-1), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTIN N0, AND [EMBER L. JOHNSON ABSTAINING. 2. PARKS, REC1 AGREEMENT & OPEN SPACE (PROS) PLAN UPDATE ( Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes April 20, 2021 Page 21 Packet Pg. 219 7.4.c City of Edmonds - HASCO Interlocal Agreement Councilmembers: V. Olson, L. Distelhorst April 13, 2021 Packet Pg. 220 7.4.c Housing Authority of Snohomish County Operating Area in Edmonds 075 1SMiles HASCO in Edmonds Legend _ Proposed Operating Area Current Operating Area city Boundary -�_ • Edmonds Highlands Roadway HASCO Property � • 120 units, 1-3 B R, 1-2 BA apartments 3 •Currently 113 of 120 units rented to residents below 80% AMI (requirement is 60 of 120 units) • Olympic View �SSw Olympic View t zia, • 45 units, senior and persons with and Sound View disabilities only • Sound View N • 43 units, senior and persons with Edmonds Highlands disabilities only 1 Packet Pg. 221 7.4.c What the draft ILA.does not do... • There are no preferences, incentives, or concessions • No code, zoning or density changes • Does not guarantee more HASCO properties • No city financing for possible properties as part of this ILA 1 Packet Pg. 222 7.4.c What is included in the draft [LA • Establishes HASCO as the City's official housing authority • Allows HASCO to operate within the geographic limits of the City of Edmonds, like any property purchaser/owner • Creates partnership 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. Packet Pg. 223 7.4.c Recommendations from recent studies focused on housing development • Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission - January 2021: Execute an interlocal agreement (ILA) with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) allowing HASCO to operate within Edmonds geographic boundaries. (14-1 vote) • Snohomish County Housing Affordability Regional Task Force (HART) - January 2020: Encourage cities to enter into cooperation agreements with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) and Everett Housing Authority. • Edmonds Housing Needs Study - December 2018: Institutional capacity for administering rental assistance is limited. Although providing rental assistance may contribute needed resources to these programs, administration by the City may be difficult given the current lack of local capacity. Coordination with existing public housing agencies such as HASCO would be more effective. c W E m a 0 0 U U) a Packet Pg. 224 7.4.c Conclusions • Edmonds remains a challenging jurisdiction as real estate prices are extremely high • Edmonds-HASCO partnership could focus on collaboration with existing resources and regional partnerships with other organizations or neighboring cities • Creates opportunity to explore long-term solutions • Recommendation: authorize Mayor to sign ILA with HASCO Packet Pg. 225 7.4.d M1►YY�1;7r[�Z�1:�1I�eH7�1�1uI�1�YlI:l11lY;(IJ;7ri11�[eilY.ly HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY TO FUNCTION WITHIN THE CITY OF EDMONDS This interlocal agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into effective on the day of , (MONTH, YEAR), between the HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, hereinafter referred to as "HASCO", and the City of Edmonds, hereinafter referred to as "the City", upon the following terms and conditions: The City recognizes the need for a housing authority to function within the City and provides for an Interlocal Agreement for such services with HASCO by City Resolution No. pursuant to RCW 35A.11.040. HASCO currently operates multiple properties within the City and is willing to, and is desirous of, furthering this work and functioning within the boundaries of the City consistent with RCW 35.82.070(13). Pursuant to RCW 39.34 RCW, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, the City and HASCO may enter into an Interlocal Agreement. In consideration of the foregoing and the mutual promises set forth below, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Authority to Function. Upon passage of a resolution of the City declaring the need for HASCO to operate within City boundaries, HASCO is authorized to function within the geographic boundaries of the City as if created pursuant to RCW 35.82.030 and may exercise all powers set forth in RCW 35.82.070. 2. Purpose of Agreement. The purpose and intent of this Agreement is to define the responsibilities of HASCO and the City as they relate to housing authority projects within City boundaries. 3. Effective Date and Duration. This Agreement shall not take effect unless and until it has been duly executed by both parties and either filed with the County Auditor or posted on the County's Interlocal Agreements website. This Agreement shall remain in effect until terminated pursuant to its terms. 4. Independent Contractor. HASCO shall perform all obligations of a housing authority N as an independent contractor and not as an agent, employee, or servant of the City. HASCO shall be 00 solely responsible for control, supervision, direction and discipline of its personnel, who are employees and agents of HASCO and not the City. a� 5. Planning, Zoning and Building Ordinances. All housing projects of HASCO shall be subject to all planning, zoning, sanitary and building laws, ordinances and regulations of the City unless r otherwise waived in whole or part by resolution. Q 6. Coordination. HASCO shall keep the City informed as to contemplated projects and as to the status of development and operations of projects located within the City. In the planning and location of any housing project, HASCO shall take into consideration the relationship of such project to the comprehensive plan and long-range planning programs enacted by the City. Nothing herein shall be construed as authorizing the City to become involved in operation of housing projects by HASCO or determination of rentals and tenant selection. Packet Pg. 226 7.4.d To further HASCO's mission and the City's housing goals, both HASCO and the City shall endeavorto: A. Assist in data requests and research on housing statistics relevant to the City and Snohomish County, as well as information on best practices in affordable housing development; B. Coordinate on other possible regional partnerships with neighboring jurisdictions, non-profit organizations, or other groups as the parties mutually deem appropriate; C. Maintain regular communications between appropriate HASCO and City staff to provide information on existing housing programs available to City residents. 7. Contract Administration. This Interlocal Agreement shall be administered by the representative of each party specified below who is designated as that party's Administrator. Any written notice required by terms of this Agreement shall be served or mailed as follows: If to the City: Mayor City of Edmonds 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 If to the Authority: Executive Director Housing Authority of Snohomish County 12711 4th Ave W Everett, WA 98204 Either party may change its Adminstrator at any time by delivering written notice of such party's new Administrator to the other party. 8. Financing. FIASCO is solely responsible for the financing of the housing authority projects authorized by this Agreement. The City is providing no financial support to HASCO and is not involved in any way in the financing or ownership of such projects unless it specifically provides for such financial support or participation by separate agreement. 9. Insurance. FIASCO shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from, or in connection with, the exercise of the rights and privileges granted by this Agreement by HASCO, its agents, representatives, employees, and subcontractors. The cost of such insurance shall be paid by HASCO. 10. Indemnification. HASCO shall indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents, and employees or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any act, negligent act, or omission of HASCO, its officers, agents and employees, or any of them relating to or arising out of the performance of this Interlocal Agreement; and if final judgment be rendered against the City, and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, or jointly against HASCO and the City and their T N ao A c d E z c� r r Q Packet Pg. 227 7.4.d respective officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, the City shall satisfy the same to the extent that such judgment was due to the City's negligent acts or omissions. 11. Default and Remedies. If either HASCO or the City fails to perform any act or obligation required to be performed by it hereunder, the other party shall deliver written notice of such failure to the non -performing party. The non -performing party shall have twenty (20) days after its receipt of such notice in which to correct its failure to perform the act or obligation at issue, after which time it shall be in default under this Agreement; provided, however, that if the non-performance is of a type that could not reasonably be cured within said twenty (20) day period, then the non -performing party shall not be in default if it commences cure within said twenty (20) day period and thereafter diligently pursues cure to completion. In the event of a party's default under this Agreement, then after giving notice and an opportunity to cure as set forth above, the non -defaulting party shall have the right to exercise any or all rights and remedies available to it in law or equity. 12. Dispute Resolution. In the event differences between the parties should arise over the terms and conditions or the performance of this Agreement, the parties shall use their best efforts to resolve those differences on an informal basis. If those differences cannot be resolved informally, the matter may be referred for mediation to a mediator mutually selected by the parties. The costs of mediation shall be split equally between the parties. If mediation is not successful or if a party waives mediation, either of the parties may institute legal action for specific performance of this Agreement or for damages. In the event that a lawsuit is instituted to enforce any provision of this Agreement, the substantially prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all costs of such lawsuit, including reasonable attorneys' fees from the other party. 13. Termination of Contract. This Interlocal Agreement, and performance hereunder, may be terminated by either party by the service or mailing of written notice of such termination, specifying the extent and effective date thereof, but not sooner than sixty (60) days from date of such notice. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, termination of this Agreement shall not terminate the power of HASCO to continue to operate existing housing projects and to complete new projects under development pursuant to prior approval, until such time that the City or a separate housing authority assumes such projects by agreement and pursuant to law. 14. Notices. All notices required to be given by any party to the other party under this 02 Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered either in person, by United States mail, or by c electronic mail (email) to the applicable Administrator or the Administrator's designee. Notice delivered 00 in person shall be deemed given when accepted by the recipient. Notice by United States mail shall be deemed given as of the date the same is deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and c addressed to the Administrator, or their designee, at the addresses set forth in Section 7 of this a) Agreement. Notice delivered by email shall be deemed given as of the date and time received by the ca recipient. r Q 15. Miscellaneous. a. Compliance with Laws. In the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, each party shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules and regulations. Packet Pg. 228 7.4.d b. Construction and Venue. This Interlocal Agreement shall be construed in accordance with laws of the State of Washington. In event of any litigation regarding the construction or effect of this Interlocal Agreement, or the rights of the parties pursuant to this Interlocal Agreement, it is agreed that venue shall be Snohomish County, Washington. c. Merger and Amendment. This Interlocal Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the matters set forth herein and any prior or contemporaneous understandings are merged herein. This Interlocal Agreement shall not be modified except by written instrument executed by all parties hereto with the same formalities as required for this Agreement. d. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, for any reason and to any extent, be found invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement and the application of that provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby, but shall instead continue in full force and effect, to the extent permitted by law. e. No Waiver. A party's forbearance or delay in exercising any right or remedy with respect to a default by the other party under this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of the default at issue. Nor shall a waiver by either party of any particular default constitute a waiver of any other default or any similar future default. f. No Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assigned, either in whole or in part, by either party without the express written consent of the other party, which may be granted or withheld in such parry's sole discretion. Any attempt to assign this Agreement in violation of the preceding sentence shall be null and void and shall constitute a default under this Agreement. g. Warranty of Authority. Each of the signatories hereto warrants and represents that he or she is competent and authorized to enter into this Agreement on behalf of the party for whom he or she purports to sign this Agreement. h. No Joint Venture. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as creating r any type or manner of partnership, joint venture or other joint enterprise between the w parties. A �.i C i. No Separate Entity Necessary. The parties agree that no separate legal or administrative d entities are necessary to carry out this Agreement. c� r r j. Ownership of Property. Except as expressly provided to the contrary in this Agreement, Q any real or personal property used or acquired by either party in connection with its performance under this Agreement will remain the sole property of such party, and the other party shall have no interest therein. Packet Pg. 229 7.4.d k. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement and each and every provision hereof is for the sole benefit of HASCO and the City. No other persons or parties shall be deemed to have any rights in, under or to this Agreement. 1. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement. CITY OF EDMONDS HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY Mike Nelson, Mayor Duane Leonard, Executive Director ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney T- N 00 T- A �.i C 0) E t t) r r Q Packet Pg. 230 7.4.e RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY REGARDING OPERATIONS WITHIN THE CITY. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds and the Housing Authority of Snohomish County ("HASCO") are proposing terms of an Interlocal Agreement to allow HASCO to acquire and operate properties within the boundaries of the City for housing authority purposes when they become available for aquisition; and WHEREAS, while the City has not yet activated the housing authority of the City of Edmonds pursuant to Chapter 35.82.RCW, RCW 35.82.070(13), which provides that a housing authority, such as HASCO, may exercise its powers outside of its area of operation under certain conditions; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that there is a need for HASCO to execise its powers within the boundaries of the City in connection with such housing authority projects; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Declaration of Need. The City Council hereby declares, pursuant to RCW 35.82.070(13), that the HASCO properties already operating within the boundaries of the City of Edmonds and those that may be purchased in the future pursuant to the interlocal agreement serve a need in the City of Edmonds. Section 2. Authorization. The City Council hereby authorizes the mayor to execute the interlocal agreement between the City and HASCO attached hereto as Attachment A. RESOLVED this day of May 2021. CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR, MIKE NELSON ATTEST: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: Packet Pg. 231 7.4.e PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. Q Packet Pg. 232 7.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/4/2021 Project Update on Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project Staff Lead: Robert English Department: Engineering Preparer: Sydney Hall Background/History 3/10/2020 - Sound Transit Funding Agreement presented to the Public Works and Parks Committee. 7/21/20 - Public hearing on Approval of Sound Transit Funding Agreement. 8/4/20 - City Council approved the Sound Transit Funding Agreement. 10/13/20 - The Professional Services Agreement with Blueline, Inc was presented to the Public Works and Parks Committee. 10/20/20 - City Council approved the Professional Services Agreement with Blueline, Inc Staff Recommendation Approve recommended design alternatives. Narrative Data collection and analysis for the Citywide Bicycle Improvements project began in Fall of 2020 after the City executed a design contract with its consultant, Blueline Inc. The team began collecting parking and traffic data as well as initiating an outreach plan that began by interacting directly with residents who previously reached out to the City Council about the project. After the initial data collection was complete, Blueline developed design alternatives for the affected corridors based on resident input and the results of the data. These design alternatives were presented to the public via a web -based survey and a video -conference public meeting on February 24th that was advertised to reach as many stakeholders as possible. The design team used input from residents and traffic and parking data to recommend design alternatives for the affected corridors. City and Blueline staff will review the data collection and design process, and present the recommended design alternatives. Attachments: Exhibit 1 Bike Lanes Presentation Packet Pg. 233 Citywide Bicycle Improvements QBWELINE Packet Pg. 234 m E m 0 Op E. Q - E tiG Citywide project to add bike facilities on both sides of multiple area streets m Funded by a $1.85 million Sound Transit Access grant ` 3 U Adds over 6 miles of bike facilities, bringing Citywide total to 17 miles — an increasf of approximately 50% Project corridors: _ 100th Ave W/9th Ave S: 244th St SW to Walnut St _ Walnut St/Bowdoin Way: 9th Ave S to 84th Ave W a a 228th St SW: 78th Ave W to 80th Ave W J d Y 80t h Ave W: 228th St SW to 220th St SW r t k w _ d 2 E w Q Packet Pg. 235 PROJECT OVERVIEW: 19 ALIGNMENT A2: BOWDOIN WAY FROM 9TH AVE. § TO 94TH AVE. W ALIGNMENT Al: 100TH AVE. - - FROM 244TH ST. S / 205TH ST_ SW TO WALNUT ST. mpr {� ALONG WTH AVE. W FROMI 228TH ST, SW TO 220TH ST. SW ALIGNMENT A3: 229TH ST. SW FROM S(YTH AVE. W, TO 7 1H AVE. -. Packet Pg. 236 Efforts to Date: 2009-2019 July 2020 Aug 2020 Oct/Nov 2020 Nov/Dec 2020 Dec 2020 Jan 2021 February 2021 May 2021 m E m 0 Op E. Q - E tiG y r m `" t D Citywide Bike Plan/TIP/Sound Transit Grant Pursuit 3 U _ Public Hearing with City Council City Council approved Accepting Funds L Blueline selected to assist City with Outreach and Design 0 Survey, Parking Study, Traffic Analysis completed L Listening Sessions held with the Community _ J Preliminary Design Alternatives submitted to City for ReviE m r Public Outreach — Website, Survey, Zoom Meeting W Project update to City Council 4 E w a Packet Pg. 237 7.5.a Design Timeline: Preliminary Design Submittal Community Listening Sessions Notice to Proceed 60% Design Submittal Public Meeting TT v Public Meeting Final Design Submittal 90% Design Submittal Construction Begins SEP NOV JAN MAR MAY JUL SEP NOV JAN MAR 2020 2021 2022 N C d E N O �[ E. CL i E ?� v d n 1 V C1 co (D 3 U c 0 m �a a U 0 0 L a m MAY JUL x w m 5 E� a Packet Pg. 238 Efforts to Date: Mapping/Field Survey Parking Analysis Traffic Analysis Methodology for Alternatives Preliminary Design Public Involvement Listening sessions Public open house Public survey Alternatives Analysis EDMONDS CITYWIDE BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS PARKING AND OPERATIONS ANALYSIS REPORT January 19, 2D21 Prepared for. Clty of Edmonds Public Works DepartmenVEnglnaering Dlvlsloa 121 511 Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Prepared by! JPN CONSULTING Balanced Transporlatkon 5olutions 913 MIX Jr Way, Suite A Tacoma, WA 98405 0 253.267.8650 Packet Pg. 239 Data Collection Data was collected over 3 days in Nov 2020 Wednesday Friday Sunday Number of cars parked was recorded every hour from 7:00 AM to7:00PM EDMONDS CITYWIDE BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS PARKING AND OPERATIONS ANALYSIS REPORT January 19, 2021 Prepared for. Clly of Edmonds Public Works DepartmenVEnglnaering Dlvlsloa 121 511 Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Prepared by! JPN CONSULTING Balanced Transporlatkon 5olutions 913 MIX Jr Way, Suite A Tacoma, WA 98405 ❑ 253.267.8650 Packet Pg. 240 What does the data show? Total of 518 spaces along project 310 on Bowdoin Way/Walnut St 208 on 9th Ave S Average of 7% of stalls are used at any time throughout project 481 parking stalls available COVI D correction factor Use rate is similar to results collected in 2018, pre-COVID No correction factor applied Packet Pg. 241 Data Collection Road tube counts were collected Nov 17th1 2020 — Nov 23rd, 2020 (1 week) Turning movement counts were collected Wednesday Nov 181h, 2020 Turning movements counts indicate how traffic volumes are split at the intersection COVID-19 correction factor applied m Based on change in volumes at 238th St rry� ` 3 SW and Hwy 99 between Aug 2019 and _ 0 L a Aug 2020 Morning: 1.7x Afternoon: 1.3x Packet Pg. 242 Dedicated Left Turn Lanes Northbound and southbound left turn lanes will be added at 9t" Ave S and Pine St Data collected in April 2021 during afternoon peak hours meet WSDOT Design Manual requirements to add lanes m E m 0 Op E. Q. -ell- E �p m 1120. , D 3 U _ 0 L a _ 10 E a Packet Pg. 243 7.5.a Efforts to Date: Listening sessions — 12/10/2020 90 residents who previously showed interest in project were contacted by email to attend, 21 attended Public open house — 2/24/2021 90 residents contacted by email to attend 150 door hangers distributed N C d E N O Op E. Q. e - E �p d rry, m 3 U C O Message board announcing meeting placed along project o Postings in Edmonds Beacon, My Edmonds New and City Facebook page 60 attendees J d Y_ m Public survey — Closed on 3/1/2021 x W 11 E a Packet Pg. 244 Public Outreach Results Key Issues Parking at Yost Park Improved pedestrian crossings throughout project areas Speeding vehicles Survey results 91 responses 100th Ave W/9th Ave S — Alternative 2A Bowdoin Way/Walnut St — Alternative 3 100th Ave W/9th Ave S Survey Results 21% 24% 9% lisp 46% Alternative 1 ■ Alternative 2A Alternative 2B ■ Alternative 3 Bowdoin Way/Walnut St Survey Results lki2% 40% 28% ■ Alternative 1 ■ Alternative 2 — Alternative 3 0 m E m 0 Op E. Q. ell� _ E �p m !h l D 3 U C 0 a` 12 E v Q Packet Pg. 245 *for schematic representation only v w Q Packet Pg. 246 Crossing Bowdoin Way & Pioneer Way/901" Ave W =* Flashing beacons Crosswalk markings Bulb-out(s) Packet Pg. 247 Improved Pedestrian ' Crossing z- V!7 i z t IY _rtE i `A I 'R k 9 � 9t"Ave S&Pine St Flashing beacons Packet Pg. 248 PUBLIC OUTREACH: PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS C AVE 220TH"STSW Ac LEM WA•! rim ui JAI VIIH ST5IM 224M STSw.-... - r j t Q .j . a Bowdoin Way/Walnut St speed study Completed in March 2021 33mph for 85th percentile (current speed limit 30 mph) 9th Ave S/100th Ave W speed study Completed in 2017 36 mph for 85th percentile (current speed limit 30 mph) Vehicle speeds are expected to decrease Pedestrian bulb outs, flashing beacons and marked crosswalks at select locations Lane width reduction shown to reduce driving speed Packet Pg. 250 ORNERS TO 9T" AVE 10 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE NORTH LOOKING EA 4 F * 1 4 1 5' SIDEWALK 7' PARKING LANE 6' BIKE LANE MIN. 10.5' WESTBOUND DRIVE LANE -W r 0 r 0 MIN. 10.5' EASTBOUND DRIVE LANE m 0 L a E a) SOUTH 5, 5' BIKE LANE • Geometry should contribute to traffic calming • There is greater usage of parking on the north side of the street • Street width allows dedicated bike lanes in both directions while retaining parking on one side of the street • Sharrows are typically used in downhill sections; Bowdoin has both uphill and downhill sections making sharrows less effective 5' SIDEWALK Y m 18 E a Packet Pg. 251 7.5.a N C d E N O L RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE E WEST LOOKING NORTH EAST ;, 'm 3 U c O d O 0 L a c O r �a r c m a� L a as c �a J • Public survey results indicated alternative 2A was most desired m • Homes on the west side tend to have shorter and steeper driveways, while homes on the east side tend to have more off- street parking x • The current 4-lane configuration at Walnut St will remain as is to maintain PM peak hour Level of Service "' • A greater number of cars park on the west side 19 • There are fewer driveways and streets on the west side, allowing for a greater number of parking stalls to be retained a Packet Pg. 252 RECOMMENDED CONFIGURATION • This configuration minimizes lane offset that is currently m E m > 0 L Q E present at this intersection • The northeast corner of the intersection will be widened in 3 order to provide bike lanes through the intersection along the curb o • The northbound right turn lane has been removed; however free right turn movements are not currently allowed at the intersection • Left turn movements on 91" Ave S/1001" Ave W will get a a green arrow followed by a flashing yellow; This will improve o safety and level of service at this intersection r *green is for visual representation only of proposed bike lanes _ 20 E Packet Pg. 253 7.5.a RECOMMENDED CONFIGURATION • Provides a single northbound bike lane • Addition of bike lane has little effect on wait time at the intersection • Provides two through lanes with a left turn lane (same as existing configuration) • Adds sharrows for southbound travel • Balances the needs of bicyclists and vehicles i *green is for visual representation only of proposed bike lanes Packet Pg. 254 ALTERNATIVE 1 N a � ;mow- 11 1 \1 Provides bike lane in each direction Significantly increases wait time for motorists on all 4 legs ALTERNATIVE 2 I t OFC PCC 41 ,\ 1.1111�N 1! I I , To F—, 3 18 � To15 _ Bartells ; Key Bank 1 _ fir, I *green is for visual representation only of proposed bike lanes E • Provides one bike lane in northbound direction and m sharrow lane with bike rams 3 in southbound direction • Provides two through lanes o each direction • This configuration narrows the lane width from 13' to 1 to provide two through IanE a • This configuration has very little impact on wait time fo OM motorists a� a _ J M.he W r x W 22 E w Q Packet Pg. 255 7.5.a arc r� "g PCC ALTERNATIVE 3 T _ o ti� o 44 ti t#ttt�t#t## a I� — _ Ta�S • Provides sharrows to the outside lane for bike users who are comfortable enough to pass through the intersection with vehicle traffic and will add bike on/off ramps to the sidewalk for a shared walkway L) • In this configuration, it is expected that curb line o adjustments will need to be made in order to provide enough room on sidewalks to allow pedestrian and bicycles to comfortably share • Bike users who are using the sidewalks will be asked to a move through the intersection in the same manner as a o pedestrian, sharing a narrow sidewalk r • This configuration has no impact on wait time for motorists C C M J d m L X W 23 E v �a Q Packet Pg. 256 7.5.a N _ d E N O L Q. d WEST LOOKING NORTH EAST m 3 U _ O d ��� - • O r �a r c m as L 1 I N _ 5' SIDEWALK 5' BIKE LANE ll' SOUTHBOUND DRIVE LANE 11' TURN LANE ll' NORTHBOUND DRIVE LANE 5' BIKE LANE 5' SIDEWALK m m • Provides a bike lane in each direction m • Provides a center turn lane x W 24 s' a Packet Pg. 257 RECOMMENDED CONFIGURATION • This configuration has the shortest southbound queue length during extreme traffic conditions (school peak period) • This configuration provides a dedicated left turn lane for school traffic from the northbound direction • Relocation of crosswalk to south side of the intersection *green is for visual representation only of proposed bike lanes Packet Pg. 258 RECOMMENDED CONFIGURATION • This configuration has little to no lane offset and has a relatively short queue length in the southbound right turn lane m E m > 0 L Q E m • This keeps the bike lane along the sidewalk through the L) intersection in the northbound direction and following 0 the right turn lane in the southbound direction 0 L a _ d *green is for visual representation only of proposed bike lanes 26 E 0 w Q Packet Pg. 259 7.5.a N _ d E N O L Q. d WEST LOOKING NORTH EAST m 3 _ 0 d ��� - • O r �a r c m as L 1 I N _ 5' SIDEWALK 5' BIKE LANE ll' SOUTHBOUND DRIVE LANE 11' TURN LANE ll' NORTHBOUND DRIVE LANE 5' BIKE LANE 5' SIDEWALK m m • Provides a bike lane in each direction m • Provides a center turn lane x W 27 E w Q Packet Pg. 260 7.5.a SOUTH LOOKING WEST NORTH � � r 5=6' BIKE LANE 11' EASTBOUND DR1VF LANE 11" WESTBOUND DRIVE LANE 5' BIKE LANE • Roadway will be widened to add a bike lane in each direction • Connects into existing bike lanes on 2281" St SW near Hwy 99 • Wider bike lane will be provided on the western end of street where existing widths allow N C d E N O L Q. E 28 E Packet Pg. 261 WEST Itole] .XPi, L0 10,L6]M:l 10' SOUTHBOUND DRIVE LANE • Sharrows will be added in each direction • Work in Snohomish County 10' NORTHBOUND DRIVE LANE EAST 29 E a Packet Pg. 262 Public Contact Information: Email: bikelanes@edmondswa.org Project Contact: Ryan Hague, Capital Projects Manager Phone: (425) 771-0220 Project Website: City Project Website • Description, Status, Timeline • Outreach Efforts HOME GOVERNMENT SERVICES DOINGBUSINESS IWANTTO... VISITEDMONDS CALENDARS PUBLIC WORKS AND UTILITIES Hwy 99 Gateway Prgec[ Citywide Bicydeimarrn ai- Willow Creek Daytigbtmg and MarsM1 Resrora6on Ballinger Regional Facility Projea Water Udrny system Sewer Utility System rn m E m 0 OF E. CL E �d m m C. t (D CITY OF EDMONDS I WASIHINGTON _ 0 CL 0 L a Gay of Fdmonds,_)26/G2!w nt/J,T„ene is/Publi[Works end O[ildies/Cityvnde 8icydelmprovemenu O CITYWIDE BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS �..r BICYCLE IM PROVEME _ PROJECT CONTACT Qi Project Management Tea w ie �mwaa.oy Gr.swroum bikelanes®edmondswa.gnv L ' 425-771-0220 IL .tti>✓ (� Si tiene problemas Para compri inge, lauede pedlr, Mn tosta,s - w. nvtw de ayodh linguistick, i la J .� 1111111161 de este praYecto, r �w��rx poni@ndaseencontactotonM Qi sr.sw rawaurm sr.---»... Hague a ryan.hague@edmonds Y Ili (425)771-0220. m F� r y.a t x W _ 30 E a Packet Pg. 263 QUESTIONS? _ 31 E Packet Pg. 264 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 05/4/2021 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 Special Council Finance Committee meeting minutes are attached. Attachments: FC042121 Packet Pg. 265 8.1.a SPECIAL FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING April 21, 2021 Elected Officials Participating Virtually Staff Participating Virtually Councilmember Vivian Olson Dave Turley, Finance Director Councilmember Diane Buckshnis (joined at 3:45 p.m.) Scott Passey, City Clerk 1. CALL TO ORDER The Edmonds City Council virtual online Special Finance Committee meeting was called to order at 3:34 p.m. by Councilmember Olson. 2. COMMITTEE BUSINESS 1. PFD Financial Discussion The following PFD representatives were present: • Joe Mclalwain, Executive Director • Matt Keller, Director of Operations • David Brewster, PFD Board President • Rick Canning, ECA Board Member • Rob Shelley, EPFD Financial Advisor, Piper Sandler Mr. Mclalwain provided background on the formation of the PFD an overview of the EPFD Capital debt: 2002/2012 Bond Issue • Issued by City of Edmonds 11/19/2002 • Refunded by City of Edmonds10/18/12 • Guaranteed by projected PFD sales tax • Amount of original bond issue: 7,015,000 ($1,015,000 paid by City and $6,000,000 paid by EPFD) • Interest rate: 3%-4.9% • Amount refunded in 2012: $4,95,000 ($4,965,000 paid by EPFD) • Interest rate: 1.69% • Final payment eue 12/1/2026 • Callable December 2022 2008 Bond Issue/2018 Bank Loan • Issued by EPFD • Guaranteed by project PFD sales tax revenue • Amount of original bond issue: $4M ($4M paid by EPFD) • Interest rate: 425%-4.5% • Amount refunded in 2018 ( bank loan): $2,803,516 ($2,803,516 paid by EPFD) • Interest rate: 3% • Final payment due: 12/1/2028 Remaininq Principal I Remaininq Interest I Remaininq Total N N r a� as r r E E 0 U v c 0 U N_ N 0 U U- c W E U 2 a Packet Pg. 266 8.1.a 04/21/21 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 2 2012 Refunded bonds $2,585,000 $173,298 $2,758,298 2018 Refunded Bonds FFBW $2,523,164 $384,082 $2,907,246 Total Bond Debt Outstanding $5,108,164 $557,380 $5,665,544 Due to City of Edmonds Loan 1,215,552 Total Outstanding Capital Debt $6,881,096 Mr. Mclalwain reviewed considerations related to timing, structure, term, amount/use. Mr. Shelley reviewed: • Financing overview o Graph of outstanding debt (city loan payments, 2018 bank loan and 2012 city LTGO Bonds) o Goals for refinancing ■ Secure the district's sales and use tax revenue stream through 2041,per RCW 82.14.390 ■ Achieve cash flow savings in years 22021-2028 o Market Conditions ■ Graph of historical tax-exempt interest rates 10-year AAA MMD ■ Graph of range of tax-exempt interest rates (MMD) April 2011-present (average and current) Refinancing Options (annual debt service payments - currently and if refunded) o Scenario 1 — refunding in fall 2021 — potential components include the following: ■ Taxable refunding of 2012 City LTGO Bonds ■ Tax-exempt refunding of 2018 bank loan ■ Taxable refunding of City loan o Scenario 2 — refunding in fall 2022 — potential components include the following: ■ Tax-exempt refunding of 2012 City LTGO Bonds ■ Tax-exempt refunding of 2018 bank loan ■ Taxable refunding of City loan Questions and discussion followed regarding extension of the PFD legislation to 2041 that requires a portion of original debt be outstanding until 2041, whether that law could be changed, reasons for considering refinancing, whether there was any benefit to consolidating and refinancing all debt, Mr. Shelley's history with the EPFD, involving the City's bond counsel, Tier 1 and 2 sales tax revenue streams, whether interest rates will change, tax-exempt versus taxable refunding, assumption a principal payment would not be required in 2021, total amount if all three are refunded, whether refunding the 2012 bonds would require the City to refinance as well, life of the asset, whether the City would be interested in issuing bonds that mature in 2041, benefits of repaying the loan to the City, estimated sales tax collections vs. debt service payments, adding sales tax collections to the graphs in the scenarios, variability of Tier 2 sales tax revenue, funds received from SnoCo LTAC 2021-2025, market for this size an issue, and benefits of the City issuing the bonds on behalf of the PFD. Mr. Mclalwain relayed the PFD Board has not yet considered refunding or the options; that is the first step. Action: Information only. 3. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 4:51 p.m. N r N 0 U U_ c W U a Packet Pg. 267