2021-06-22 City Council - Full Agenda-28981.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
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
JUNE 22, 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
PRESENTATION
1. Resolution rejecting racially based harassment and hate crimes (5 min)
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
Edmonds City Council Agenda
June 22, 2021
Page 1
1. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of June 15, 2021
2. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of June 15, 2021
3. Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
4. Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Donald Cadieux
5. Resolution rejecting racially based harassment and hate crimes
6. Urban Forest Planner Job Description
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Clarification of Tree Regulations for Development (40 min)
9. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS
1. Outside Boards and Committee Reports (0 min)
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
ADJOURN
Edmonds City Council Agenda
June 22, 2021
Page 2
4.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/22/2021
Resolution rejecting racially based harassment and hate crimes
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Council
Preparer: Maureen Judge
Background/History
There has been a long history of prejudice, bias and extreme actions against Asians including the
internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. Harassment and Hate Crimes against Asians have risen
dramatically, up 164% over the last year.* (*Study from the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism
at Cal State University San Bernardino.) On March 21, cities around the country including Edmonds and
Bellevue rallied against hate speech and hate crimes; Governor Jay Inslee denounced hate and violence
after recent attacks on Asian and Pacific Islanders in Washington State. May 20, 2021 President Biden
signed bill aimed at countering a rise in anti -Asian crimes during the Coronavirus pandemic. The
legislation is called the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
May was Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage month in the United States --recognizing the
contributions and influence of Asian Americans and Pacific Islander Americans through their history,
culture, and many achievements in the United States.
The Covid-19 pandemic has served as a basis to justify hate speech and cannot be tolerated.
Attachments:
Resolution Addressing Hate
Packet Pg. 3
4.1.a
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REJECTING RACIALLY
BASED HARASSMENT AND HATE CRIMES, PARTICULARLY AGAINST ASIAN AMERICANS AND PACIFIC
ISLANDERS DUE TO COVID 19
Whereas, the City of Edmonds previously adopted Resolution No 1381 in 2017 declaring the City of
Edmonds to be an equitable, safe, and inviting community for everyone who lives in, works in and visits
Edmonds; and,
Whereas we strongly condemn bullying, intimidation or any other acts of hate based on race or
ethnicity; and
Whereas, since the outbreak of Covid-19 there has been a marked increase in harassment and hate
crimes, particularly against Asian American and Pacific Islanders; and
Whereas, misinformation and the use of anti -Asian terminology and rhetoric have perpetuated anti -
Asian stigma and resulted in an increase of acts of hate against Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders and
immigrants and refugees; and
Whereas, we have a responsibility, as elective representatives, to speak out against hate and
discrimination against our residents or visitors to our city; and
Whereas, the City will continue its efforts to prevent hate crimes against Asian American and Pacific
Islanders; and
Whereas, the City desires to further demonstrate its commitment to inclusivity given the abuses
occurring during COVID 19;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City of Edmonds condemns harassment and hate crimes due to COVID-19 and denounces
all COVID-19 related misnaming, blaming and harassment based on race, ethnicity, or place of origin.
Section 2. The City of Edmonds encourages community members who observe or are experiencing
incidents of harassment or hate crimes to call 911 in emergency situations and to report all incidents to
the Washington State Human Rights Commission (1-800-233-3247).
Passed by the City Council the 22nd Day of June, 2021
APPROVED:
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Pg. 4
4.1.a
Mike Nelson, Mayor
a
Packet Pg. 5
7.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/22/2021
Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of June 15, 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:
6-15-2021 Draft Council Special Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 6
7.1.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE SPECIAL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
June 15, 2021
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Adrienne Fraley Monillas, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Council President
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Council President Pro Tern
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Mike Nelson, Mayor
1. CALL TO ORDER
STAFF PRESENT
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney's Office
Angela Tinker, City Attorney's Office
Phil Williams, PW Director
At 6:30 p.m., the Edmonds City Council Special Meeting was called to order by Mayor Nelson. The Council
utilized the Zoom online meeting platform to conduct this meeting.
2. EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
The Council then convened in executive session to discuss pending or potential litigation per RCW
42.30.110(1)(i).
MEETING EXTENSION
At 7:00 p.m., Mayor Nelson announced that the executive session would be extended for five minutes, until
7:05 p.m.
MEETING EXTENSION
At 7:05 p.m., Mayor Nelson announced that the executive session would be extended for five minutes, until
7:10 p.m.
ADJOURN
At 7:10 p.m., the executive session concluded and the meeting was adjourned.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 1
Packet Pg. 7
7.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/22/2021
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of June 15, 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:
6-15-2021 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 8
7.2.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
June 15, 2021
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Susan Paine, Council President
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Vivian Olson, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Brook Roberts, Student Representative
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director
Shannon Burley, Deputy Parks & Recreation Dir.
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Mgr.
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Angela Tinker, City Attorney's Office
Scott Passey, City Clerk
Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst
The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:12 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The
meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember K. Johnson read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We acknowledge
the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip
Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect
their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the
land and water."
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely.
4. PRESENTATIONS
1. JUNETEENTH PROCLAMATION
Mayor Nelson read a proclamation proclaiming June 19t' as Juneteenth Independence Day in the City of
Edmonds.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 1
Packet Pg. 9
7.2.a
Councilmember Distelhorst recognized Alicia Crank and Donnie Griffin who were present to receive the
proclamation and other community members unable to attend tonight, Nashika Standbro, Courtney Wooten
and Luis Harris.
Mr. Griffin, Founding Principal of Lift Every Voice Legacy, thanked Councilmember Distelhorst and
Mayor Nelson for ushering this Juneteenth proclamation through the process. Some may not be aware that
the Snohomish County Juneteenth Festival of Freedom Committee selected Edmonds City Park as a
marquee location for the festival this year; unfortunately, the tightening, loosening and re -tightening of
COVID restrictions by the State made planning impossible. Instead a collaboration of virtual and in -person
events hosted by community groups throughout Snohomish County began June 6th and extends through
June 25t''. Activities include historic storytelling, a live Black Candidate Forum called New Leaders and
New Table which Alicia Crank participated in, the State of Black Community Affairs hosted by the NAACP
and a live streamed church service on Sunday. The public can join these celebrations by going to Lift Every
Voice Legacy's website, Beloved4all.org/Juneteenth2021.
Mr. Griffin said his greatest hope was that Juneteenth would be a holiday celebrated by all Washingtonians
and embraced as a day of emancipation, a day of freedom, a day of liberation like July 4t'', a holiday that
brings us all together, unites us in fellowship under the common value justice and freedom for all. By
issuing this proclamation and inscribing it in City code, the City becomes a significant partner in this dream
and journey. He wished all a Happy Juneteenth.
Ms. Crank commended Mr. Griffin and community members who worked tirelessly to put these activities
together.
2. LGBTQ+ RESOLUTION FOR JUNE PRIDE
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas read a resolution recognizing June 2021 as Pride Month in Edmonds and
celebrating our lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual gender non-
conforming, pansexual, and 2 spirit (LGBTQ+) community and affirming that LGBTQ+ rights are human
rights and encouraging the public to join the city of Edmonds to advocate for LGBTQ+ rights, support
community members who identify as LGBTQ+, and celebrate the contributions that they make to our city.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented this is the first time the City has recognized Pride Month. She
introduced wives Sarah Mixson and Oshuna Oma.
Ms. Oma thanked Mayor Nelson and Councilmember Fraley-Monillas and City Council for inviting them.
They have been fortunate in their lives to be supported and loved by their parents, families and friends
throughout their journey. Not everyone is that fortunate; many children, young people and adults live in
fear of coming out to their families, of being different, of not fitting in and they need the community's
support. Right now people need to support trans friends and their families who are trying to figure out their
gender identity which is totally different that one's sexuality. She encouraged everyone to be open and she
hoped the recognition of Price Month would continue every year. She paid tribute to the people in Stonewall
who began this effort.
Ms. Mixson commented on how much it means for the City to acknowledge the LGBTQ+ community.
Many people carry scars from being in communities where that was not a possibly. Having the City
acknowledge Pride Month and putting up a Pride Flag is part of their healing. She read a Quote from Black
lesbian poet Audrey Lorde, "It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept
and celebrate those differences." Ms. Mixson thanked the City for recognizing, celebrating and accepting
differences and recognizing that they bring their full selves to the City, are part of the City and the City is
part of them.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 2
Packet Pg. 10
7.2.a
3. YOUTH COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT AND SENIOR RECOGNITION
Deputy Parks & Recreation Director Shannon Burley wished all Happy Juneteenth and Happy Pride. She
recognized and thanked Youth Commission Coordinator Casey Colley, who been with the Youth
Commission since its inception, for the 10 hours a week she dedicates to the Youth Commission.
Ms. Colley recognized graduating commissioners.
• Jacob Sawyer, Co -Chair
o Graduating from Edmonds-Woodway High School
o Has been youth commissioner for two years holding the office of co-chair this last year
o Attending the University of Washington -Seattle in fall to study aerospace engineering
o Favorite part of being a youth commissioner was interacting with local officials and leadership
• Grace Kamila
o Graduating from Shorewood High School
o Been a youth commissioner for a year
o Attending the University of Washington in fall to get undergraduate degree. Still undecided but
leaning toward business, psychology or exercise science
o Enjoyed learning about local government policies, being involved and implementing inclusive
policies
• Hunter DeLeon
o Graduating from Edmonds-Woodway High School
o Has served as commissioner for one year
o Attending Central Washington University pursuing a degree in music education
o Enjoyed being more involved with the City of Edmonds
Youth Commission Chair Lee Owen expressed appreciation for Ms. Burley and Ms. Casey, the graduating
seniors and Councilmember L. Johnson. He and Youth Commissioners Audrey Lim (Alternate) and Brooke
Rinehimer reviewed:
Past Year Accomplishments
o Activism & Advocacy
■ Pronoun inclusion presentation
■ Earth Day volunteering
■ PSRC meeting
■ Participated in Police Chief selection
■ Collaborated with Councilmember Distelhorst on Suicide Prevention Month
o Organization
■ No longer meeting during summer
■ Recruitment during fall to line up with school year
■ Meeting on the second and fourth Wednesdays
■ Committees
- Diversity & Equity
- Environment
- Youth & Government
- Mental Health
o Networking
■ Mindy Woods, Human Services
■ Caitlin Chung, Diversity Commission
■ Jo Anna Rockwood, ESD School Psychologist
■ Robert Bumgardner, ESD Superintendent's Cabinet
■ Terese Richmond, Climate Protection
■ Fairvote WA Representatives
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 3
Packet Pg. 11
7.2.a
■ Climate Action Plan Representatives
■ Puget Sound Regional Council
o Publicity
■ Exposure through our community involvement
■ New Instagram account at 148 followers as of June 9th - @edmondsyouthcommission
o Commissioner Diversity
■ This year, we have commissioners from the following schools:
- Edmonds-Woodway High School
- Edmonds Heights K-12
- Shorewood High School
- Mountlake Terrace High School
Future Goals
o Continued Concrete Change
■ Similar to our goal from last year
■ See how we can participate in our community post -pandemic
o Building Community Connections
■ Meetings this year have been really helpful
■ We want to get our names out more and continue to build up our community presence, as
well as reach a wider audience
Councilmember Olson said she has enjoyed reading the Youth Commission minutes for the last six months,
her favorite part the description of what would happen after the presentation, getting compliments from the
Council. She commended the Youth Commission for a great job tonight and throughout the past six months
and expressed her appreciation for their time and effort. She enjoyed getting to know some of the
commissioners, recalling she met Jacob Sawyer outside Council Chambers one evening and the things on
his mind about the environment and what to do about climate change blew her mind and made her excited
about the Youth Commission and the next generation made her feel we will be in great hands going forward.
She thanked the commissioners for their involvement in the City.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked the Youth Commission for the great presentation, commenting
she had high hopes for the youth in the City as she sees a positive change. There has been a huge divide in
Edmonds over the last couple years; the Youth Commission brings togetherness and a willingness to work
together and she hoped it set an example for other youth. The City and society needs the youth and she
thanked the Youth Commission for volunteering their time.
Councilmember K. Johnson congratulated the graduating Youth Commissioners and wished them good
times at college. The Youth Commission has done a very good job and it is interesting to see where their
passions lie; the youth of today is different than the youth in generations past. She asked whether the
residency requirement was retained as the commission expanded to other high schools. Chair Lee answered
the students who attend Shorewood and Mountlake Terrace High Schools all live within the Edmonds city
limits. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested contacting King's School and Meadowdale High School.
Chair Lee commented there was a student from Meadowdale last year. He hoped to continue the trend of
more diverse commissioners and was hopeful there would be representation from all the high schools in
future years.
Councilmember Distelhorst thanked the commissioners for being present tonight and for the work they are
doing. He had a wonderful time working with Brook Roberts on Suicide Prevention Month. There are many
great ideas and options for the Council to collaborate with the Youth Commission and commissioners and
he hoped to be able to grow those relationships. The Youth Commission is working on many great ideas
that may not be at the forefront of the Council's work but can be incorporated in the future to benefit
residents and youth.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 4
Packet Pg. 12
7.2.a
Council President Paine thanked the Youth Commission for all the work they have done for the City,
recognizing the dimensions they add are absolutely unavailable from any other commission. She
appreciated and recognized the aspects and thoughts the youth bring. She has always thought teenagers
were underappreciated and she hoped commissioners felt appreciated by the adults in their world. She
appreciated the thoughtfulness the commissioners bring to their work and she looked forward to their efforts
next year. She wished them the best, to stay safe and to enjoy their summer.
Councilmember Buckshnis said bravo and thanked the commission for their presentation. She offered
congratulations to Jacob Sawyer, Grace Kamila (her selection for the Youth Commission) and Hunter
DeLeon, commenting it was fun to see commissioners at the Earth Day celebration organized by the Tree
Board. She recalled members of the Youth Commission working with Students Saving Salmon on the Holy
Rosary site last year. She also reads the Youth Commission's minutes and was excited by their ideas. She
expressed her appreciation for the commissioners' gift of volunteering.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented this was an excellent presentation, the content, the delivery and the
slides were fantastic. The Youth Commission has made a real difference and a positive contribution to the
community and she found it an honor and pleasure to work with each commissioner. She looks forward to
the Youth Commission meetings and they are her favorite; youth inspire her and give her hope especially
this Youth Commission. She wished the best to graduating seniors Jacob Sawyer, Grace Kamila and Hunter
DeLeon, commenting it has been a challenging year, but they all rose to the challenge. She summarized she
can't wait to see all that they do and wished them the very best.
Mayor Nelson thanked the Youth Commission and looked forward to seeing them all again very soon.
5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments.
Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, expressed appreciation for the Council's hard work and abundance of
empathy, some of which may be imposing on citizen rights. The empathy for those wishing to walk in the
street on weekends, empathy for trees but not for their owners. Empathy is a good endeavor for individuals
to spark self-awareness and how to help those in need. Enforcing empathy at the government level can
enable harmful behavior and impose on the rights of law abiding, taxpaying citizens. She assumed the intent
of Walkable Main Street was to help businesses struggling with the effects of lockdowns. Most Main Street
businesses have said it has the opposite effect, sales falling as much as 80% for some. With two walkable
streets at the farmer's market on Saturdays, there is no need to extend it to Main Street with no new
attractions, harming businesses and exacerbating the parking and store accessibility nightmare. She
requested the City acknowledge that Walkable Main Street has failed and help the businesses it has
negatively affected.
Ms. Ferkingstad commented Council's desires for trees on private property take precedent over the owner's
right to maintain that property, build a home, or provide for their family. There are an abundance of trees
in Edmonds and just a four minute from their property is a densely wooded park with over 100 acres of
trees. They purchased a treed 1.2 acres in 2017 and have been working with the City to divide it into three
lots to build modest homes for them to downsize and for her parents. They planned to retain 50-60 trees on
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 5
Packet Pg. 13
7.2.a
the property, 20% more than required. The tree ordinance forces them to purchase the trees they own on
their land from the City before they can be removed to build their homes. The theft of $250,000 from their
family is an unconstitutional takings that Council will use to hire tree ordinance enforcers who will police
and fine all Edmonds citizens for what they do with their trees. The Council has voted to legalize
infringement on their rights to their property with an illegal regulatory and monetary takings tree ordinance.
This is against the constitution's 5t' amendment takings clause. This Council pledged to uphold the
constitution and should have voted against imposing local government on the rights of citizens and the
businesses they represent. She urged the Council to restore liberty and justice for all in Edmonds and restore
citizens' freedoms and rights to their own property by rescinding the tree ordinance and instead work to
keep victims safe, change laws to hold those who harm others accountable including those who are drug
addicted and mentally ill. She urged the Council to fight for citizens and businesses' rights.
Marlin Phelps commented he is probably the most prolific Snohomish County court of limited jurisdiction
observer ever, he has attended hundreds of times. Today he saw something he has never seen before; he
went to Edmonds Municipal Court and observed a hearing where lawyers were taking testimony from the
arresting officer. All other courts of limited jurisdiction in Snohomish County and King County are
primarily Seattle University juris doctorates and nothing like that ever happens in those courts. He referred
to Travis Burg who was featured on a program done by KOMO 4 "Seattle is Dying," in which it was stated
he had been arrested 50 times. He later murdered his girlfriend and took his own life. The 50 times he was
arrested and put back on the street was done by Seattle University judges. He recommended keeping an eye
on the Edmonds Municipal Court Judge because there are bad people doing other things and Edmonds
Municipal Court stands as the only court of limited jurisdiction in Snohomish County that is actually doing
court and not just letting depraved monsters go and empowering them to do every worse crimes.
Gregg Busch, Wireless Policy Group, on behalf AT&T, expressed AT&T's support for the master permit
presented by City staff. He asked that the Council approve the ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute
the master permit as currently drafted so that AT&T has the opportunity to improve service to Edmonds
residents, businesses and first responders. AT&T's priority is to provide stable and consistent connections
to customers and they are constantly assessing and upgrading their network to respond to the tremendous
increase in demand for mobile data. Small wireless facilities are key to providing additional coverage and
capacity to AT&T's network in areas with high demand for wireless data. To continue to offer high quality
service and respond to the ever increasing demand on AT&T's network, he requested the Council approve
the ordinance authorizing AT&T's master permit. He and Carl Gibson, Director of External Legislative
Affairs, AT&T, are available for questions.
Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, spoke regarding the City's intent to regulate maintenance of trees on private
property. The job description for the Urban Forest Planner states the position is responsible for
implementation of the City of Edmonds Urban Forest Management Plan as it relates to private property and
includes a list of job requirements, some of which are not consistent with the UFMP. Examples include:
➢ Managing the permit/notification process for the removing or altering of trees; that should be
amended to state removal or altering trees in conjunction with development as there is currently no
process for private property not associated with development.
➢ Inspect trees on private property as required; this should be amended to "as requested" in order to
be consistent with the UFMP.
➢ Review professional tree assessment/landscape plans that are submitted to the City especially in
conjunction with development; "especially" should be removed, there is currently no requirement
other than associated with development
➢ Assist in determining compliance violations and penalties for illegal tree cutting on private
property; this should be changed to private property in conjunction with development.
The changes she suggested would make the job posting consistent with the UFMP and would correct the
posting to not be pre -decisional to the Planning Board's process which has not yet started or the SEPA
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 6
Packet Pg. 14
7.2.a
compliance which the City would need to evaluate as part of this process. Some Councilmembers have
lamented the recent loss of large trees; she has seen a few cut down in recent months and can understand
the desire to understand the underlying cause of environmental degradation. However, the City Council
chose its current course of action knowing full well this would be the result and is evident in the whereas
clauses of the emergency ordinance. The effect of people cutting trees to avoid regulation has been
documented in the urban environment since at least 1990, over 30 years, speaking specifically to the Rossi
paper cited by the USDA when discussing tree ordinances and the effect of ordinances similar to the one
the Council has undertaken. At this point these trees are sunk costs; the choice in front of the Council now
is whether to further penalize the regeneration of private urban forest or choose a more equitable and more
treed future for the citizens of Edmonds by choosing the actions developed under the UFMP.
Rebecca Anderson, Edmonds, said she was grateful to live in this country because she has the freedom to
publicly address her elected officials. At the May 251'' Council meeting she asked the City to resume in -
person meetings immediately so residents could once again fully participate in the important issues facing
Edmonds, including the Citizens Housing Commission policy proposals scheduled to be presented to
Council in the near future. Some of those proposed policies have the potential to radically change the
landscape of Edmonds forever and residents need to be included in those important discussions. She also
encouraged residents to sign a petition on PetitionBuilder.org if they also agree it is time for Edmonds to
open up. She shared some of the comments submitted by residents;
➢ It's time for hybrid City Council meetings. Edmonds has the opportunity to be a leader in the region.
➢ The City Council and the Mayor need to have face time with the citizens they represent.
➢ The housing issues should not be addressed until the City Council is back meeting in -person and
citizens have been given access to their elected officials.
➢ Council meetings should be open before any aspects of the Citizens Housing Commission report
are considered. The aspects of this report are too important to the citizens of Edmonds to be
considered or discussed at virtual meetings. Citizen input is required.
➢ If we can safely host an Edmonds 4t' of July, Council can meet in person. Virtual meetings are
confusing and seem to be contributing to the divisiveness that is poisoning our Council and
community.
Ms. Anderson hoped the Council was as encouraged as she by these comments. Residents are ready to fully
participate in City issues. On June 3' she sent an email to all Councilmembers and the Mayor to follow up
on her May 25t' comments. She publicly thanked Councilmembers Olson, Buckshnis, Distelhorst and Paine
for replying to her email. She was informed by Council President Paine that July 12t' was the expected date
for City meetings to be fully open with an in -person option and requested an update on the City's reopening
schedule. Business in the state is quickly resuming to near normal with many grocery stores and other
businesses relaxing their mask requirements, large gathering capacities are increasing due to the state being
close to 70% threshold of vaccinated residents and the rate of COVID cases declining, all welcome news.
She hoped the Council would find time tonight to update residents on the timeline to reopen so the Council
can fully engage with their constituents for the good of Edmonds.
(Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.)
7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Olson requested Items 7.1, 7.5 and 7.8 be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY OLSON TO APPROVE THE
REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 7
Packet Pg. 15
7.2.a
3. 4TH OF JULY PARADE & FIREWORKS, EDMONDS SPRING FEST AND EDMONDS
ARTS FESTIVAL EVENT CONTRACTS
4. LGBTQ+ RESOLUTION FOR JUNE PRIDE
6. APRIL 2021 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT
7. JOHNSON PROPERTY RIGHT OF ENTRY AGREEMENT
8. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2021 (previously Consent
Agenda Item 1)
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
ADD THE OMITTED TEXT DOCUMENTED IN THE EMAIL SENT TO FULL COUNCIL THIS
MORNING, TO THE JUNE 8TH MINUTES.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if minutes or exact minutes were being taken. The language in this
morning's email was related to specific minutes, but it was her understanding that minutes of meetings were
taken. After speaking with Council President Paine earlier today, it was clear the comments she made were
just talking off the top of her head. She was unsure why there was a desire to pigeon hole Council President
Paine into a statement she was unwilling or unable to stand behind. She encouraged the Council to vote
against the motion.
Councilmember Olson said what was considered and why it was ruled out should be documented, instead
nothing was included which she felt was an omission of relevance.
Council President Paine stated in looking through the minutes regarding that agenda item, she was
consistent and clear throughout regarding her position and she did not think the comments that
Councilmember Olson wanted included added any elucidation or advanced the discussion. She summarized
the amendment was unnecessary as the Council does not have verbatim minutes.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented these are minutes, not notes and the Council does take verbatim
minutes sometimes. At the meeting, Mayor Nelson specifically asked Council President Paine her opinion
and what she wanted. Councilmember Buckshnis paraphrased what Council President Paine had said,
commenting Council President Paine's remarks did provide her thought process and even though the
Council did not act on it, it was valid information that she provided after Mayor Nelson asked her to render
an opinion. It is not a scrivener's error or someone thinking out loud, but something that should be included
in the minutes.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented Councilmembers change their mind and their position all the
time in the minutes. As these are Council President Paine's statements and not Councilmembers Buckshnis
or Councilmember Olson's, she has right to determine whether they are included. She asked City Clerk
Scott Passey whether the minutes were verbatim or minutes. Mr. Passey answered the City does not do
verbatim minutes, those would be very long; the minute taker does a pretty good job of summarizing as
best she can. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented at least half the Councilmembers have changed
what they stated at the meeting after reading the minutes and determining that was not what they meant or
what they were trying to say. Council President Paine has a right to say whether to include that statement
or not. It should be up to the person making the statement, not to those who are trying to prove a point about
another Councilmember.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 8
Packet Pg. 16
7.2.a
Councilmember Olson pointed out this wasn't changing what was in the minutes; this was inserting
something that was completely omitted. She was fine with either a summary or the verbatim.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON CALLED THE QUESTION. VOTE TO CALL THE QUESTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4) COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS
AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS,
AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE COUNCIL MINUTES AS PRESENTED IN THE PACKET FOR
JUNE 8, 2021. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS
DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE
VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING
NO.
2. URBAN FOREST PLANNER JOB DESCRIPTION (previously Consent Agenda Item 5)
Councilmember Olson said she wanted to take a second look at the job description and to consider Natalie
Seitz's comments as there may be some relevance.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
POSTPONE TO A FUTURE MEETING.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the intent was to postpone to a date certain. Councilmember Olson said
she wanted to postpone to another meeting, with the Council President scheduling it whenever she wanted
but providing her at least a week to review it. Council President Paine suggested June 22" d
Councilmember L. Johnson asked if it would be on the June 22nd Consent Agenda. Council President Paine
answered yes.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if this had been reviewed by a Council committee and had the committee
recommended consent. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas answered yes.
Mayor Nelson restated the motion.
POSTPONE TO THE JUNE 22ND CONSENT AGENDA.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. ORDINANCE TO REPEAL SALARY COMMISSION (previously Consent Agenda Item 8)
Councilmember Olson said she pulled the ordinance to repeal the Salary Commission due to the substance
of yesterday's letter to the editor from resident Jay Grant who chaired the Salary Commission, specifically
the assertion that the Salary Commission had looked at equity which was confirmed by other commissioners
in the comment section. Because the reason the Council was disbanding the Salary Commission was to look
at the issue of equity, this new information from participants and stakeholders warranted further discussion
and another vote.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO
DISCUSS IT TONIGHT IF THERE'S TIME OR AT A TIME THAT THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT
CAN PUT IT BACK ON THE AGENDA TO RECONSIDER THIS WITH CONVERSATION BASED
ON THIS NEW INFORMATION.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 9
Packet Pg. 17
7.2.a
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the Salary Commission does not look at equity. It is important to
understand that money is not the only equity issue; other equity issues include benefits for a family, for
example a working couple or a working single parent that needs medical benefits.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, the Council was attempting to put this item on the
agenda, not to discuss the merits of repealing the Salary Commission. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
explained she was speaking against the motion. Mayor Nelson suggested Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
tighten up her comments to speak to the motion.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was speaking to the issue of equity. The issue is not just financial,
equity includes districts so Councilmembers are elected from different areas, providing medical benefits,
changing the meeting time, etc. Money was probably one of the last issues she wanted to look at. It is not
the Salary Commission's job to look at districts and/or benefits as their focus is salaries. She encouraged
the Council not to convene the Salary Commission and to create a group that can look at the equity issues.
She encouraged Councilmembers not to support the motion.
Council President Paine raised a point of order, stating the motion was out of order as the Council already
voted and it was not a motion for reconsideration. Unless someone from the prevailing side wanted to
change their vote, the motion was not proper. City Attorney Jeff Mr. Taraday said the prevailing party rule
only applies to motions made during the same meeting. The Council directed the City Attorney to the
prepare an ordinance at the last meeting. That ordinance is in the packet; it was pulled from Consent and
there either needs to be a motion to approve it or to do something else. Mayor Nelson ruled the discussion
was appropriate.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Council received a lot of information today. She observed there
was no announcement to convene the Salary Commission which should have been done 1-2 months ago; it
was almost like the administration knew the commission would be disbanded. She asked whether there had
been an ordinance to repeal the Salary Commission. Mr. Taraday said the repealing ordinance was the item
that was pulled from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if it was a new ordinance that
came out today. Mr. Taraday said the ordinance was not included in an earlier draft of the packet and was
added to the packet today.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the motion suggested this could be discussed at a future meeting.
Mayor Nelson said the motion stated it could be discussed tonight or at a future meeting. Councilmember
K. Johnson preferred it be postponed to a future meeting so the Council could take into account the
comments from citizens regarding the abolition of the Salary Commission.
Council President Paine expressed support for approving the repealing ordinance tonight. The past Salary
Commission could not address equity because they do not have that authority; that is the authority of the
City Council. There were also no changes in the salary, the Salary Commission's 2019 recommendation
stayed the same. Council can work with staff and HR Director Neill Hoyson agreed she could provide
Council a "Compensation 101." The Council needs to have that conversation and she can work with Ms.
Neill Hoyson to put that together. She expressed support for approving the ordinance to repeal the Salary
Commission.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Council President Paine regarding having the Council look at
equity. She was uncertain one email from a one person who served on the committee and their interpretation
should reverse the work the Council has done. She supported considering equity, noting any changes to the
salary would not affect current Councilmembers. Retaining the Salary Commission would likely result in
an increase in Council's salary and the Council cannot to do anything about it. For example, if the Salary
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 10
Packet Pg. 18
Commission recommends the Council gets a raise, that is what happens. She suggested repealing the
ordinance would save taxpayers money and allow the Council to look at issues that may keep people from
running for office.
Councilmember K. Johnson said repealing the Salary Commission was a big mistake. The Salary
Commission removes elected officials from setting their own salaries, they look at benefits and can consider
other issues. The issue of equity is very muddy; the Council could go to a ward system without affecting
the Salary Commission. The Salary Commission conducts independent investigation, works with the HR
Director, looks at what other cities are doing, and considers compensation related to salary and benefits. If
the Salary Commission was eliminated, the Council salary would be flatlined until 2026 which does not
increase the salary or opportunities for people to be on the Council. If anyone believes the salary for the
City Council is inadequate, the Salary Commission is the best chance for making incremental
improvements. If the Salary Commission is disbanded, with an average 8% increase per year, a 40%
increase would be required in 2026 to keep up with inflation and other factors. She did not support the
motion.
Councilmember K. Johnson objected to this coming to Council as a surprise; this is essentially the Council's
second touch. An issue has not been discussed is the difference between legislative and administrative
authority; the Mayor is suggesting a change to the Salary Commission, but in fact that is the Council's
legislative authority and she was confused why Councilmembers were agreeing to it. She preferred to have
a larger discussion regarding equity, what was wrong with the Salary Commission and what equity meant
to the four Councilmembers who support this, whether they want more salary or benefits. She was unclear
what the objectives and reasons were for abandoning the Salary Commission.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4) COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS
AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS,
AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
Councilmember L. Johnson said she had not had an opportunity to weigh in on the discussion and felt left
out. She asked if Councilmember who did not get called on would have an opportunity to provide input.
Mayor Nelson suggested a Councilmember make a motion regarding action on the ordinance which could
be followed by discussion.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PAINE, TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE IN THE PACKET DISBANDING THE SALARY
COMMISSION.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, asking if it was the ordinance in Friday's packet or the
packet that was updated today. Mayor Nelson clarified the motion pertains to the ordinance that was sent
out today. Mr. Taraday explained there was no change to the ordinance; the earlier draft of the packet did
not contain the ordinance. There is only one version of the ordinance.
Councilmember L. Johnson said out of curiosity, she looked at the minutes from August 19, 2014 when the
Salary Commission was disbanded in the past and found Councilmembers Buckshnis and K. Johnson voted
in favor of disbanding.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, commenting the Councilmember had no idea what
happened in 2014 or whether it was germane to this decision. The topic under consideration is repealing
the proposed ordinance and Councilmember L. Johnson was referring to disbanding the Salary Commission
in 2014. Mayor Nelson clarified the discussion is regarding repealing the Salary Commission so a
Councilmember bringing up past repeals was relevant. He ruled point not taken.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 11
Packet Pg. 19
7.2.a
Councilmember L. Johnson said she was speaking to repealing the Salary Commission in 2014 and the
voting record. Statements are being made that this is without precedence; she found it interesting that two
Councilmembers who are now in opposition were in favor in the past. This is not without precedence,
specifically for existing Councilmembers. If time permits, she will look at the votes in 2017. This
information is relevant because the administration brought this forward showing all the time that goes into
the Salary Commission. She recognized staff was under tremendous pressure coming out of a pandemic
and are pointing out the time the Salary Commission takes and the minimal change between Salary
Commissions. That information as well as her desire to leave a legacy of increasing the ability for
individuals to serve on Council led her to support having Council look at the equity issue and whether to
reconvene a Salary Commission in the future. She resented the implication that there was a coordinated
effort, assuring there was no coordinated effort; it was each Councilmember speaking to their desire for
future Councils.
Councilmember Distelhorst commented he would keep his comments brief as it is already 8:37 p.m. and
the Council still has a number agenda items. He supported repealing the ordinance because there needed to
be a more inclusive, holistic look at the process which would not be achieved by the Salary Commission.
It may require working with the HR Director and/or an outside professional and will require a broader view
and more holistic approach. This not personal for the existing Council, it is setting up a long term structure
for the future, for the benefit of residents, the City and public officials. He recalled people saying they did
not do it for the money, commenting that was a fantastic place to be because it meant they have the money
to take care of themselves. Not everyone in the community can do something not for the money because
they have rent, mortgage and bills to pay. That needs to be taken into consideration with a holistic approach
to provide a better structure that allows more people in the community to participate in public service. He
supported repealing the ordinance and having a specific group effort looking at this without a narrow
COLA, inflation, dollars and cents look. There is an opportunity to have a Salary Commission in the future
to conduct a periodic review once these issues are addressed. For those reasons, he supported the motion.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she did not understand what it meant to have a holistic view of the Council
or better opportunities for people to participate in public service. In a democracy anyone who wants to run
for public office may do so. The compensation for public office is minimal; she doubted the Council even
made minimum wage if 25 hours a week was considered. The Salary Commission is supposed to look at
salary and benefits. There could be a separate discussion about equity, holistic treatment, or wards, etc., but
she did not understand how that would be structured. When talking about equity in this context, there needed
to be more specifics because she did not understand and the public may not either.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was also on the Council when the Salary Commission was
disbanded and assumed she voted in favor. She recalled after some time, the Council agreed to restart the
Salary Commission. The fact that three existing Councilmembers were involved in disbanding and
reinstituting the Salary Commission illustrated that there was more to it and that it was not commonly done.
She expressed interest in residents being able to run for office, noting five of the seven current
Councilmembers live in the bowl or the view corridor of Edmonds. That results in a certain types of people,
and other people who do not live in those areas need to be encouraged to run for office. Unfortunately, if
someone works to support their family, they cannot run for office and be successful because they cannot
attend daytime meetings. That precludes nurses, daycare staff, baristas, construction workers, the working
class of Edmonds who cannot leave work for daytime meetings. For democracy purposes, she
recommended taking a look at it to see if anything could be done to encourage other people to run for office,
not just people who have the financial ability to do it. She noted other cities are also looking at this issue.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE CALLED THE QUESTION. UPON ROLL CALL, VOTE TO CALL
THE QUESTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS,
BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES;
AND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 12
Packet Pg. 20
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-
MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember L. Johnson corrected the record: in the August 19, 2014 minutes, Councilmembers
Buckshnis and Fraley-Monillas voted in favor of disbanding the Salary Commission and Councilmember
K. Johnson voted against.
9.
1. COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND ACTION ON MASTER PERMIT WITH NEW
CINGULAR WIRELESS, PCS, LLC, OBTAINING TERMS THAT PROTECT THE CITY
IN RELATION TO THE FORTHCOMING PLACEMENT OF SMALL WIRELESS
(SMALL CELL) FACILITIES IN THE CITY'S RIGHTS -OF -WAY, SUBJECT TO
OBTAINING SITE SPECIFIC PERMITS
City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised additional changes to Section 25 of the master permit were emailed to
Council. Ms. Tinker will briefly review the substance of the changes. If a motion is made to approve the
master permit, he requested the Council clarify that the recommended version of the master permit was the
one emailed to Council with changes to Section 25. It was his understanding that AT&T had also agreed to
that language.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order regarding when that that information was emailed.
Councilmember Distelhorst advised it was emailed at 8:04 am today.
Angela Tinker, Lighthouse Law Group, reviewed:
• Master Permit Approval (or Denial)
o What does a "No" Vote (not approving the Master Permit) mean for the City?
■ City will still get Small Wireless in its streets
■ Site specific applications will still be made
■ Shot clock periods apply
■ City cannot prohibit the provision of personal wireless services
■ City will risk not having the financial protections the Master Permit Offers
• Master Permit Financial Protection
o Financial protections provided with this Master Permit:
■ Comprehensive indemnity
■ Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy $ 5,000,000 / $10,000,000
■ City named as an additional insured
■ AT&T assumes risk of damage to its facilities
■ Indemnity and insurance survive any expiration or termination
■ AT&T must remove its facilities upon expiration or termination
■ City can impose monetary penalties $500/day
■ City can require AT&T to maintain $50,000 security fund in favor of City
■ AT&T's agreement City is not bound if FCC's restrictions are lifted
• Master Permit Approval (or Denial)
o If the first wireless provider places its facilities in City's rights -of -way without a master permit,
City risks being able to get a master permit with any other wireless provider and the financial
protections that come with it.
■ Federal Law requires the City be competitively neutral
o What does a "Yes" Vote mean for the City?
■ City will get the financial protections of the Master Permit
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 13
Packet Pg. 21
7.2.a
■ It DOES NOT MEAN the Council wants or is in favor of small cell deployment
■ A solid Master Permit document has been negotiated that protects the City within and up
to the limits of the law.
Changes to Section 25 of the master permit
o Addresses revocation, AT&T has agreed to the changes
o Wording was changed, replacing reference to penalty or sanction with reference to damages
and remedies to make clear the intent of the parties that the contract remedies exist to
compensate for any economic harm or loss that may occur.
City staff and the City Attorney's office believe they have developed a good document that protects
the City within and up to the limits of the law imposed and recommend the Council approve the
master permit.
Councilmember Distelhorst thanked City staff and Lighthouse for the work they have done on this for a
long period of time. He also thanked fellow Councilmembers for the numerous discussions on this topic,
commenting it was obvious they had done a lot of research and homework. That was reassuring to him as
a resident that the Council was taking this issue seriously and looking at it from multiple angles. He
appreciated the work the Council, staff and legal have done to continue to move this application forward
and including improvements and protections in the document.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed staff and Lighthouse had been working on this for over year. Ms.
Tinker agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis said she understood the decision was either yes or no, and asked
if changes could be made within the document. For example, as was stated in the minutes of previous
meetings, could the language in the inventory be changed so that there were maps prior to deployment. The
master permit states they will provide hard copies, digital copies, GIS and use of the pole after installation
and she wondered if it would be advantageous for the City to have that information beforehand. She
commented if multiple providers putting things here, there and everywhere, and the City gets that
information afterwards, it could result in visual pollution.
Ms. Tinker agreed the master permit requires the provider document the exact location of facilities that
actually exist in the various ways Councilmember Buckshnis mentioned. She did not recommend requiring
them to identify their planned installations as part of the master permit because if the master permit is
limited to the locations that they identify in their plan, they can ask to place the facilities outside their plan.
That would mean another master permit would come before Council and the permit would not really
"master" in that sense, but serial permits like this coming to Council from serial providers. That is
something Council could do if wanted to consider master permits repeatedly, but Lighthouse did not believe
that was the best use of Council time and it would not change anything. The terms would be the same and
she did not see an advantage to the City.
Councilmember Buckshnis provided an example, AT&T puts 35' poles by the beach and the ferry and then
Verizon puts poles 100 or 150' apart and then another provider puts poles by the ferry and waterfront every
150'. She said it seems like the City has no control over the placement prior to installation so when there
are multiple providers, can there be an understanding of the location and whether they can comingled. She
referred to the water views, expressing concern with the waterfront filling up with poles. Ms. Tinker said
ECDC 20.50, passed by Council in April 2019, governs the aesthetic regulations of these devices. The
master permit is subject to all the terms and conditions in the permit as well as the conditions in ECDC
20.50 and 18.60 as now exists or may hereafter be amended. Just because a provider has a master permit
does not mean they get to simply place whatever facility they want wherever or whenever they want; they
still need to apply for a site specific permit otherwise known as a wireless facilities permit or right-of-way
construction permit. When they make that application, staff processes it and applies the location preference
hierarchy and aesthetic requirements of ECDC 20.50.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 14
Packet Pg. 22
7.2.a
Mr. Taraday added as part of the master permit application process, the provider submits a map to provide
a rough idea where they intend to place their facilities in the first two years. He asked if Councilmember
Buckshnis' question was whether they could be limited to only those areas. Councilmember Buckshnis said
there is one provider now, AT&T, but the door will be open. There is a map provided on packet page 222
of the planned locations for their small cell units. It seems as if the City has no control over having multiple
providers putting their poles in the same place because there is no comingling. Her question was related to
inventory and placement and whether there could be commingling of different providers' small cell
facilities. She pointed out 35' poles, which are much higher than telephone poles, will be noticeable and
asked what the Council could do in this agreement to prevent that. Ms. Tinker answered the City cannot
effectively prohibit them from providing their telecommunication services as the U.S. Congress has made
clear in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. That has been interpreted to mean the City cannot prevent
them from densifying a network or improving their services. The City can regulate the aesthetics which
ECDC 20.50 does. Council could amend ECDC 20.50 and the provider would have to comply with those
amendments because the master permit authorizes and agrees the City can make those amendments.
Councilmember Buckshnis said Lighthouse was still not getting her concern regarding comingling. Mr.
Taraday said with regard to collocating, theoretically things could be done in the aesthetic regulations to
encourage collocating of multiple antennas for multiple providers in the same spot, but most likely that
would require an increase in the heigh limit of the pole so there was a tradeoff. This is all outside the master
permit, something the Council will have to address via an amendment to the aesthetic regulations in ECDC
20.50 which can be done at a later date if the Council chooses to take that up. Increasing the allowed height
of poles may indirectly encourage some collocating within the same pole. However, as Ms. Tinker stated,
that cannot be required because it could be argued that the requirement is tantamount to an effective
prohibition if they want to put it somewhere else.
Council President Paine commented this is an amazing body of work and she offered her thanks to the legal
and staff team. With regard to liquidated damages, limited to $500 a day per violation, she asked if that was
limited by federal rule or was that developed as part of the agreement. Ms. Tinker answered that was part
of the agreement; the purpose of liquidated damages was to provide a reasonable approximation of
anticipated economic harm that may occur if there were a breach. In Section 25, the City is not limited to
liquidated damages, it can elect to use that but the courts have recognized if the contract so states, there can
be a choice of the type of damages pursued so the City could also pursue actual damages, monetary damages
as well as equitable damages such as specific performance.
To ensure this was clear to everyone who has been watching this very closely, Council President Paine
pointed out this master permit will be the template for other carriers coming into the City to avoid inequity
in how others in the industry are treated. AT&T is the first; other providers will have essentially the same
agreement. Ms. Tinker and Mr. Taraday agreed. Mr. Taraday said that was why so much time was spent
working with AT&T on this agreement; because it was the first one, it essentially becomes the template for
others to follow so they wanted to ensure it was very carefully negotiated. As Ms. Tinker stated, within the
limits of the law which are severe, they believe they have negotiated a very good agreement for the City
under the circumstances provided by the federal government. Council President Paine agreed that this was
a very good agreement given the limited latitude the City has. If the Council wants to look at ECDC 20.50
again, that is a separate discussion. She thanked the team for the amazing amount of work they have done.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REVIEW THE AESTHETIC REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL CELL
FACILITIES AT A FUTURE DATE.
Councilmember K. Johnson said the Council and the public have a lot of concerns about the aesthetic
requirements, an area where the Council does have some control. She felt it would be very useful for the
Council to look at issues such as colocation, minimum spacing and potential undergrounding. Discussing
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 15
Packet Pg. 23
the master permit has elevated those issues and it would be worth the Council's time to discuss them
separate from the master permit.
Council President Paine referred to Council reconsidering ECDC 20.50, relaying her understanding from
2019 when she was in the audience that all cities across the country had a very specific time period to
develop a hierarchy of aesthetic standards. She asked if the Council had the ability to make changes to the
aesthetic requirements at this point in time considering the FCC's deadline in 2019 to develop those
requirements. Mr. Taraday answered that was a good question and he was glad she raised it. It might
ultimately depend on what changes were made. For example, there is currently a 25' height limit on free-
standing poles. If the change allowed the industry to place a higher pole, something that could be viewed
as an industry -friendly change, and he did not think there would be an issue even though the change was
made after the deadline. With respect to other changes, the City would need to research the effect of the
FCC deadline on subsequent amendments. He agreed there was a deadline imposed in 2019 to adopt the
aesthetic regulations; the City met that deadline at the time. A lot of thought went into those regulations as
it was believed it might be the last opportunity, but this is a new Council and a majority of Councilmembers
were not on the Council when those aesthetic regulations were adopted. He did not want to commit to how
much the aesthetic regulations could be changed, but he doubted there would be pushback from the industry
for something like increasing pole height. He offered to take this under advisement and report back to the
Council.
Council President Paine commented the hierarchy is creative, remarkable and benefits the City. She would
not object to discussing ECDC 20.50 sometime in the near future due to the unanticipated effects of having
this come together in real time. It was fairly theoretical in 2019 and two years later may be a good time to
have that discussion. She was interested in what the City would be giving up or exchanging in having a full
discussion of ECDC 20.50.
Councilmember Olson was in favor of reconsidering the aesthetic requirements in ECDC 20.50. She was
also in the audience when those were discussed in 2019 and paid a lot of attention due to her concern about
the aesthetics. The City Council in 2019 did a great job with the information available. She felt more was
known now than was known then, there were different questions and things to look at so there would be
value in revisiting it. She summarized there was a lot at stake in terms of visual pollution.
Councilmember L. Johnson also supported revisiting the issue of aesthetics as she was not on Council when
those were adopted. She asked if that would be done separately from the vote on the master permit. Ms.
Tinker answered yes. With regard to the vote on the master permit, Councilmember L. Johnson said the
Council is backed into a corner on this. Mayor Nelson requested she speak to the motion regarding the
review of aesthetic requirements in ECDC 20.50.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS CALLED THE QUESTION. VOTE TO CALL THE QUESTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember L. Johnson said she felt the Council was backed into a corner on this item. She can protest
with a no vote or by abstaining, but the City was at risk of a lawsuit and risks not having financial
protections. She can vote yes, but that still has the appearance of support. She felt duress, which is defined
as compulsion by threat or force, constraints or other actions brought to bear on someone to do something
against their will or better judgment. While she appreciated the work that has been done, her comments are
not directed toward any of the work done by staff, fellow Councilmember or citizens. The Council is stuck,
she feels duress making this decision, and it stinks.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 16
Packet Pg. 24
7.2.a
Councilmember Olson said she took a little bit of comfort in the fact that the term of master permit was five
years.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST,
TO ACCEPT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, GRANTING TO
NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, A
NON-EXCLUSIVE MASTER PERMIT AGREEMENT TO INSTALL, OPERATE, AND
MAINTAIN SMALL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES WITHIN THE
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, PRESCRIBING
CERTAIN RIGHTS, DUTIES, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO,
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr. Taraday asked for clarification that Council President Paine was moving the version of the ordinance
emailed at 8:04 a.m. today. Council President Paine agreed that was her motion.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she received a lot of information today regarding aesthetics and pole
placement. She asked whether 100-150' pole spacing could be addressed in ECDC 20.50. Mr. Taraday
answered to the extent the City was legally allowed by federal law to address it, site specific consideration
would be addressed in ECDC 20.50. He did not want to pretend that the Council could do anything they
wanted in ECDC 20.50 because ultimately the City cannot take action that effectively prohibits the
deployment of small cell. In comparing the City of Edmonds' aesthetic regulations to other cities', he was
proud of the work that was done in 2019. He was not suggesting 20.50 should not be revisited,
acknowledging there was a different City Council now, but the aesthetic regulations are reasonable yet still
robust and really good as far as federal law allows the City to regulate. When the Council takes up 20.50
again, questions about what can be regulated can be explored in more detail.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she wanted to go on record that she has a wealth of information. She
appreciated AT&T providing information regarding RF. She asked if there was a way limit to just 3G and
4G and leave 5G out of picture at this time. Mr. Taraday answered no. Ms. Tinker explained state law 35.99
states cities cannot impose requirements that regulate the services or business operations of the provider
and cannot regulate based on the kind of signals that are carried or capable of being carried over the
facilities. Federal law does not allow regulating on the basis of RF emissions; under 47 United States Code
Section 332, no state or local government may regulate the facilities on the basis of radio frequency
emissions to the extent they comply with the FCC standards. She summarized if the reason for not wanting
5G was due to RF, then the answer to Councilmember Buckshnis' question was no. The City also cannot
prevent them from improving their services or densifying a network, etc.
Councilmember Buckshnis said all her questions have been answered, noting a lot of citizens have
contacted her. She will vote yes because of the fact she has to, but she was concerned from the RF standpoint
and everything she has read. She is old enough to have been around when the Surgeon General did not warn
people about cigarettes. She wanted to keep a close eye and work diligently on 20.50. She thanked Ms.
Tinker for doing a good job with all the information she bombarded her with.
Councilmember Olson said she also found comfort, and the public may find comfort as well, that Section
28 of the master permit states the permittee agrees to comply with all present and future federal, state and
local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. Which means if there was an actualization of the concerns,
there was an opportunity for laws to be put in place that would prevent continued service that was harmful.
She appreciated the work the legal team put into the master permit, commenting the City was probably as
protected as it could be given the circumstances.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 17
Packet Pg. 25
7.2.a
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE
VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO.
2. RESOLUTION ADOPTING A REVISION TO THE SMALL WIRELESS RIGHT OF WAY
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FEE
City Attorney Jeff Taraday said this is a companion to the master permit. One of things they realized in the
course of reviewing a site specific permit application, an application that the City ultimately denied, is that
it took quite a bit longer for City staff and the legal team to review and analyze the application, interact
with the applicant, much longer than the amount the City collects for the permit fee for that type of
application. The City does not want to be in position of a subsidizing of permit review costs and is not
allowed to use permit fees as revenue generating source. The proposed change to the permit fee schedule
converts small wireless permit reviews to a small flat fee plus an hourly basis after the first three hours. The
net effect is the applicant will pay for however long it takes to review an application; for example, if it takes
five hours to review an application, the applicant will pay for five hours of review time. It incentivizes the
applicant to do a good job with their application and ensures the City is not subsidizing the wireless industry
by using taxpayer dollars to review their application. That is the reason for the proposed change to the fee
schedule.
Councilmember Distelhorst recalled this was presented to Council committee last week. It was his
understanding this new rate was somewhat of an interim. He asked how many permits staff expected to
review to reach a final fixed fee. Public Works Director Phil Williams said he did not know. This was the
first application to be reviewed. It was an agonizing decision at the end, but based on where the discussions
were, getting information from the applicant and the shot clock running out, the application was denied and
the applicant was encouraged to reapply. He agreed there was no way $500 would cover the cost of that
first review. Once several have been reviewed, maybe ten, staff and the applicants will have a better idea
of how it works, applicants will produce better applications when they know what information staff needs
to make a decision, and the review process will continually go smoother. He concluded it would be difficult
to estimate how many applications there would eventually be. Councilmember Distelhorst clarified his
question was not how many applications there would be, but how many would need to be reviewed before
a final fixed fee could be determined. Mr. Williams suggested maybe ten with the three different companies
who are likely to submit permit applications.
Council President Paine thanked Mr. Taraday and Mr. Williams for putting this together, noting this is one
of the things the City can control, recovery of the actual costs to review applications for small cell facilities
in the rights -of -way. She expressed support for the resolution.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO PASS A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A REVISED FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY'S
DEVELOPMENT -RELATED FEES AND CHARGES FOR SERVICES.
Councilmember K. Johnson said this helps recoup actual fees for small cell facilities. The resolution is
intended to replace Resolution 1442 that was established on December 10, 2019 which adopted a fee
schedule. She summarized the purpose of this resolution was to revise the fee schedule for small cell review.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how three hours was determined versus two hours or one hour. Mr.
Taraday said staff s hourly billing rate is $110. The original fee was $330 which assumed it would only
take three 3 hours to review an application. With these types of applications, that is not realistic. The 3
hours was determined by dividing $330 by $110.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 18
Packet Pg. 26
7.2.a
Councilmember Buckshnis observed these applications are for deployment of the small cells in the right-
of-way. Mr. Williams agreed. He explained there were two options, the FCC determined a reasonable fee
would be $270; the other option is to establish what the review costs and seek to be reimbursed. Mr. Taraday
said the $270 is the fee a pole owner can charge. The presumptively reasonable fee the FCC determined is
$500, but there is no way that would cover the cost of review given the amount of time this first one took.
This was not just a learning curve, the City's regulations require that steps be evaluated in sequence and
because of the way the City's aesthetic regulations are set up, it will take less time to review an application
for one of higher ranked aesthetic preferences because staff will not have to go through the process of
determining the higher ranked preferences are not possible. Over time it is likely that an application for
location preference 2 can be reviewed much more quickly than an application for location preference 4
because of the additional steps an applicant has to demonstrate were not possible for location preference 4.
Due to the hierarchy, it may take a while before the City ends up with a fixed fee; it may be that there is
one fixed fee for location preference 1 and 2 and a different fee for location preferences 3 and 4. For now,
the City will look at actual costs and let the actual cost data drive the fee.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if it was correct that these could not be collocated on PUD poles. Mr
Taraday answered that was not correct; location preferences 3 and 4 contemplate location on PUD poles.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
EXTEND TO 10:25 P.M. UPON ROLL CALL MOTION FAILED (4-3) FOR LACK OF A SUPER
MAJORITY, COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS
AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO EXTEND UNTIL 10:15 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER K.
JOHNSON ABSTAINING.
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess.
10. NEW BUSINESS
1. UPDATE TO CITY COMPENSATION POLICY
HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson explained tonight's presentation was an intended as overview; it is also
scheduled on next week's agenda for further discussion. She will provide information regarding
comparators tonight as that is an area that will require more discussion. As there was some confusion by
residents that this was related to the Salary Commission, she clarified this was a separate policy related to
City personnel and was not related to elected officials.
Ms. Neill Hoyson explained the City's compensation policy has not been updated since 2012. She reviewed:
• Current process for comparator selection and why change is proposed
o The current process for the selection of comparator cities takes into account only population
and geographic location.
o Why is that an issue?
o A perfect world would have one uniform process for developing comparable employers for
compensation analysis. There is no such uniform approach!
o However, over time certain criteria have been used more than others.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 19
Packet Pg. 27
7.2.a
o The most common situation for use of comparables in Washington is bargaining for law
enforcement and fire personnel. It is required by Washington state law that comparators are
used as one factor in bargaining.
o Why is that important and why does that impact the comparator selection process for other City
positions?
o It is favorable for an employer to have consistency in selection of comparables throughout the
organization. This leads to compensation decisions that are defensible should they be
challenged by Unions to the PERC.
What is the PERC Supported Process for Comparator Selection?
o You must first start from the statutory guidance to use "like employers of similar size on the
West coast of the United States." RCW 41.56.465(2)
o While this definition is far from clear cut, over the years arbitrators have developed certain
criteria to apply to this statutory definition
o The two most common criteria are population served and assessed valuation
o In order to satisfy the "similar size" component of the statutory definition you must begin with
population, recognized by arbitrators as "the most commonly referenced criteria" City of
SeaTac, at 7-8 (Krebs, 2002)
o In fact, "the vast majority of interest arbitrators in the Northwest over the last 20 years have
taken population as the first factor to be considered in determining comparables." City of
Mukilteo, at 4 (Lankford, 2002)
o Most arbitrators use a band -with of 50% up and down, with 100% as the usual upper limit
■ This means that for cities whose population is 100,000, possible comparables' population
should be no smaller than 50,000 and no larger than 150,000 (using the 50% upper limit)
or 200,000 (using the 100% upper limit)
o The 50% up-and-down methodology has been adopted by many arbitrators as an appropriate
band -width to determine "similar size" See, e.g., City of Redmond, at 3 (Wilkinson, 2004);
City of Vancouver, at 3 (Beck, 1998)
o Arbitrators also routinely limit the upper limit to 100% greater than the employer Yakima
County, (Gangle 2004)
o In order to satisfy the "like" employer requirement, the most common criteria used is assessed
valuation.
■ As stated by Arbitrator Wilkinson, "there are so many arbitration awards that have
considered only population and assessed valuation as a measure of size that no citation is
needed." City of Camas, at 13 (Wilkinson, 2003)
o The same band -width process used for establishing the population range is then used to
establish the assessed valuation range.
o It should be noted that while assessed valuation does not reflect the retail sales capacity of a
jurisdiction, and in turn the sales tax derived from such sales, assessed valuation is still the
most common criteria for determining "like" employers
o Additionally, using the calculation of assessed valuation per capita has been used as an
acceptable factor to determine "like" employers in cases where the comparable list needed to
be pared down to a manageable number.
o Lastly, geographic proximity is another component of the "like" employer requirement.
■ "It is quite clear that Washington interest arbitrators have commonly preferred
geographically proximate comparators when such are available." City of Longview, at 4
(Lankford, 2008)
o Geographic proximity does not take the place of population and assessed valuation. For
example, the fact that Medina shares a border with Bellevue does not make Bellevue a Medina
comparable, given the significant disparity in size.
Who area Edmonds comparables?
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 20
Packet Pg. 28
7.2.a
o Using the current methodology in policy which is 10,000 above and below the population of
Edmonds and located in the Counties of Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston you get the
following comparables:
City
County
Population
Burien
King
52,300
Bothell
King/Snohomish
48,400
Puyallup
Pier
42,700
Edmonds
Snohomish
42,470
Lynnwood
Snohomish
40,690
Issaquah
King
38,690
Lake Stevens
Snohomish
34,150
University Place
Pierce
33,310
Des Moines
King
32,260
o Using the PERC supported methodology of population, assessed valuation, assessed valuation
per capita, (with a 50% up-and-down band -width) and establishing the geographic labor market
as Snohomish, Kina, Pierce and Thurston Counties, you get the following comparables.
City
County
Population
Assessed Value
r Capita
Issaquah
King
38,690
11,966,058,762309,280
Edmonds
Snohomish
42,470
11,011,221,440,271Bothell
7259
King/Snohomish
48,400
12,354,415,516255,257
Mukilteo
Snohomish
21,360
5,444,416,654
254,888
SeaTac
King
29,180
6,965,017,090
238,691
Shoreline
King
56,980
11,637,183,574
204,233
Lynnwood
Snohomish
40,690
7,503,860,299
184,415
Puyallup
Pierce
42,700
6,928,321,607
162,256
Burien
King
52,300
7, 794, 662, 044
149,038
Olympia
Thurston
54,150
7,741,414,390
142,962
Lacey
Thurston
52,910
1 7,268,934,236
137,383
*Cities in italics are the same as the comparables under the current process in policy
Leading, Meeting, or Lagging the Market
o Once you have established your market you must then determine if you will take a leading,
meeting, or lagging compensation position.
o Edmonds has established a 50th percentile or median of comparators and has therefor
established a compensation position of meeting the market.
o There is no change proposed to the overall philosophy on market position but the updated
policy does recognize that there may be certain situations which require a different market
approach.
■ Recruiting the desired level of talent in certain jobs is a sustained problem and results in
negative impacts to the City and the citizens we serve;
■ Retention problems including succession and turnover;
■ City priorities;
■ Internal anomalies in alignment, disparities, or inconsistencies;
■ Significant changes in the economy or marketplace;
■ Limitations on available financial resources
Ms. Neill Hoyson advised she will send her PowerPoint presentation to Council and she encouraged
Councilmembers to contact her with questions.
2. ADDING JUNETEENTH AS A PAID CITY EMPLOYEE HOLIDAY
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 21
Packet Pg. 29
7.2.a
HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson advised the proposed ordinance would add Juneteenth as paid holiday
for City employees. She read the introduction to the ordinance.
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2021, Governor Jay Inslee signed Substitute House Bill 1016, making
June 19th (known as Juneteenth, Emancipation Day, and Freedom Day) a paid day off for state
employees starting in 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City Council agrees that June 19th, which has been celebrated across the nation
as Juneteenth to mark the emancipation of those who had been enslaved in the United States, should
be acknowledged and celebrated by all Washingtonians; and
WHEREAS, it is the City Council's intent to designate Juneteenth as a City holiday, starting in
2022, to celebrate the end of chattel slavery; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to encourage City employees to use June 19th as a day to
engage in fellowship with Black/African Americans; revisit our solidarity and commitment to
antiracism; educate ourselves about slave history; and continue having conversations that uplift
every Edmonds citizen;
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L.
JOHNSON, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4225, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 2.35 ECC (VACATION AND SICK LEAVE)
TO ADD JUNE 19TH (JUNETEENTH) AS A CITY HOLIDAY; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
Councilmember Olson said she did a lot of research on this and there were a lot of great conversations
among Councilmembers. She supports this but wanted the public to know that adding another paid holiday
was not something that was done without consideration and thought. Most public entities are going to 12
paid holidays. She suggested at some point the Diversity Commission may want to consider the holidays
that the City offers. She supported Councilmember K. Johnson's suggestion to support diversity by offering
floating holidays which many other cities do but Edmonds does not. She was in favor of the ordinance,
thanked staff for bringing it forward and looked forward to celebrating on Saturday.
Councilmember Distelhorst recalled the City code included two floating unpaid holidays for City staff,
possibly in the chapter following this chapter. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered no, that may be for certain
employee groups such as directors but she would need to check.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said this is supported by the Governor as well as Snohomish County. This
is a good way to honor citizens of Edmonds whose family members have historically gone through this
level of independence in this country. She was proud Edmonds was moving forward with this and will be
in line with Washington State and Snohomish County. She assumed this would be a holiday throughout the
state, recalling Columbus Day is no longer a state holiday, but is a federal holiday. The City changed
Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples Day. She agreed with Councilmember Olson's suggestion for the
Diversity Committee to look at the City's paid holidays.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the addition of Juneteenth as a paid City employee
holiday, but felt the process was flawed as it should have gone through not only the Diversity Commission
but also the Public Safety, Personnel and Planning (PSPP) Committee. While she was in total support, the
process could have been better with more input. She referred to the thoughtful email from Councilmember
K. Johnson that referenced a lot of other holidays that could be observed with floating holidays. She agreed
with the suggestion to look at the City's paid holidays in totality and possibly add a floating holiday.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked Mayor Nelson for his thoughts. Mayor Nelson said he would defer
until all Councilmembers have spoken.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 22
Packet Pg. 30
7.2.a
Councilmember K. Johnson referred to the memo she sent to Ms. Neill Hoyson yesterday to which she did
not receive a response. In the memo she said she did not understand why the proposed change to the City's
policy did not go to the PSPP Committee last week. The purpose of Council committees is to discuss
proposed agenda items and the committee determines whether items go on Consent or the regular agenda.
Items recommended for the full agenda should be for discussion with a decision at a later Council meeting
to provide three touches for Council and the public. Instead this was submitted as a New Business item for
action which was a total surprise to her. The Council is not supposed to operate with surprises or take action
before an agenda item is vetted through a discussion. She did not understand the hurry because the proposal
will not take effect until 2022. This year June 19' is on Saturday and next year it will be Sunday and she
questioned how that would be addressed.
Councilmember K. Johnson was also interested in the cost associated with adding a citywide holiday and
suggested it may have been better to consider this with the 2022 budget due to the costs associated with the
proposal that will not take effect until 2022. Overall she did not like this rush to judgment as it felt like it
was copying the Governor's action for political gain. She clarified she felt Juneteenth was a significant time
of reflection for the country especially this year and in no way did she diminish the importance of this time
for reflection and healing of historic injustice. Her issue was with the process and the rush to judgment. She
suggested the City consider a floater holiday that could be used to observe Juneteenth, Kwanzaa, Historic
Heritage Month, Lunar New Year, LGBTQ+ Celebration, International Women's Day, Hanukkah,
Passover, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, Persian New Year, or Ramadan or others. She summarized it
would be good to have a floater holiday that employees could use for their personal and religious needs.
Councilmember L. Johnson expressed appreciation for the ordinance and tonight's proclamation
recognizing June 19' as Juneteenth Independence Day in the City of Edmonds. July 4'' is a paid holiday,
the celebration of the 1776 Declaration of Independence, of freedom from British rule, a version of freedom
that did not include everyone. It wasn't until June 19, 1865 that slavery was abolished in the last remaining
state. She recalled a mention last week of folding the Juneteenth celebration into the July 4t' celebration.
To anyone considering that suggestion, she urged them to study the historical significance of each date; in
her own studies, she found the perspective of Reverend Ronald Miner, Senior, founder of the National
Juneteenth Foundation, helpful. He states, "For some, the 4t' of July tells only half the story of freedom in
America and the 19'h of June completes the cycle of independence day celebrations in America. The 4t' of
July freed the land from Britain and the 19'1i of June freed all the people. So you can't really talk about
freedom in America unless you talk about the 4t' of July and the 19t' of June." Four years ago Edmonds
began to recognize Indigenous Peoples Day and though it was a small step, it was a step toward recognizing
the true history of this land and undoing the whitewashing many of us were taught. With the recognition of
Juneteenth, Edmonds takes another small step in the continued fight for true freedom and recognition of all
who inhabit the land. If the City has July 4t' a paid holiday, June 19t' also needs to be paid holiday.
Mayor Nelson said this ordinance is significant because of how slavery is tied to the country's history. It
existed before the United States was a country, as far back as 1619. It existed when independence was
declared in all 13 colonies. The most revered founding fathers, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson,
James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, were slave owners. A majority of the signers of the Declaration of
Independence and half the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were slave owners. Eight of the first
twelve United States presidents were slave owners. Slavery is so common in this country's history that it
had its own section in the United States Constitution, Article 1 Section 2, Clause 3, refers to give these
other persons representation as three -fifths of a person. Slavery was the focal point of a civil war, the only
time United States citizens have fought each other. People were enslaved in the land we have inhabited for
246 years. From emancipation in 1865 to today, it is past time to commemorate and celebrate the end of
enslaving people in this country. For 156 years it has not been recognized, there has been thought about the
process, and the merits of this as a potential holiday have been considered, and for 156 years it has not been
acknowledged and it is time to do the right thing. He hoped the Council would join the Washington State
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 23
Packet Pg. 31
7.2.a
Legislature, which is well known for being partisan, in their overwhelming bipartisan support. The
Washington State Senate voted 47-1; the State House voted 89-9, the United States Senate unanimously
passed a resolution today making Juneteenth a federal holiday and the House is moving expeditiously to
consider it. He was hopeful the Council would take action so the City could recognize this as a City holiday
to celebrate Freedom Day, Jubilee Day, Liberation Day, and Emancipation Day as Juneteenth.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
DISTELHORST, TO EXTEND FOR ANOTHER 15 MINUTES TO 10:30 P.M. SO WE CAN FINISH
UP COMMENTS. MOTION FAILED (3-4) FOR LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY,
COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND K. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST,
FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE
VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON ABSTAINING.
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
14. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 24
Packet Pg. 32
7.2.a
Public Comment for 6/15/21 Council Meeting:
From: Ken Reidy
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 12:34 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Nelson, Michael
<Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen
<Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Neill Hoyson, Jessica
<Jessica. Neil IHoyson@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comments for the June 15, 2021 City Council Meeting
Per ECC 1.04.020:
In the event the city council is unable to complete its agenda on any Tuesday, it may recess
the meeting to the immediately following Wednesday at the same time and place as the
commencement of the meeting for which the agenda was incomplete. Nothing herein shall be
construed to prevent the city council from continuing any item before it in public meeting to a
future regularly scheduled Tuesday meeting of the city council. [Ord. 1606 § 2, 1972].
ECC 1.04.040 does not say that the Mayor and City Council President can "confer" after City
Council has approved the Agenda and decide on their own that an approved Agenda Item will
be addressed at a Future Meeting.
When and how did Mayor Nelson and Council President Susan Paine "confer" after the June
1, 2021 Agenda was approved near the start of the June 1, 2021 City Council meeting? Why did r
they decide to move "Resolution adopting Council Rules of Procedures" to a Future N
Meeting? Why should I even have to ask these questions? Should not all business of the
Governing Body be conducted openly? Was this type of conduct addressed in Open Public
Meeting Act training for Elected Officials?
E
I understand that Mayor Nelson is clearly part of the Governing Body as the presiding officer of a
the Governing Body, but can the City Council President and the Mayor decide to change the
Agenda without City Council voting to approve such? This makes no sense to me. Why approve
an Agenda if the Mayor and Council President can later "confer" and change the agenda
without a City Council vote?
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 25
Packet Pg. 33
7.2.a
As this act has taken place, what will be done about it?
Yesterday, an extended Agenda was displayed on the City's website for the first time since May
28, 2021. The Extended Agenda, dated June 11, 2021, indicates this topic will be discussed
during the July 201h Council Meeting. Why such a long delay? What exactly is going on? This
was on the June 1st Agenda, an agenda approved by vote of the City Council.
Edmonds likes to claim it welcomes all people. How is refusing to answer reasonable citizen
questions "welcoming"? The last email response I received from an Edmonds Mayor was in
March of 2012.
I believe I have asked hundreds of reasonable questions over the last nine plus years. Do all
elected officials welcome all people? Please be truthful. Edmonds also does not follow or
enforce its Code of Ethics which states Elected Officials shall keep the community informed on
municipal affairs and encourage communications between the citizens and all municipal
officers. Emphasize friendly and courteous service to the public and each other; seek to
improve the quality of public service, and confidence of citizens.
From: Michael Landau
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 8:35 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Edmonds Salary Commission
Hello,
Please do not disband the Edmonds Salary Commission. This will only exacerbate the lack of
trust that the public has with the current administration and Council.
Thank you,
Michael Landau
From: ACE President
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2021 4:58 PM
To: Paine, Susan <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Passey, Scott <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Teresa Wippel <teresa@myedmondsnews.com>;
Edmonds Beacon Editor <edmondseditoryourbeacon@gmail.com>
Subject: Lack of public posting of Council Extended Agendas for 2 weeks
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 26
Packet Pg. 34
7.2.a
Good afternoon Edmonds City Council president Paine,
It has come to our attention that this is now the second consecutive week a City Council
Extended Agenda has not been posted on the city website. The last one available to the public
and Edmonds residents was posted on Friday, May 28, 2021.
Having the public informed in a timely manner as to upcoming critical presentations, public
hearings, discussions, and actions is essential for people to be properly represented and
engaged with their city. Otherwise, how can they be prepared and attend meetings with zero
information received the past two weeks?
On page 224 of your June 1, 2021 Council Packet, it states as part of your desired Council Rules
of Procedures:
"3.5 Ordinances scheduled for Council action will generally receive three readings (with the
exception of items that have had a public hearing before the Planning Board). A. The first
reading will be the scheduling of the item on the Council Extended Agenda by title or subject. If
reasonably possible the item should be listed on the Extended Agenda at least two weeks prior
to the second reading. The Council President may authorize exceptions for items of an
emergency or unexpected nature requiring immediate action. The applicable portion of the
Council Extended Agenda will be appended to the meeting agenda and distributed and posted
along with the agenda. B. The second reading will be scheduled for review and discussion by
the full City Council or a Council Committee. Items of a minor or routine nature may bypass this
meeting and be scheduled directly to a Consent Agenda. In such cases Council shall by motion,
waive the second reading as part of the adopting motion. C. The third reading will be Council
review and action at a subsequent meeting."
Is there any explanation for this consistent lack of notice? Please advise and be clear as to the v
w
reasons. Is this a mistake? A change in process? Because of the change, oversight, or whatever L
the reasons, we ask that all future scheduled agenda items related to this change will be
N
delayed at a minimum three weeks from when the next extended agenda is publicly posted so N
Edmonds residents can properly catch-up and participate in the government process that is
everyone's democratic right. `b
r
c
a�
I understand there is also a future special council meeting regarding housing policy on June 24,
2021 that was made known only to select citizen recipients last week but has not been publicly f°
announced; not visible on the current city calendar or on an extended agenda (as none posted) a
so now we have insufficient notice for public engagement on intended housing policy
discussions that you previously promised would be transparent. And occurring well before you
agreed to return to in -person Council meetings which is also extremely disconcerting.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 27
Packet Pg. 35
7.2.a
What is happening with the promise of open local government that you as Council Chair are
largely responsible for leading?
Sincerely,
Dr. Michelle Dotsch, on behalf of
The Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds (ACE)
From: Christina McDonald
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2021 6:46 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Council
<Council@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: In person City Council meetings
Hello,
I strongly support the return to in -person City Council meetings. With such a high number of
citizens vaccinated, I feel these can be conducted safely. Giving the opportunity to participate
via Zoom, if desired, would serve all.
Thankyou!
Christina McDonald
Edmonds resident
206-999-3044
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 28
Packet Pg. 36
7.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/22/2021
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
Staff Lead: Dave Turley
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Lori Palmer
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #247731 through #247823 dated June 17, 2021 for $2,359,226.75.
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #64705 through #64708 for $5,626.14, benefit checks
#64709 through #64714 and wire payments of $606,180.59 for the pay period June 1, 2021 through
June 15, 2021.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non -approval of expenditures.
Attachments:
06-15-21 Payroll Benefits
06-15-21 Payroll Earning Summary
Frequently Used Project Numbers
06-17-21 Voucher Listing
Packet Pg. 37
7.3.a
Benefit Checks Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,008 - 06/01/2021 to 06/15/2021
Bank: usbank - US Bank
Check #
Date
Payee #
Name
Check Amt
Direct Deposit
64709
06/18/2021
bpas
BPAS
4,756.95
0.00
64710
06/18/2021
epoa2
EPOA-POLICE
6,088.50
0.00
64711
06/18/2021
epoa3
EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT
631.76
0.00
64712
06/18/2021
flex
NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS
3,449.87
0.00
64713
06/18/2021
teams
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763
5,011.00
0.00
64714
06/18/2021
icma
VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884
3,918.39
0.00
23,856.47
0.00
Bank: wire - US BANK
Check #
Date
Payee #
Name
Check Amt
Direct Deposit
3218
06/18/2021
awc
AWC
328,514.61
0.00
3221
06/18/2021
wadc
WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER
26,573.42
0.00
3222
06/18/2021
us
US BANK
109,294.72
0.00
3223
06/18/2021
mebt
WTRISC FBO #N317761
105,403.09
0.00
3225
06/18/2021
pb
NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION
5,486.19
0.00
3227
06/18/2021
oe
OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
764.50
0.00
576,036.53
0.00
Grand Totals: 599,893.00
0.00
6/16/2021
Packet Pg. 38
7.3.b
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,008 (06/01/2021 to 06/15/2021)
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
111
ABSENT
NO PAY LEAVE
5.00
0.00
119
SICK
Donated Sick Leave -used
88.00
4,089.50
121
SICK
SICK LEAVE
781.05
30,494.02
122
VACATION
VACATION
1,153.75
48,270.17
123
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY HOURS
172.00
6,345.94
124
HOLIDAY
FLOATER HOLIDAY
33.00
1,138.64
125
COMP HOURS
COMPENSATORY TIME
206.00
8,411.66
131
MILITARY
MILITARY LEAVE
34.00
1,333.67
141
BEREAVEMENT
BEREAVEMENT
27.00
974.73
150
REGULAR HOURS
Kelly Day Used
72.00
3,696.17
155
COMP HOURS
COMPTIME AUTO PAY
64.50
3,536.39
160
VACATION
MANAGEMENT LEAVE
11.00
705.64
190
REGULAR HOURS
REGULAR HOURS
17,053.90
705,100.85
194
SICK
Emerqency Sick Leave
36.00
1,758.77
196
REGULAR HOURS
LIGHT DUTY
100.00
4,089.50
205
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME .5
14.50
296.06
210
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME -STRAIGHT
3.00
-51.83
215
OVERTIME HOURS
WATER WATCH STANDBY
48.00
2,605.32
216
MISCELLANEOUS
STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT
16.00
1,728.50
220
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME 1.5
258.00
19,213.42
225
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME -DOUBLE
7.75
576.56
405
ACTING PAY
OUT OF CLASS - POLICE
0.00
546.03
410
MISCELLANEOUS
WORKING OUT OF CLASS
0.00
349.01
411
SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
5.50
1,035.02
602
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP 1.0
80.00
0.00
604
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5
98.80
0.00
606
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP 2.0
3.25
0.00
901
SICK
ACCRUED SICK LEAVE
36.00
0.00
903
MISCELLANEOUS
CLOTHING ALLOWANCE
0.00
-37.50
acc
MISCELLANEOUS
ACCREDITATION PAY
0.00
82.04
acs
MISCELLANEOUS
ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT
0.00
198.23
boc
MISCELLANEOUS
BOC II Certification
0.00
96.39
colre
MISCELLANEOUS
Collision Reconstruction ist
0.00
89.56
cPl
MISCELLANEOUS
TRAINING CORPORAL
0.00
179.12
06/16/2021
Packet Pg. 39
7.3.b
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,008 (06/01/2021 to 06/15/2021)
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
crt
MISCELLANEOUS
CERTIFICATION III PAY
0.00
410.04
ctr
MISCELLANEOUS
CTR INCENTIVES PROGRAM
0.00
1.00
deftat
MISCELLANEOUS
DEFENSE TATICS INSTRUCTOR
0.00
89.56
det
MISCELLANEOUS
DETECTIVE PAY
0.00
122.69
det4
MISCELLANEOUS
Detective 4%
0.00
1,084.60
ed1
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 2%
0.00
694.41
ed2
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 4%
0.00
552.86
ed3
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 6%
0.00
6,482.82
firear
MISCELLANEOUS
FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR
0.00
483.61
fmis
SICK
FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK
89.00
3,213.00
hol
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY
32.00
2,088.20
k9
MISCELLANEOUS
K-9 PAY
0.00
251.53
less
MISCELLANEOUS
LESS LETHAL INSTRUCTOR
0.00
85.68
Iq1
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY PAY 2%
0.00
1,099.07
Ig11
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY PAY 2.5%
0.00
599.74
Ig12
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 9%
0.00
4,451.51
Ig13
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 7%
0.00
1,050.71
Ig14
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 5%
0.00
1,298.43
Iq2
LONGEVITY PAY
LONGEVITY PAY 4%
0.00
251.44
Iq4
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 1 %
0.00
299.33
Iq5
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 3%
0.00
1,256.34
Iq6
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv .5%
0.00
379.16
Iq7
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 1.5%
0.00
307.02
Iq8
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 8%
0.00
710.88
mtc
MISCELLANEOUS
MOTORCYCLE PAY
0.00
122.69
ooc
MISCELLANEOUS
OUT OF CLASS
0.00
507.30
pds
MISCELLANEOUS
Public Disclosure Specialist
0.00
116.54
pfmp
ABSENT
Paid Familv Medical Unpaid/Sup
127.00
0.00
pfms
SICK
Paid FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK
59.00
2,258.39
phv
MISCELLANEOUS
PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY
0.00
2,530.23
prof
MISCELLANEOUS
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SER
0.00
194.64
pto
MISCELLANEOUS
Traininq Officer
0.00
155.72
sdp
MISCELLANEOUS
SPECIAL DUTY PAY
0.00
301.49
sqt
MISCELLANEOUS
ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT
0.00
194.64
06/16/2021
Packet Pg. 40
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,008 (06/01/2021 to 06/15/2021)
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
St
REGULAR HOURS
Serqeant Pay
0.00
145.98
str
MISCELLANEOUS
STREET CRIMES
0.00
521.80
traf
MISCELLANEOUS
TRAFFIC
0.00
122.69
vab
VACATION
VACATION ADD BACK
1.59
0.00
20,716.59 $881,287.32
Total Net Pay: $593,558.25
c
0
0
a
E
0
0
L
Q
Q
Q
M
E
E
M
co
L
W
0
L
M
a
r
N
LO
t0
O
a+
Q
06/16/2021
Packet Pg. 41
7.3.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Protect
Funding
Protect Title
Number
Number
N
FAC
Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab
c443
E4MB
r
C
d
FAC
PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South
c502
E9MA
GF
Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update
s025
EONA
Q
PM
Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
c282
EBMA
3
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Construction)
c551
EOMA
PRK
Civic Center Playfield (Design)
c536
EOMA
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction)
c544
E7MA
N
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design)
c496
E7MA
Q.
d
PRK
Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design)
m103
E7MA
PRK
Yost Park Infiltration Facility
c556
E21 FA
i
STM
174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements
c521
EBFB
STM
175th St. SW Slope Stabilization
c560
E21 FB
Y
v
STM
2018 Lorian Woods Study
s018
EBFA
O
t
STM
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
c525
EBFC
STM
2021 Stormwater Overlay Program
i061
E21 CD
w
a)
C
STM
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
s022
E9FA
STM
Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station
c455
E4FE
to
STM
Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
c436
E4FD
O
STM
NPDES (Students Saving Salmon)
m013
E7FG
O
STM
OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization
m105
E7FA
s?.
STM
Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements
c552
E20FC
STM
Perrinville Creek Recovery Study
s028
E21 FC
v
STM
Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project
c547
EOFB
O
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility
c479
ESFD
>
O
STM
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
c546
EOFA
Q.
STM
Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW
c495
E7FB
Q'
Q
STM
Stormwater Comp Plan Update
s017
E6FD
N
STM
Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration
c435
E4FC
O
STR
2019 Traffic Calming
i038
E9AA
E
STR
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i045
E9AD
Z
r�
V
STR
2020 Guardrail Installations
i046
EOAA
d
O
STR
2020 Overlay Program
i042
EOCA
d
STR
2020 Pedestrian Safety Program
i049
EODB
STR
2020 Pedestrian Task Force
s024
EODA
y
STR
2020 Traffic Calming
i048
EOAC
r�
C
STR
2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i047
EOAB
STR
2021 Guardrail Installations
i057
E21AB
N
L
STR
2021 Overlay Program
i051
E21 CA
LL
STR
2021 Traffic Calming
i056
E21AA
STR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
z
STR
238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps
i037
EBDC
v
ca
STR
238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave)
c423
E3DB
r�
Q
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 6/16/2021
Packet Pg. 42
7.3.c
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding)
Project
Engineering
Accounting
Protect
Funding
Protect Title
Number
Number
N
STR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
ElCA
r
C
d
STR
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
i031
EBCC
E,
STR
89th PI W Retaining Wall
i025
E7CD
Q
STR
ADA Curb Ramps
i033
EBDB
3
STR
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
i040
E9DA
STR
Audible Pedestrian Signals
i024
E7AB
cv
STR
Bikelink Project
c474
ESDA
N
STR
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
i050
EODC
Q.
d
STR
Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements
i026
E7DC
STR
Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion
i015
E6AB
r�
i
STR
Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector
c478
ESDB
STR
Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave
i058
E21 DA
Y
STR
Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization
s014
E6AA
O
t
STR
Minor Sidewalk Program
017
E6DD
r
STR
SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal)
i055
E20CE
w
d
C
STR
Sunset Walkway Improvements
c354
E1 DA
STR
Trackside Warning System
c470
ESAA
to
STR
Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th)
i044
E9DC
—
O
STR
2021 Pedestrian Task Force
061
E21 DB
O
STR
2020 Waterline Overlay
i053
EOCC
sZ
STR
220th Adaptive
i028
EBAB
SWR
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
c516
EBGA
v
SWR
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
i060
E21 CC
O
SWR
Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase II
c488
E6GB
>
O
SWR
Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study
s0l l
ESGB
Q.
SWR
Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study
c461
E4GC
Q'
Q
SWR
Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
c548
EOGA
N
SWR
Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project
c559
E21 GA
SWR
Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services
c562
E21GB
E
7
UTILITIES
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
s020
EBJB
Z
UTILITIES
Standard Details Updates
solo
ESNA
v
d
WTR
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
c523
EBJA
IL
WTR
2019 Waterline Overlay
i043
E9CB
WTR
2019 Waterline Replacement
c498
E7JA
vOj
WTR
2021 Waterline Overlay Program
i059
E21CB
WTR
Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave)
c482
ESJB
C
O
WTR
Elm St. Waterline Replacement
c561
E21JB
3
is
WTR
Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating
c473
ESKA
2D
u_
WTR
Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
c549
EOJA;
WTR
Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project
c558
E21JA
4)
WTR
Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment
s026
EOJB
WWTP
Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring
c446
E4HA
WWTP
WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications
c481
ESHA
Q
Revised 6/16/2021 Packet Pg. 43
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code:
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
247731
6/17/2021
076040 911 SUPPLY INC
INV-2-10892
INV-2-10892 - EDMONDS PD - R.T. SM
BLAUER MENS PANTS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.1 % Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
Tota
247732
6/17/2021
073947 A WORKSAFE SERVICE INC
306352
DRUG TESTING
DOT DRUG TESTS - PLOGER (STREE
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
Tota
247733
6/17/2021
070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC
15-88555
INT AMHARIC -9400
INT AMHARIC -9400
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
15-89575
INT TIGRINYA -6197
INT TIGRINYA-6197
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
15-89744
INT CHUUKESE -2349
INT CHUUKESE -2349
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
15-89783
INT PUNJABI -3986
INT PUNJABI -3986
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
15-89974
INT CAMBODIAN -7470
INT CAMBODIAN -7470
001.000.23.512.50.41.01
Tota
247734
6/17/2021
065052 AARD PEST CONTROL
45760
PARK MAINT PEST CONTROL CUST 1
PARK MAINT PEST CONTROL CUST
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
45812
MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROL
7.3.d
Page:
c
.y
O
m
r
v
Amoun L
I7
to
Y
99.9! a)v
10.1( 45
I : 110.0! C
N
T O
R
110.0( 0
I : 110.01
ca
!Z
170.0( v
O
M
170.0(
L
!z
Q
170.0( J
L
d
t
U
170.0( p
1 : 850.01 >
T"
N
-1 ti
r
125.0(
c
13.0(
CL v
O
r
r
Q
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 44
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code:
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
247734
6/17/2021
065052 AARD PEST CONTROL
(Continued)
MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROL
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
Tota
247735
6/17/2021
061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX
621663
P&R LEAGUE SHIRTS
P&R LEAGUE SHIRTS
001.000.64.571.25.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.25.31.00
Tota
247736
6/17/2021
064088 ADT COMMERCIAL
140216974
ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL
ALARM MONITORING CITY HALL 121
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
31146525
FIRE INSPECTIONS CITY HALL
Fire Inspection - CITY HALL 121 5TH
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
Tota
247737
6/17/2021
000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT
10811
MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHA
MONTHLY WHOLESALE WATER CHA
421.000.74.534.80.33.00
Tota
247738
6/17/2021
065568 ALLWATER INC
060921011
FINANCE DEPT WATER
Finance dept water
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
Tota
247739
6/17/2021
070976 AMERESCO INC
CS-6
WWTP: THRU 4/30/21 CONSTRUCT. S
THRU 4/30/21 CONSTRUCT. SERV-05
7.3.d
Page: 2
c
.y
O
m
Amoun
c�
d
L_
CL
90.0( Y
m
9.3E
I : 237.3E
N
C
N
3,704.4(
O
385.2E
1: 4,089.61 ca
sZ
5- tv
v
129.0( G
R
O
84.8£ Q.
1 : 213.9, Q
R( �
R( },
169,780.5( J
I: 169,780.5( L
d
t
v
O
O
37.0( N
ti
3.8! r
(o
I : 40.8! o
E
m
11 E
t
v
R
r
r
_ Q
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 45
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
247739 6/17/2021 070976 AMERESCO INC (Continued)
PF-6
247740 6/17/2021 074718 AQUATIC SPECIALTY SERVICES INC 20671
WWII
247741 6/17/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 656000053039
656000057079
7.3.d
Page: 3
PO # Description/Account
423.100.76.594.39.65.10
1,270,210.0(
Retainage
Y
423.100.223.400
-63,510.5( avi
10.4% Sales Tax
423.100.76.594.39.65.10
132,101.8,
WWTP: THRU 4/30/21 PROF SERV-0511
N
C
THRU 4/30/21 FINAL DESIGN SERV-051
N
423.100.76.594.39.41.00
506,220.4(
10.4% Sales Tax
423.100.76.594.39.41.00
52,646.9: 0
Total:
1,897,668.61 j,
cC
!Z
YOST POOL/SPA SUPPLIES: BULLDOG
YOST POOL/SPA SUPPLIES: BULLDOG
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
295.0( v
10.4% Sales Tax
—
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
30.6�
YOST POOL/SPA SUPPLIES: CHEMICAI
>
0
YOST POOL/SPA SUPPLIES: CHEMICAI
Q.
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
721.0( er
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
74.94
r-
Total:
1,121.61
N
J
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
y
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
t
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
61.1E
O
O
10.4% Sales Tax
>
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
6.3 ,
i t
WWTP:6/9/21 UNIFORMS,TOWELS+MP
ti
r
Mats/Towels
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
51.4i
Uniforms: 3 Lab Coats $0.17 each =
423.000.76.535.80.24.00 0.5' E
10.4% Sales Tax v
R
r
r
Q
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 46
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247741 6/17/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
656000057083
656000059346
656000059350
PO # Description/Account
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MATS
7.3.d
Page: 4
c
.y
O
m
Amoun
v
d
L_
5.3E
N
Y
0.0E avi
t
v
29.5E
a�
3.0,
R
O
1.6' j,
ca
M
6.1' E
6.1' v
4-
0
6.1'
O
L
6.1' Q
Q
6.0£
0.11 2
J
L
0.6, t
U
O
0.6,
0.6,
r
0.6, o
0.6'
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 47
c
t
v
O
r
r
Q
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code:
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
247741
6/17/2021
069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
(Continued)
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
Tota
247742
6/17/2021
064807 ATS AUTOMATION INC
S121532
ALERTON SYSTEM-PW
alerton system-PW
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
Tota
247743
6/17/2021
001795 AUTOGRAPHICS
83721
E184PO - INSTALL GRAPHICS ON PA
E184PO - INSTALL GRAPHICS ON PA
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
10.4% Sales Tax
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
Tota
247744
6/17/2021
001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO
71668
ROUGH BOX - THORENSEN
ROUGH BOX - THORENSEN
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
71669
ROUGH BOX -ALLEN
ROUGH BOX - ALLEN
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
71785
ROUGH BOX - ESHLEMAN
ROUGH BOX - ESHLEMAN
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
Tota
7.3.d
Page: 5
c
.y
O
m
Amoun
v
d
L_
9.2�
m
19.1(
1.5!
a�
1.4' C
224.31 M
O
ca
3,555.0(
369.7, v
3,924.7, p
M
G
Q.
1,093.0( Q
113.6,
I: 1,206.6, N
J
d
t
U
627.0( G
N
627.0( ti
r
co
0
627.0(
1,881.0( N
E
t
v
R
r
r
Q
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 48
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247745 6/17/2021 001527 AWWA
247746 6/17/2021 075217 BASLER. ANTHONY
247747 6/17/2021 078377 BENNETT, MICHELLE
247748 6/17/2021 002258 BENS EVER READY
247749 6/17/2021 077046 BLUE DOT MARKETING CO
247750 6/17/2021 074307 BLUE STAR GAS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
7001908206
PW: ANNUALAWWA MEMBERSHIP RE
7.3.d
Page: 6
�
�
c
.y
O
m
Amoun
v
L_
�
2,237.0( Y
I: 2,237.0( d
t
v
N
C
100.0(
C
O
100.0( —
1 : 200.0(
ca
C O'
77.0(
v
EF G
M
118.2£ C
Q
520.0( },
Mh
J
54.0£
1 : 574.0£ v
O
S O
S
N
1,680.0( ti
I: 1,680.0( r
0
LC
LC
N
1,125.9`. t
v
O
r
r
Q
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 49
7.3.d
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
247750 6/17/2021 074307 074307 BLUE STAR GAS (Continued)
247751 6/17/2021 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 21240
21290
247752 6/17/2021 075025 BRANDING IRON LLC 12753
247753 6/17/2021 078343 BRIDGE MASTERS RENTALS 583
247754 6/17/2021 067947 BROWNELLS INC 21127454
PO # Description/Account
Tota
ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION SE
WALKABLE MAIN ST. & UPTOWN MAR
E4MB BRIDGE MASTER RENTAL
E4MB BRIDGE MASTER RENTAL
332.000.64.594.76.65.00
Tota
INV 21127454 - EDMONDS PD
#3 SQUARE PATCHES 1 3/4
001.000.41.521.40.31.00
#1 SQUARE PATCHES 7/8
001.000.41.521.40.31.00
BRONZE PISTOL BRUSH - DISCOUN
001.000.41.521.40.31.00
Freight
001.000.41.521.40.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.40.31.00
Tota
Page: 7
c
.y
O
sz
m
Amoun
v
1,125.9! L
:a
R�
c
10.5£ 0
1 : 112.2, t
v
R
r
r
Q
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 50
7.3.d
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code:
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
247755
6/17/2021
076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC
5766428
ROADWAY -ASPHALT & ASPHALT BI
ROADWAY -ASPHALT & ASPHALT BI
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
10.1 % Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
Tota
247756
6/17/2021
018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY
95065033
STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASET
&
STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA, DARASET
&
125.000.68.542.61.31.00
10.1 % Sales Tax
125.000.68.542.61.31.00
95066393 STORM - GRAVEL/ DRAIN ROCK
STORM - GRAVEL/ DRAIN ROCK
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
10.1 % Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
Tota
247757 6/17/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 26874395 ENGINEERING COPIER THRU 6/30/21
ENGINEERING COPIER THRU 6/30/21
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
26874396 LEASE -DSD MAIN COPIER
Lease -DSD Main Copier
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
Tota
247758 6/17/2021 003328 CASCADE SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA 1004 2021 CG CSO
2021 CG CSO
117.100.64.573.20.41.00
Tota
Page: 8
c
.y
O
m
Amoun
v
NC L_
NC
313.0,
m
31.6,
1 : 344.6:
N
C
E �
E -a
426.3:
O
43.0E
ca
297.5(
cv
v
30.0! o
796.9,
O
L
Q
26.3E N
J
L
d
217.41 v
O
O
22.6: >
519.9( cV
ti
r
co
0
1,200.0( c
I: 1,200.0( N
E
t
v
R
r
r
Q
Page: 8
Packet Pg. 51
O
43.0E
ca
297.5(
cv
v
30.0! o
796.9,
O
L
Q
26.3E N
J
L
d
217.41 v
O
O
22.6: >
519.9( cV
ti
r
co
0
1,200.0( c
I: 1,200.0( N
E
t
v
R
r
r
Q
Page: 8
Packet Pg. 51
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code:
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
247759
6/17/2021
003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
CG96308
PM: YOST POOL CARBON DIOXIDE
YOST POOL CARBON DIOXIDE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
RN05210988
YOST POOL CYLINDER RENTAL
YOST POOL CYLINDER RENTAL
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
Tota
247760
6/17/2021
067314 CERTIFIED FOLDER DISPLAY SVC
586978
DISTRIBUTE RACK CARD - WSF & SE
DISTRIBUTE RACK CARD - WSF & SE
120.000.31.575.42.41.00
Tota
247761
6/17/2021
073249 CG ENGINEERING, PLLC
44712
GATEWAY SIGN ENGINEERING SERV
GATEWAY SIGN ENGINEERING SERV
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
Tota
247762
6/17/2021
076321 CM HEATING INC
BLD2021-0771
REFUND: CUSTOMER CANCELLED
7.3.d
Page: 9
WI
c
.y
O
!z
m
Amoun
v
d
L_
282.0( Y
m
29.3,
N
C
60.0(
C
6.2, co
I : 377.5 m, O
L
A
!z
A
21, 061.2,
1 : 2,061.2: v
O
IC
IC 0
2,390.0( Q.
I: 2,390.0( Q
�
52.0( J
1 : 52.01 L
tv
t
Al U
O
O
554.4( N
1 : 554.4( ti
r
t0
0
Page: 9
Packet Pg. 52
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247765 6/17/2021 007253 DUNN LUMBER
247766
247767
6/17/2021 068292 EDGE ANALYTICAL
6/17/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
7978743
PUBLIC SAFTEY - SUPPLIES
PUBLIC SAFTEY - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
7978746
PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES
PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
7979331
FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Tota
21-17587
WATER QUALITY - WATER SAMPLE
WATER QUALITY - WATER SAMPLE
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
Tota
2324
PM SUPPLIES: UTILITY KNIFE, SOCK
PM SUPPLIES: UTILITY KNIFE, SOCK
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
2328
PM: CEMETERY SUPPLIES: HANDLE
PM: CEMETERY SUPPLIES: HANDLE
130.000.64.536.50.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
130.000.64.536.50.31.00
2337
PM SUPPLIES: SCREWDRIVER
7.3.d
Page: 10
13
42.3E Y
C
1.2, m
v
cv
O
L
1,170.0( Q
1 : 1,170.0( Q
E-
E- N
29.5£ J
3.0£
L
d
W 3
O
W >
13.9E N
ti
r
1.4( co
l �
c
N
2.8' E
Sl U
v
R
r
r
Q
Page: 10
Packet Pg. 53
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
247767 6/17/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE (Continued)
2339
2341
2342
2359
2361
2365
2366
PO # Description/Account
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: PUTTY KNIVES, STEE
PM SUPPLIES: PUTTY KNIVES, STEE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: AUTO CLEANER, ALU
PM SUPPLIES: AUTO CLEANER, ALU
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: STEEL ROD, NUTS, B
PM SUPPLIES: STEEL ROD, NUTS, B
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: MAP PRO GAS
PM SUPPLIES: MAP PRO GAS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES/ FLAG POLE
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES/ FLAG POLE
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES/ANT BA
PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES/ANT BA
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: WEED & FEED, LAWN
PM SUPPLIES: WEED & FEED, LAWN
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
7.3.d
Page: 11
c
.y
O
m
Amoun
— v
d
L_
26.9£
L' y
Y
L' v
d
69.5,
7.2:
MI N
30.5 , cOo
cv
O
L
12.9� Q
Gl
&
1.3£
n
36.9£ L
m
t
3.8! L)
IT 0
IT
15.9£ N
ti
r
1.6E c
F
F CD
N
38.9£ t
v
O
r
r
Q
Page: 11
Packet Pg. 54
7.3.d
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247767 6/17/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE
247768 6/17/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Tota
1-00025
WILLOW CREEK HATCHERY / METER
WILLOW CREEK HATCHERY WATER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-00575
OLYMPIC BEACH SPRINKLER / METE
OLYMPIC BEACH SPRINKLER / METE
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-00655
LIFT STATION #7 71 W DAYTON ST /
LIFT STATION #7 71 W DAYTON ST /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
1-00825
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM /
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM /
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-00875
SPRINKLER 21 MAIN ST / METER 161
SPRINKLER 21 MAIN ST / METER 161
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-00925
LIFT STATION #8 107 RAILROAD AVE
LIFT STATION #8 107 RAILROAD AVE
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
1-00935
WATERFRONT CENTER 220 RAILRO
WATERFRONT CENTER 220 RAILRO
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-01950
LIFT STATION #1 450 SUNSET AVE /
LIFT STATION #1 450 SUNSET AVE /
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
1-02125
SUNSET & CASPER SPRINKLER/ ME
SUNSET & CASPER SPRINKLER/ ME
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-03710
SPRINKLER 290 MAIN ST / METER 71
SPRINKLER 290 MAIN ST / METER 71
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1-03900
SPRINKLER 290 DAYTON ST / METE
Page: 12
c
.y
O
m
Amoun
d
L_
4.0£
1 : 322.2 , d
t
v
7
� A�
428.3!
R -a
R
O
281.3£ 0
ME
ME Q
53.91
N 'cv
N v
1,545.81 p
9 6
9
O
58.6( Q.
/ P O'
Q
58.6(
AC j
AC J
407.6, m
ME U
ME 3
O
58.6( >
cat
r
86.5, co
8j o
8 CD
E
R7 U
v
R
r
r
Q
Page: 12
Packet Pg. 55
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
247768 6/17/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued)
SPRINKLER 290 DAYTON ST / METE
7.3.d
Page: 13
R
Packet Pg. 56
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
247768 6/17/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued)
1-10778
1-10780
1-13975
1-16130
1-16300
1-16420
1-16450
1-16630
1-17475
1-19950
1-36255
PO # Description/Account
FOUNTAIN 490 MAIN ST/METER 7576
FOUNTAIN 490 MAIN ST/METER 7576
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
SPRINKLER 500 MAIN ST / METER 51
SPRINKLER 500 MAIN ST / METER 51
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 6
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 6
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
SPRINKLER 439 5TH AVE S / METER
SPRINKLER 439 5TH AVE S / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
SPRINKLER 500 DAYTON ST / METE
Tota
7.3.d
Page: 14
R
SPRINKLER 500 DAYTON ST / METE
R
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
LOG CABIN SPRINKLER / METER 699
LOG CABIN SPRINKLER / METER 699
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
CENTENNIAL PLAZA SPRINKLER 15
O
CENTENNIAL PLAZA SPRINKLER 15
0
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
SPRINKLER 575 MAIN ST / METER 75
SPRINKLER 575 MAIN ST / METER 75
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
SPRINKLER 590 DAYTON ST / METE
R
SPRINKLER 590 DAYTON ST / METE
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD / METER 61
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD / METER 61
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
SPRINKLER 1141 9TH AVE S / METER
SPRINKLER 1141 9TH AVE S / METER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
Tota
7.3.d
Page: 14
c
.y
O
sz
m
Amoun
— v
d
L
1z 'a
1 z vi
Y
272.6, avi
6:
v
6:
91.1;
90 O
90 -a
663.1 cOo
87 0
87
119.0f Q
E
E
109.7£ v
7, O
7,
53.9, O
L
E Q
: Q
232.7£
2'
2' u
156.3' J
L
7 d
t
R7 U
53.9, ;
6
6 N
114.2( r
3
0
53.9, y
I: 8,273.6, t
v
R
r
r
Q
Page: 14
Packet Pg. 57
53.9, y
I: 8,273.6, t
v
R
r
r
Q
Page: 14
Packet Pg. 57
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code:
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
247769
6/17/2021
008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
AR193387
COPIERS JUNE 2021
COPIERS JUNE 2021
001.000.23.512.50.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.23.512.50.45.00
AR193622
ENG PRINTER THRU 06/03/2021
ENG PRINTER THRU 06/03/2021
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
Tota
247770
6/17/2021
075136 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOC
164438
E21 FC SERVICES THRU 5/28/21
E21 FC SERVICES THRU 5/28/21
422.000.72.531.90.41.20
Tota
247771
6/17/2021
009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
EDH929604
6/22/21 CCPH
ccph 6/22/21
001.000.25.514.30.41.40
EDH929662
OUTDOOR DINING COUNCIL HEARIN
outdoor dining council hearing 6/22
001.000.25.514.30.41.40
Tota
247772
6/17/2021
066378 FASTENAL COMPANY
WAEVE180479
WATER - SUPPLIES
WATER - SUPPLIES
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
Tota
247773
6/17/2021
074358 GEO-TEST SERVICES
46074
EOGA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES
EOGA GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES
423.000.75.594.35.41.00
Tota
7.3.d
Page: 15
z3
c
.y
O
m
Amoun
v
d
L_
183.2,
m
19.0E
N
C
193.1�
z3
C
20.M cv
415.5. O
L
10,637.5(
10,637.5( v
O
G =-
Q
33.6(
I : 65.8( N
J
d
t
U
189.9( G
19.7E N
1 : 209.6E ti
r
t0
0
c
2,044.8(
I: 2,044.8( t
v
R
r
r
Q
Page: 15
Packet Pg. 58
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247774 6/17/2021 012199 GRAINGER
247775 6/17/2021 076294 HARRIS ISUZU
247776 6/17/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
810393736
FISHING PIER - SUPPLIES (RETURN
FISHING PIER - SUPPLIES (RETURN
332.000.64.594.76.65.00
810393736
FIRE STATION 17 - PARTS
FIRE STATION 17 - PARTS
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
810393736
LIBRARY - PARTS
LIBRARY - PARTS
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9926370546
WWTP: PO 597 LOW ARC,CHROME,
PO 597 LOW ARC,CHROME,AMERIC
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
9926624629
WWTP: PO 603 JAW COUPLING INSE
PO 603 JAW COUPLING INSERT - pick
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
9.8% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Tota
23492
UNIT 10 - PARTS/ OXYGEN SENSOR
UNIT 10 - PARTS/ OXYGEN SENSOR
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.5% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Tota
1011911 F.A.C. - SUPPLIES
F.A.C. - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
7.3.d
Page: 16
c
.y
O
m
Amoun
v
ED L_
ED
1,155.6,
m
t
v
681.5,
m
C
70.8£
C
R
189.9, 0
L
19.7£ Q
AN �
106.9, v
O
10.4£ >
R- O
ei Q
2.3, Q
0.2:
2,237.6£ .N
J
L
m
t
U
O
95.9£ 9
10.0£ N
106.04 r
0
Page: 16
Packet Pg. 59
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247776 6/17/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
1081603
1090447
12001
1513236
2010367
2010378
2010379
PO # Description/Account
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SHOP SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
STREET - RRFB'S DRILL BITS
STREET - RRFB'S DRILL BITS
126.000.68.595.33.65.00
10.3% Sales Tax
126.000.68.595.33.65.00
LOG CABIN - SUPPLIES
LOG CABIN - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
SEWER - SUPPLIES
SEWER - SUPPLIES
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
YOST - SUPPLIES
YOST - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
ROADWAY - SUPPLIES
ROADWAY - SUPPLIES
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
FISHING PIER - SUPPLIES
FISHING PIER - SUPPLIES
332.000.64.594.76.65.00
7.3.d
Page: 17
11.0, M0
52.1 £ v
139.9, cOv
Gl
4.5£
21.8, L
m
t
2.2, 3
O
57.3£ N
ti
r
5.9' o
c
N
842.1!
v
O
r
r
Q
Page: 17
Packet Pg. 60
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247776 6/17/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
2010398
2013098
2013175
2024889
20774
2080870
2090356
PO # Description/Account
10.3% Sales Tax
332.000.64.594.76.65.00
YOST - SUPPLIES
YOST - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
FISHING PIER - SUPPLIES
FISHING PIER - SUPPLIES
332.000.64.594.76.65.00
10.3% Sales Tax
332.000.64.594.76.65.00
PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPLIES
PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPLIES
7.3.d
Page: 18
c
.y
O
m
Amoun
v
d
L_
86.7,
m
t
v
95.8,
m
C
9.81
c
R
f• • J
cy
30.6, v
O
44.8,1 Q
0
4.6: S
J
L
81.9(
U
O
8.4, >
T_
N
ti
397.0: r
co
0
40.8(
m
E
t
v
R
r
r
Q
Page: 18
Packet Pg. 61
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
247776 6/17/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued)
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
3010207
STREET - CONRETE SUPPLIES
STREET - CONRETE SUPPLIES
125.000.68.542.61.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
125.000.68.542.61.31.00
3024754
YOST - SUPPLIES
YOST - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
3096645
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
4010087
YOST - SUPPLIES
YOST - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
4021648
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
5012715
CITY HALL - PAINTING SUPPLIES
CITY HALL - PAINTING SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
5022779
PUBLIC SAFETY - COUNCIL CHAMBE
7.3.d
Page: 19
c
.y
O
O_
m
Amoun
d
L_
112.44
N
Y
11.5f avi
t
v
195.5£ c
a�
20.1,
C
R
O
130.4, L>,
ca
13.4,
v
38.0, O
315.9£
32.5! h
J
L
d
t
13.8, L)
O
1.4:
N
ti
r
91.0f c
9.3£ d
R E
v
R
r
r
Q
Page: 19
Packet Pg. 62
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247776 6/17/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
PUBLIC SAFETY - COUNCIL CHAMBE
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
6011207
FISHING PIER - SUPPLIES
FISHING PIER - SUPPLIES
332.000.64.594.76.65.00
10.3% Sales Tax
332.000.64.594.76.65.00
6013962
LIBRARY - SUPPLIES
LIBRARY - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
6072296
FISHING PIER - SUPPLIES
FISHING PIER - SUPPLIES
332.000.64.594.76.65.00
10.3% Sales Tax
332.000.64.594.76.65.00
623307
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
8012360
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES FOR WALL RE
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES FOR WALL RE
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
8013611
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
7.3.d
Page: 20
c
.y
O
O_
m
Amoun
d
L_
R
32.8£
m
3.3£
N
C
174.6`.
C
17.9�
cv
El
80.8£
8.3, L
P, d
t
P, v
O
36.8,
3.7f
r
t0
0
56.9'
CD
5.8£ t
v
O
r
r
Q
Page: 20
Packet Pg. 63
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
247776 6/17/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES (Continued)
8021109
247777 6/17/2021 061013 HONEY BUCKET
247778 6/17/2021 071642 HOUGH BECK & BAIRD INC
8022424
8522938
8522939
44211f1:111,
PO # Description/Account
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES
CITY HALL - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
FAC MAINT SHOP/ CITY HALL - SUPPI
FAC MAINT SHOP/ CITY HALL - SUPPI
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES
TRAFFIC - SUPPLIES
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
FISHING PIER - SUPPLIES
FISHING PIER - SUPPLIES
332.000.64.594.76.65.00
10.3% Sales Tax
332.000.64.594.76.65.00
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.3% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
7.3.d
Page: 21
13
N
Y
24.1( avi
t
v
2.4�
W
C
N
44.5£
R
4.5� O
L
ca
13.6,
1.4( v
4-
0
6.1, Q
38.8 , N
J
L
4.0( t
Total: 4,516.5, 3
O
0552117673 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER HONE` >
T-
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER HONE` N
13875
001.000.64.576.80.45.00 240.3! r
Total: 240.3!
E20CE SERVICES THRU 5/25/21
E20CE SERVICES THRU 5/25/21
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
0
c
N
E
4,654.6: v
R
r
r
Q
Page: 21
Packet Pg. 64
7.3.d
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247778 6/17/2021 071642 071642 HOUGH BECK & BAIRD INC
247779 6/17/2021 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
300-10087692
247780 6/17/2021 076917 JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC W3X8610014
W3Y0200002
247781 6/17/2021 068401 KING CO OFFICE OF FINANCE 112250
247782 6/17/2021 067568 KPG INC 4-7121
247783 6/17/2021 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING 4704068
PO #
Description/Account
Tota
PM SUPPLIES: GLOVES
PM SUPPLIES: GLOVES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Tota
WWTP: TO 6.2019 3/13-5/28/21
TO 6.2019 3/13- 5/28/21
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
WWTP: PROF. SERVICES 3/13-5/28/21
PROF. SERVICES 3/13-5/28/21
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Tota
WLRD/ WRIA 8- AWARD 114450 FOR
WLRD/ WRIA8-AWARD 114450 FOR
422.000.72.531.90.41.50
Tota
E7DC SERVICES THRU 4/25/21
E7DC SERVICES THRU 4/25/21
112.000.68.595.61.41.00
E7DC SERVICES THRU 4/25/21
125.000.68.595.61.41.00
E7DC SERVICES THRU 4/25/21
126.000.68.595.61.41.00
E7DC SERVICES THRU 4/25/21
422.000.72.594.31.41.00
Tota
SHREDDING JUNE 2021
SHREDDING JUNE 2021
001.000.23.512.50.49.00
Page: 22
c
.y
O
m
Amoun
v
4,654.6: L
:a
2
N
Y
d
272.5( v
28.3,
1 : 300.8, N
c
O
1,092.0( 0
ca
2,567.0(
1: 3,659.0(
v
20 O
0 to
14,646.0( 2
1: 14,646.0(
Q
13,229.9, J
L
1,631.3E t
U
O
4,436.5,
N
596.8, ti
19,894.61 r
0
c
N
17.2E t
v
O
r
r
Q
Page: 22
Packet Pg. 65
7.3.d
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247783 6/17/2021 075016 075016 LEMAY MOBILE SHREDDING
247784 6/17/2021 078362 LEWIS COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE
247785 6/17/2021 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
247786 6/17/2021 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC
247787 6/17/2021 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENTALL INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
4/22/21
59634393
351096
247788 6/17/2021 067834 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS 6156050
PO # Description/Account
Tota
4/22/21 LCSO DRUG FUND - EDMON
4/22/21 DRUG DESTRUCTION
001.000.41.521.80.41.00
Tota
WWTP: PO 600 MOBILE GEAR OIL
PO 600 MOBILE GEAR OIL
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Tota
WWTP: PO 482 6/4/21 PROPANE
PO 482 6/4/21 PROPANE
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Tota
STREET - PLASTIC BLADES FOR LIN
STREET - PLASTIC BLADES FOR LIN
111.000.68.542.71.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.71.31.00
Tota
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
Tota
Page: 23
c
.y
O
m
Amoun
v
17.2E L
:a
DS Y
d
10.3:
1 : 10.3:
N
C
N
710.0£
46.5E 0
ca
78.6E EZ
1 : 835.3E f
R
v
4-
O
E
E
43.5( >
O
L
E7.
4.5:
1 : 48.0: Q
�
� N
J
16.9£ L
m
t
1.7, =
1 : 18.7! 0
N
r;
r
218.8£ c
22.7E d
I : 241.6d t
v
R
r
r
Q
Page: 23
Packet Pg. 66
7.3.d
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247789 6/17/2021 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC
247790 6/17/2021 067694 NC POWER SYSTEMS CO.
247791 6/17/2021 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
0618114-I N
PSCS0673188
PSCS0673334
0765541-IN
247792 6/17/2021 064215 NORTHWEST PUMP & EQUIP CO 3212823-00
PO #
Description/Account
WWTP: PO BOX 563 VENTIS 4 GAS
PO BOX 563 VENTIS 4 GAS
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
T(
FLEET - PARTS
FLEET - 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
UNIT 101 - PARTS
UNIT 101 - 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
T(
FLEET - FILTERS
FLEET - FILTERS
511.000.77.548.68.34.40
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.34.40
T(
WWTP: DRYER REPAIR
DRYER REPAIR
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
WWTP: GD MAINTENANCE KITS
Page: 24
c
.y
O
m
Amoun
v
d
L_
717.2!
m
74.54 v
791.8,
N
C
N
418.4(
O
15.0( >,
ca
45.01
v
61.11 o
R
15.0( p
L
7.9, Q
I : 562.5d
C
J
107.0E `m
t
L)
11.1, p
I : 118.2, >
N
ti
r
co
619.0(
c
64.3E E
t
U
a
r
r
Q
Page: 24
Packet Pg. 67
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code:
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
247792
6/17/2021
064215 NORTHWEST PUMP & EQUIP CO
(Continued)
GD MAINTENANCE KITS
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Tota
247793
6/17/2021
073012 NORTHWEST SIGN RECYCLING
3887
TRAFFIC - HYDROSTRIPPING INCLU
TRAFFIC - HYDROSTRIPPING INCLU
111.000.68.542.64.31.00
Tota
247794
6/17/2021
065720 OFFICE DEPOT
172865024001
172865024001 - ACCT 90520437 - ED
INDEX BINDER TAB FOLDERS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
BLACK RETRACTABLE PENS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
175123262001
INV 175123262001 -ACCT 90520437 P
INV 175123262001 - ACCT 90520437 P
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
Tota
247795
6/17/2021
063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC
45302
YOST POOL SUPPLIES
YOST POOL SUPPLIES: CHEMICALS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Tota
247796
6/17/2021
075735 PACIFIC SECURITY
36358
MAY 2021 SECURITY
MAY 2021 SECURITY
001.000.23.512.50.41.00
7.3.d
Page: 25
c
.y
O
m
Amoun
d
L_
998.7E Y
m
103.8,
1: 1,786.0'
N
C
DE N
DE -a
734.7,
I : 734.7d
O
L
MC
9.7, .�
cv
v
65.5! G
R
7.8, G
N Q.
Q
5.1� N
I : 137.7d J
L
d
t
U
O
O
726.2E >
N
75.5, ti
r
1 : 801.7!
0
c
N
3,795.8, =
Page: 25
Packet Pg. 68
7.3.d
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247796 6/17/2021 075735 075735 PACIFIC SECURITY
247797 6/17/2021 069633 PET PROS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
1275
247798 6/17/2021 070431 PITNEYBOWES EASYPERMIT POSTAGE 8000-9090-0618-6873
247799 6/17/2021 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870
247800 6/17/2021 077429 PURE WATER AQUATICS 2178-A
2184
2310
PO # Description/Account
Tota
INV 1275 - EDMONDS PD -ACE & HO
ACE - DOG FOOD
001.000.41.521.26.31.00
HOBBS - DOG FOOD
001.000.41.521.26.31.00
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.26.31.00
Tota
PITNEY BOWES BULK MAIL
pitney bowes bulk mail
001.000.25.514.30.42.00
Tota
PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR CI
PORT RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASE FOR CI
422.000.72.531.90.41.50
Tota
PM SUPPLIES: ROPE HOOK
PM SUPPLIES: ROPE HOOK
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: OVAL FLOATS
PM SUPPLIES: OVAL FLOATS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: HAND CRANK
PM SUPPLIES: HAND CRANK
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Page: 26
c
.y
O
O_
m
Amoun
v
3,795.8, L
:a
BE Y
d
106.21
132.9£
N
25.1, -a
I : 264.3,
R
O
L
ca
3,939.4,
3,939.4. ,E
R
4,011.5! >
I: 4,011.5! Q.
sZ
El
311.1(
J
32.3! L
m
t
U
O
162.2, 0
N
16.81
r
t0
0
154.3E c
m
16.0! t
v
O
r
r
Q
Page: 26
Packet Pg. 69
7.3.d
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Bank code:
usbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
247800
6/17/2021 077429 077429 PURE WATERAQUATICS
247801
6/17/2021 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC
247802 6/17/2021 066948 RAY ALLEN MFG LLC
247803 6/17/2021 076328 SCJ ALLIANCE
247804 6/17/2021 076831 SKAGIT SHOOTING RANGE LLC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
33945
RINV166388
[:3cyf-w
875
247805 6/17/2021 075543 SNO CO PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOC 3391
247806 6/17/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200326460
200650851
PO # Description/Account
Tota
MARKER/INSCRIPTION-WINGFIELD
MARKER/INSCRIPTION-WINGFIELD
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
Tota
RINV166388 - EDMONDS PD- HWANG
SCENT BOX - SET OF 4
001.000.41.521.26.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.26.31.00
Tota
E20CE SERVICES THRU 5/29/21
E20CE SERVICES THRU 5/29/21
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
E20CE SERVICES THRU 5/29/21
126.000.68.595.33.41.00
Tota
INV 875 - EDMONDS PD
6/7/21 COURSE OF FIRE TRAINING
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
8.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
Tota
MAY PUBLIC DEFENSE CONTRACT
MAY CONTRACT
001.000.39.512.52.41.00
Tota
HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMOND
HUMMINGBIRD PARK 1000 EDMOND
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
CITY PARK RESTROOMS
Page: 27
z3
c
.y
O
sz
m
Amoun
v
692.9! L
:a
N
Y
d
384.0(
384.0( +_
N
C
N
z3
979.9£
101.9: 0
1,081.9( cC
30,789.3! ,-
O
4,510.9E >
35,300.3d L-
it
550.0(
J
46.7! L
596.7! t
v
7
O
S
S
V-
31,764.5( ti
1: 31,764.54 r
to
�
CD
N
17.1, E
t
v
R
r
r
Q
Page: 27
Packet Pg. 70
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247806 6/17/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
CITY PARK RESTROOMS
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
200663953
ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE / MET
ANWAY PARK 131 SUNSET AVE/ MET
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
201054327
BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 50 RA
BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH 50 RA
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
201383270
CITY PARK GAZEBO
CITY PARK GAZEBO
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
201501277
LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH PL
LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH PL
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
202114484
CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHELT
CITY PARK S RESTROOMS & SHELT
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
202139655
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100 R
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH 100 R
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
202250635
9TH/CASPER LANDSCAPE BED / ME
9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPE BED / ME
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
202356739
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W /
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W /
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
202579520
WWTP: 5/1-5/31/21 ENERGY MGMT S
5/1-5/31/21 ENERGY MANAGEMENT
423.000.76.535.80.47.61
205184385
LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / ME
LIFT STATION #5 432 3RD AVE S / ME
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
205307580
DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING 2
DECORATIVE & STREET LIGHTING 2
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
7.3.d
Page: 28
c
.y
O
O_
m
Amoun
_ v
d
L_
E avi
E
v
153.3,
IL N
C
IL N
168.9E
R
ER
ER
TE
TE
26
26
O
17.1 �%
S1
ca
S\
O
70.1, iv
AI
O
L
AI
Q.
26.5, Q
17.1, u
ME
J
ME
L
30.3E U
EF
O
>
SE
9.7, N
TE
r
TE
c
22.1' ;
N
E
t
126.2E R
r
r
Q
Page:
28
Packet Pg. 71
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code:
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
247806
6/17/2021
037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
(Continued)
221593742
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W /
7.3.d
Page: 29
ME
ME
z3
c
.y
O
sz
m
Amoun
d
L_
�
Y
71.1£ avi
t
_ v
81.41
5�
E' -a
18.3, cOv
c —
` O
L
16.6( Q
I : 883.1!
v
O
131.2! R
I : 1312 C
L
Q
sZ
Q
18.1,
1.8� J
1 : 20.0, y
t
v
O
O
383.6, N
ti
39.9(
423.5
Page: 29
Packet Pg. 72
C
N
E
t
v
R
r
r
Q
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247810 6/17/2021 077070 UNITED RECYCLING & CONTAINER
247811 6/17/2021 071549 UNIVAR SOLUTIONS USA INC
247812 6/17/2021 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR
247813 6/17/2021 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
135573
49187254
1050144
9880940750
247814 6/17/2021 068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE 201135277
201135348
PO # Description/Account
111.000.68.542.31.31.00
STORM - DUMP FEES
STORM - DUMP FEES
422.000.72.531.10.49.00
7.3.d
Page: 30
c
.y
O
m
Amoun
v
d
L_
183.2E
to
Y
d
956.2(
Total: 1,139.41
N
WWTP: PO 478 5/27/21 SOD. BISULFITE
PO 478 5/27/21 SOD. BISULFITE
423.000.76.535.80.31.54
2,576.7(
10.4% Sales Tax
—
423.000.76.535.80.31.54
267.9£ L,
Total :
2,844.61
sZ
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION
E
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION
v
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
151.1: O
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION
M
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
151.1, G
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION
Q.
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
155.7- Q
Total:
C/A 442201730-00001
iPad Cell Service Mayor's Office
h
J
001.000.21.513.10.42.00
35.1,
Dayton St Stormwater Pump Station
422.000.72.531.90.42.00
27.0E
Total:
62.1£ >
INV 201135277 COLLISION INVEST-BAS
N
ti
COLLISION INVEST BASIC - MORRIS
r
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
100.0( o
INV 201135348 FIREARMS HANDGUN It
FIREARMS HANDGUN INST-ALLEN
m
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
900.0( t
v
O
r
r
Q
Page: 30
Packet Pg. 73
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247814 6/17/2021 068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE
247815 6/17/2021 045515 WABO
247816 6/17/2021 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS
247817 6/17/2021 045912 WASPC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
41262
121-368
INVO29814
247818 6/17/2021 078314 WASTE MGMT DISPOSAL SVC OF OR 0056818-2588-0
247819 6/17/2021 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS
12292943
12292944
PO # Description/Account
FIREARMS HANDGUN INST - HWANG
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
Tota
JOB POSTING
Building Inspector/Combination Building
001.000.22.518.10.41.40
Tota
PM: TREE REMOVAL: MAPLEWOOD
PM: TREE REMOVAL: MAPLEWOOD
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
Tota
INVO29814 WASPC SPRING CONF RE
WASPC SPRING CONFERENCE
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
Tota
WWTP: 5/24, 5/25, 5/27/21 WASTE PIC
5/24, 5/25, 5/27/21 WASTE PICKUPS
423.000.76.535.80.47.66
Tota
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
7.3.d
Page: 31
c
.y
O
!z
m
Amoun
v
d
L_
900.0( Y
1 : 1,900.01 d
t
v
m
c
50.0(
1 : 50.01 -a
C
PA O
PA
2,250.0( ca
!z
234.0( .�
1 : 2,484.01
v
G O
R
300.0( Q.
1 : 300.01 !Z
Q
K
8,111.5, J
I: 8,111.51
ry
t
U
O
O
332.6-
N
ti
34.5� r
co
0
906.7, d
E
t
v
R
r
r
Q
Page: 31
Packet Pg. 74
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
247819 6/17/2021 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS
247820 6/17/2021 065936 WESSPUR TREE EQUIPMENT INC
247821 6/17/2021 063008 WSDOT
247822 6/17/2021 011900 ZIPLY FIBER
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
(Continued)
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
Tota
IN-2687916
E4MB FISHING PEIR SUPPLIES
E4MB FISHING PEIR SUPPLIES
332.000.64.594.76.65.00
10.4% Sales Tax
332.000.64.594.76.65.00
Tota
RE 41 JZ0186 L013
E20CE PROJECT COSTS THRU 4/21
E20CE PROJECT COSTS THRU 4/21
112.000.68.595.33.41.00
Tota
206-188-0247
TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY AC
TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY AC
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
TELEMETRY MASTER SUMMARY AC
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
253-011-1177
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE
PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE T
7.3.d
Page: 32
c
.y
O
m
Amoun
d
L_
94.3(
1,368.2; Y
d
t
v
332.3(
N
34.5E -a
366.8E
O
O
ca
2,598.7' O"
1 : 2,598.7'
R
CC v
CC O
272.0, >
CC 0
272.0, Q
F
s=
O
O
O
O
O
6.4: '4,
F to
J
24.4,
F
24.4, 0
F >
24.4, N
F ti
r
24.4,
F
24.4;
AE N
E
L v
O
r
r
Q
Page: 32
Packet Pg. 75
vchlist
06/16/2021 1:42:23PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code:
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
247822
6/17/2021 011900 ZIPLY FIBER
(Continued)
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
425-775-1344
425-775-1344 RANGER STATION
425-775-1344 RANGER STATION
001.000.64.571.23.42.00
425-775-7865
UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE
UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FIV
93 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
93 Vouchers in this report
7.3.d
Page: 33
c
.y
O
O_
m
Amoun
d
L_
141.5'
to
Y
d
76.3E
N
C
73.1(
S
�
O
26.4; 0
!Z
ca
115.11 -
E
S£
E
1,105.11 M
v
O
M
1,765.0( 0
L
sz
50.0( Q
188.71
Total: 2,003.7, N
J
Bank total : 2,359,226.7E
t
U
Total vouchers : 2.359.226.7E 7
Page: 33
Packet Pg. 76
C
a+
Q
7.4
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/22/2021
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Donald Cadieux
Staff Lead: NA
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Marissa Cain
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Donald Cadieux.
Narrative
Donald Cadieux
191st St & 76th
($381.17)
Attachments:
CFD - Cadieux Donald - for council
Packet Pg. 77
CITY OF EDMONDS
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FORM
Date Claim Form
Received by City
Please take note that _ /l��L��II�� L .r� IJC , who curre��n--+tly resides at I
, mailing address JA04
home phone # vork phone # , and who resided at
at the time of occurrence and whose date of birth is claiming damages
against % c ' uJ in the sum of 4f / 7 arising out of the following circumstances listed below.
DATE OF OCCURRENCE: -_7r'_a_r TIME:
a�
LOCATION OF OCCURRENCE: f
DESCRIPTION: L
0
1, Describe the conduct and circumstance that brought about the injury or damage. Also describe the injury or damage. E
fJ ' �' +' V � ^4ij '�• i/ fC 'U
�rJ rE E �f Z1
r , GJ �f�r ��J 0
Ci
(attach an extra sheet for additional information, if needed) c
2. Provide a list of w' nesses, if applicable, to the occurrence including names, addresses, and phone numbers. 2
a
K
3
3. Attach copies of all documentation relating to expenses, injuries, losses, and/or estimates for repair.
4. Have you submitted a claim for damages to your insurance company? Yes _XNo
If so, please provide the name of the insurance company:
and the policy #:
Form Revised 04/09/2021 P Packet Pg. 78
7.4.a
This Claim form must be signed by the Claimant, a person holding a written power of attorney from the Claimant, by the
attorney in fact for the Claimant, by an attorney admitted to practice in Washington State on the Claimant's behalf, or by a
court -approved guardian or guardian ad litem on behalf of the Claimant.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct.
f Sig;fa&ffV-0V Claimani Erie and place (residential address, city and county)
Or
Signature of Representative
Print Name of Representative
Date and place (residentia! address, city and county)
Bar Number (if applicable)
Please present the completed claim form to:
City Clerk's Office
City of Edmonds
121 51h Avenue North
Edmonds, WA, 98020
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
E
V
Form Revised 04/09i2021
P Packet Pg. 79
7.5
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/22/2021
Resolution rejecting racially based harassment and hate crimes
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Council
Preparer: Maureen Judge
Background/History
There has been a long history of prejudice, bias and extreme actions against Asians including the
internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. Harassment and Hate Crimes against Asians have risen
dramatically, up 164% over the last year.* (*Study from the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism
at Cal State University San Bernardino.) On March 21, cities around the country including Edmonds and
Bellevue rallied against hate speech and hate crimes; Governor Jay Inslee denounced hate and violence
after recent attacks on Asian and Pacific Islanders in Washington State. May 20, 2021 President Biden
signed bill aimed at countering a rise in anti -Asian crimes during the Coronavirus pandemic. The
legislation is called the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
May was Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage month in the United States --recognizing the
contributions and influence of Asian Americans and Pacific Islander Americans through their history,
culture, and many achievements in the United States.
The Covid-19 pandemic has served as a basis to justify hate speech and cannot be tolerated.
Attachments:
Resolution Addressing Hate
Packet Pg. 80
7.5.a
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REJECTING RACIALLY
BASED HARASSMENT AND HATE CRIMES, PARTICULARLY AGAINST ASIAN AMERICANS AND PACIFIC
ISLANDERS DUE TO COVID 19
Whereas, the City of Edmonds previously adopted Resolution No 1381 in 2017 declaring the City of
Edmonds to be an equitable, safe, and inviting community for everyone who lives in, works in and visits
Edmonds; and,
Whereas we strongly condemn bullying, intimidation or any other acts of hate based on race or
ethnicity; and
Whereas, since the outbreak of Covid-19 there has been a marked increase in harassment and hate
crimes, particularly against Asian American and Pacific Islanders; and
Whereas, misinformation and the use of anti -Asian terminology and rhetoric have perpetuated anti -
Asian stigma and resulted in an increase of acts of hate against Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders and
immigrants and refugees; and
Whereas, we have a responsibility, as elective representatives, to speak out against hate and
discrimination against our residents or visitors to our city; and
Whereas, the City will continue its efforts to prevent hate crimes against Asian American and Pacific
Islanders; and
Whereas, the City desires to further demonstrate its commitment to inclusivity given the abuses
occurring during COVID 19;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City of Edmonds condemns harassment and hate crimes due to COVID-19 and denounces
all COVID-19 related misnaming, blaming and harassment based on race, ethnicity, or place of origin.
Section 2. The City of Edmonds encourages community members who observe or are experiencing
incidents of harassment or hate crimes to call 911 in emergency situations and to report all incidents to
the Washington State Human Rights Commission (1-800-233-3247).
Passed by the City Council the 22nd Day of June, 2021
APPROVED:
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Pg. 81
7.5.a
Mike Nelson, Mayor
a
Packet Pg. 82
7.6
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/22/2021
Urban Forest Planner Job Description
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Development Services
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
Duties for the Development Services Department have expanded for tree review, planting and cutting
issues related to development. More resources are needed for the department to carry out this work.
On June 8, the City Council's PSPP Committee reviewed a proposed job description for a new position:
Urban Forest Planner. After review --and with one minor change to be made --the Committee
recommended that the new job description go on the next Council Consent Agenda for approval.
Staff Recommendation
Approve the Urban Forest Planner job description.
Narrative
The Development Services Department's role in advising, coordinating or responding on other tree
issues, particularly for private property, is increasing. A new job description (attached) is proposed to
provide for the hiring of a subject matter expert. The new position will serve at a level comparable to a
senior planner, but with specific arborist/forestry expertise, and will report to the Environmental
Services Manager.
A budget amendment will be needed at the next opportunity to ensure the necessary funding for the
position.
Meanwhile, recruitment for the Urban Forest Planner will begin as soon as possible after Council
approval of the job description.
Note: Per discussion at the PSPP Committee meeting, a minor change to the job description (regarding
certification) has been made. The attachment includes this change.
Attachments:
UrbanForestPlanner.JD_.06.09.21
Packet Pg. 83
7.6.a
City of
EDMONDS
Washington
Urban Forest Planner
Department: Development Services - Planning Pay Grade NR-11
Bargaining Unit: Non -Represented FLSA Status: Exempt
Revised Date: June XX, 2021 Reports To: "Environmental Programs
Manager"
POSITION PURPOSE: Under general direction, leads in implementing the City's tree regulations and programs
that apply to development projects and to private properties, provides information for the public, coordinates with
other departments, and provides facilitation and guidance to assist the Tree Board.
ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
The following duties ARE NOT intended to serve as a comprehensive list of all duties performed by all employees
in this classification, only a representative summary of the primary duties and responsibilities. Incumbent(s) may
not be required to perform all duties listed and may be required to perform additional, position -specific duties.
Responsible for the implementation of the City of Edmonds' Urban Forest Management Program (UFMP, as it
relates to private property, including, but not limited to the following tasks:
• Provide Input on city code updates and interpretations related to trees
• Lead development and implementation of tree programs to encourage healthy trees on private property
• Make public presentations and prepares reports and memos as needed for public meetings
• Identify tree -related policies and information for updating the City's Comprehensive Plan or other city plans
• Identify best practices for planting and management of trees on private property
• Assist with identifying preferred tree species for certain types of private properties
• Coordinate tree -related code requirements and plan policies with other divisions and departments
• Verify zoning requirements for specific projects and sites
• Conduct site inspections and identify any corrections, as needed
• Manage citywide tree canopy assessment data
• Manage the permitting/notification process for removing or altering trees
• Inspect trees on private property, as required
• Prepare information for the public regarding tree management on private property
• Provide facilitation and guidance to assist the Tree Board or, as necessary, other boards and commissions
• Provide departmental information for Tree City USA applications (annual)
• Keep records and data for private property tree management
• Review professional tree assessments/landscape plans that are submitted to the City (especially in
conjunction with development)
• Assist with determining compliance violations and penalties for illegal tree -cutting on private property
• Where feasible, guide parties to resources for resolving disputes pertaining to private trees
• Coordinate with the interdepartmental Tree Team (aka Urban Forest Management Plan Team) on tree -
related activities
• Support implementation of the city's Urban Forest Management Plan and facilitate periodic updates
• Stay current on regional and national tree issues, trends and best practices
• Attend and participate in related professional groups and committees as directed
• Perform related duties and responsibilities as required.
Packet Pg. 84
7.6.a
Required Knowledge of:
• Urban forestry and landscape practices and principles
• Protection of critical areas, including wildlife habitat, as related to trees and landscape
• Principles and practices of urban forestry management
• Urban planning and development practices
• Local government permitting processes
• GIS development and use
• Time management and project prioritization
• Principles of site development and construction
• Principles of customer service and public relations
• Effective report preparation and presentation
• Public outreach techniques and community education
• Research methods and sources of information related to urban forest management
o
• Tree appraisal methods
a
• Recent developments, current literature and sources of information related to tree
and landscape
management in urban areas
• Pertinent federal, state, and local laws, codes, regulations, and procedures
• Working with contractors and consultants
o
Required Skill in:
• Providing technical assistance for the processing of land use permits and applications
• Evaluating site plans related to tree removal, pruning, planting, and protection
• Using reference materials and manuals regarding the care and maintenance of trees
• Utilizing personal computer software programs and other relevant software affecting assigned work
• Establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with staff, management, outside agencies,
community groups and the general public
• Managing data and presenting key information in an easily understandable manner
• Communicating effectively, both verbally and in writing
• Operating personal computers and appropriate software programs
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
Education and Experience:
A Bachelor's Degree in Forestry, Earth Sciences, Landscape Architecture or other relevant field and five years of
urban forestry experience, including at least one year of planning- or development -related work, are required; or
an equivalent combination of education and experience sufficient to successfully perform the essential functions
of the job.
Required Licenses or Certifications:
• Valid State of Washington Driver's License
• Note: Other specialty certifications/licenses as required by state and federal law and/or OSHA and WAC
regulations may be required within a specified period of time after hire
• Note: Must be able to successfully complete and pass a background check
Highly Recommended Certifications:
Arborist Certification from the International Society of Arboriculture
WORKING CONDITIONS:
Environment:
• Indoor and outdoor work environment, including field visits
• Driving a vehicle to conduct work.
• Some possible exposure to fumes, dust and odors.
• Occasional exposure to noise from equipment operation
Packet Pg. 85
• Frequent office -type work, including computer operation and staff meetings
7.6.a
Physical Abilities:
• Hearing, speaking and otherwise communicating to exchange information in person and on the phone.
• Operating a computer, electronic tablet, and other office equipment
• Reading and understanding a variety of materials
• Sitting, standing, walking or otherwise positioning oneself for extended periods of time
• Wearing proper personal protective equipment as required by department or City policy
Hazards:
• Exposure to insects and potential tree -dwelling animals and tree and plant pollens
• Working sometimes in the vicinity of noisy, motorized machinery
• Exposure to chemical fumes and pesticides
• Contact with dissatisfied and upset members of the public
Incumbent Signature:
Department Head:
Urban Forester
Date:
Date:
January 2019
Packet Pg. 86
8.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/22/2021
Clarification of Tree Regulations for Development
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Kernen Lien
Background/History
Stage 1 of updating the City's tree regulations has primarily focused on protecting trees on sites where
development is happening, along with related issues, such as a Tree Fund. On March 2nd the City
Council adopted the initial tree regulations in Ordinance 4218.
During the months prior to the adoption of regulations for trees on developing property, the Council
adopted two interim ordinances (No. 4200 and No. 4201). The interim ordinances strictly limited
options for tree removal on potential development sites. They would have expired March 10 but, at
the Council's March 2 meeting, they were extended until March 24, while the City Council continued to
consider amendments to the newly adopted tree regulations affecting development sites. At public
meetings on March 9th, 16th, and 23rd and April 13th amendment proposals from various Council
members were discussed and Ordinance 4220 was adopted at the April 13th meeting, thereby
amending the tree regulations adopted under Ordinance 4218.
Staff Recommendation
Review the proposed tree regulations amendments in Attachment 1 and move to bring approved
amendments on consent for adoption.
Overview
At the April 13th Council meeting, there was a significant amount of discussion regarding the tree
retention and replacement requirements, particularly which takes precedence and what happens if the
retention requirements cannot be met. It was acknowledged that due to site constraints there will be
instances when the retention requirements cannot be met. The tree regulations adopted in Ordinance
4220 do not contain a process for allowing development to continue with this situation occurs. During
discussions at the April 13th Council meeting, the Council decided to form a subcommittee to draft
regulations to address the situation when it is not feasible to meet the tree retention requirements.
Staff met with a subcommittee and drafted the amendments in Attachment 1.
Additionally, in response to public comments received since the adoption of Ordinance 4220, two more
amendments are proposed which would place a cap on the fee -in -lieu payments and incentivize tree
retention by waiving the fee -in -lieu requirement if a certain amount of trees are retained.
Amendment Summary
New section ECDC 23.10.060.F
This section adds detail on process for retaining trees during development and provisions for when the
retention requirements are infeasible. In documenting infeasibility, applicants of subdivisions must
Packet Pg. 87
8.1
consider implementing the conservation subdivision design provisions in ECDC 20.75.048. When there
are not enough existing trees outside the improved areas of the site to satisfy the retention
requirements, that applicant must make up the deficiency by:
1. Planting a number of new trees on -site that would be sufficient in combination with the number
of trees actually retained to satisfy the retention requirement; and
2. If it is not feasible for to plant the number of trees to satisfy the retention requirement, the
applicant shall make a fee -in -lieu payment of $2,500 for every tree not plant to achieve the
retention requirement. Note requirement replacement trees beyond the retention standard
not planted would require a fee -in -lieu of $1,000 per tree in accordance with ECDC 23.10.080.E.
New definitions
Two new definitions were created to help clarify the new provisions in ECDC 23.10.060.F.
The new ECDC 23.10.060.F relies on trees being retained outside of improvement areas associated with
development. As such, a definition of improvement was necessary. The new definition is:
Improvement - means and includes, but is not limited to, any building, structure, storm drainage
facilities, road, utility and pedestrian facilities, or other object constituting a physical addition to real
property."
A definition is also added for feasible, which provides;
Feasible - means, for the purpose of this chapter, the project applicant's primary intended legal use
may be achieved. In cases where this chapter require certain actions unless they are infeasible, the
burden of proving infeasibility is placed on the applicant.
New section ECDC 23.10.060.G - Fee -in -lieu relief
There have been a number of comments on the cost of implementing the new tree regulations with
regard to the fee -in -lieu portion of the regulations. Ultimately what the City hopes to achieve with
these regulations is the retention of more trees during development rather the maximizing payments
into the tree fund. One way to achieve this would be to provide an incentive for retaining trees above
the minimum tree retention standard. The new section ECDC 23.10.060.G would provide relief from the
fee -in -lieu provisions if 50% of the significant trees are retained.
New subsection ECDC 23.10.080.E.4 - Fee -in -lieu Cap
This new subsection is also proposed in response to comments since adoption of Ordinance 4220. In
some instances, the fee -in -lieu payments can be rather large, if when the retention requirement is met
or exceeded. The intent was to scale the fee -in -lieu cap with lot size. The code would cap the fee -in -lieu
payments at two dollars per square feet of lot area.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Edmonds Tree Related Regulations with Retention Revisions
Attachment 2: April 13, 2021 City Council Minutes Excerpt
Packet Pg. 88
8.1.a
Draft Tree Related Regulations
23.10.000
Intent and Purpose
23.10.010
Administration Authority
23.10.020
Definitions
23.10.030
Permits
23.10.040
Exemptions
23.10.050
Tree Removal Prohibited
23.10.060
Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity
23.10.070
Tree Protection Measures During Development
23.10.080
Tree Replacement
23.10.085
Protected Trees Notice on Title
23.10.090
Bonding
23.10.100
Violation, Enforcement and Penalties
23.10.110
Liability
23.10.000 Intent and Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to establish a process and standards to provide for the evaluation,
protection, enhancement, preservation, replacement, and proper maintenance of significant trees. This
includes the following:
A. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Urban Forest Management Plan;
B. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan;
C. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Climate Action Plan;
D. Preserve, through design and intention, wildlife corridors and habitat;
E. To promote the public health, safety, biodiversity, environmental health and general welfare of the
residents of Edmonds, provide greenhouse gas emissions mitigation and preserve the physical and
aesthetic character of the city through the prevention of indiscriminate removal or destruction of
trees and ground cover on improved or partially improved property;
F. Preserve the maximum number of trees that are determined to be appropriate for preservation in
the Edmonds urban environment and that have a reasonable chance of long-term survival;
G. Promote site planning, building, and development practices that work to avoid removal or
destruction of trees and vegetation, that avoid unnecessary disturbance to the City's natural
vegetation, and that provide landscaping to buffer the effects of built and paved areas;
H. Encourage tree retention efforts by providing design flexibility with respect to certain development
requirements;
I. Retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing the development
proposal to move forward in a timely manner and replanting when trees are removed during of
development.
J. Promote building and site planning practices that are consistent with the city's natural topographic
and vegetation features while recognizing that certain factors such as condition (e.g., disease,
danger of falling, etc.), proximity to existing and proposed structures and improvements,
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on April 13, 2021 Page 1 of 14
Packet Pg. 89
8.1.a
interference with utility services, and the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property may
require the removal of certain trees and ground cover; and
K. Mitigate the environmental and aesthetic consequences of tree removal in land development
through on -site and off -site tree replacement to help achieve a goal of no net loss of tree canopy
coverage throughout the City of Edmonds;
L. Promote net ecological gain, a standard for a development project, policy, plan, or activity in which
the impacts on the ecological integrity caused by the development are outweighed by measures
taken consistent with the new mitigation hierarchy to avoid and minimize the impacts, undertake
site restoration, and compensate for any remaining impacts in an amount sufficient for the gain to
exceed the loss.
23.10.010 Administering Authority
The development services director ("director") or a designee shall have the authority and responsibility
to administer and enforce all provisions of this chapter.
23.10.020 Definitions
A. Caliper — The American Association of Nurserymen standard for trunk measurement of nursery
stock. Caliper of the trunk shall be the trunk diameter measured six (6) inches above the ground for
up to and including 4-inch caliper size and 12 inches above the ground for larger sizes.
B. Canopy — The leaves and branches of a tree from the lowest branch on the trunk to the top.
C. Critical Root Zone - The area surrounding a tree at a distance from the trunk, which is equal to one
(1) foot for every one (1) inch of tree DBH.
D. Developable Site —The gross site area of a lot minus critical areas and buffers.
E. Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) - The diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at 4.5 feet
from the ground. DBH is also known as Diameter at Standard Height (DSH).
F. Dripline - The distance from the tree trunk, that is equal to the furthest extent of the tree's crown.
G. Feasible — means, for the purpose of this chapter, the project applicant's primary intended legal use
may be achieved. In cases where this chapter require certain actions unless they are infeasible, the
burden of proving infeasibility is placed on the applicant.
Cr.H. Hazard tree - A tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, structurally defective as determined
by a qualified tree professional.
Nd. Grove — A group of three (3) or more significant trees with overlapping or touching crowns.
J. Improved lot — means mean a lot or parcel of land upon which a structure(s) is located, and which
cannot be further subdivided pursuant to city subdivision regulations and zoning code.
�.K. Improvement — means and includes, but is not limited to, any building, structure, storm drainage
facilities, road, driveway, utility and pedestrian facilities, or other object constituting a physical
addition to real property.
J-L. Limits of disturbance means the boundary between the area of minimum protection around a tree
and the allowable site disturbance.
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on April 13, 2021 Page 2 of 14
Packet Pg. 90
8.1.a
�M. Native Tree — Native trees are described in the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) as being
well -suited to our climate and tending to provide good habitat for local wildlife. The UFMP contains
a partial list of species that are considered native trees.
t-N. Nuisance Tree — is a tree that is causing significant physical damage to a private or public structures
and/or infrastructure, including but not limited to: sidewalk, curb, road, water or sewer or
stormwater utilities, driveway, parking lot, building foundation, or roof.
A,.O. Protected Tree — A tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention
and protection plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by
easement, tract, or covenant restriction.
ASP. Pruning- means the proper removal of roots or branches of a tree according to the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 pruning standards.
0-.Q. Qualified professional —An individual with relevant education and training in arboriculture or
urban forestry, having two (2) or more of the following credentials:
1. International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist;
2. Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) as established by the ISA TRAQ (or equivalent);
3. American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) registered Consulting Arborist;
4. Society of American Foresters (SAF) Certified Forester for Forest Management Plans;
For tree retention associated with a development permit, a qualified professional must have, in
addition to the above credentials, a minimum of three (3) years' experience working directly with
the protection of trees during construction and have experience with the likelihood of tree survival
after construction. A qualified professional must also be able to prescribe appropriate measures for
the preservation of trees during land development.
RR.Significant Tree — A tree that is at least six (6) inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) as measured
at 4.5 feet from the ground. For trees with multiple leaders at four and one-half (4.5) feet height,
theDBH shall be the combined cumulative total of branches greater than six (6) inches diameter at
four and one-half (4.5) feet above the average grade. If a tree has been removed and only the stump
remains that is below four and one-half (4.5) feet tall, the size of the tree shall be the diameter of
the top of the stump.
4S. Specimen Tree — A tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the
city's qualified tree professional.
#-.T.Tree - means a self-supporting woody plant characterized by one main trunk or, for certain species,
multiple trunks, that is recognized as a tree in the nursery and arboricultural industries.
-S-.U.Tree Fund — refers to the fund created by Chapter 3.95 ECC.
T-.V.Tree removal — means the direct or indirect removal of a tree(s) or vegetation through actions
including, but not limited to: clearing, cutting, girdling, topping, or causing irreversible damage to
roots or stems; destroying the structural integrity of trees through improper pruning, unless pruning
back to the point where the tree has been previously topped; poisoning; filling, excavating, grading,
or trenching within the dripline that results in the loss of more than 20 percent of the tree's root
system; or the removal through any of these processes of greater than 50 percent of the live crown
of the tree.
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on April 13, 2021 Page 3 of 14
Packet Pg. 91
8.1.a
JJ-. W. Tree topping - The significant cutting back of the leader stem or major branches, resulting in
severely altering the growth potential of a tree. This definition does not apply when the sole
purpose is to create a snag or snags for wildlife habitat.
V-.X.Viable tree - A significant tree that a qualified professional has determined to be in good health,
with a low risk of failure due to structural defects, is windfirm if isolated or remains as part of a
grove, and is a species that is suitable for its location.
23.10.030 Permits
A. Applicability: No person shall remove, excessively prune, or top any significant tree except as
provided by this chapter.
B. Tree removal not specifically exempted in section 23.10.040 will be processed as a Type I permit.
C. Procedural exemption. Tree removal associated with building permit, subdivision, or other land use
approval will be reviewed with the associated project and will not require a separate tree removal
permit. All clearing shall be consistent with and apply the standards established by this chapter.
23.10.040 Exemptions
The following activities are exempt from the provisions of this chapter and do not require a permit:
A. Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot, except for:
That portion of the property containing a critical area or its associated buffer. Critical area in
this context does not include erosion hazards with slopes less than 25 percent.
B. Removal of non -significant trees that are not protected by any other means.
C. Removal of trees by the public works department, parks department, fire department and or
franchised utilities for one of the following purposes:
Installation and maintenance of public utilities or motorized or non -motorized streets or paths
2. In response to situations involving danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards, or
interruption of services provided by a utility.
Franchised utilities shall provide notification to the City prior to tree maintenance or removal. A
separate right-of-way permit may be required.
D. Removal and maintenance of trees within City of Edmonds' parks at the direction of the Parks
Department.
Routine landscaping and maintenance of vegetation, such as pruning and planting, removal of
invasive/exotic species, management of brush and seedling trees. Pruning should comply with ANSI
A300 (Part 1— 2017), Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management — Standard Practices, to
maintain long term health. This includes maintenance of trees and vegetation required to be
retained or planted under the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Pruning
existing trees back to the point where they have been previously topped is considered maintenance
for these trees alone provided pruning will be undertaken only to the extent necessary for public
safety or tree health.
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on April 13, 2021 Page 4 of 14
Packet Pg. 92
8.1.a
F. Trees that do not meet the exemptions in subsections A through E of this section may be removed
with supporting documentation:
a. Nuisance tree with documentation of the damage and any tree work that has been attempted
to rectify the nuisance, and/or a statement from the applicant's qualified tree professional
explaining why no arboricultural practices can safely rectify the nuisance.
b. Hazard tree located outside a critical area with a tree risk assessment prepared by the applicants
qualified professional documenting how the tree meets the definition of a hazard tree.
c. Hazard tree removal in a critical area or critical area buffers consistent with the requirements of
ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.
23.10.050 Tree Removal Prohibited
A. Protected Trees: 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.
B. Vacant Lots: Removal of trees from a vacant lot prior to a project development is prohibited except
as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040.F, hazard and nuisance trees.
C. Demolition of Structures: Tree removal shall be prohibited as part of a permitted demolition except
as required to reasonably conduct demolition activities subject to approval of the director. Tree
replacement shall be required for removed trees.
D. In critical areas, critical area buffers, and in all native growth protection easements, tree removal is
prohibited except as allowed per Chapters 23.40 — 23.90 ECDC.
23.10.060 Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity
A. Introduction. The City's objective is to retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site
while still allowing t#e-a feasible development proposal to move forward in a timely manner. To
that end, the City requires approval of a tree retention and protection plan in conjunction with the
following applications:
1. Short subdivision
2. Subdivision
3. New multi -family development
4. New single-family development on a vacant lot or a demolition and replacement of a single-
family house, and
5. Any tree removal on developed sites not exempted by ECDC 23.10.040.
In order to make better decisions about tree retention, particularly during all stages of
development, tree retention and protection plans will require specific information about the
existing trees before removal is allowed. Specific tree retention and protection plan review
standards provided in this section establish tree retention priorities, incentives, and variations to
development standards in order to facilitate preservation of viable trees.
B. Tree Retention and Protection Plan
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on April 13, 2021 Page 5 of 14
Packet Pg. 93
8.1.a
1. An applicant for a development identified in subsection A must submit a tree retention and
protection plan that complies with this section. A qualified professional may be required to
prepare certain components of a tree retention and protection plan at the applicant's expense.
Tree Retention and Protection Plan Components. The tree retention and protection plan shall
contain the following information, unless waived by the director:
a. A tree inventory containing the following:
i. A number system of all existing significant trees on the subject property (with
corresponding tags on trees);
ii. Size (DBH) and estimated tree crown diameter;
iii. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained);
iv. Brief general health or condition rating of trees (i.e.: poor, fair, good, excellent, etc.)
V. Tree type or species.
b. A site plan depicting the following:
Location of all proposed improvements, including building footprint, access, utilities,
applicable setbacks, critical areas, buffers, and required landscaped areas clearly
identified. If a short subdivision or subdivision is being proposed and the location of all
proposed improvements has not yet been established, a phased tree retention and
protection plan review is required as described in subsection (3)(a) of this section;
ii. Accurate location of significant trees on the subject property and adjacent properties
where the canopy and/or critical root zone of adjacent significant trees extend onto the
subject property (surveyed locations may be required).
iii. Trees labeled corresponding to the tree inventory numbering system;
iv. Location of tree protection measures;
V. Indicate limits of disturbance drawn to scale around all trees potentially impacted by
site disturbances resulting from grading, demolition, or construction activities;
vi. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained) noted by an 'X' or by ghosting
out;
vii. Proposed locations of any required replacement trees as outlined in ECDC 23.10.080
and trees required to be planted in accordance with ECDC 23.10.060.C.5. Where
replacement trees are proposed to be planted at a different location than the project
site, a description of the alternate site and written approval from the property owner
must be provided.
c. An arborist report containing the following:
A complete description of each tree's health, condition, and viability;
A description of the method(s) used to determine the limits of disturbance (i.e., critical
root zone, root plate diameter, or a case -by -case basis description for individual trees);
iii. Any special instructions specifically outlining any work proposed within the limits of the
disturbance protection area (i.e., hand -digging, tunneling, root pruning, any grade
changes, clearing, monitoring, and aftercare);
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on April 13, 2021 Page 6 of 14
Packet Pg. 94
8.1.a
iv. For trees not viable for retention, a description of the reason(s) for removal based on
poor health, high risk of failure due to structure, defects, unavoidable isolation
(windfirmness), or unsuitability of species, etc., and for which no reasonable alternative
action is possible must be given (pruning, cabling, etc.);
V. Description of the impact of necessary tree removal to the remaining trees, including
those in a grove;
3. Additional Tree Retention and Protection Plan Standards for Short Subdivisions and Subdivisions
a. Phased Review
i. If during the short subdivision or subdivision review process the location of all proposed
improvements, including the building footprint, utilities, and access, have not yet been
established, the applicant may submit a Tree Retention and Protection Plan that
addresses the current phase of development and limits removal to the impacted areas.
A new Tree Retention and Protection Plan shall be required at each subsequent phase of
the project as more information about the location of the proposed improvements is
known subject to all of the requirements in this section.
C. Tree Retention Requirements
General Tree Retention Requirements: Significant trees on lots proposed for development or
redevelopment, except as substituted under subsection F.4 below, shall be retained as follows
ECDC 23.10.060.0 Tree Retention Requirements for Proposed Development
Development
Retention Required
New single-family, short subdivision, or
30% of all significant trees in the developable
subdivision
site
Multi -family development, unit lot short
25% of all significant trees in the developable
subdivision, or unit lot subdivision
site
2. Trees that are located within Native Growth Protection Areas, critical areas and their associated
buffers, or that have otherwise been designated for protection shall not be removed except as
provide for ECDC 23.10.040.E hazard and nuisance trees and ECDC 23.40.220.C.8 critical area
hazard tree.
3. The director may require the retention of additional trees to meet the stated purpose and intent
of this chapter, as required by the critical area regulations (Chapters 23.40 — 23.90 ECDC), or the
Shoreline Master Program (Title 24 ECDC) or as site -specific conditions demand using SEPA
substantive authority.
4. In addition to the tree retention requirements in subsection C.1 of this section, every significant
tree that is removed under this chapter must be replaced consistent with the requirements of
ECDC 23.10.080.
5. For developing properties identified in ECDC 23.10.060.A that have fewer than three significant
trees, trees shall be retained and/or planted that will result in the site having at least three
trees, which will be significant at maturity, per 8,000 square feet of lot area.
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on April 13, 2021 Page 7 of 14
Packet Pg. 95
8.1.a
D. Priority of Tree Retention Requirements: Significant trees to be retained should be retained in the
following order of priority:
1. Priority One:
a. Specimen trees;
b. Significant trees which form a continuous canopy;
c. Significant trees on slope greater than 15 percent;
d. Significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers; and
e. Significant trees over sixty (60) feet in height or greater than eighteen (18) inches DBH.
2. Priority Two:
a. Healthy tree groupings whose associated undergrowth can be preserved;
b. Trees within the required yard setbacks or around the perimeter;
c. Trees that have a screening function or provide relief from glare, blight, or commercial
development;
d. Other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees; and
e. Other significant nonnative trees.
3. Priority Three: -Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been
evaluated for retention and are not able to be retained except where adjacent to open space,
wetlands or creek buffers.
E. In considering trees for retention, applicants and the City shall avoid, to the extent known, the
selection of trees that are mature and may be a fall hazard, including trees adjacent to utility
corridors where falling trees may cause power outages or other damage.
F. Tree Retention Procedures
1. If a revised improvement placement would result in the retention of more and/or
higher priority trees, the tree retention and protection e ^'^^^^^^* plan should be adjusted to:
a. Maximize the retention off higher priority trees, and
b.- Satisfy the retention requirement in subsection C.
2. This adjustment in subsection F.1 of this section must be done unless the applicant can
demonstrate that actual compliance with subsection C would make the proposed development
infeasible. In documenting infeasibility, applicants of subdivision and short subdivision must
consider implementing conservation subdivision design as provided for in ECDC 20.75.048.
3. Once the location of on -site improvements has been established through citv review and
applicant revision of the tree retention and protection plan, existing Priority One trees not r
c
impacted by the installation of said improvements must be retained at least to the number of a)
trees required by subsection C, except for hazard trees and nuisance trees.
c�
4. If there are not enough existing trees outside of the improved areas of the site to satisfy a
subsection C through retention alone, the applicant shall be required to make up the deficiency
as follows: m
E
U
a
r
r
Q
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on April 13, 2021 Page 8 of 14
Packet Pg. 96
8.1.a
a. —Planting a number of new trees on -site that would be sufficient, in combination with the
number of trees actually retained, to satisfy subsection C; and
b. —If it is not feasible for planting under this subsection, to achieve the required number of
trees, the applicant shall make a fee -in -lieu payment of $2,500 for every tree not planted
pursuant to this subsection.
G. If a development retains 50% of the significant trees on a site, the fee -in -lieu provisions of ECDC
23.10.080.E does not apply.
23.10.070 Tree Protection Measures During Development
Prior to development activity or initiating tree removal on the site, vegetated areas, individual trees and
soil to be preserved in accordance with ECDC 23.10.060.13 shall be protected from potentially damaging
activities pursuant to the following standards:
A. Preconstruction Meeting Required. Prior to the commencement of any permitted clearing and
grading activity, a preconstruction meeting shall be held on site with the permittee and appropriate
City staff. The project site shall be marked in the field as follows
1. The extent of clearing and grading to occur;
2. Delineation and protection of any critical areas and critical area buffers with clearing limit
fencing;
3. Flagging of trees to be removed and tags on trees to be retained; and
4. Property lines
B. Placing Materials near Trees. No person may conduct any activity within the protected area of any
tree designated to remain, including, but not limited to, operating or parking equipment, placing
solvents, storing building material or stockpiling any materials, or dumping concrete washout or
other chemicals. During construction, no person shall attach any object to any tree designated for
protection.
C. Protective Barrier. Before development, land clearing, grading, filling or any land alteration, the
applicant shall:
1. Erect and maintain readily visible temporary protective tree fencing along the limits of
disturbance which completely surrounds the protected area of all retained trees, groups of
trees, vegetation and native soil. Tree protective fencing shall be a minimum height of three
feet, visible and of durable construction; orange polyethylene laminar fencing is acceptable.
2. Install highly visible signs spaced no further than 15 feet apart along the entirety of the
protective tree fencing. Said sign must be approved by the director and shall state at a minimum
"Tree and Soil Protection Area, Entrance Prohibited" and provide the City phone number for
code enforcement to report violations.
Prohibit excavation or compaction of soil or other potentially damaging activities within the
barriers; provided, that the director may allow such activities approved by a qualified
professional and under the supervision of a qualified professional retained and paid for by the
applicant.
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on April 13, 2021 Page 9 of 14
Packet Pg. 97
8.1.a
4. Maintain the protective barriers in place for the duration of the project until
the director authorizes their removal.
5. Ensure that any approved landscaping done in the protected zone subsequent to the removal of
the barriers shall be accomplished with machinery from outside the protected zone or by hand.
6. Limit the time period that the critical root zone is covered by mulch, plywood, steel plates or
similar materials, or by light soils, to protect the trees critical root zone.
7. In addition to the above, the director may require the following:
a. If equipment is authorized to operate within the protected zone, the soil and critical root
zone of a tree must be covered with mulch to a depth of at least six (6) inches or with
plywood, steel plates or similar material in order to protect roots and soil from damage
caused by heavy equipment.
Minimize root damage by hand -excavating a 2-foot-deep trench, at edge of critical root
zone, to cleanly sever the roots of trees to be retained. Never rip or shred roots with heavy
equipment.
Corrective pruning performed on protected trees in order to avoid damage from machinery
or building activity.
d. Maintenance of trees throughout construction period by watering and fertilizing.
D. Grade.
1. The grade shall not be elevated or reduced within the critical root zone of trees to be preserved
without the director's authorization based on recommendations from a qualified professional.
The director may allow coverage of up to one-half (1/2) of the area of the tree's critical root
zone with light soils (no clay) to the minimum depth necessary to carry out grading
or landscaping plans, if it will not imperil the survival of the tree. Aeration devices may be
required to ensure the tree's survival.
2. If the grade adjacent to a preserved tree is raised such that it could slough or erode into the
tree's critical root zone, it shall be permanently stabilized to prevent soil erosion and suffocation
of the roots.
3. The applicant shall not install an impervious surface within the critical root zone of any tree to
be retained without the authorization of the director. The director may require specific
construction methods and/or use of aeration devices to ensure the tree's survival and to
minimize the potential for root -induced damage to the impervious surface.
4. To the greatest extent practical, utility trenches shall be located outside of the critical root zone
of trees to be retained. The director may require that utilities be tunneled under the roots of
trees to be retained if the director determines that trenching would significantly reduce the
chances of the tree's survival.
5. Trees and other vegetation to be retained shall be protected from erosion and sedimentation
Clearing operations shall be conducted so as to expose the smallest practical area of soil to
erosion for the least possible time. To control erosion, it is encouraged that shrubs, ground
cover and stumps be maintained on the individual lots, where feasible.
6. The director may approve the use of alternative tree protection techniques if those techniques
provide an equal or greater degree of protection than the techniques listed in this subsection.
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on April 13, 2021 Page 10 of 14
Packet Pg. 98
8.1.a
E. Directional Felling. Directional felling of trees shall be used to avoid damage to trees designated for
retention.
Additional Requirements. The director may require additional tree protection measures that are
consistent with accepted urban forestry industry practices.
23.10.080 Tree Replacement
A. Replacement required. Tree replacement is required for tree cutting permits required by this
chapter and/or for tree removal associated with the development types identified in ECDC
23.10.060.A. Each significant tree to be removed shall be replaced as follows:
1. For each significant tree between 6 inches and 10 inches DBH removed, one (1) replacement
tree is required.
For each significant tree between 10.1 inches and 14 inches in DBH removed, two (2)
replacement trees are required.
For each significant tree greater than 14 inches and less the 24 inches in DBH removed, three (3)
replacement trees are required.
B. No tree replacement is required in the following cases:
The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable
assurance of regaining vigor, for reasons not attributable to the development.
2. The tree is proposed to be relocated to another suitable planting site, provided that relocation
complies with the standards in this section.
C. Prior to any tree removal, the applicant shall demonstrate through a tree protection and
replacement plan, critical area mitigation plan, or other plans acceptable to the director that tree
replacement will meet the minimum standards of this section.
D. Replacement Specifications.
1. Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be:
a. one -and -one -half -inch caliper for deciduous trees;
b. Six feet in height for evergreen trees.
2. The director may consider smaller -sized replacement trees if the applicant can demonstrate that
smaller trees are more suited to the species, the site conditions, and the purposes of this
section, and that such trees will be planted in sufficient quantities to meet the intent of this
section.
3. Replacement trees shall be primarily native species.
4. Replacement trees must be planted within the City of Edmonds or its Urban Growth Area.
E. Tree Replacement Fee -in -lieu. After providing clear documentation to Development Services that all
replacement options have been considered and are infeasible, including arborist reports as
necessary, the developer shall pay a fee -in -lieu for each replacement tree required but not replaced.
1. The amount of the fee shall be $1000 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to satisfy the
tree replacement requirements of this section and shall be deposited into the City's Tree Fund.
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on April 13, 2021 Page 11 of 14
Packet Pg. 99
8.1.a
2. The fee shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit or associated
development permit.
3. For each significant tree greater than 24" in DBH removed, a fee based on an appraisal of the
tree value by the city tree protection professional using trunk formula method in the current
edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal shall be required.
4. In no case shall the fee -in -lieu payments required by this subsection exceed two dollars per
square feet of lot area.
23.10.085 Protected Trees Notice on Title
The owner of any property that included a tree(s) identified for retention and protection on an approved
tree retention and protection plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently
protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction shall, as a condition of permit issuance, record a
notice on title of the existence of such protected trees against the property with the Snohomish County
auditor's office. The notice shall be approved by the director and the city attorney for compliance with
this provision.
23.10.090 Bonding
A. The director may require a performance bond for tree replacement and site restoration to ensure
the installation of replacement trees, and/or compliance with other landscaping requirements as
identified on the approved site plans.
B. The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of implementation of the tree
replacement and/or site restoration including trees, irrigation and labor.
C. A two-year maintenance bond shall be required after the installation of required site improvements
and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or finalization of permit and following
required landscape installation or tree replacement. The maintenance bond shall be in place to
ensure adequate maintenance and protection of retained trees and site improvements. The
maintenance bond shall be for an amount of 15% of the performance bond or estimate in
subsection B.
D. The director shall exempt individual single-family lots from a maintenance bond, except where a
clearing violation has occurred or tree replacement is located within critical areas or critical area
buffers.
23.10.100 Violation, Enforcement and Penalties
A. Noncompliance with any section of this chapter constitutes a violation of this Code.
A violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be
punishable as provided in Chapter 5.50 ECC.
C. Penalties:
1. Aiding or Abetting: Any person who, through an act of commission or omission, procures, aids or
abets in the violation shall be considered to have committed a violation for the purposes of the
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on April 13, 2021 Page 12 of 14
Packet Pg. 100
8.1.a
penalty. All persons who have been found to commit a violation under this chapter shall be
responsible for an equal share of any penalties imposed under subsection C.2.
Civil Penalties: Any person violating any provisions of this chapter shall have committed a civil
infraction and may be subject to civil penalties in addition to any criminal penalties. Pursuant to
Chapter 64.12 RCW, the City may be entitled to triple the amount of civil damages claimed or
assessed. The extent of the penalty shall be determined according to one or more of the
following:
a. An amount reasonably determined by the Director to be equivalent to the costs estimated
by the City to investigate and administer the infraction;
b. The economic benefit that the violator derives from the violation (as measured by the
greater of the resulting increase in market value of the property or the value received by the
violator or savings of construction costs realized by the violator performing any act in
violation of this chapter);
c. Removal of existing 12" diameter or larger trees in violation of this chapter will require an
appraisal of the tree value by the city tree protection professional using trunk formula
method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. The cost of the appraisal shall
be paid by the person(s) who removed existing trees in violation of this chapter.
d. Penalty for illegal removal of trees shall be $1,500 per tree less than 12" Diameter and the
appraised value of trees 12" or more in diameter. Penalties shall be paid into the city Tree
Fund. If diameter of removed tree is unknown, determination of the diameter size shall be
made by the City Arborist by comparing size of stump and species to similar trees in similar
growing conditions.
The cost of replacing and replanting the trees and restoring the disturbed area according to
a specific plan approved by the City. Violators of this chapter or of a permit issued
thereunder shall be responsible for restoring unlawfully damaged areas in conformance
with a plan, approved by the Director, that provides for repair of any environmental and
property damage, and restoration of the site; and which results in a site condition that, to
the greatest extent practical, is equivalent to the site condition that would have existed in
the absence of the violation(s).
f. If illegal tree topping has occurred, the property owner shall be required to have a certified
arborist develop and implement a five (5) year pruning schedule in addition to monetary
fines and/or required tree replacement.
Civil penalties under this section shall be imposed by a notice in writing, either by certified mail
with return receipt requested or by personal service, to the person incurring the same from the
City. The notice shall describe the violation, approximate the date(s) of violation, and shall order
the acts constituting the violation to cease and desist, or, in appropriate cases, require
necessary corrective action within a specific time.
4. Any fiscal penalty recovered under this section shall be deposited in the City's tree fund as
established in Chapter 3.95 ECC.
23.10.110 Liability
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on April 13, 2021 Page 13 of 14
Packet Pg. 101
8.1.a
A. Liability for any adverse impacts, damages or injury resulting from work performed in accordance
with any permit issued by the city under ECDC 23.10.030 shall be the sole responsibility of the
permit applicant and/or owner of the property or site for which the permit was issued, and shall not
be the responsibility of the city of Edmonds. Issuance by the city of any permit under this chapter
shall not be construed as an assumption of any risk or liability by the city of Edmonds, nor as a
warranty or guarantee that the work authorized by the permit will have no adverse impact or will
cause no damages or injury to any person or property.
B. Issuance by the city of a permit under ECDC 23.20.030 and/or compliance by the applicant and/or
property owner with any permit conditions therein shall not relieve an applicant and/or property
owner from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for any adverse impacts, injury or damage
to persons or property resulting from the work authorized by any permit issued under this chapter.
C. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to relieve any property owner within the city
limits from the duties imposed under Chapter 9.25 ECC to keep any tree or vegetation upon his
property or under his control in such condition as to prevent it from constituting a hazard or a
nuisance.
D. The amount of any security required as part of any land development permit with which tree
removal is associated shall not serve as a gauge or limit to the compensation that may be owed by a
property owner as a result of injury or damages to persons or property resulting from any tree
removal authorized under this chapter.
Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on April 13, 2021 Page 14 of 14
Packet Pg. 102
8.1.b
return to shop downtown after walking 3-4 blocks to their purchases in their car. She did not agree with
Walkable Main Street and preferred the compromise to close Main Street on Sundays.
Joe Scordino, Edmonds, a 42 year resident, was pleased that the Council was considering fixing the tree
code tonight and hoped the Council's discussion was not cut off again as it had been at the last four Council
meetings. The Council should not adopt an inadequate tree code; it will only result in the loss of more
mature trees in total contravention to the Urban Forest Management Plan that the City spent considerable
time preparing and adopting. The Council needs to discuss and resolve public comments that have been
submitted over the past two months which to date it appears have been ignored. Tonight's action not to put
the Landmark Tree ordinance on the agenda is another example of the Council refusing to discuss serious
tree -related issues. It is the Council's job to discuss and resolve those issues and it should not continue to
be put off and ignored. Everyone knows that the tree code is very complicated and contentious but it should
not be judged by some Councilmembers by how many meetings it has taken to resolve. For example, the
fee -in -lieu provision in the current code is a mess; it is difficult to tell if and how it applies to developer
tree retention requirements. That is a fatal flaw and must be resolved and cannot continue to be put off. He
was disappointed the Council was not listening to the public; the Council was sent a letter yesterday
cosigned by 24 citizens asking to take this issue seriously and consider the comments that have been
submitted and concerns about retaining a green environment in Edmonds and he found it troublesome that
that was not being acknowledged. He hoped the Council read the letter and took it into consideration.
(Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.)
7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS AND SECONDED TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2021
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
WIRE PAYMENTS
8.
1. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO NEW TREE REGULATIONS r
N
O
Development Services Director Shane Hope said tonight staff and Council will go through several cm
ri
amendments that have been presented. The new tree regulations were intended to improve and strengthen r
tree protection during development. Three Councilmembers worked with City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Q
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien and her to vet the remaining amendments. Mr. Lien will Q
review the amendments and Councilmembers will have the opportunity to make motions to include or
change the amendments. c
Mr. Lien explained the proposed amendments have been inserted into the tree code that was adopted via
Ordinance 4218 in a redline/strikeout format. The redline/strikeout amendments without comments have
been voted on at previous Council meetings. He suggested starting with the first amendment in 23.10.060.
Council President Paine suggested beginning with the most contentious amendment that will require a fuller
discussion in 23.10.080 related to tree replacement and fee -in -lieu on page 11 of the ordinance. She referred
to the proposed amendment in 23.10.080.E, expressing concern it would diminish the effectiveness of the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 9
Packet Pg. 103
8.1.b
fee -in -lieu and using it as an incentive. She anticipated this would be a very meaty topic and preferred to
handle it first.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained the reason the proposed amendment was in two colors was the
discussion began at the March 2nd meeting and then the meeting was stopped and the Council never returned
to this discussion. A subgroup was formed after a simple majority put the tree code on the Consent Agenda.
The subgroup considered the amendment shown in green. She agreed this entire section had not been
addressed since the March 2' meeting which ended abruptly.
Councilmember Olson asked if Mr. Lien could follow the amendments if they were handled in this order.
Mr. Lien assured he would be able to track the amendments. He explained he would focus on the
amendment highlighted in green; the yellow highlight was included because it was an amendment made
and seconded at a previous meeting but never discussed.
Mr. Lien presented the following amendment (shown in green highlight in the packet), that had been vetted
by the subcommittee:
Revise 23.10.080.E Tree Replacement Fee -in -lieu to read, "After providing clear documentation to
Development Services that all tree retention and/or replacement options have been considered and are
infeasible, including arborist reports as necessary, the developer shall pay a fee -in -lieu for each
replacement tree required but not replaced. ^ fee in lieu of tree r plaeement ,r be allowed, *eet to
for- eaeb f:eplaeemefit tfee r-e"ifed bu4 not planted on the appheation site E)r- an aff site leeati approval by the dir-eeter- after- eensider-ati-A-4-4- of -A]-]- A-ther- eptions. A tfee feplaeemefft fee shall be r-equir-ed
Mr. Lien explained this sentence recognizes there may be instances where the 30% tree retention standards
in 23.10.060.0 cannot be met; the trees are in the way of development. This sentences says when those
retention standards are not met and the required replacement ratios are not met, then a fee -in -lieu is required.
There are also amendments proposed with regard to how the fee -in -lieu is calculated.
Council President Paine expressed support for the proposed language because it is clear that each tree that
cannot be replaced or retained would be considered for fee -in -lieu after all the other options are considered.
She was not a fan of fee -in -lieu, finding it just the cost of doing business. However, she recognized
sometimes there are trees smackdab in the middle of a project and it would be infeasible to retain them.
This text makes it clear that any tree not retained or replaced can be considered for fee -in -lieu.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST,
T
TO ACCEPT THE LANGUAGE IN GREEN AS WRITTEN. c
N
Councilmember K. Johnson said this language was developed by the subcommittee in collaboration with
T
Mr. Lien. L
Q.
a
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Lien referred to an amendment made at a meeting in March:
Add the following to 23.10.080.E.3 Tree Replacement Fee -in -lieu: "For each sign tree greater than 24" in
DBH removed, a fee based on an appraisal of the tree value by the city tree protection professional using
trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal shall be required."
An associated amendment was in made in 23.10.080.A.3 "For each significant tree greater than 14 inches
and less than 24 inches in DBH removed, three (3) replacement trees are required."
With those amendments, there is no replacement requirement for trees greater than 24 inch DBH, only the
appraisal and fee -in -lieu. Those two amendments were made due to the potential for a double dip if both
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 10
Packet Pg. 104
8.1.b
the appraisal and a fee -in -lieu was required based on replacement trees, there was potential to charge for
the 24" tree as well as its replacement.
Mr. Lien presented the following amendment proposed by Councilmember Olson:
Revise 23.10.080.E.1 Tree Replacement Fee -in -lieu to read:
1. Fee -in -lieu payments shall be deposited into the Tree Fund. The value of the payment shall be determined
as provided in subsections I.a and I.b below:
a. The afnetm4 of the fee shall be $1000 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to sa4isfy the 4
replaeemefA-comply with the tree retention requirements of this seetion and shall be deposited int
Gi ECDC 23.10. 060. C.1.
4 b. $350 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to satisfy the tree replacement requirements o ECDC
23.10.080.A beyond the retention standard ofECDC 23.10.060.C.1.
Mr. Lien explained this code is different than other jurisdictions' codes. Most other jurisdictions' codes
require fee -in -lieu to get to the replacement/retention standard. Edmonds' code goes beyond that; even
when the retention standard is met, the fee -in -lieu is still required for the replacement trees that could not
be planted on the property. This amendment has two different fees; if a development removes more than
the 30% and could not replant to reach 30%, the trees to reach 30% are charged at $1,000/tree. Once they
reach the number of trees required to be retained, then all remaining trees that were not planted are charged
at $350/tree, the cost to purchase and plant a tree.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked Mr. Lien to describe the Planning Board's position on the $350. Mr.
Lien answered the Planning Board's position is tied to the previous amendment. The first thing is to retain
as many trees as possible, the next step is to replant as many trees as possible, and the third step is fee -in -
lieu. With regard to the fee -in -lieu amount, the Planning Board considered several options, an alternate
replacement ratio, not requiring so many replacement trees and a different fee -in -lieu number instead of
$1,000. The Planning Board wanted the higher replacement ratio and the higher dollar amount as an
incentive to retain trees. The Planning Board's thinking was if developers have to pay more to remove and
plant trees, they will make greater efforts to retain trees.
Mr. Lien reviewed the following in the fee -in -lieu development examples: .5
Example 1
0
• Assumptions v
o Appraisal for each 24" DBH Tree removed into Tree Fund
■
Assume $3,030 per 24" DBH in example v
T
■ Average appraisal for tree inventory from the City of Renton which appraised 2,283 trees c
(low $541, high $12,415) cm
■ No replacement trees required, only payment into Tree Fund r
o Fee for Replacement trees not planted Q
■ 1,000 per tree below the 30% retention requirement Q
■ $350 per tree beyond 30% i4
• Fee -in -lieu development c
o New Single Family Development E
■ 15 trees pre development
■ 30% retention — 5 trees Q
■ Tree retained — 6 trees
■ Assume plant 3 replacement trees
■ Tree fund Payment $22,610 ($22k) r
■ Required replacement trees not planted — 4 ((350)
■ 24" DBH Trees cut — 7 ($3,030) Q
■ Parks/traffic/Sewer/Water - $18,450
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 11
Packet Pg. 105
8.1.b
o Short subdivision - Four Lots
■ 41 Trees Predevelopment
■ 30% Retention -12 Trees
■ Trees Retained -13 Trees
■ Assume 3 Trees/lot -12 Trees
■ Tree Fund Payment-$57,110 ($58K)
- Required replacement trees not planted -16 Trees(* $350)
- 24" DBH trees cut -17 (* $3,030)
■ Tree Fund Payment Retain 8 additional trees-$34,730 ($37K)
- Required replacement trees not planted -4 Trees (* $350)
- 24" DBH trees cut -11 (* $3,030)
■ Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$55,351
o Subdivision - Ten Lots
■ 90 Trees Predevelopment
■ 30% Retention -27 Trees
■ Trees Retained -20
■ Assume 3 Tree/lot -30
■ Required replacement trees not planted -74
■ Tree Fund Payment-$73,320 ($98K)
- Required replacement trees not planted -45 (* $350)
- 24" DBH trees cut -19 (* $3,030)
■ Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$129,151
o Conservation Subdivision Design
■ Standard subdivision design
- 153 Trees Predevelopment
- 30% Retention -46 Trees
- Trees Retained -15 Trees
- Assume 3 Tree/Lot -12 Trees
- Tree Fund Payment-$180,720 ($315K)
- Required Replacement trees not planted -230
• Tree to get to 30% -19 (* $1,000)
Additional Replacement Trees -211 (* $350)
- 24" DBH Trees Cut -29 (* $3,030)
- Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$70,801
■ Clustered design
- 153 Trees Predevelopment
- 30% Retention -46 Trees
- Trees Retained -62 Trees
- Assume 3 Tree/Lot -12 Trees
- Tree Fund Payment-$110,300 ($202K)
• Required Replacement trees not planted -142 (* $350)
• 24" DBH Trees Cut -20 (* $3,030)
- Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$70,801
o Multi- Family Development - 10 Unit Apartment
■ 8 Trees Predevelopment
■ 25% Retention -2 Trees
■ Trees Retained -0 Trees
■ Required Replacement Trees -18 Trees
■ Tree Planted -36 Trees
■ Tree Fund Payment-$9,090 ($0)
- 24" DBH Trees Cut -3 (* $3,030)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 12
Packet Pg. 106
8.1.b
■ Park/Traffic Impact Fee = $38,595
Example 2
• Assumptions
■ Appraisal for each 24" DBH Tree Removed into Tree Fund
- Assume $3,030 per 24" DBH in example
- Average appraisal for tree inventory from the City of Renton which appraised 2,283 trees
(low $541; high $12,415)
- No replacement trees required, only payment into Tree Fund
■ Fee for replacement trees not planted
- $1,000 per tree
• Fee -in -lieu development
o New Single Family Development
■ 15 Trees Predevelopment
■ 30% Retention -5 Trees
■ Tree Retained -6 Trees
■ Assume Plant 3 Replacement Trees
■ Tree Fund Payment $25,210 ($22K)
- Required replacement trees not planted -4 (* $1,000)
- 24" DBH trees cut -7 (* $3,030)
■ Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$18,450
o Short Subdivision
■ 41 Trees Predevelopment
■ 30% Retention -12 Trees
■ Trees Retained -13 Trees
■ Assume 3 Trees/lot -12 Trees
■ Tree Fund Payment-$67,510 ($58K)
- Required replacement trees not planted -16 Trees(* $1,000)
- 24" DBH trees cut -17 (* $3,030)
■ Tree Fund Payment Retain 8 additional trees-$37,330 ($37K)
- Required replacement trees not planted -4 Trees(* $1,000)
- 24" DBH trees cut -11 (* $3,030)
■ Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$55,351
o Subdivision - Ten lots
■ 90 Trees Predevelopment
■ 30% Retention -27 Trees
■ Trees Retained -20
■ Assume 3 Tree/lot -30
■ Required replacement trees not planted -74
■ Tree Fund Payment-$102,570 ($98K)
- Required replacement trees not planted -45 (* $1,000)
- 24" DBH trees cut -19 (* $3,030)
■ Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$129,151
o Conservation Subdivision Designs
■ Standard Design
- 153 Trees Predevelopment
- 30% Retention -46 Trees
- Trees Retained -15 Trees
- Assume 3 Tree/Lot -12 Trees
- Tree Fund Payment-$317,870 ($315K)
• Required Replacement trees not planted -230 (* $1,000)
T
N
0
N
ri
T
�L
Q.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 13
Packet Pg. 107
8.1.b
• 24" DBH Trees Cut -29 (* $3,030)
- Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$70,801
■ Clustered Design
- 153 Trees Predevelopment
- 30% Retention -46 Trees
- Trees Retained -15 Trees
- Assume 3 Tree/Lot -12 Trees
- Tree Fund Payment-$317,870 ($315K)
• Required Replacement trees not planted -230 (* $1,000)
• 24" DBH Trees Cut -29 (* $3,030)
- Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$70,801
o Multi -Family
■ 8 Trees Predevelopment
■ 25% Retention -2 Trees
■ Trees Retained -0 Trees
■ Required Replacement Trees -18 Trees
■ Tree Planted -36 Trees
■ Tree Fund Payment-$9,090 ($0)
- 24" DBH Trees Cut -3 (* $3,030)
■ Park/Traffic Impact Fee = $38,595
Example 3
• Assumptions in the fee -in -lieu development
o Fee for replacement trees not planted
■ $1,000 per tree below the 30% retention requirement
■ $350 per tree beyond 30%
0 3:1 replacement ratiofor24"andgreater DBH trees
• Fee -in -lieu Development
o New Single Family Development
■ 15 Trees Predevelopment
■ 30% Retention -5 Trees
■ Tree Retained -6 Trees
■ Assume Plant 3 Replacement Trees
■ Tree Fund Payment $8,750 ($22K)
- Required replacement trees not planted -25 (* $350)
■ Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$18,450
o Short Subdivision
■ 41 Trees Predevelopment
■ 30% Retention -12 Trees
■ Trees Retained -13 Trees
■ Assume 3 Trees/lot -12 Trees
■ Tree Fund Payment-$20,300 ($58K)
- Required replacement trees not planted -58 Trees(* $350)
■ Tree Fund Payment Retain 8 additional trees-$12,950 ($37K)
- Required replacement trees not planted -37 Trees (* $350)
■ Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$55,351
o Subdivision - Ten lots
■ 90 Trees Predevelopment
■ 30% Retention -27 Trees
■ Trees Retained -20
■ Assume 3 Tree/lot -30
- Required replacement trees not planted -74
T
N
0
N
ri
T
•L
Q.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 14
Packet Pg. 108
8.1.b
■ Tree Fund Payment-$35,700 ($98K)
■ Required replacement trees not planted -102 (* $350)
■ Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$129,151
o Conservation Subdivision Designs
■ Standard Design
- 153 Trees Predevelopment
- 30% Retention -46 Trees
- Trees Retained -15 Trees
- Assume 3 Tree/Lot -12 Trees
- Tree Fund Payment-$129,950 ($315K)
- Required Replacement trees not planted -317
• Tree to get to 30% -19 (* $1,000)
Additional Replacement Trees -317 (* $350)
- Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$70,801
Clustered Design
- 153 Trees Predevelopment
- 30% Retention -46 Trees
- Trees Retained -62 Trees
- Assume 3 Tree/Lot -12 Trees
- Tree Fund Payment-$74,900 ($202K)
Required Replacement trees not planted -214 (* $350)
- Parks/Traffic/Sewer/Water-$70,801
o Multi -Family
■ 8 Trees Predevelopment
■ 25% Retention -2 Trees
■ Trees Retained -0 Trees
■ Required Replacement Trees -18 Trees
■ Tree Planted -36 Trees
■ Tree Fund Payment -$0 ($0)
■ Park/Traffic Impact Fee = $38,595
Councilmember K. Johnson asked whether flexible layout design in the 10-lot subdivision and the
t�
multifamily examples in order to save 24+ inch trees was incorporated into the code. Mr. Lien said he did
not run the flexible subdivision design in his example but that was something that could potentially be
v
T
applied. In the standard conservation subdivision design example, it is difficult to retain trees to the
c
maximum extent possible due to access easement requirements, utility easements, building footprints
cm
outside the setbacks. Once the building footprint is filled, trees that were growing in a stand are now
r
vulnerable to windthrow and not the right tree in the right place anymore. A 10-lot subdivision could
Q
definitely utilize flexible layout and staff would encourage it. The Conservation Subdivision Design was
Q
adopted under Ordinance 4218 and the new section in the subdivision code 20.75.048.
N
Councilmember Olson said one of her motivations for this amendment was this code is different and special
from most jurisdictions in that it requires replacement and/or fee -in -lieu even for the ones meeting the
retention requirement. It is also true that the space where a building will be located is currently occupied
by trees and those two things are inconsistent. It is important that at the same time the Council is
incentivizing developers to retain all the trees they can, especially the big ones, to also not be punitive for
the trees that have to be removed for the sake of development on properties zoned for development.
Secondarily she had some concern and wanted Councilmembers to think about the unintended consequence
of smaller contractors who may not be able to front these enormous fees if the Council adopts something
that does not have an adjustment and is more reasonable.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 15
Packet Pg. 109
8.1.b
In the context of meeting goals from the standpoint of maintaining tree canopy, Councilmember Olson
hoped the City would provide education/outreach to developers to get them to want to retain trees because
they are vested and care about the environment and the value of the trees from an environmental standpoint
even if it makes their job more difficult. She was concerned the outsized fees would prevent smaller
contractors from doing business in Edmonds and only the larger contractors, who would pass on the fees to
the home buyer, would be able to do business in Edmonds. She was uncertain that was on the Council's list
of goals.
Council President Paine said she would support the proposed Section a but not Section b.
Councilmember Distelhorst referred to the examples, expressing concern with how much the fee drops and
the possibility to incentivize the fee -in -lieu over retaining trees based on how low the fee would be. On the
flipside, he also had concerns with how high the impact fees are and passing them on to housing costs
especially when prices in Edmonds have increased 20% in the last year. He suggested that could be
addressed via housing policies versus reducing the fees which may have an unintended consequence if
developers simply pay the fee -in -lieu and not retaining any trees.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented this is a very complex code and she preferred to keep it simple. She
noted there are very few forested areas left so she did not envision small developers constructing homes
unless it was their own home. She pointed out 27 significant trees were removed for a 4,000 square foot
home. She preferred to retain the existing language.
Councilmember K. Johnson suggested dividing the question as she had heard comments in favor of Section
a and in favor of Section b.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked if Section a could stand without b. Mr. Lien answered they are tied
together and he did not think a could be included without b. He clarified the portion of a that could remain
was the reference to ECDC 23.10.060.C.1, but "comply with tree retention" did not make sense without b.
Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to retain the original language for a, but recalled in order to add b, the
language was added to a.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED TO REMOVE 4
"COMPLY WITH TREE RETENTION" IN A AND TO REMOVE B. V
T-
N
O
Council President Paine raised a point of order, suggesting the Council vote on the original motion and then N
address it through the amendment process. Mayor Nelson ruled point taken. r
L
Mayor Nelson restated the motion: Q
TO ADD SECTIONS A AND B TO 23.10.080.E.1.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER OLSON VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, AND
L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
Mr. Taraday suggested Mr. Lien illustrate what the code language would look like without all those
amendments. Mr. Lien showed the code language without the proposed amendments:
23.10.080.E.1 The amount of the fee shall be $1000 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to satisfy
the tree replacement requirements of this section and shall be deposited into the City's Tree Fund.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 16
Packet Pg. 110
8.1.b
Mr. Taraday said one of the things that the Council discussed during the last debate was the issue of
retention versus replacement. With the amendment that was just voted down, there was a clear implication
in the code, an implication that was voted down, that one could buy their way up to the retention
requirement. He was unclear whether in voting that down the Council was trying to direct staff that it does
not want developers to be able to buy their way out of the retention requirement or if it simply wants all
trees, whether they are trees to fulfill a retention requirement or trees to fulfill a replacement requirement,
to be paid a fee -in -lieu if not planted at the rate of $1000/tree. There are multiple ways he and Mr. Lien can
interpret the Council's deliberations and they are unclear what the Council's intentions are.
Councilmember L. Johnson said she was interested in drafting the language in a way that it does not allow
developers to buy their way out. Mr. Lien referred to the amendment in green approved earlier, "after
providing clear documentation to Development Services that all tree retention and/or replacement options
have been considered and are infeasible, including arborist reports as necessary..." pointing out that
language infers there will be situations where the 30% retention standard cannot be met. The language in
green acknowledges documentation will be required and after considering it, each tree not replanted per the
replacement standards is required to be paid at a ratio of $1,000/tree.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked Mr. Taraday to clarify what he was alluding to in his previous comments.
Mr. Taraday wanted to ensure, 1) that the Council understands this code, and 2) that staff understands the
Council. In listening to the debate, he was not clear on the Council's position with respect to the retention
requirement. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if the Council should vote on their intention so staff could
direct the Council on the way to meet it. She was unclear why Mr. Taraday was providing that advice and
what he was asking of the Council. Mr. Taraday said if the 1-6 vote that the Council just took was an
indication that they did not want developers to be able to buy themselves out of the retention requirement,
then the word "retention" in the green amendment needed to be removed via an amendment. If there are
circumstances as Mr. Lien just described where the Council recognizes there will be situations and is okay
with those situations after providing the requisite documentation where developers could buy their way out
of the retention requirement, then "retention" in the green amendment can remain.
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested removing "tree retention and/or" in the green amendment,
0
commenting the Council seemed to be getting confused with tree retention and replacement trees. There t�
are requirements for tree retention and for tree replacement and she did not want developers to be able to
buy their way out. v
T
N
O
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED TO REMOVE N
"TREE RETENTION AND/OR" IN THE GREEN SECTION. r
L
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if to address Mr. Taraday's concern, should "tree retention and/or" be Q
removed from the green section or should "or tree retention" be added to Section 1. Mr. Lien said having N
retention in both places might be clearer. Mr. Taraday said there are a lot of options depending on what the
Council is trying to accomplish. If "retention" is removed from the green section as stated in the motion, E
that means a developer cannot buy themselves out of the retention requirement and there will need to be
another process developed for what happens if the retention requirements cannot be met because, as Mr. y°
Lien stated, that is likely to happen on occasion. There are other possible ways to address that other than a Q
buy-out. Ms. Hope said it would be important to address what happens when tree retention is not possible. c
Paying into a fund was one way to address that; if that was not allowed, another method needed to be E
determined.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if adding "retention" to Section 1 addresses that for the instances when
everything has been exhausted and there is no other option. Mr. Lien said even without adding it to Section
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 17
Packet Pg. 111
8.1.b
1, it is addressed. It would add clarity if it was added to Section 1 as well. If a tree is removed, it will need
to be replaced to the standards in 23.10.080.A whether or not they met the retention requirements. If not
replanted, there would be a $1,000 fee. Deleting "retention and/or" as stated in the amendment will require
development of another process for properties that cannot meet the retention requirements.
Councilmember Buckshnis said Section E is titled Tree Replacement Fee -in -lieu, so she did not think it
should address retention because retention is addressed in 23.10.060 Tree Retention with Development.
She relayed Joe Scordino's comment that there are conflicts between the fee -in -lieu and tree replacement.
Councilmember K. Johnson said this was referenced as the amendment in green, but the code section on
the screen also contains underlined, strikethrough and highlighted text. Before the Council votes, she
wanted to be clear what it was voting on. Mayor Nelson clarified the amendment is to revise 23.10.080.E
to read, "After providing clear documentation to Development Services that all tree ten4iea wi&ef
replacement options have been considered and are infeasible, including arborist reports as necessary, the
developer shall pay a fee -in -lieu for each replacement tree required but not replaced."
Council President Paine suggested adding "for any tree not able to be retained, the amount of the fee shall
be $1,000 multiplied by the number of trees that were not retained..." to the tree retention section. Mr. Lien
said the tree retention section references the fee -in -lieu. Mr. Taraday said it did not. He pointed out the
significance of the proposed amendment would essentially be to direct staff to come up with some other
means of dealing with properties that do not meet the retention requirement. Ms. Hope said it is confusing
to say that someone could buy their way out of retaining trees. Clear documentation is required to show it
is truly infeasible; then if they meet that requirement, they pay a fee -in -lieu. A developer cannot just choose
to pay instead of replace.
Mr. Lien said with regard to infeasible, other changes were made to the tree retention and protection plan
regarding the documentation. He referenced language in 23.10.060.B.2.c.iv, "For trees not viable for
retention, a description of the reason(s) for removal based on poor health, high risk, of failure due to
structure, defects, unavoidable isolation (windfirmness), or unsuitability of species, etc., and for which no
reasonable alternative action is possible must be given (pruning, cabling, etc.)." That is part of the
documentation they would have to provide to show tree retention is infeasible.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Taraday interpreted this motion to mean the Council wanted staff to develop a different means of
T
dealing with properties that do not meet the retention requirement. One of the options would be to create a
c
process they would need to go through that would be more than an administrative process. For example,
"'
something akin to a reasonable use exception where there is a public process and there is a fairly rigorous
r
standard that needs to be met. If they can meet the rigorous standard and there is a public opportunity to
Q
contest the evidence, they would essentially get a variance of sorts from the retention requirement. That
Q
would be one option that would be more than just a financial payment but a rigorous procedural requirement
N
that would subject the assertions of infeasibility to a high standard and a public process.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked how the public process would occur, whether it would come to Council.
Mr. Taraday responded it would probably go to the Hearing Examiner. It would depend on the type of
application, but it would likely not come to Council.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented over the past decade small and large developers have taken the
approach of clearcutting every tree prior to development which is not what the Council wants. The Council
wants to retain the largest trees and replace those that cannot be retained.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 18
Packet Pg. 112
8.1.b
Councilmember Distelhorst asked for Ms. Hope's input, noting public processes have often been used to
block certain items. He had concern with that given that the Citizens Housing Commission
recommendations, provided after an 18 month process, include streamlining the permitting process and
simplifying code language related to housing and development. Ms. Hope agreed there is a tendency
sometimes for these kinds of public processes to play out in ways where people may expect that simply
showing up and protesting at a public meeting is the answer to stopping a development, when in fact the
Hearing Examiner has to go through a rigorous process of looking at the facts and criteria to determine
whether it is feasible or not. A developer would go through that process and receive a determination that
they have to replace the trees or do not have to replace the trees and would not have to pay into the tree
fund. It would be a very complicated process and although a developer would have to pay for the Hearing
Examiner process, there would need to be a process by which a developer paid additional money if they did
not meet the criteria. She was concerned that additional uncertainty would complicate things. Conversely
with a fee -in -lieu program, if a developer adequately demonstrates they truly cannot replace the trees, the
money goes into a Tree Fund that is used for tree activities and tree replacement.
Councilmember Olson said it was her fault the Council ended up on this journey. Mr. Taraday took the fact
that the amendment was voted down 1-6 as the Council was not supportive of a fee -in -lieu program, but it
may be that they were not in favor of the $350/tree. She asked if there was a way to assess where the Council
stands, whether they were fine with fee -in -lieu if it was more substantial. Mr. Taraday offered a hypothetical
question to the Council: imagine a scenario where a developer comes in for a five -lot subdivision and the
developer could meet the tree retention requirement if he only developed four lots, but to get the fifth lot,
he has to take down trees; it is infeasible to get five lots and meet the tree retention requirement. In that
scenario, would the Council want the code to say sorry developer, you only get four lots or say you get five
lots but you have to do something else instead? He said these are the type of real world examples that staff
will be faced with once applications begin to be submitted. The hypothetical he provided highlighted the
policy challenges and policy choices the Council has before it.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she clearly understood what Mr. Taraday was saying and she did not want
to add any language that provided any type of discretion for the fifth lot to happen. There is a tree retention
policy and a tree replacement policy and a fee -in -lieu. There is a price associated with replacement trees,
but it is not clear in the code whether retention or replacement takes precedence. There are conflicts between
the tree retention and fee -in -lieu and there is no indication which one supersedes the other. Councilmember
Buckshnis acknowledged she had had a long day of meetings and may not be articulating her concerns
clearly.
In regard to Mr. Taraday's hypothetical, Councilmember Distelhorst said in his view the key determination
T
c
would be what are the items for that fifth lot; there are a lot of variants that could be applicable that may
cm
sway his opinion one way or another.
r
Council President Paine referred to the Planning Board's list of priorities, Items 4 and 7, Low Impact
L
Q
Subdivision Code Update and Sustainable Development Code Review and Update. Using Mr. Taraday's
N
example, she would be satisfied to get the fifth unit if there was greener development put in place via the
c
code. She agreed if the developer had to be told sorry, you can get four lots but not five, and at the point
E
the Planning Board's priorities 4 and 7 can be completed, those are areas that can provide more wiggle
room and address retention aspects in this code once those items are completed.
Mr. Lien referred to the Conservation Subdivision Design in the code that allows for flexibility. In the
example Mr. Taraday provided, that would be one consideration — what else could be done to meet the
retention requirement. Even with that, there will still be instances where the retention standards cannot be
met. Another comment he has heard from Council tonight is that the retention language is in the wrong
place. Instead of developing an entirely new process, he suggested acknowledging in 23.10.060 that there
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 19
Packet Pg. 113
8.1.b
will be instances where tree retention cannot be met instead of in 23.10.080. As Ms. Hope pointed out, there
will still be a fee -in -lieu payment when the retention requirements cannot be met and that money can be
used for tree planting. Another amendment has been proposed to use the Tree Fund to purchase and preserve
forested properties and open space.
Councilmember K. Johnson said a developer doesn't have to build up to all the setbacks. If it means saving
trees, perhaps one of the considerations should be a smaller building footprint. Especially in areas that are
already downzoned, it is important not to build large buildings. She said that is done because they are spec
homes and the developer wants the maximum profit feasible. She has been told by developers that when
they market their homes, they want a clean landscape with nothing on it because that makes it more
appealing to home buyers. She contended that the code should keep as many native, large trees as possible.
Councilmember Distelhorst expressed support for Mr. Lien's comment about adding retention fee -in -lieu
language somewhere else to add the clarity that Mr. Lien and Mr. Mr. Taraday requested. Councilmember
Olson concurred.
Recognizing it was 9:34 p.m., Mr. Lien said this was not something staff could draft on the fly tonight. He
suggested the Council proceed with reviewing the simpler amendments and asked for direction regarding
adding language in 23.10.060 for instances when tree retention requirements cannot be met including
whether it is administrative process or a public variance process variance as Mr. Taraday outlined.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented that after working on this for 90 minutes, she was uncertain
the Council would make the best decisions by continuing to review amendments.
Councilmember Buckshnis offered to met with the subcommittee again to resolve the retention
requirements, pointing out 23.10.080.E was one of the original amendments proposed on March 2" d. Ms.
Hope suggested that would be more efficient than trying to resolve it tonight. If there was still the will to
review the simpler amendments, those could be completed tonight and staff could come back with
everything at the next available meeting. She was also tired after a long day of meetings.
Councilmember L. Johnson said she was aware that three Councilmembers worked with staff to review the
amendments. She asked if that was the subcommittee that Councilmembers and staff were referring to,
0
recalling she and Council President Paine also worked with staff early in the process. She asked who
t�
constituted the subcommittee and expressed support for continuing to review the simpler proposed
amendments.
v
T
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said that was why she did not think it was best for the Council to continue
N
O
`V
reviewing the amendments tonight. She started her Zoom meetings today at 2:30 p.m. and was reaching the
r
7' hour of meetings today. She encouraged Council not to continue with the review of amendments, fearing
Q
it would "just go south."
a
N
Councilmember Buckshnis said she started her Zoom meetings today at 2 p.m. She offered to work with
c
administration, whether it was called a working group, a subcommittee or whatever. She was simply
E
offering her services as this was originally her amendment on March 2na.
0
Councilmember Olson expressed support for continuing to review some of the easier amendments, recalling
Q
Council President Paine had wanted to start with the meatier ones, but there are several that can be voted
on quickly.
E
z
Council President Paine agreed there were several amendments that could be addressed quickly. She
Q
acknowledge everyone has had a long day, but extending the meeting slightly would allow the Council to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 20
Packet Pg. 114
8.1.b
get through all the amendments and then figure out what to do about tree retention. She proposed the
Council start with the first highlighted amendment and work through them.
Councilmember Distelhorst agreed with Council President Paine and previous Councilmembers that there
were several amendments that should be quick and benign. He said he would refrain from comparing what
time he started work this morning.
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment:
Revise 23.10.060.2.b.i to read: "Location of all proposed improvements, including building footprint,
access, utilities, applicable setbacks, critical areas, buffers and required landscaped areas clearly
identified..."
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST,
TO ADD "CRITICAL AREAS" AS SHOWN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment, explaining he proposed it based on Council discussion:
Revise 3.95.040.0 to read: Monies deposited into the tree fund for a fee -in -lieu of tree replacements as
provided for in ECDC 23.10.080.E must be used to purchase trees for planting or acquiring and preserving
wooded areas and open space."
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO ADD
"OR ACQUIRING AND PRESERVING WOODED AREAS AND OPEN SPACE" IN 3.95.040.C.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment:
Revise 23.10.100.C.2.f to read: "If illegal tree topping has occurred, the property owner shall be required
to have a certified arborist develop and implement a five (5) year pruning schedule in addition to monetary
fines and/or required tree replacement.
COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ADD "/OR" IN 23.10.100.C.2.f. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment:
Revise 23.10.080.13.1 to read: "The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition
with no reasonable assurance of regaining vigor, for reasons not attributable to the development."
T
N
Mr. Lien explained by adding this language, if a tree has to be removed due to damage associated with the N
development, replacement would be required. ri
T
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON AND SECONDED TO ADD "FOR Q.
REASONS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT" TO 23.10.080.B.1. MOTION Q
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. i4
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment:
Add 23.10.070.C.6 to read: "Limit the time period that the critical root zone is covered by mulch, plywood,
steel plates or similar materials, or by light soils, to protect the trees critical root zone."
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON AND SECONDED TO ADD
23.10.070.C.6 "LIMIT THE TIME PERIOD THAT THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE IS COVERED
BY MULCH, PLYWOOD, STEEL PLATES OR SIMILAR MATERIALS, OR BY LIGHT SOILS,
TO PROTECT THE TREES CRITICAL ROOT ZONE."
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 21
Packet Pg. 115
8.1.b
Council President Paine asked how this differed from 23.10.070.B, Placing Materials Near Trees. Mr. Lien
answered B refers to parking equipment, storing building materials, etc. near trees; 23.10.070.C.6 is related
to limiting the time that tree protection measures would be in place during development refers.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked how limiting the time would be determined, whether it was enough to
say "limit the time" or was that too vague. Mr. Lien said every development would be different. Sites are
often developed in stages, so when work is completed in that area of the site, the protection measures can
be removed. Another section of the code refers to a preconstruction meeting; this section can be discussed
during the preconstruction meeting. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if it would be beneficial or redundant
to say, "limit as discussed during preconstruction meeting." Mr. Lien did not think that was necessary.
MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment:
Revise 23.10.070 Tree Protection Measures During Development to read: "Prior to development activity
or initiating tree removal on the site, vegetated areas, individual trees and soil to be preserved in accordance
with ECDC 23.10.060.B shall be protected from..."
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED AND
SECONDED TO ADD "IN ACCORDANCE WITH ECDC 23.10.060.B TO 23.10.070. MOTION
CARRIED.
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment:
Revise 23.10.060.D.3 to read: "Priority Three: Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other
trees have been evaluated for tension and are not able to be retained because of mature trees that are a all
hazard except where adjacent..."
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON AND SECONDED, TO ADD
"BECAUSE OF MATURE TREES THAT ARE A FALL HAZARD" TO 23.10.060.D.3.
Councilmember Olson said she was part of the subcommittee and accepted this amendment at the time, but
when she studied the packet later, the intent of the amendment was unclear. Mr. Lien described how he
interpreted this amendment: priority three trees are listed as alders and cottonwoods which have their place G
0
in the environment; alders are nitrogen fixing and are usually associated with riparian corridors or wetlands
but are not necessarily the best urban tree which is why they were give priority three status. This amendment
v
adds because they are fall hazards to the reasons that alders and cottonwoods shouldn't be retained.
0
N
Councilmember Olson said the amendment seemed to state it was because of the other trees that are fall
ri
hazard that it may be possible to keep the alders and cottonwoods. Mr. Lien said the fall hazard is not the
T
—
L
other trees; the fall hazard applies to the alders and cottonwoods. Councilmember Olson said then they
0.
Q
should not be retained and they are not a priority at all if there is concern with them falling. Mr. Lien said
that would be one of the considerations for retention; if they are a fall hazard, they are not trees that a
r
developer will want to retain.
m
Councilmember Olson suggested moving "and subject to a fall hazard" to follow "except for when not
adjacent to open space, wetlands or creek buffers." Mr. Lien said that changes the intent; alders and
cottonwood are a priority three. Where they would not be a priority three is where they are adjacent to open
space, wetlands or creeks. Councilmember Olson relayed her understanding of Mr. Lien's explanation that
alders and cottonwoods would be a higher priority when adjacent to open space, wetlands or creek buffers.
Mr. Lien agreed.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 22
Packet Pg. 116
8.1.b
Councilmember Olson asked if it clear as written for a layperson when she, as a layperson, did not
understand it. Mr. Lien referred to priority one trees in D.Ld "significant trees adjacent to critical area and
their associated buffers" and the exception in D.3 "except when adjacent to open space, wetlands or creek
buffers." When alders or cottonwoods are adjacent to open space, wetlands or creek buffers, they become
priority one trees.
Councilmember Olson suggested adding, "except for when the terms in priority one apply." Mr. Lien
responded he did not think that was necessary. Councilmember Olson said other Councilmembers were
indicating it was also confusing to them.
Council President Paine did not support the proposed change, primarily because if alders and cottonwoods
are present on a development site, it is probably in a wetland or riparian area or adjacent to one or adjacent
to one that is not functioning efficiently. She accepted them being priority three, but unless they go through
a hazard analysis, she would not support the proposed changed.
Councilmember K. Johnson said alders are part of the succession forest; once an area has been logged, they
are one of the first trees to come back. As Mr. Lien said, they are nitrogen fixing and they have many
advantages such as wildlife habitat and they mature around 40 years. Young alders and cottonwoods may
be a priority three but once they mature, they become a fall hazard. This is evident on Main Street on either
side of Yost Park and in residential areas near Yost Park. She concluded it was perfectly fine to have alders,
just not when they were fall hazards.
Mayor Nelson commented this seemed to be a controversial amendment. Councilmember K. Johnson
pointed out staff did not object to the proposed language.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON CALLED THE QUESTION. CALL FOR THE QUESTION
CARRIED.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND
BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS,
OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE AND SECONDED TO EXTEND FOR
20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED (5-2).
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment: r
Revise first sentence of 23.10.060.E to read, "In considering trees for retention, applicants and the City N
shall avoid, to the extent known, the selection of trees that may beeeme hazafdous beea se of wind gusts
ri
that are mature and maybe be a fall hazard, including..." r
L
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON AND SECONDED TO REVISE Q
23.10.060.E TO READ, "IN CONSIDERING TREES FOR RETENTION, APPLICANTS AND THE
CITY SHALL AVOID, TO THE EXTENT KNOWN, THE SELECTION OF TREES THAT MAY
BECOME HAZARDOUS BECAUSE OF WIND GUSTS THAT ARE MATURE AND MAYBE BE A E
FALL HAZARD, INCLUDING..."
Councilmember Distelhorst said this seemed to make more sense because it was applied to all consideration
for tree retention versus alders and cottonwoods. Mr. Lien agreed.
Council President Paine did not support the motion, preferring a hazard tree analysis that was scientifically
valid.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 23
Packet Pg. 117
8.1.b
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if the point raised by Council President Paine would be consistent with
this. Mr. Lien referred to language in 23.10.060.B.2.c.iv, "for trees not viable for retention, a description of
the reason(s) for removal based on poor health, high risk of failure due to structure, defects, unavoidable
isolation (windfirmness), or unsuitability of species, etc., and for which no reasonable alternative action is
possible must be given (pruning, cabling, etc.)." If the developer is claiming hazard tree, one of things
required for documentation of hazard trees is the arborist completes the Tree Risk Assessment form that
determines whether or not a tree is a hazard. If it comes back as high or extreme risk, then it is considered
a hazard.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked if this was approved, was it redundant or did it create another opening in
the code. Mr. Lien said all this amendment does is replace "that may become hazardous because of wind
gusts" with "that are mature and may become a fall hazard." It is very similar language, just a small tweak.
Councilmember Olson asked if Mr. Lien continued to support the statement that staff does not object or did
he feel it added no value. Mr. Lien said he still did not object to this amendment.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
DISTELHORST, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment, stating he preferred the revised language:
Revise last sentence of 23.10.060.E to read:
less of a buff-er- ffem other- tfees, gr-ade ehanges affeeting the tree health and stability, anWer- the presence
of buildings in elese pr-wdfait�- ILa revised building placement would result in the retention ofmore and/or
higher priority trees, the development plan should be ad
iusted to maximize the retention of such trees.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
REVISE LAST SENTENCE OF 23.10.060.E TO READ: "REMAINING TREES MAY BE
SUSCEPTIBLE TO BLOWDOWNS BECAUSE OF LOSS OF A BUFFER FROM OTHER TREES,
GRADE CHANGES AFFECTING THE TREE HEALTH AND STABILITY, AND/OR THE
PRESENCE OF BUILDINGS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY. IF REVISED BUILDING PLACEMENT
WOULD RESULT IN THE RETENTION OF MORE AND/OR HIGHER PRIORITY TREES, THE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOULD BE ADJUSTED TO MAXIMIZE THE RETENTION OF SUCH
TREES. "
Councilmember Olson said this was a good amendment and thanked Councilmember K. Johnson for r
suggesting it. c
N
MOTION CARRIED. r
L
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment: Q
Move 23.10.060.D.2.d "other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees" to priority one. i4
Mr. Lien explained staff recommends against this amendment because other significant native evergreen
trees could also be located within healthy groupings, within the setbacks or have a screening or priority
function. If more and more is moved into priority one, it downgrades what the City is trying to retain such
as specimen trees, significant trees that form a contiguous canopy, significant trees on slopes greater than
15%, significant trees adjacent to critical areas and buffers, and other big significant trees 60 feet in height
or 18 inches in diameter. As more trees are added into priority one, a developer could argue saving one of
these other trees over a specimen tree. Moving more into the priority one degrades the trees that the city
really wants to save which was why he did not support this change.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 24
Packet Pg. 118
8.1.b
Councilmember K. Johnson recalled the subcommittee had this discussion and did not reach an agreement.
Her focus is on the native evergreen and deciduous trees. She preferred they be encompassed in priority
one, pointing out they were not enumerated. For example, one of the priority one is "significant trees over
60 feet in height," and she assumed most of those were native trees. She wanted it to be clear that the City
wants to keep the native tree canopy.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented most of the trees being cut are conifers, at least in the areas she has
seen in the last 4-5 years. She understood Mr. Lien's opinion, commenting the goal is to keep, retain or
replace native trees because the City has been losing its canopy for years. She expressed support for the
proposed change.
Councilmember K. Johnson suggested inserting "significant native trees that form a continuous canopy" or
"significant native trees over 60 feet tall," then the priority three category would basically be the smaller
trees. Mr. Lien said smaller trees can form a contiguous canopy. Councilmember K. Johnson said it was
more important to maintain large conifers, bigleaf maples, etc., the trees that really represent the natural
forest.
Councilmember Olson raised a point of order, asking if the supportive comments from Councilmembers K.
Johnson and Councilmember Buckshnis could be treated as the motion and second. Mayor Nelson answered
no.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO
MOVE 23.10.060.D.2 "OTHER SIGNIFICANT NATIVE EVERGREEN OR DECIDUOUS TREES"
TO PRIORITY ONE.
Councilmember Olson referred to D. Le, "significant trees over sixty (60) feet in height or greater than
eighteen (18) inches DBH" which addresses the spirit and core of Councilmember K. Johnson's
amendment. Mr. Lien point was this waters down the priorities. If the priority is the biggest trees, whatever
they are, she assumed those were the trees that Councilmember K. Johnson wanted to save. She agreed with
not adding to priority one because then nothing is specialized or differentiated. Contiguous canopy is one
of the biggest priorities from an environmental standpoint and usually it is comprised of bigger trees. She
did not support the proposed amendment even though she made the motion.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE CALLED QUESTION. CALL FOR THE QUESTION CARRIED.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND N
BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS N
DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. ri
T
Mr. Lien introduced the following amendment: Q0.
Add 3.95.040.A.6: "Purchasing and planting of trees by the City ofEdmonds including Planting street trees
within the right-of-waX." N
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO
ADD 3.95.040.A.6: "PURCHASING AND PLANTING OF TREES BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS
INCLUDING PLANTING STREET TREES WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY." MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Lien said an option for tree retention will be developed and returned to Council for consideration. He
suggested a subcommittee draft options.
Councilmember Olson asked if the Council needed to pass the code as amended so something better was
in place. Mr. Taraday said the Council has that option; there is an ordinance in the packet and the Council
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 25
Packet Pg. 119
8.1.b
could pass that ordinance with the amendments that have been approved tonight. Alternatively, the Council
could wait until the tree retention language is drafted and approve everything at the same time.
Mr. Lien said if the ordinance is adopted with the changes that have been approved so far, if the tree
retention requirements could not be meet, the development would have to be denied because there is no
process for a site that cannot meet the tree retention standards. Mr. Taraday agreed, there was no escape
valve or pressure release mechanism for such developments.
Councilmember Olson said she could accept that since it would probably only be 1-2 weeks before it was
brought back.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING THE CITY'S TREE REGULATIONS AND TREE FUND PROVISIONS AS
PRESENTED IN THE PACKET. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE AND SECONDED TO EXTEND FOR
FIVE ADDITIONAL MINUTES TO 10:25. MOTION CARRIED.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson relayed Snohomish County is continuing to go in the wrong direction with regard to the
number of COVID cases. Several counties are going back to Phase 2; Snohomish County is currently at
152 cases/100,000 and will go back to Phase 2 if it reaches 200 cases/100,000. Regardless of vaccine
distribution, people still need to wear marks, socially distance and wash their hands.
Mayor Nelson wished his youngest son, Henry, a Happy Birthday.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Distelhorst said it has been somewhat heartening to see increased responsible gun
legislation taking place at the state and federal levels. He appreciated the moves being taken to address the
gun violence public health epidemic in this country. It seems there have been killings occurring daily over
c
the past couple weeks, including in this region. Having lived in multiple other countries that do not have
v
any such gun violence, he personally struggled to understand why society continued to accept this senseless
v
violence and killing, including the killing of Dante Wright. r
N
O
N
Councilmember Distelhorst wished Happy Ramadan to those celebrating over the next month.
T
Councilmember Buckshnis announced her reappointment of Nicole Hughes to the Economic Development Q
Commission. She thanked everyone who has contacted her, commenting she will be busy reviewing 24 Q
grant proposals that WRIA 8 received. She hoped Walkable Edmonds will be reviewed and that Mayor N
r
Nelson will make the correct decision.
Councilmember K. Johnson expressed her concern about Walkable Main Street, commenting there had
been an outpouring of concern from local merchants and people who support them. The perspective of the
survey people who go to Walkable Main Street, not from businesses' perspective. The joint letters, protests
and local surveys have filled that void. She hoped Mayor Nelson listened to this new point of view.
Councilmember K. Johnson explained the reason she abstained from the vote regarding hazard pay for
grocery workers was it was a very last minute proposal which she had not been briefed on other than the
packet materials. It was presented as an emergency so it had to be voted on that night, but that negated the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
April 13, 2021
Page 26
Packet Pg. 120
9.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/22/2021
Outside Boards and Committee Reports
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Council
Preparer: Maureen Judge
Background/History
Outside Boards and Committee Reports will be added to the end of the Council meeting packet for the
last meeting of the month.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
The Council is asked to review the attached committee reports/minutes from Councilmembers Fraley-
Monillas, Olson, and Distelhorst.
Attachments:
SCT Steering Committee Briefing_5.26.21
EPFD Minutes 04-22-2021
EPFD Minutes 05-07-2021
Port Minutes-5-10-21
Port MINUTES-5-12-21
Port Minutes-6-1-21
Packet Pg. 121
9.1.a
Countywide Planning Policies
2021 Update
Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee
May 26, 2021
44�
Snohomish Countv
r
L
0
Q
NN(D
I.L
E
E
0
U
c
R
L
M0
W
.N
N
N
•L
m
E
E
0
U
c
•L
d
a�
Cn
H
U
Cn
c
a�
E
t
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 122
9.1.a
Overview
• CPP Overview
• 2021 Countywide Planning Policies
Update
• Public Comment Period
• CPP key policy updates
• Remaining Project schedule
COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES
FOR
SNOHONIISH COUNTY
ABDPTED JLNE 1, 2011
A JENDED ORDFNANCE No. 11-011; EFFECTn F BATE: WNE 24, 2011
Ati�Nni�r rs:
JL,-NE 1, 2011 (Al%MNDED ORD. No. 11-021) EFF. DATE JUNE 24, 2011
JL�,E 8, 2011 (AAEENDED ORD. No. 11-015) EFF. DATE JuNE 24, 2011
OCTOBER 17, 2012 (ORD. No. 12-070) EFF. DATE NON"_11BER 10, 2012
(rncvwxA-.wr mu. )
JuNE 12, 2013 (A11IENDED ORD. No. 13-032) EFF. DATE JL--sE 30, 2013
APRu.16, 2014 (ORD. No. 14-006) EFF. DATE APFJL 27, 2014
tArrcro E- � --U)
JLNE 4, 2014 (ORD. No. 14-031) EFF. DATE JuNE 16, 2014
OCTOBER 12, 2016 (_Ai[FtiTDED ORD. No. 16-078)
EFF. DATE NOCE]rBER 10, 2016
NOTE: This i, au unofficial coutpilation of the Cauun�.ide Plaomng Po&ties (CPPs]. The official ten of
the CPP, can be found in the ordinances adopting and amending the CPN and those ordinances Hill
eontrol in the m ent of a disparity hetveeu the ordinance and this unofficial compilation.
Packet Pg. 123
9.1.a
Growth Management Act Requirements
Under RCW 36.70A.130 Snohomish County and its Cities/Towns are required to:
1. Plan for the next 20 years' growth; and
2. Ensure the plan and regulations comply with the requirements of the GMA.
Snohomish, King and Pierce Counties must review/update their comprehensive
plan every eight years.
• Deadline is June 30, 2024.
44K)k
Snohomish County
Packet Pg. 124
9.1.a
Key 2024 GMA Comprehensive Plan Update Tasks
1. Update Countywide Planning Policies consistent with
GMA and Vision 2050
2. Work with Cities/Towns to develop initial population,
housing & employment growth targets
3. Prepare amendments to the comprehensive plan
4. Environmental review of two action alternatives plus a
no action alternative
5. Implement Development Regulations & Zoning Map
Amendments
44K)k
Snohomish County
Packet Pg. 125
Growth Management Act
Regional
Office of
Growth
Financial
Vision 2050 Multi -County Planning
Strategy
Management
Policies (2020)
(2020)
Population
Forecast
(2022)
GMA Countywide Planning Policies (2021)
Compliance
(2024) -
2044 Initial Population
Buildable Lan
Comprehensive Plan (2024)
and Employment Growth
Report
General Policy Plan
Targets (2021)
(2021)
Transportation Element
Parks and Recreation Element
Capital Facilities Plan
Implementing Regulations
(2025 and beyond)
9.1.a
What are the CPPs?
1. The CPPs satisfy regional coordination
requirements from the GMA.
2. Apply to the county and to all cities/towns in
the county.
3. The CPPs reflect state, regional and local
priorities based on the GMA, Vision 2050,
and Snohomish County Tomorrow.
4. The CPPs address issues of mutual concern
between the Cities/Towns and the County.
5. The CPPs provide a framework for local
comprehensive plans.
C eutr al
LP
Geueral
Framers orl Paliries
Goals of Each Chapter
Countywide Plauning Policies
?appendices
Policy Above- C ontext Selm
Va2�atice Sections and Footnotes
{Context for Principles, Goals, Policies and.4ptndices)
Figure 3 — Policy Hierarchs iu the C'ounimi ide Planning Policies
SCT
Steering County Council
Snohomish Committee Heanngs and
Tomorrow ProCcessows Recommendation Adoption
to County Council
Figure 4 —General Process for Updating the CPPs
4441
Snohomish County
Packet Pg. 127
9.1.a
Countywide Planning Policies
2021 Countywide Planning Policies Update
Welcome tc Snohomish County's project webpaga for Countywide Planning Policies. Srwhomish County has bean working in coordination with its
cit'.. and towrta on updating the Countyvnde Planning Policies (CPPs) in preparation for updates b Comprehensive Plans in 2024. The 2021
Update is an ongoing process conducted through the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) of Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT).
what are the COuatVv ide Plan cling Po liees(CPPs)?
The Goun ywider Planning Policies (CPPs) apply to al cities and towns within Snotromish County, as well as the munty itself. The CPFs provide
the framework for each jurisdiction's comprehens'rre plarw aM associated policies intended to comply wish regional policies developed by the
Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRCJ. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires coordination and Cdn66tencp between compnehensi
plans for all jurisdictions in the same county.
There is a broad range of categories within the CPPs, including chapters on Heusi rg, Economic Development and Employment, Transportation,
Natural Emponment, and Public Services and Facilities. The current CPPs were last updated in 2011 and can be viewed hare.
Planning for the Future: Regional and local Plana
The Puget Sound Regional Council ncil (PSs a regional planning agency with bur membership counties which include: Snohomish, fUrg, Ni[sap,
and Pierre Counties. PSRC is responsible for developing and approving a regional plan every ten years. In Ocicbw 2020, the PSRC General
Assembly approved VISION 2050, the updated regional plan. Some highlights of VISION 2050 include updated policies with more focus on
Cn'nale C _virc—enia1 Felice, and social juslioe.
Public Comment Period
February 18 — March 16
Comments Received:
• 30 individuals
• 6 organizations
• 2 jurisdictions
CPP Webpage:
https://snohomishcountVwa.gov/5782/CountVwide-Planning-Policies
4441
Snohomish County
Packet Pg. 228
Omit VISION 2050 I J.ly 2019
Table of Contents
Introduction and Overview ....................................
A Vision for 2050.................................................
Toward a Sustainable Future ...............................
UserGui be .........................................................
.....................................................1
.........................................................1
.........................................................2
.........................................................8
Multicounty Planning Policies..............................................................................................11
Regional Collaboration
15
Regional Growth Strategy
23
Environment..........................................................................................................................49
Climate Change
59
Development Patterns
69
Housing...............................................................................................................................91
Economy
101
Transportation
111
Public Services
125
Implementation...............................................................................................................133
VISION 2050 Legal Framework............................................................................................. 139
Online Resources
Reference Materials and Suncortino Documents
GI
VISION 2050Ciiiiiiiiiiiiiim
VISION 2050
Key changes to MPPs:
a. Countywide Centers
b. Stronger language on equity
c. Specific focus on transit -oriented development
d. Increased focus on public health
e. Multiple policies around displacement
f. Updated water safety/supply policies
g. General restructuring
4441
Snohomish County
r
L
O
Q
NN(D
I.L
E
0
U
C
N
L
O
m
d
.N
O
N
N
Lf)
C
d
i
m
E
0
U
•L
U
Cn
c
aD
E
t
rJ
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 129
9.1.a
Key Countywide Planning
Policy Updates
44�
Snohomish Countv
N
N
L-
E
E
0
U
c
•L
d
a�
H
U
Cn
c
aD
E
t
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 130
9.1.a
Overview of Changes
• Equity and inclusion
• Climate change
• Transit supportive and oriented
development
• Identifying risk and mitigating the
effects of displacement
• Countywide Centers
• Reasonable measures
DRAFT — COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES
FOR
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
MAY 13, 2021 DRAFT FOR
SNOHOMISH COUNTY TOMORROW
STEERING COMMITTEE REVIEW
Packet Pg. 131
9.1.a
Central Principles and Framework Policies
• Add equity and inclusion as a central
principle
• Add policies related to coordination with
military installations and tribes.
• Delete two conflict resolution policies that
were never implemented.
) Stanwood Farrington
Tulalip Arlington
Tribes
Granite Falls
Marysville
Everett Lake Stevens
Mukilteo Mill Creek
Lynnwood Snohomish
Edmonds Mountlake Monroe
Terrace Sultan Gold Index
Woodway Brier Bothell Bar
Source: VISION 2050 4441
Snohomish County
Packet Pg. 132
9.1.a
Development Patterns
• Urban Growth Area (UGA) policies
• Countywide Centers incorporation
• Manage and reduce rural growth rates over
time
• New draft policies:
• Encouraging transit supportive land uses and
transit oriented development
• Inclusive community planning
• Displacement of marginalized residents and
businesses
��nrr��•���r•1�z•�•�
4441
Snohomish County
Packet Pg. 133
Housing
• Fair Housing
• Add displacement risk monitoring to the HO-5 report
• New draft policies:
• Moderate density housing
• Displacement
111u1L1
:;;: mil°
- A■�Agig .A Agurla
o]
ll
��0�1-
n A
H H
[A
•
° ° ®
Triplex: Live- \
Mid -Rise
I' �` -
Courtyard Cottage
Multiplex.
Townhouse
Medium
Stacked Work
Fourplex:
� Duplex:
Building Court
N
Side -By -Side+ Stacked
Detached Single-Fainily � Stacked
(Hissing middle
Housing
i
Houses _
—
Source: missingmiddlehousing.com
oruoosltl... o-k, oPrlcos %.
�.
Snohomish County
Packet Pg. 134
9.1.a
Economic Development and Employment
• Address equity as a part of
economic development efforts
• New draft policies:
• Diverse local economy
• Displacement of businesses
• Protection of the Cascade MIC
• Consideration of the environment
and climate in economic
development
Historic and Forcasted Growth for the Central Puget Sound Region
5.8 Million People
4.0 Million People
2.2 Million Jobs
1990 2000
Source: VISION 2050
2010 2020
2030 2040 2050
4441
Snohomish County
Packet Pg. 135
9.1.a
Transportation
• Amendments intended to address:
• Greenhouse gas emissions reductions
• Transportation infrastructure resilience
• Transit support and transit supportive
development
• Changing transportation technologies
l � t
+` sna6am,nn ce�niy
F r `ry
Ko aP
c ��x �-•� K e�ely
;. _y f � fri t
J
ww awwys
SourceNISION 2050
Packet Pg. 136
9.1.a
The Natural Environment and Climate Change
Rg— 20 - Sources of Regional Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Highlight Climate Change through:
• Updated chapter name and goal
• Introduction of subtitles
• Regional Open Space Conservation Plan
• Emissions reductions targets:
• Puget Sound Clean Air Agency GHG goals
• New draft policies:
• Air and water quality
• Noise and light pollution
• Invasive species
Figure 21 - Sources n1 Regional Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Sources: VISION 2050
4441
Snohomish County
Packet Pg. 137
�r "EVERETT
' PUBLIC
LIBRARY
Source: VISION 2050
1%
Public Services and Facilities
• New polices related to water supply:
• Interjurisdictional coordination
• Impacts of climate change
• Other new draft policies:
• Equitable access to public services
• Septic system replacement
• Telecommunication infrastructure
• Coordination in school siting
4441
Snohomish County
r
L
0
Q
NN�
I.L
E
E
0
U
c
R
0
m
0
N
N
Ln
I
a1
•L
m
E
0
U
�L
U
Cn
c
aD
E
t
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 138
9.1.a
Wasrlesta has se
density
de�iP4rn ofMleav�2
rirrrrt ADxmiwry ing
l Frits plJs} n sires
Famiyzones.
Lznvmnw& me a va" afwm to rder tP fe
of auTdxdsecandary
�`ss. Hats andSWKSe4arnn
cornnersiars, amorrg others. Regardesscfthe
�e all u�ihese roam t
dxelno unit fiat shares. AU.a tax lot in a
Yam parkin and erth a►oes. Same rr be
incapxated nto the mRHry strucare: others
may be n aomssarr strucures cxa'�
dm4imcan be disunwshed f rn'shared'
hag n that the wit has seaara6e kitdren and
b rainfacilroes_AdUsaretmicJl,Fremdated
as a ernddXd uses :xxne ordinarrars onhr
alcwAdUswhere the pimary dweling sarner-
omr 'ed
hHmising Tax Cnadrts to
Davdopus
pD1L'InmR'nG Can Pmvide tax r[5 to
"revs for new or mha6iira�d nr iu#anrl�
hurs .TaxemdtspfWldeannPertireto-
d reotrd ittvetax ttrrden. In sorry
rs can e=tmna^a
feaside This Pony is inumded to r�e
dEudopment of m4fifanily rmr.M. imma ily n
urban omtem. This Poliwismimerilyamlica it
Wraer =es and is tacAly oRered for ehs
meet aroena
tP
6ewdopers
t tD build
rraesin at dimities hi[ w than are usualy
hawses are used as a tod to-
tert"mir in desired
areas, prowrded c FegUierrrerrts are nret
This ❑dices ir. s�enetally inPierrtermed throur*
Rrotrsids of the local aorrkg cede and is alowed
in amruprile residential zones
ran
6eydop rut R *rts
is _ icy is rtended to rnoye deWomiat fircm
ebarrerr rkittsare to-7EYzMng
zxres' and can 6e traded This icy can
inCI'8Y9e S�eS_ r5 ., 61GIBly
innkuwted through a stbwoban of#*zonnn
"here deoteased d�rsiGes are3Ejrblel and
n2w.rii nines iznnes "here inaear ed densities
are i.
Appendix D: Reasonable Measures
• Respond to 2017 SB 5254
• Add 8 new measures
• Add "Description of Measure"
• Add "Issue Category"
• Planned density not achieved
• Insufficient capacity
• Inconsistent development patterns
• Add "Scale of Impact"
4441
Snohomish County
Packet Pg. 139
9.1.a
Prospective Countywide Growth Centers - Snohomish County - 7.9.20 - DRAFT4?�
DISCLAIMER: Candidate Centers were identified based on activity unit density, mixed use zoning/planning classification, and
approximate location relative to Community Transit Core Transit Emphasis Corridors or high -capacity transit stations. Center
identification is also subject to other criteria. Boundaries shown on the map reflect existing mixed use zoning and are likely to change.
{ e" ARLINGTON
q tl
GRANRE FALLS
I
t r
MA SILLS
F
LAKE
STEVENS � ``4>
EVERETT !w ,
a
�a
%3NHOMISH�
q �F
MILL ,j`
� 09 d �8 MONRO
LYNNWOOD f
EUMONUS > '�f
WOOD WA j
-- —S o
o�:..... �� 19
Appendix I: Centers
• Key aspect of the Regional Growth
Strategy
• Countywide Centers:
• Countywide Growth Centers
• Countywide Industrial Centers
• Identification:
to Adopt criteria as a part of CPPs
• Identify "Candidate Centers"
• Local planning to determine boundaries,
etc. 4441
Snohomish County
Packet Pg. 140
9.1.a
Planning Advisory Committee Recommendation
• The PAC recommends that the Steering Committee review and
approve the revisions to the CPPs.
• Two outstanding issues remain:
• Annexation Process — potentially add a new policy related to this topic.
• CCP-DP-2(b) - Possible amendment to language in this policy.
• Remaining two issues will be discussed at the June 10 PAC meeting
• Updated recommendation to be forwarded prior to June 23 Steering
Committee meeting
4441
Snohomish County
Packet Pg. 141
9.1.a
CPP Adoption Schedule
• May 26: Briefing
• June 23: Follow-
up/Discussion
• July 28: Decision
21
- - -- v — — I- - -
Briefing, Public
Hearing, and
Adoption
4441
Snohomish County
Packet Pg. 142
9.1.a
Questions?
Mitchell Brouse
Senior Planner
Planning & Development Services
mitchell.brouse@snoco.org
(425) 388-5127
441�&
Snohomish County
Packet Pg. 143
9.1.b
Edmonds Public Facilities District
Board of Directors Virtual Online Meeting
April 22, 2021
The Edmonds Public Facilities District Board virtual meeting convened at 7:30 a.m. via Zoom.
EPFD Board Members Present ECA Staff Present
David Brewster, President Joseph Mclalwain, Executive Director
Ray Liaw, Vice President Matt Keller, Director of Operations
Suzy Maloney
Bill Willcock City Staff Present
Dave Turley, Finance Director (Ex-Officio)
EPFD Board Members Absent
Greg Hinton
ECA Board Members Present
David Schaefer Vice President
Call to Order
Other Guests Present
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, City Council Liaison
Board President Brewster called the meeting to order.
2. Land Acknowledgement
Board Member Willcock read the Land Acknowledgement statement.
3. Board President's Comments
4. Consent Agenda
• EPFD Board Meeting Minutes — 3-25-2021
• EPFD Disbursement Report — March 2021
Board President Brewster referred to his comment in the minutes regarding his intent to reach out
to PFD Board members for a one-on-one discussion and said he plans to do that shortly.
BOARD VP LIAW MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. BOARD MEMBER
WILLCOCK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. Old Business
• Prior Action Items Review
Mr. Keller reviewed progress on action items from the previous meeting and identified outstanding
items (see Action Items below).
• April Staff Report — Questions/Comments?
Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes
April22, 2021
Page 1
Packet Pg. 144
9.1.b
Discussion included when the results of the patron survey will be available and staff that is filling
in for Gillian Jones during her leave.
6. PFD Board Business
Board President Brewster requested in the future approval of the budget be on the agenda under
PFD Board Business.
7. Finance, Facilities & Operations
• Finance Report — March 2021 DRAFT
Mr. Keller relayed this report was presented to the Admin & Finance Committee yesterday and
the committee recommended forwarding it to the EPFD Board. He highlighted rental revenues
contributions performing above budget increase in expenses in education & outreach specifically
in payroll; revenue from gym, theater and classrooms rentals; increase in supplies -other due to
subscriptions related to streaming; sales tax revenues; and grant revenue.
Monthly Cashflow Analysis Report
Mr. Keller highlighted changes to the report that were requested at last month's meeting, and
reviewed payments on credit card balances, outstanding credit card balances, and recent credit
card purchases. Discussion followed regarding the expectation that staff will return to 75% in June
and full-time in September, rationale for increasing staff hours, and revenue to sustain increased
staff hours.
• 2021 Operating Budget — Q1 Draft Modification Presentation
Mr. Keller advised this was presented to the Admin & Finance Committee last month and this
month. The only change is shifting contributed revenue to later in the year so the calendarized
budget is more accurate. Operating revenue, expenses, operating and non -operating are the
same as the report presented last month. The modification is presented today for board questions
and possible approval.
Mr. Mclalwain referred to the increase in contributions, explaining original projections for
contributions were extremely conservative and did not include a May fundraiser or unanticipated
grant opportunities. Discussion followed regarding the increase in payroll, and funds not reflected
in the revised budget.
BOARD VP LIAW MOVED TO APPROVE THE Q1 OPERATING BUDGET MODIFICATION.
BOARD MEMBER MALONEY SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
• SBA Opportunities: Shuttered Venue Operating Grant (SVOG) Update
Mr. Keller relayed the portal crashed shortly after opening and is in the process being reopening.
He was able to log in, create a profile and begin to fill out information but due to the number of
applicants, he was unable to upload backup documentation due to the portal continually crashing.
The portal should open today or tomorrow and he hoped to submit an application by the weekend.
He will inform the board when the SVOG application has been submitted and what category the
ECA qualified to apply under. Mr. Mclalwain provided a link to the SBA's website regarding the
grant in the chat.
Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes
April22, 2021
Page 2
Packet Pg. 145
9.1.b
• Report to City Finance Committee/2012 Bond Refinancing - Update
Mr. Keller reported on the meeting with the Council Finance Committee yesterday to discuss the
2012 bond refinancing. The Finance Committee members were supportive of refinancing and they
understand extending the debt to 2041. Rob Shelley, Piper Sandler, also attended the meeting
and presented scenarios to the committee (refinancing only 2012 bonds to 2041, refinancing 2012
bonds and the City loan, and refinancing 2012, the City loan and the 2018 with FFNW).
Mr. Mclalwain referenced background information and refinancing decision points that were
provided in the packet related to components of EPFD's remaining debt, extension of PFD
legislation, and the EPFD's financial advisor and bond counsel. He assured the EPFD Board is
the decision -maker regarding refinancing the bonds and that will require further discussion. A
partnership with the City is critical as they have a stronger rating, debt capacity and ability to
obtain a better interest rate. Doing nothing is also an option, but the benefits of refinancing include
cashflow to remain solvent and meet the new legal requirement that a portion of the original capital
debt extend into 2041. He suggested devoting most of the May meeting or scheduling a separate
work session to discuss the refinancing options and opportunities which include long term
visioning. He briefly reviewed a capital debt overview that includes the 2012 bonds, 2018 bank
loan, and debt outstanding to the City.
Discussion followed regarding a preference to discuss refinancing at a separate meeting, whether
staff will provide a recommendation to the board, adding existing debt and current and proposed
payment schedules to the debt refinancing information, potential the equity statement will
influence the long term vision, background information to provide board members in preparation
for the refinancing discussion, additional information to present to the Council Finance Committee,
concern a presentation was made to the Council Finance Committee before it was provided to
EPFD Board, having Rob Shelley make a presentation to the EPFD Board, timing to make a
decision on refinancing, urgency if intent is to refinance in 2021 to provide cashflow, availability
of the 4/21 /21 Finance Committee video on the City's website, support for scheduling special PFD
meetings when necessary, support from the Finance Committee of a strategy that would
consolidate debt via refinancing, openness on the City's part to discuss refinancing and other
partnerships, and a suggestion to involve the ECA leadership in discussions regarding long term
debt.
8. Executive Report / Steering Committee
• Long Term Vision and Planning
Mr. Mclalwain explained the Strategic Business Plan approved in 2018 built a stronger ECA but
did not identify a long term goal/north star. The Steering Committee was assigned the lead in
evaluating the organizations mission, vision and values. One of the expected outcomes from that
process was to create a document against which future opportunities or ideas generated from
within the organization could be measured. He briefly reviewed the draft document included in
the packet, highlighting the Mission, Vision, Strategic Foundation, and Guiding Principles and
Values sections. The document will ultimately be approved by both the EPFD and ECA Boards.
He requested board members read through the document for future discussion.
Board President Brewster added this has been lengthy process for the Steering Committee; the
equity statement will impact the document's final language as will the ECA Board's input. He
offered to collect and forward board members' comments to the Steering Committee as the
document is finalized. Board VP Liaw encouraged board members to submit feedback. She
suggested bringing the document back to the board for further discussion.
Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes
April22, 2021
Page 3
Packet Pg. 146
9.1.b
Discussion followed regarding next steps/process, EPFD and ECA board members providing
feedback, Steering Committee's consideration of feedback, potentially having a joint meeting with
both boards to formalize the document, the document as a decision -making tool, and feedback
staying at a high level from an impression/question perspective. It was agreed board members
would review the document and submit comments to Board President Brewster who would
forward them to the Steering Committee for a first round of revisions.
9. Marketing & Business Development
• Promotion of Spring and Summer Programs
Mr. Mclalwain displayed artists confirmed for the summer series and recognized Gillian Jones for
the mix of experiences. He reported the marketing team is working on a design concept that flows
from SPARK to the spotlight series to SHINE (Gala) and into the opening of the 2021/2022
season. A series of videos are being developed showing patrons' experience at the ECA. An RFP
is being developed for a website redesign. SPARK attendees will have an immediate opportunity
to purchase tickets for the summer series.
10. Programming
• Spotlight Summer Series — Update
See above.
11. Hostinq
• Update
Board VP Liaw explained most of Hosting Committee's meeting was spent discussing the status
of the streaming equipment, what needs to be done to offer the equipment to existing and new
rental clients, etc. There is a steep learning curve related to using and offering the equipment
without the use of an outside vendor. One of the priorities from the retreat was to generate
revenue via the streaming equipment; the committee is learning it will be more of a long term
endeavor rather than a short term Band-Aid to increasing revenue, but is definitely an excellent
investment. A number of dance recitals plan to use the equipment in June. Hosting will continue
asking key questions about the streaming equipment, but will shift back to policy questions such
as rental prices, what it means to be ECA partner organization, etc.
12. Philanthropy
• Spring Event: SPARK — May 19t", 6:30 pm
Mr. Mclalwain explained in the past, events such as Center Stage and the Gala began with
development of a concept, engaging an MC, preparing for the event from procurement standpoint,
with scripting and planning occurring at the last minute. Planning for SPARK is leading with the
script, the message, the structure of the night, and will include a combination of prerecorded and
a real time moments on the stage. Both boards have said they want testimonials from artists and
people who benefit from work the ECA does and staff is working on that.
13. Inclusion & Accessibility, Education & Outreach
Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes
April22, 2021
Page 4
Packet Pg. 147
9.1.b
• Update
Mr. Mclalwain commented on past training for board, staff and volunteers and acknowledged
there is still a lot of work to do related to accessibility such as transgender restrooms, access to
the theater, support for those with hearing loss, etc. A strategic plan needs to be developed
specific to equity work including identifying/building a position in the organization specific to equity
work. Future budgets will need to include funds for equity work in order to be successful. An equity
statement will clarify the direction and the necessary resources.
Board President Brewster relayed much of the equity work is falling on 2-3 staff members who
already have full plates. The equity statement will be an anchor for the organization to work from
and build its reputation, but is also a starting point of an ongoing journey and exploration toward
real equity standards. The organization needs to invest in staff to manage work or hire an outside
consultant. He recognized Lindsay Geyer and Gillian Jones for leading the conversations.
Board Member Willcock suggested moving this item up on the agenda in the future to it is given
adequate time.
Mr. Mclalwain commented several board members made contributions to support staff attending
the Step Up Conference on April 30th. He encouraged board members to attend and Board
President Brewster provided a link to the conference in chat.
14. New Business
15. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 8:57 a.m.
Next EPFD Board Meeting: Thursday, May 27th - 7:30 AM
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Carry forward from previous months:
a. Provide EPFD Board an update on the 5-year financial plan
b. Inform EPFD board members of date/time of future Council Finance Committee
meetings where EPFD business is discussed
2. Place budget approval on the agenda under PFD Board Business.
3. Inform the board when the SVOG application has been submitted and what category the
ECA qualified for
4. Add existing debt and current and proposed payment schedules to the debt refinancing
information
5. Schedule a separate EPFD Board work session to discuss refinancing options and
opportunities and include presentation by Rob Shelley
6. Bring the Vision, Mission, Strategic Foundation, Objectives Guiding Principles Update
document back to the board for further discussion
7. Send board members a Save the Date for SPARK on May 191h @ 6:30 pm.
8. Move Inclusion & Accessibility Education & Outreach up on agenda to ensure it is given
adequate time.
Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes
April22, 2021
Page 5
Packet Pg. 148
9.1.c
Special Edmonds Public Facilities District
Board of Directors Virtual Online Meeting
May 7, 2021
The Edmonds Public Facilities District Board virtual meeting convened at 11:03 a.m. via Zoom.
EPFD Board Members Present
David Brewster, President
Ray Liaw, Vice President
Bill Willcock
EPFD Board Members Absent
Suzy Maloney
Greg Hinton
ECA Board Members Present
David Schaefer Vice President
Call to Order
ECA Staff Present
Joseph Mclalwain, Executive Director
Matt Keller, Director of Operations
City Staff Present
Dave Turley, Finance Director (Ex-Officio)
Other Guests Present
Rob Shelley, Piper Sandler
Board President Brewster called the meeting to order.
2. Board President's Comments
Board President Brewster thanked Mr. Keller for his 2+ years of service to the PFD and the ECA.
His service has been invaluable and he will be hard to replace. Mr. Keller said it has been his
pleasure to work at the ECA.
4. PFD Board Business
Presentation 2012 Bond Sale Options
o Overview
Mr. Mclalwain displayed the capital debt overview. He referred to the 2002/2012 bonds, explaining
the 2002 bonds were the first debt issued for the EPFD by and in the name of the City of Edmonds
on behalf of the PFD, guaranteed by the PFD's sales tax revenue stream. This debt was originally
issued in 2002 and used to purchase the Edmonds High School property, and refinanced in 2012.
At that time, City staff was doing the work of the EPFD via an administrative contract.
In 2005/2006 a construction loan was issued to the EPFD by Bank of America to complete the
renovation. In 2008, Snohomish County PFD pledged additional sales tax collection to the four
PFD projects (ECA received 22% of the total amount available). In 2008, bonds were issued,
backed by a contingency loan agreement with the City, to pay off the line of credit and provide
some funds for reserves. The Great Recession then occurred which eliminated the projected
revenue stream. After a few years, the contingent loan agreement was invoked and the EPFD
began borrowing from the City to meet its bond obligation as the sales tax revenue stream slowly
recovered. The 2002 bonds were refunded as part of a debt package the City sold in 2012. In
2018, the EPFD refinanced the bonds issued in 2008 via a private placement with First Financial
Special Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes
May 7, 2021
Page 1
Packet Pg. 149
9.1.c
Northwest Bank and guaranteed by a CD purchased by the City. The EPFD made its first payment
on the loan with the City in 2018.
The discussion is now the 2002/2012 bonds which become callable 90 days prior to the principal
payment date in December 2022. The options include refinancing in 2022 when the bonds
become callable with non-taxable bonds, refinance in 2021 with taxable bonds, whether to include
the amount the EPFD owes the City in the refinancing. The extension of the PFD legislation to
2041 requires the EPFD have a portion of its original debt outstanding until 2041 to continue to
receive sales tax rebate from state).
o Presentation of Options
Rob Shelley, Piper Sandler, the EPFD's financial advisor, explained he assisted with refinancing
the 2008 bonds in 2018 and he was recently retained to look at options for the 2012 bonds. He
reviewed:
• Outstanding Debt
o Graph of 2012 City LTGO Bonds, 2018 Bank Loan, City Loan Payments (projected)
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 2021-2028
• Graph of Market Conditions
o Historical Tax-exempt Interest Rates 10 Year AAA MMD
o Range of Tax-exempt interest rates (MMD) April 2011-present (Historical Range of
MMD, average, current)
• Refinancing Options — comparison between revenue stream and debt service through
2041
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
o Scenario 3 — Refunding in fall 2021 (option #2) plus future new money in 2024 —
potential components include the following:
■ Taxable refunding of 2012 City LTGO Bonds
■ Tax-exempt refunding of 2018 Bank Loan
■ New money project deposits: $1 million, $2 million, or $3 million
o Discussion/Questions
Questions and discussion followed regarding pros, cons and tradeoffs of each scenario; 10-year
opportunity to refinance or pay down; timing of the refunding; volatility of the market; concern
inflation will increase; anticipation that rates will be higher in 2022; taxable versus tax-exempt
rates; past refinancing that have been guaranteed by the City; assumption in the options that the
City would issue debt; higher rates if the PFD issued debt itself; average annual growth rate in
the projected sales tax revenue, large fund Snohomish County lodging tax distributed in 2021-
2025, interest on the City loan; political ramifications of the refinancing decision; presentation to
Council Finance Committee; benefits of refunding 2012 bonds in 2021 and paying off the City
loan; reviewing the ILA with Snohomish County with regard to the use of funds before reaching a
final decision; strategically considering use of the sales tax rebate; timeline for decision -making;
Special Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes
May 7, 2021
Page 2
Packet Pg. 150
9.1.c
whether there was a recommendation from this analysis; making a decision on refinancing 2012
bonds soon so the process can begin; and whether City will be willing to issue the bonds on the
PFD's behalf.
Mr. Keller will provide board members the ILA with Snohomish County PFD and other
agreements.
o Next Steps
In response to a question regarding the timeline for decision -making, Mr. Shelley provided the
following threshold questions/comments:
❖ Whether to refinance 2012 bonds to 2041
❖ Whether want cashflow relief this year (refinance by 12/31/21)
❖ Interest rate between taxable and tax exempt not part of decision
Discussion continued regarding the EPFD making a decision at its next meeting, benchmarking
decision timelines, how long the refinancing process has taken in the past, determining whether
the City would be willing to issue the bonds on the PFD's behalf, developing a clear
recommendation and request to the City, precedent for the City issuing bonds and entering into
a contingent loan agreement, refinancing the 2012 bonds to 2041, refinancing allowing the PFD
to pay off the City loan faster, partnership opportunities with the City on future projects such as
the 4th Avenue Corridor, the PFD's tumultuous history due to events beyond the PFD's control,
scheduling another special PFD meeting to determine next steps, engaging the Admin & Finance
Committee in the decision -making, inviting Admin/Finance Committee members to a special PFD
meeting, staff drafting a recommendation, and staff providing board members a link to the
recording of today's Zoom meeting.
5. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 12:31 p.m.
Next EPFD Board Meeting: Thursday, May 26, 2021 - 7:30 AM
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Provide board members the ILA with Snohomish County PFD and other agreements
2. Schedule a special EPFD meeting for further discussion and invite Admin & Finance
Committee members
3. Staff draft a recommendation regarding refinancing the 2012 bonds
4. Provide board members a link to the recording of today's Zoom meeting
Special Edmonds Public Facilities District Board Draft Minutes
May 7, 2021
Page 3
Packet Pg. 151
DocuSign Envelope ID: 54102AA9-BB03-477B-9717-CD049B65D83D
9.1.d
PORT
OF
EDMONDS
PORT COMMISSION OF THE PORT OF EDMONDS
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
(Via Zoom)
May 10, 2021
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
STAFF PRESENT
Angela Harris, President
Bob McChesney, Executive Director
David Preston, Vice President
Brandon Baker, Marina Manager
Steve Johnston, Secretary
Tina Drennan, Finance Manager
Bruce Faires
Jim Orvis
OTHERS PRESENT
Bradford Cattle, Port Attorney
CALL TO ORDER
President Harris called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
All those in attendance participated in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
CONSENT AGENDA
President Harris announced that the Commission would have an executive session at the end of the regular meeting.
COMMISSIONER FAIRES MOVED THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE APPROVED TO INCLUDE
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
A. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
B. APPROVAL OF APRIL 26, 2021 MEETING MINUTES, AS AMENDED.
C. APPROVAL OF PAYMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $234,418.09
COMMISSIONER PRESTON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. McChesney entered the following letter from Charles Malmgren into the record:
Good evening Commissioners, my name is Charles Malmgren and I lease space in your Dry Storage facility.
I am a sports fisherman and work hard to be effective and successful. On most trips, there is a tight time for
being in the water. Sometimes it is sunrise, others it is a tide and others a bit of both. In any event, there is
always an optimum time for leaving the dock on any fishing trip.
Packet Pg. 152
DocuSign Envelope ID: 54102AA9-BB03-477B-9717-CD049B65D83D
Dry Stack has initiated two new regulations making it unlikely to acquire an adequate departure time without
paying a new fee. First is the newly written -in -stone appointment schedule for launching. This started as a
Covid 19 change for staff and tenant safety. You can only launch before 3 p.m. by appointment.
Appointments can be made for 4 quarter hour segments and only 2 boats per segment. This limitation of 8
boats per hour, lam to 3pm, makes it unlikely that on any given salmon fishing day an appropriate departure
can be obtained. Especially since much fishing is completed before Dry Storage opens.
Second is the new fee assessed on Pre -Launch. Tenants at Dry Stack could previously request a free pre-
launch, which would have their boat on a dock the night before. Space available of course. Now pre -launch
is a paid event, either with a tenant's one free night or $35 fee. Management also added a "late return "fee,
which I am sure will be addressed by others.
Last week, I decided to try out a lam launch appointment and was not happy at the results. Apparently, my
launch was complicated by a "bathroom emergency " and a missing work vest, which had me leaving A Dock
at 7: 30am, missing my window. I was out bait, fuel and time with nothing but frustration to show for it.
These two new changes are by design, Boater Suppression. Port Management has previously identified the
boater these changes are trying to create:
"Some sectors of our business depend upon high activity to produce positive bottom lines.
Alternatively, dry storage produces the most positive bottom line from customers that are low
activity. In fact, our marketing plan identifies the ideal dry storage customer as being a low user
that stays year-round. "
From September until mid -April, I was an ideal low user. I promptly paid my lease each month in the
anticipation of next year's fishing, which now looks much worse for these new changes. Undoubtably, the
changes will suppress activity at Dry Stack. No one I know can blithely toss an additional $35 on a fishing
trip. Please consider these changes.
CONTINUATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 20-03 DECLARING LOCAL EMERGENCY AND
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
Mr. McChesney reported that he hasn't taken any action under the emergency authority.
MARINA RULES AND REGULATIONS UPDATES
Mr. Baker reviewed the proposed Marina Rules and Regulations amendments presented to the Commission a few
weeks ago, and the Commission raised some questions and requested further clarification. The amendments have
been updated and are being presented for the Commission's information. He noted that, because the changes are
simply clarification, no formal action by the Commission is required.
Mr. Baker advised that the proposed amendments are intended to address rules and regulations that have been enforced
for a long time, but have never been formalized. He reviewed the changes as follows:
• 6.13.1— Dock Accessories & Gear. Item H was added to clarify that the Port prohibits vessel storage devices
such as boat lifts or hull protection apparatus in the slips. For further clarification, the language that was
originally presented on April 121 was modified to specifically identify products that are permanently under
the boat in the water. As proposed, it would read, "The Port prohibits additional vessel storage devices in
the slip, such as boat lifts or hull protection systems below the waterline. Any accessory device not integral
to the vessel that is permanently submerged in the water is not permitted for use within the marina. "
• 10.2.1— Authorized Businesses/Unauthorized Businesses. The proposed amendment clarifies that the Port
does not permit user -to -user boat sharing or rentals or short-term and long-term hospitality or housing rental.
To address concern raised by the Commission about how the provision would apply to charter boat operators,
specific language was added that excludes them, as they operate under a separate agreement. Questions were
also raised about how the rule would impact Freedom Boat Club. To address this concern, the term "rental"
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Port Commission
May 10, 2021 Page 2
Packet Pg. 153
DocuSign Envelope ID: 54102AA9-BB03-477B-9717-CD049B65D83D
9.1.d
was defined to help bring clarity. Freedom Boat Club is a membership rather than a rental fleet, so the rule
would not apply. It is also important to note that Regulation 10.2.2. allows the Executive Director to overrule
any of the rules upon written request.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Mr. McChesney advised that staff is working to prepare for the retreat on May 12t'', which will include presentations
by a number of consultants who have been working on the North Portwalk and Seawall Reconstruction and the
Administration/Maintenance Building. The intent is to dive deeper into the projects and consider design criteria,
permit processes, floor plans, LEED Certification and solar. The meeting packet have been prepared and can be
picked up by the Commissioners prior to the meeting.
Commissioner Faires asked if the retreat would be conducted in -person or via Zoom. Mr. McChesney explained that,
because they didn't have clear direction about whether Snohomish County would be in Phase 2 or Phase 3 of the
Governor's pandemic plan, staff determined that all of the consultant presentations would be made via Zoom. The
Commissioners are invited to attend in person, recognizing that it would be a personal decision. He noted that
interested members of the public would be invited to participate via Zoom.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
Commissioner Preston reported that he attended the Economic Alliance of Snohomish County's (EASC) May 41
Coffee Chat. He also attended the May 41 Edmonds City Council Meeting where a number of topics were discussed.
He said he plans to attend the May 121 retreat in person.
Commissioner Orvis advised that he would attend the Washington Public Port Association's (WPPA) Spring Meeting,
as well as the EASC's Snohomish County Update. He said he also plans to attend the retreat in person.
Commissioner Johnston said he would attend the retreat in person. He reported that he participated in the EASC's
Coffee Chat, which discussed the advancement of broadband infrastructure and accessibility, not only in the rural
parts of the County, but the state as a whole. Things are moving very rapidly in that regard. He reported that he also
attended the EASC's Coffee Chat on May 4t' that focused on impacts to the life science industry in Snohomish County.
It was narrated by Leslie Alexandra, President and CEO of Life Sciences Washington, the industry association. He
was surprised to learn that over 5,000 people are employed in the biotechnology and medical device industry in
Snohomish County alone, and it is growing every day. Several hundred companies are represented in Snohomish
County.
Commissioner Johnston announced that he would attend the WPPA Roundtable on redistricting on May 111. He also
plans to attend the Commission's retreat in person. Lastly, he said he would attend the WPPA's virtual Spring meeting
next week.
Commissioner Faires asked if Commissioner Johnston had any insights to pass along relative to which of the
broadband initiatives (house or senate) will end up being approved, or if it will be a compromise between them.
Commissioner Johnston said there wasn't a lot of speculation in the Coffee Chat, which focused on infrastructure
development. He suggested that perhaps Commissioner Orvis could answer that question. Commissioner Orvis
responded that it may end up being decided in the courts. The big tech companies have opposed the involvement of
ports and public utility districts in the retail business, using the argument that they are making plans to serve it.
However, they have never moved forward with their plans.
Commissioner Faires said he would attend the retreat in person. He advised that he would also attend the Edmonds
Economic Development Commission meeting on May 19t1i
Commissioner Harris reported that she met with representatives from the Waterfront Center and City Council Member
Buckshnis. She was able to walk through the center and is excited for the time when the community can fully use the
space. Currently, most of the activities are offered remotely, and they are finding that a certain amount of the
population has indicated a desire for remote opportunities to continue post pandemic. She advised that the group
would meet again in a few weeks to brainstorm opportunities for how the Port and City could engage in the Waterfront
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Port Commission
May 10, 2021 Page 3
Packet Pg. 154
DocuSign Envelope ID: 54102AA9-BB03-477B-9717-CD049B65D83D
Center Activities. She recalled the intent of her initial meeting was to walk through the facility and gain a better
understanding of their LEED Certification and solar program, and she will share information with the Commission at
the retreat.
Commissioner Harris said she has been attending some of the Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) general
assembly meetings in an effort to become more engaged and gain more understanding of what is going on at that level.
She will share her notes with the Commission. She also said she plans to attend the retreat in person. She will also
participate in the EASC and WPPA meetings on May 11t1i and the EASC's Snohomish County update on May 13t1i
In addition, she will meet with Gerry O'Keefe, Senior Director Environmental Affairs, WPPA, on May 131 to discuss
how she can become more involved in the WPPA's Environmental Committee.
Lastly, Commissioner Harris reported that Sound Salmon has announced another release of Coho from the net pen on
May 22nd around noon. Sound Salmon has done a fair number of updates at the Willow Creek Hatchery, and she is
working to schedule a tour the last week of May, at which time she will talk with their stewardship manager about
marsh restoration efforts. Commissioner Faires expressed a desire to participate in the hatchery tour.
Council Member Olson announced that the Chamber of Commerce has indicated there will not be a firework display
this year. They had intended to go forward with the event, but the companies that offer the service cannot meet the
demand. She advised that the bike lane project is moving forward, and the proposal will likely be on the Council's
agenda in a week with the recommendations put forth in the May 4t' presentation. She encouraged the Commissioners
to review the recommendations and provide comment. She reported that Mayor Nelson announced that the Walkable
Main Street Program would continue on both Saturday and Sunday from June 191 through Labor Day. Lastly, she
reported that the City Council held its budget retreat on May 81, where they discussed initial input and priorities. At
their May 111 meeting, Council Members will discuss prioritization of the Housing Commission's recommendations.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 7:31 p.m. Commissioner Harris announced that the Commission would recess into an Executive Session pursuant
to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) to discuss with legal counsel representing agency matters relating to agency enforcement
actions, or to discuss the legal counsel representing the agency litigation or potential litigation to which the agency,
the governing body, or member acting in an official capacity is, or is likely to become, a party. She advised that the
Executive Session would last approximately 30 minutes, and the Commission would resume the public portion of the
meeting after the Executive Session. She further advised that no action would be taken after the Executive Session,
and the meeting would be adjourned at the end of the Executive Session.
The Executive Session started at 7:35 p.m. At 8:05 p.m., the Commission reconvened the regular meeting to announce
that the executive session would be extended for 15 minutes. The Executive Session was adjourned at 8:18 p.m.,
and the business portion of the regular meeting was reconvened immediately.
ADJOURNMENT
The Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:19 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
DocuSigned by:
43C724BC61 E4424...
Steve Johnston
Port Commission Secretary
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Port Commission
May 10, 2021 Page 4
Packet Pg. 155
DocuSign Envelope ID: 308E7FCE-34F5-4C82-89FB-1418578E4356
9.1.e
PORT
OF
EDMONDS
PORT COMMISSION OF THE PORT OF EDMONDS
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING AND STAFF RETREAT
(In Person and Via Zoom)
May 42, 2024
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Angela Harris, President
David Preston, Vice President
Steve Johnston, Secretary
Bruce Faires
Jim Orvis
CALL TO ORDER
President Harris called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Bob McChesney, Executive Director
Brandon Baker, Marina Manager
Tina Drennan, Finance Manager
Brian Menard, Facilities Maintenance Manager
Karin Michaud, Office Manager
Travis Cruz, Maintenance Supervisor
Renae Ebel, Administrative Assistant
Carl Orsi, Moorage, Office & Customer Service Supervisor
All those in attendance participated in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
CONSENT AGENDA
COMMISSIONER ORVIS MOVED THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE APPROVED TO INCLUDE THE
FOLLOWING ITEM:
A. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COMMISSIONER FAIRES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
Packet Pg. 156
DocuSign Envelope ID: 308E7FCE-34F5-4C82-89FB-1418578E4356
9.1.e
INTRODUCTIONS
Mr. McChesney observed that this is the first time in over a year that all of the Commissioners have been present in
the same room. He advised that there are a number of items to discuss and several consultants have been invited to
share information on the Port's two large projects: North Portwalk and Seawall and Administration/Maintenance
Building.
NORTH PORTWALK/SEAWALL PROJECT
Mr. McChesney introduced Chevy Chase and Dennis Titus from CG Engineering, who were present to discuss the
North Portwalk and Seawall Project.
Proiect Overview WG Eneineerine)
Dennis Titus, CG Engineering, shared information about CG Engineering, a local firm located in downtown
Edmonds that specializes in civil and structural engineering and planning. He also shared his professional background
information.
Mr. Titus advised that the North Portwalk Replacement Project is complicated, and requires a specialized team of
consultants. CG Engineering will be the design team lead and handle the civil and structural design, and Makers
Architecture and Urban Design will be handling the architectural design and public access plan. Landau Associates
will do the geotechnical study and soils assessment, as well as the environmental study and permit coordination. The
Harris Group will handle the plumbing design, and Harbor Power will handle the electrical design.
Mr. Titus advised that the north portwalk is approximately 950 feet long and 13,000 square feet. It runs from Arnies
all the way to the current Administration Building. The Port originally contacted CG Engineering to assess the
structure to see if the surface could be replaced. As part of this work, a fairly extensive assessment of the framing and
substructure was done and some deficiencies were found. This led to the repair and replacement plan that is currently
in progress, and the intent is to present 30%, 60% and 90% submittals for the Port to review along the way.
Commissioner Faires noted that, thus far, everything has been predicated on the permitting process being the critical
path. He asked Mr. Titus for an estimate as to when the north portwalk would need to be replaced. Mr. Titus estimated
it would be 5 to 10 years before there are significant problems. The goal is to be preventative and address the situation
before it becomes a safety issue.
Mr. Titus explained that, based on the damage found, CG Engineering didn't see a way to adequately repair the
bulkhead. Therefore, the design will include replacing the damaged upper bulkhead, repairing the existing steel piles,
replacing creosoted timber piles, the surface and handrails. It will also include replacing and upgrading the water and
electrical systems serving the floating moorage and upgrading the lighting along the portwalk and in the parking area.
Schedule (CG Enmineerinz)
Mr. Titus reviewed that following the assessment in May 2020, CG Engineering advised that major repair work needed
to be done. After discussions with Port staff, a decision was made to put together a team and start the design process
in November 2020. The project is currently at 30% design, and the next step will be to submit an application to the
City for the Substantial Shoreline Development Permit. Once the project reaches 60% design in August 2021, CG
Engineering will submit a permit application to the Corps of Engineers. It is anticipated this permit process will be
lengthy, and comments, questions and possible changes to the design will likely come up. All of these changes will
be incorporated into the 90% design and then a development application will be submitted to the City of Edmonds for
review and approval. It is anticipated that construction can start in May of 2023, depending on permitting. He
reminded them that in -water work is limited to July through February. Preston requested more information about how
the "fish window" is determined, and Mr. Titus answered that it is dependent on when the endangered species are
migrating in Puget Sound.
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING AND STAFF RETREAT
Port Commission
May 12, 2021 Page 2
Packet Pg. 157
DocuSign Envelope ID: 308E7FCE-34F5-4C82-89FB-1418578E4356
Seawall Structural Issues (CG Eneineerin
Commissioner Faires commented that, not only is he concerned about the decisions that have been made and are yet
to be made with regard to materials and aesthetics, he is also concerned about costs. He suggested that the decisions
related to the two alternatives presented by the consultant will likely be based on the cost and longevity of the structure.
Mr. Titus explained that a lot of the existing structure is timber frame. In a marine environment, timber has a lifespan
of about 30 years, at best. As currently designed, the new structure would be steel, and the decking material would
be either concrete or steel, all of which have a much longer lifespan than timber.
Mr. Titus shared pictures and provided a general overview of the existing portwalk structure, noting that most of the
concern is related to the timber piles and framing. The timber piles were installed in 1968 and are at the end of their
life. The steel piles were upgraded in the mid-90s when the marina was reconstructed. The timber decking was
originally installed in 1996 and is weathered and cracked and reaching the end of its operational life. Some of the
decking has been replaced and is in much better condition. Staff has indicated that more and more boards need to be
replaced every year. If nothing is done, they will get to a point where a substantial number of them will need to be
replaced at the same time.
Mr. Titus also shared pictures and described the general condition of the existing upper timber bulkhead and piles.
He noted areas of obvious rot, decay and degradation of the timber piles. While some of them appear to be intact,
areas of rot were found in all of them. Not only do the piles support the deck framing, they also retain the soil above
it.
Commissioner Faires asked if there has been any depression in the parking lot area as a result of the soil moving west.
Mr. Titus answered that there are minor signs that is starting to happen, but there are no major issues at this time. As
the wall moves and pushes out on the piles, it will cause a depression on the backside, and they will start to see
cracking in the asphalt and gaps between the asphalt and the timber framing.
Next, Mr. Titus shared pictures and provided a general overview of the lower, concrete bulkhead that is supported by
a pair of steel piles. He advised that, while there are no issues with the bulkhead, itself, some rust and delamination
was found in the piles. The vertical pile has maintained its structure integrity, but the batter pile is severely corroded
and has lost about half of its structural integrity. Commissioner Faires asked Mr. Titus to explain why the vertical
pile is in good shape, but the batter pile is severely corroded. Mr. Titus responded that there is no structural reason
why one should be worse than the other. The only reason he can think of is that the galvanization on the batter piles
was not done properly or as well as the vertical piles.
Lastly, Mr. Titus shared pictures and described the condition of the gangways, which are aluminum and supported by
the portwalk. Generally, they are all in good conditions, and there are no plans to change them regardless of the
alternative that is selected.
Commissioner Faires asked about the lifespan of the existing lower bulkhead. Mr. Titus responded that there are no
issues and he does not foresee that it will need to be replaced as part of the project.
Design, Cost and Construction Constructability (CG Enzineerinz)
Mr. Titus provided a drawing to illustrate the proposed plan, specifically noting the following:
• The deck surface and handrails will be replaced, and one option is to raise the deck surface up 6 inches above
the asphalt parking area, which would be approximately the elevation of the existing yellow curb. Raising it
would provide some permitting benefits, and it would allow for a better separation between the walking
surface and the driving area.
• The upper bulkhead will be replaced with a sheet pile wall behind the existing timber bulkhead. A new
concrete cap will be added along the top, as well.
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING AND STAFF RETREAT
Port Commission
May 12, 2021 Page 3
Packet Pg. 158
DocuSign Envelope ID: 308E7FCE-34F5-4C82-89FB-1418578E4356
9.1.e
Commissioner Faires asked if there would be any issues with moisture accumulating under the cement next
to the sheet pile. Mr. Titus answered no and added that drainage will collect the groundwater behind the pile
cap.
• New anchors will be required for the sheet pile wall. While the current anchors are in good condition, they
do not meet the requirements of the current building code.
Mr. McChesney pointed out there is an accessibility issue with the existing anchors. With structures built on
top of the dead man, the existing tiebacks will be abandoned in place. He asked what type of tieback system
is proposed. Mr. Titus answered that they would be grouted tiebacks that are drilled in underneath the parking
lot and structures, and they won't disrupt anything or conflict with utilities behind the bulkhead. Landau
Associates has found that several feet of the upper area is liquefiable, so they will need to make sure the
anchors are at a steep angle and get down to the soil below. Two or three feet of the asphalt behind the
bulkhead will need to be replaced to provide access to pour the new concrete, and there will be some impact
from the utilities. However, he doesn't anticipate that the parking lot will be significantly impacted.
• The steel batter piles will be repaired in place. While part of the design is still to be determined, the plan is
to replace the corroded sections with new steel sections. The other option is to weld a new sleeve around it.
They are working with contractors to figure out which option is more economical and buildable.
Commissioner Preston observed that the high -tide elevation is right at the portwalk level. Mr. Titus explained
that the Army Corps of Engineers calls the high tideline at 12'3". One option is to raise the portwalk 6 inches,
which allows for a separation between the portwalk and the drive aisle, but it won't be so high that it requires
steps. Normally, code would require a structure to be 3 feet above the 12'3" elevation, but there are
exceptions for certain structures that can be below. Commissioner Orvis noted that, with a high tide and a
strong northwesterly wind, they must assume there will be water up to the portwalk. Mr. Titus said the
portwalk will be designed with the assumption that it will get wet.
Commissioner Faires observed that a few years ago, the City implemented a requirement in other zoning
areas that the baseline elevation be raised two feet to address the anticipated sea -level rise. He asked if that
requirement would apply to this project, as well. Mr. Titus answered no, as long as the structure is designed
for contact with water and it is not a habitable structure. They can review anticipated future sea level rise
and options for raising the portwalk even more, but they must also take into account accessibility.
Commissioner Faires commented that raising the portwalk more than 6 inches would require additional steps
to separate it from the parking lot. Mr. Titus added that it would also require that the gangways be lengthened.
He noted that Makers will present two options, one where the portwalk is higher and another where it is the
same elevation.
• The lower bulkhead will remain in place, and the existing gangways will be reused.
• All of the existing electrical elements that are currently located under the portwalk will be replaced, and new
lighting will be added to the portwalk and parking lot. The parking lot will be upgraded to adjustable LED
lights. The pedestals for the floating moorage will also be upgraded with GFI connections, and the
transformer will be relocated, as well. There are currently issues with some of the vessels tripping the GFIs,
and the code requires that they be upgraded as part of the project.
Mr. McChesney asked if the feeders and taps would also be upgraded, and Chevy Chase, CG Engineering,
answered that it is not included in the proposal. He suggested they have a discussion as to what docks they
want to upgrade, and then a cost analysis can be prepared. Perhaps it makes sense to upgrade service on P
Dock, but they may not gain anything by providing upgraded service on the other docks. Commissioner
Orvis suggested that they should at least put the capability at the head of each dock to upgrade to 50-amp
power at some point in the future. The remainder of the Commissioners concurred. Mr. Menard emphasized
that the current configuration is only wired for 30-amp service, so the entire dock will have to be rewired to
accommodate 50-amp service. The transformers will also need to be upsized. The transformers and switch
gear needed for a later upgrade can be put in place as part of the project, but it will drive up the cost
significantly. He suggested they carefully consider which docks it would make sense for. Mr. Titus agreed
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING AND STAFF RETREAT
Port Commission
May 12, 2021 Page 4
Packet Pg. 159
DocuSign Envelope ID: 308E7FCE-34F5-4C82-89FB-1418578E4356
9.1.e
to talk through the options with Harbor Power to determine what is doable at this point without getting into
the docks.
• The plumbing under the boardwalk will be replaced, but the services will remain in place. They are planning
to add freeze protection valves at the end of each dock that will automatically open at 35 degrees. Shut -offs
will also be added at the end of each dock.
Mr. McChesney asked if fire protection has been considered. Mr. Titus answered no and observed that there
are already fire hydrants along the portwalk. Mr. McChesney suggested that the existing system should be
assessed to make sure it is adequate and code compliant.
Mr. Titus advised that the plan is to replace the upper bulkhead all the way to the north breakwater, which means they
have to work past the fishing pier, which is currently owned by the Department of Fish and Wildlife and managed by
the City of Edmonds. Both are supportive of the project, but they want to review the plans and coordinate timing. As
they get further into design, the 60% and 90% designs will be submitted to them for review and comment.
Commissioner Orvis said he thought when the fishing pier was rebuilt, the City of Edmonds requested an ownership
transfer from the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Mr. Titus reported that this hasn't occurred yet, and the City
doesn't anticipate it will happen any time soon.
Mr. Titus said another major concern is how to maintain access to the floating moorage during construction. In
addition, a lot of the Edmonds Yacht Club's income comes from renting out their space, including their outdoor area,
and having access to the portwalk. They have prepared a preliminary phasing plan, showing that construction would
be completed in seven different phases. The intent is to do only a portion of the project at a time, and only disrupt the
access to one of the floating moorage areas at a time. While obstructed, a temporary loading dock would be placed
between the two floating moorage areas to maintain access. Commissioner Faires asked the anticipated duration of
each of the phases, and Mr. Titus said the project design isn't far enough along to make that guess. They will likely
give the contractors a timeline for how long they can keep an area disrupted or obstructed. In addition to maintaining
access, he cautioned that they must also be careful not to make the project so difficult to construct that it raises the
cost. He said his best guess, at this time, would be close to a month at each location. To address the Edmonds Yacht
Club's concern, the intent is to do the entire area all at once and as quickly as possible.
Mr. Titus advised that they will need to maintain water service throughout construction. He has had discussions with
staff about how long it would be okay for tenants to be without power and water service, and the general consensus is
24 to 48 hours. Anything beyond that would require that temporary service be provided.
Mr. Titus advised that power is currently served from two locations, including the existing Administration Building,
which is scheduled to be demolished before the portwalk project reaches that location. They will need to coordinate
leaving the service in place after the building is demolished. Mr. Menard commented that the electrical and water
systems that service the docks are in the same location.
Mr. Titus presented the feasibility budget, which is based on 30% design. He emphasized that several parts of the
project haven't been detailed out yet, but they tried to capture everything that would be involved with the project. The
majority of the difference between the two options is the deck surface, which Makers will discuss later in the meeting.
He advised that, as they move through the design process, the numbers will tighten up. The numbers are based on
today's construction costs, and he expects that the cost of materials will come down and normalize by the time
construction starts. The Commissioners indicated they all had concerns about construction costs, and Mr. Titus said
that a full breakdown of all of the costs will be submitted for review as part of the 30% design.
Commissioner Faires said he is concerned about the interface between the east side of the north portwalk and the
parking lot. The current design indicates there will be a 6-inch curb. He recognized there are other areas along the
existing portwalk where the 6-inch curb is in place now. He asked if there are any issues relative to permitting or
safety due to the portwalk being higher than the parking lot. Mr. Titus said they will be required to provide Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) access at intervals along the portwalk and near the gangways, and this requirement has
been factored into the plan. He reminded them that, currently, two options are being considered. One would raise the
portwalk 6 inches and the other would leave it at its current elevation. Either option would be acceptable and the cost
would be the same. It's a matter of what makes most sense for the Port.
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING AND STAFF RETREAT
Port Commission
May 12, 2021 Page 5
Packet Pg. 160
DocuSign Envelope ID: 308E7FCE-34F5-4C82-89FB-1418578E4356
9.1.e
Commissioner Faires noted there is a ramp near the current Administration Building. He asked if the ramp
configuration is independent of whatever choice is made regarding height. Mr. Titus answered that the ramp is 11 to
12 inches higher than the lower portwalk. If the portwalk is raised 6 inches, they will still need to make up 6 or 7
inches in this location. Currently, the ramp is steep, and the plan is to make it longer so that the height difference is
unnoticeable. However, if the portwalk remains at its current elevation, the ramp could not be extended enough to
compensate for the height difference.
Mr. McChesney said his general assumption is that all of the work will have to be done from the land side, as it would
be very difficult to bring in the necessary equipment to do the work from the water side. Mr. Titus agreed that nearly
all of the work would be done from the land side. Only the steel pile work will need to be done from the water.
Mr. McChesney pointed out that there isn't currently any cathodic protection for the steel piling. He asked if that
should be considered as part of the project. Mr. Titus responded that the batter pile is in the splash zone, and cathodic
protection works best where it is continuously submerged. He expressed his belief that cathodic protection would not
be cost effective. Mr. McChesney asked if there are other options for protecting the steel piles. Mr. Titus said the
best option would be to replace some of the steel sections with galvanized materials. He said he expects the piles to
be in better condition once you get below the soil interface.
Commissioner Faires asked if everything in the current design would meet the 50-year minimum lifespan requirement,
and Mr. Titus answered affirmatively.
Chair Harris announced that the Commission would take a 15-minute break at 10:15 a.m., during which no Port
business would be discussed. The retreat was reconvened at 10:30 a.m.
PUBLIC ACCESS PLAN — CONTEXT/GOALS (Makers
Mr. McChesney reviewed that the Port's Public Access Plan was updated almost two years ago, and representatives
from Makers Architecture and Urban Design were present to discuss the plan and its implementation.
Stefani Wildhaber, Makers Architecture and Urban Design, shared background information about the company
and recalled that they were involved with the 1996-1997 Marina Reconstruction. She introduced her team: Dylan
Yamashita, Landscape Designer and Project Manager, and Paolo Pelagio, Design Lead.
Architectural Features (Makers)
Ms. Wildhaber advised that the objective of the proposed design is to create a facility that lasts 50 years and reduces
maintenance cost and effort. She reviewed the following key elements of the plan:
• Dock Security Gates. Currently, the security gates contain the dock carts, power panels, transformer
substations, etc. The plan is to relocate the carts to the storage structure that will be located in the parking
lot. The transformers will be moved, as well. The intent is to reduce the footprint of the security gates. An
area will still be needed at the top of the gangways to allow functionality, but the goal is to limit the gates'
impact on the walking surface and public access.
Commissioner Faires asked if there has been sufficient communication between her and CG Engineering
relative to their design of the substructure and what is being proposed for the reducing the footprint of the
gates. Ms. Wildhaber answered that her team has been coordinating with both CG Engineering and Harbor
Power. The substations can be within 50 feet of the head of the gangway, which means they can be relocated
from where they are now.
Ms. Wildhaber said it is important to make sure that the safety gates are functional and secure for limiting
access to the moorage area, as well as limiting how they encroach upon the walking surface. This is difficult
because there are no bump outs at the top of the gangways.
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING AND STAFF RETREAT
Port Commission
May 12, 2021 Page 6
Packet Pg. 161
DocuSign Envelope ID: 308E7FCE-34F5-4C82-89FB-1418578E4356
9.1.e
Ms. Wildhaber explained that the design team was informed that the Port would likely move to a card access
to control the security gates at each of the docks. While this will be easy to incorporate, it wasn't included
in the 30% design. The element over the water will need to be extended so people can't get around it. They
are considering metal materials for the gates, with no glass. She provided inspirational images for the
Commission's information. Commissioner Orvis said he likes the sliding -door option, and Ms. Wildhaber
said the team looked at that option as a way to limit the impact on the very narrow boardwalk.
Paolo Pelagio, Makers Architecture and Urban Design, pointed out that the security gate design that has
an arched element as a subtle nod to the Port's logo. They would each have a sliding gate. Commissioner
Faires noted that one example provided shows no cantilever from the boardwalk to the ramp. He asked where
tenants would park their carts. Ms. Wildhaber answered that carts could be parked in the enclosures that are
being constructed in the parking lot. The area inside of the gate would be completely cleaned up and available
for moving in and out.
Commissioner Preston asked how often people climb over the current gates, and Mr. Baker said it is not a
consistent problem. Commissioner Preston voiced concern that the proposed design would be easy for people
to climb around. Mr. Baker said this was discussed with the design team. The gates need to both look good
and provide the greatest amount of security. The Commissioners indicated they prefer a sliding gate over a
swinging gate. However, there were questions about whether the sliding gate would require more
maintenance, and Ms. Wildhaber agreed to study the issue and report back. She said they are leaning towards
a manual sliding gate versus a motor -driven sliding gate.
• Bump Outs. The plan calls for bump outs in five locations along the north portwalk, and they will align
with the fairways to accommodate the great views towards the mountains. Another idea would be to
consolidate the bump outs into a single area that provides the same function.
• Walking Surface. With the exception of the grated decking, the walking surfaces proposed in the Public
Access Plan would be changed to allow light to transfer below. The existing curb delineates the width they
will work with, but it is also a trip hazard. The 6-inch curb is being proposed to eliminate this hazard, improve
ADA access, and tie into the 6-inch curb on the south portwalk.
Commissioner Preston asked why light transfer is important now when the existing structure doesn't allow
for the transfer of light. Ms. Wildhaber answered that the current code requires that 50% of the walking
surface must be light -transfer -capable at 60%. The grating and glass block materials are examples that meet
this requirement. She said the 6-inch curb would also provide some environmental permitting benefit, as it
would allow more light to be transferred underneath. Commissioner Faires asked if it is safe to assume that
because of the light transmissibility requirement, the pre -cast concrete walk strip that is shown in the Public
Access Plan would not meet the requirement. Ms. Wildhaber answered affirmatively. She said there are a
number of options that all meet the light -transfer requirement. The next presentation will provide information
about each of the different options. It is important to note that the existing timber portwalk doesn't meet
ADA requirements because of the space in between the timbers that fall in the direction of travel.
• Guardrail. They are considering an updated design for a low -maintenance top rail that is safe and
comfortable. Potential materials include powder -coated aluminum and steel, stainless steel, galvanized steel,
or hardwood. The Public Access Plan incorporated lighting as a key element in the railing. However, as the
team has talked about lighting and the Port's desire for a safe boardwalk, and they are now leaning away
from the light element, as there is also the environmental consideration of limiting nighttime light on the
water. The goal is to keep the portwalk lighting on the landside edge.
Commissioner Faires asked if it would be practical and possible to retain the existing railing. Ms. Wildhaber
said there are elements they could look at keeping. For example, she believes the galvanized steel railings
meet code. However, it is not likely they will recommend keeping any of the wood structure. Commissioner
Harris commented that the intent was to redo the entire portwalk, and she cautioned against holding onto
elements of the existing structure.
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING AND STAFF RETREAT
Port Commission
May 12, 2021 Page 7
Packet Pg. 162
DocuSign Envelope ID: 308E7FCE-34F5-4C82-89FB-1418578E4356
9.1.e
Commissioner Harris recalled that, at one point, they talked about providing signage on the top part of the
railing. Mr. McChesney agreed that the Port would like to incorporate interpretive signage as a feature on
the portwalk to enhance the pedestrian experience. He asked that this be considered as part of the portwalk
design.
Dylan Yamashita , Makers Architecture and Urban Design, noted that the railing design provided in the
plan shows a middle section of perforated metal with a decorative finish. Given the requirements related to
light transfer, this would likely need to be changed to an open grate/fence type of material. As preferred by
the Commission, a finished lumber would be used at the top. He added that openings would be provided as
required for ADA compliance.
• Artwork. There are opportunities to incorporate artwork in the railing. There are also opportunities away
from the walking surface. Commissioner Orvis commented that public art is wonderful when it is part of the
design, but it is terrible when it looks like it was added just because it was required. It would likely be less
costly if it is integrated into the design, as well.
Dylan Yamashita, Makers Architecture and Urban Design, provided details about the two design concepts and the
Commission discussed each one as follows:
Concept 1 would utilize a combination of concrete and glass block pre -cast pavers as surface treatment. The
portwalk would be raised 6 inches from the existing grade and expanded to the edge of the existing curb.
The existing benches and tables would be replaced with concrete planters and benches. ADA accessible
ramps from the parking lot to the portwalk would be installed at every ramp entrance. Areas around the dock
ramps would be solid concrete for accessibility and dock functionality. The new overhead lighting would
keep artificial light away from the water but still provide enough light for people using the portwalk.
Commissioner Faires asked if the glass block pavers are consistent with what was presented earlier by CG
Engineering. Ms. Wildhaber answered that the substructure proposed by CG Engineering could
accommodate either of the two concepts. Commissioner Faires asked when a decision must be made with
regard to the walking surface material. Ms. Wildhaber said the sooner the Commission makes this decision,
the better. The team cannot move forward without that input. Mr. Titus added that a decision needs to be
made before the design can be advanced to the point it is ready to be submitted to the City of Edmonds for
the Substantial Shoreline Development Permit.
Commissioner Johnston asked if the required maintenance and durability of the two different surface material
options would be similar. Ms. Wildhaber said maintenance of the glass and concrete block surface involves
keeping the glass clean so that light can transfer through. The glass is 4-inches thick and can break if very
heavy objects are dropped on them. They can be replaced if that happens. Maintenance of the metal grating
option is pretty straight forward. Commissioner Preston asked if there would be a slight edge around the
glass blocks that would get full of dirt and grit. Ms. Wildhaber said that would occur with any joint,
regardless of the material that is used. She said she didn't see that as a problem where the glass block material
was used on the Seattle Waterfront.
Commissioner Faires asked about the cost difference between the two surface materials. Ms. Wildhaber
answered that the glass block material would be more expensive than the grated surface.
Commissioner Harris asked her to speak to the pros and cons of moving the benches and tables away from
the water. Ms. Wildhaber answered that the bump outs were included in Concept 1, but the benches were
moved inland. The portwalk is narrow, and the goal is to keep people moving through the areas by limiting
the stuff in the walkway. Commissioner Johnston observed that the benches along the walkway near
Anthony's are also moved back. Commissioner Preston suggested that the planters could be narrower to give
more walkable space.
Mr. Baker asked how opaque the glass blocks would be and what is located under the blocks might impact
their appearance from above. Ms. Wildhaber answered that they are tinted glass, with a sandblast surface on
top to help with traction. While light transfers through them, you can't see what is located below them. With
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING AND STAFF RETREAT
Port Commission
May 12, 2021 Page 8
Packet Pg. 163
DocuSign Envelope ID: 308E7FCE-34F5-4C82-89FB-1418578E4356
the grating, you can actually see through the openings in the grate. She said the team believes the glass block
surface is more comfortable to walk on. Again, she said both the glass block and metal grating surfaces
would meet the code requirement for light transfer. Mr. McChesney said the LaConner's entire public access
feature is grated FRP, and it looks very utilitarian. Commissioner Orvis added that pets and small children
also have problems walking on grated surfaces. Commissioner Preston asked if the glass block surface would
be bumpy for strollers and walkers, and Ms. Wildhaber answered that it would provide a smooth surface that
meets ADA requirements.
Mr. Yamashita advised that, as currently proposed, two different glass blocks would be used based on zone.
A glass block inland pattern of 8"x8" glass blocks would be used for zones intended for pedestrians to stop,
and 8"x10" glass blocks would be used in "go" zones for walking and jogging pedestrians. He agreed that
the planters could be narrower, but he included a back side on the bench so people's backs are not directly
exposed to the road. Commissioner Harris raised a concern that using different sized blocks might make the
boardwalk look choppy. Ms. Wildhaber commented that there may be ways to differentiate using different
colors of concrete as opposed to different sizes of glass blocks. She said the team would respond to this
concern and look at using a similar pattern all the way across the surface of the boardwalk.
Commissioner Preston asked if the concrete used with the glass block material could be colored something
other than white, which looks too institutional and sterile. Ms. Wildhaber answered affirmatively, noting
that it could be colored to match the concrete used on the south portwalk.
• Concept 2 would be a concrete and metal grate boardwalk that would be expanded to the edge of the existing
curb and remain at the existing grade. Fifty percent of the new boardwalk would be metal grating, except
where it is oriented on a north/south axis where the grating requirement is 30%. The remainder of the
boardwalk and areas adjacent to the dock ramps would be wood -stamped concrete pavers. The existing bump
outs would be removed, and the square footage would be consolidated at one location across from the Port's
current Administration Building. Bollards with inlaid lighting would be added along the landside of the
boardwalk to provide safety for both cars and pedestrians. Because the bulkhead is being moved, the
permitting requirements will remain the same if they change the footprint of the boardwalk, as long as they
maintain the same square footage. With this concept, all of the plantings along the boardwalk would be
consolidated at the south end, creating a node in the middle of the marina for gathering, viewing, etc. There
would also be opportunities for public art in this location.
Commissioner Preston said he doesn't like the wood -stamped concrete pavers, as they look similar to what
is there now. Mr. Yamashita noted that there are a variety of options for stamped concrete. The proposed
wood -stamped concrete is intended to reflect the history of the existing boardwalk.
Commissioner Johnston asked how vulnerable the lighted bollards would be to traffic given that the
boardwalk would be at the same grade as the parking lot. Commissioner Orvis observed that the transition
between the two surfaces (boardwalk and parking lot) would be uncomfortable even if ADA compliant. Ms.
Wildhaber agreed that it would better if there was a grade change across the entire width of the parking area.
Mr. McChesney pointed out that eliminating the existing bump outs and consolidating them into one central
node would not increase the amount of over -water coverage. However, Concept 2 could still be problematic
from a permitting point of view. Ms. Wildhaber explained that the single, central node concept would provide
space where activities could occur, such as focused education and outreach, vendors, performances, etc. This
would allow the walkway to remain clear. However, it would add another layer to the permit process. Mr.
McChesney summarized that that the Commission must make a decision on whether the added level of
permitting complexity is worth doing.
Ms. Wildhaber reminded the Commission that the two concepts could be mixed and matched to create a hybrid
alternative.
Commissioner Faires asked how soon the Commission needs to make a decision as to the preferred alternative. Mr.
Titus answered that, in order to move on to the next phase of permitting, the Commission needs to make a decision
on the deck surface material (glass block or grated) and whether to raise the surface 6 inches or keep it at the same
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING AND STAFF RETREAT
Port Commission
May 12, 2021 Page 9
Packet Pg. 164
DocuSign Envelope ID: 308E7FCE-34F5-4C82-89FB-1418578E4356
9.1.e
level. Ms. Wildhaber added that the Commission also needs to make a decision about whether to spread the planters
and benches (bump outs) along the walkway or concentrate them into a central gathering area.
Ms. Wildhaber reviewed cost comparisons for Concepts 1 and 2, noting that the numbers include markups and
contingencies. She summarized that raising the surface 6 inches, as proposed in Concept 1, would not add any
additional cost but the glass block surface would cost roughly $600,000 more than the steel grade (Concept 2). The
concrete planters in Concept 1 would cost about $200,000, and the railing and security gate costs would be the same
with either concept. The lit bollards in Concept 2 would be more expensive because there would be more of them.
Commissioner Johnston asked if both of the concepts reflect the public input that was gathered early in the process.
Ms. Wildhaber answered that the concepts were based on the Public Access Plan, which reflects the public input that
was received during that process. The team hasn't done any public outreach as part of this design process.
The Commissioners indicated unanimous support for the Concept 1, which calls for a glass block/concrete surface
and raising the boardwalk six inches. Commissioner Harris noted that additional discussion is needed on the
environmental impacts associated with eliminating the bump outs and consolidating them into one central node.
Mr. McChesney noted that the design team would have additional discussions with the Commission as the plans are
refined and greater details are added.
Permit Process and Environmental Issues (Landau Associates)
Allison Reak, Landau Associates, shared her professional background, noting that her specialty is environmental
permits for port projects. She said the original thought was that the project could be done without a permit from the
Army Corps of Engineers because repairing the bulkhead would not have triggered the Corps definition of in -water
work. However, based on the Corps new high -tide level of 12.5 feet, any work done at 12.5 feet or shallower requires
a Corps permit if the volume of the water in Puget Sound will change. That means that excavating the existing
bulkhead to put the new bulkhead behind it will trigger the Corps permit, and the project will move from a very simple
shoreline permit process without excavation to a much more complicated series of permits.
Ms. Reak explained that the review timeline for the required permits is variable, depending on the complexity of the
project. The number one goal is to keep mitigation within the project (self -mitigating). A mitigation nightmare is
created when the environmental impacts of a project become greater than the environmental benefits. Not only is it
difficult to calculate what is fair as far as mitigation, you can end up having to pay for off -site mitigation that requires
long-term monitoring and maintenance. It is very important to make the environmental benefits as easy as possible
for the regulatory people to understand. At a minimum, the project should guarantee that all of the state, local and
federal regulations are met, and her job is to help the team identify and incorporate all of these requirements into the
project design.
Ms. Reak advised that the big things that influence and promote the beneficial aspects of the proposed design are:
Removing creosote materials.
Increasing the amount of lighting under the structure by raising the boardwalk 6 inches. Because the
boardwalk extends over the water and the marina is heavily used by juvenile salmon, there is an extra bit of
focus on making the boardwalk condition as beneficial as possible. A representative from the Department of
Fish and Wildlife has stated that, while it is very difficult to quantify, it is incredibly valuable to raise the
structure higher above the water. Raising the boardwalk 6 inches to make it a more easily -accessible, define
the space, and separate it from the parking lot will result in an enormous amount of lighting credit that can
be used for other concessions associated with the design, such as increased coverage.
Increasing the amount of lighting under the structure by using a material that allows light to penetrate.
The Department of Fisheries has voiced concern that sanding and/or coloring the glass blocks decreases the
amount of light transmission. To counterbalance that, Makers has proposed clear glass blocks with a light
transmission factor of 60% or greater. Makers' proposal is also consistent with the Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) requirement that 50% of the surface must be grated or have light penetration.
Ensuring that the waterward edge of the boardwalk has as much light as possible. Relocating the dock
cart storage and transformers to the parking lot will create an additional environmental benefit. Instead of
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING AND STAFF RETREAT
Port Commission
May 12, 2021 Page 10
Packet Pg. 165
DocuSign Envelope ID: 308E7FCE-34F5-4C82-89FB-1418578E4356
several small bump outs, there could be one long, continuous bump out, but the projection should be close to
what currently exists. Perhaps the consolidated bump out could go a little further out in the water, as it
would be mitigated by the increased height. Another option would be to use a grated material on the bump
out to create more light penetration, but this must also be balanced with ADA accessibility, which limits the
openings in one direction to a half an inch.
Ms. Reak summarized that Concept 1 would meet all of the four criteria above. From here, they will go back and
forth between the various agencies until they all agree and the project is permitted. She provided a flow chart for the
various processes involved in permitting at the local, state and federal levels. Mr. McChesney asked what she
anticipates for the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review, and Ms. Reak answered that she anticipates a
Determination of Non -Significance, since the project will take everything out and what they are putting back will be
less and better.
Ms. Reak advised that the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit process will take longer because the City's
decision must be reviewed by the Department of Ecology (DOE). A Conditional Use Permit will likely be issued at
the same time as the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. On the other hand, the Corps permitting process
takes a long time. Once they finish reviewing the application and the internal Endangered Species Act review has
been completed, the biological evaluation will move forward to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and
National Marine Fisheries (NMF) Service. She summarized that, best case, the permits will be in hand by the end of
September 2022. However, the NMF Service review could extend to the summer of 2023.
Commissioner Faires asked what is the best role for the Port to take to move the federal permit processes forward.
Ms. Reak cautioned that the project team, Port staff and Commissioners should not call and pester the people who are
reviewing the permits. Instead, they should continue to be helpful and responsive to the agencies. However, there are
some specific ways that people are trying to work with the Department of Commerce to free Washington State of the
NMF tyranny, and the Commissioners could have some influence in that regard. Commissioner Johnston reported
that the Washington Public Port Association (WPPA) is looking into streamlining the NMF review process.
Commissioner Harris added that the National Marine Trade Association (NMTA) is also working on this issue.
Commissioner Harris summarized that the design could incorporate either the existing bump outs or a consolidated
bump out, but they shouldn't extend out further into the water. Ms. Reak agreed. She said Concept 1 incorporates all
of the elements that are important from an environmental standpoint. Commissioner Orvis said his understanding is
that retaining the minimal number of bump outs and moving the public amenities upland would be considered positive
from an environmental standpoint. Commissioner Johnston said that, back when he was working with permits,
maintaining the same footprint simplified the permitting process. Relocating but maintaining the same amount of area
was a little more difficult, and expanding the area was the hardest.
Chair Harris announced that the Commission would take a 30-minute break at 12:15 p.m. for lunch, during which no
Port business would be discussed. The retreat was reconvened at 12:45 p.m.
NEW ADMINISTRATION/MAINTENANCE BUILDING (Jackson Main Architecture)
Proiect Overview (Jackson Main Architecture)
Katerina Prochaska, Jackson Main Architecture, reviewed that the Port's previous design work for the subject
parcel was for a sailboat showroom. The proposed design for the new Administration/Maintenance Building uses the
exact same parameters and footprint to avoid having to through another shoreline permit exercise. The building will
be oriented to face Admiral Way, and there will be a new curb cut north of the building to serve the parking that will
circulate out to the existing curb cut. As proposed, the building would be two -stories to accommodate the Port's office
and maintenance uses, as well as some spaces for retail and office.
Desien Options (Jackson Main Architecture
Ms. Prochaska and Meghan Craig, Jackson Main Architecture, reviewed the following three options for the
Commission's consideration:
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING AND STAFF RETREAT
Port Commission
May 12, 2021 Page 11
Packet Pg. 166
DocuSign Envelope ID: 308E7FCE-34F5-4C82-89FB-1418578E4356
9.1.e
Option 1 — Mr. Prochaska explained that the overall footprint of the building would be the same as the
building that was approved with the 2017 Shoreline Development Permit. The Port's maintenance area
would be located at the back of the building (east), and there would be an entrance on the north side to a
lobby that takes you to the upper floor for the Port's Administrative offices. A parking area would be located
north of the building, and retail space would be located on the ground floor on the west side of the building.
This space was intentionally designed as a large open space that could be subdivided and finished based on
tenant requirements.
Ms. Prochaska advised that the staircase on the south side of the building would provide access to the
administration office space. The intent is that the maintenance space on the east side of the building would
buffer the leasable retail and office spaces on Admiral Way from impacts associated with the railroad tracks
to the east. The administrative offices and Commission meeting room would be accessible from the lobby
on the north side of the building. The lobby would also provide access to the approximately 700 square feet
of leasable office space. The building's 11,500 square feet of space would be evenly divided between the
two floors. Some of the maintenance space would be double height, and the 2nd story walls between the
offices and maintenance areas would be sound proofed. The parking area would have 21 spaces.
Commissioner Faires asked if the lobby on the north side of the building would be used solely for access to
the Port's administrative offices on the 2nd floor and would not provide access to the retail uses along
Admiral Way (western fagade). Ms. Prochaska agreed that is what is currently proposed, but a retail entrance
could also be added on the northern fagade.
Ms. Prochaska shared a number of pictures depicting the exterior design of the building, noting that it includes
a lot of glazing on the ground floor of the western fagade (Admiral Way), with windows on the 2nd floor for
each of the office spaces. Brick would be added on the base of the building, and landscape buffers would be
provided along the street. She advised that the trash enclosure, located on the east side of the building, would
be designed to meet the City's requirements. A break in the fagade was introduced on the western fagade to
offset the corner and signage would be provided to delineate the building entrances.
Commissioner Preston voiced concern that the archive space on the 2nd floor is too large. He noted that
there are businesses that scan archives, so a large storage area for archives would not be required. Ms.
Prochaska said the room was sized based on the Port's current archive storage space. Mr. McChesney said
staff has had internal discussions about how to streamline the archives and public records. He agreed there
are ways to do it with software, but these other options haven't been perfected yet.
Option 2 — Ms. Prochaska suggested this option would eliminate 20 feet from the south side of the building,
reducing the size of the building by about 2,000 square feet. Ground floor retail/shop space would be located
on the in the southwest corner, and the Port office space in the northwest corner. The main entrances to the
building would be the same as in Option 1. The upper floor would be accessed from the lobby on the south
side of the building. Port offices would be located on the 2nd floor of the west side of the building, and the
Commission meeting room would be in the northeast corner. There would be no leasable office space. By
reducing the size of the building, there would be space on the south side for additional parking. Ms. Craig
added that this option provides direct access from the lobby to the Commission Meeting Room, resulting in
a better separation between the Port's office and public functions.
Ms. Prochaska shared a number of pictures depicting the exterior design of the building, noting the additional
parking spaces that could be provided on the south side of the building. The character of the building would
remain the same as in Option 1, but the building width would be reduced.
• Option 3 — Ms. Prochaska advised that, in this option, the ground floor would be same size as Option 1, and
the commercial/retail spaces would be located on the western side of the building. The entrances for the Port
functions would be located on the north side of the building. The double height maintenance area would be
shifted inward, as well. The 2nd-floor layout would be the same as shown in Option 2, with the office spaces
along Admiral Way. This option would result in 10,700 square feet of space, and there would be 21 parking
spaces.
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING AND STAFF RETREAT
Port Commission
May 12, 2021 Page 12
Packet Pg. 167
DocuSign Envelope ID: 308E7FCE-34F5-4C82-89FB-1418578E4356
9.1.e
Ms. Prochaska shared a number of pictures depicting the exterior design of the building, noting how the upper
story of the building would be stepped back on the south side.
Commissioner Harris asked how many staff office spaces are available in the current Administration Building, and
Mr. McChesney answered six and each of the three options would provide seven office spaces. He explained that the
goal is to reconfigure the office space and make it more efficient overall. Aside from the cost differences,
Commissioner Harris asked if the main differences between the three options is the amount of leasable space available
on the 2nd floor. Mr. McChesney commented that providing the 700 square feet of leasable office space on the 2nd
floor creates a number of design challenges. While all of the options are workable, he said he isn't sure the Port would
gain a whole lot by making the building smaller. His preference would be full build out. The Commissioners agreed,
and Commissioner Harris observed that even if there isn't any leasable space, the larger building would allow the Port
to grow as needed.
Commissioner Preston observed that the maximum height limit is 30 feet. He asked if there would be benefits to
increasing the height of the building by 3.5 feet to the maximum allowed. Ms. Prochaska pointed out that the building
height of the northwest corner is greater to make it stand out. She reminded them that the rooftop mechanical
equipment cannot extend above the 30-foot height limit, and they need some wiggle room for potential roof slopes.
Commissioner Faires asked about the interior heights of the V and 2nd floors. Ms. Prochaska said the Pt floor will
have a taller ceiling height than the 2nd floor. To better accommodate retail uses, the ground floor ceiling height will
be 15 feet. The 2nd floor office space will have 9-foot ceilings.
Mr. McChesney asked if the City allows additional building height to accommodate solar panels. Ms. Prochaska
responded that solar panels can extend beyond the height limit. However, for aesthetic reasons, it will be important
to only extend the solar panels as high as absolutely necessary. On the other hand, visible solar panels will advise the
public that the building is sustainably oriented.
Commissioner Faires asked if extending the solar panels beyond the 30-foot height would cause the building to be
designated as non -conforming. Ms. Prochaska said the building design would still be considered conforming.
However, that would not be true for other types of rooftop mechanical equipment.
Ms. Prochaska said the cost estimate for full buildout of Option 1 is $4,790,000, without tax. With tax, the cost
estimate would be $5,200,000. The design team has had internal discussions about the various reasons for the
increased construction costs. While lower costs are anticipated by the time the building is constructed in a year and a
half, they cannot speculation as to what the change will be. She further advised that the cost estimate for Option 2 is
about $500,000 less than Option 1. Commissioner Faires asked if there would be a material difference in cost between
Options 1 and 3, and Ms. Prochaska answered yes, but she doesn't have an exact number.
Commissioner Harris asked if the cost estimates include LEED Certification and/or solar installation, and Ms.
Prochaska answered that it doesn't include solar installation, and Mr. Manning is prepared to discuss how LEED
Certification would impact the cost of the project.
Ms. Prochaska reported that the City of Edmonds has accepted the design review application, and the project is
scheduled for administrative design review on June 2nd. The application presented full buildout, as illustrated in
Options 1 and 2. Depending on which of the three options the Commission selects, the design team will work to move
the design forward. As directed by the Commission, the design team will also work to incorporate LEED measures
into the design. The goal is to submit a building permit application to the City of Edmonds in September. The
anticipated start date for construction is early next year, with bidding starting in early February.
Commissioner Faires asked if there is any net cost information relative to the cost of the building minus the possible
income from retail space, etc. Mr. McChesney answered that this information would be gathered as part of the next
phase. At this time, the design team is seeking direction from the Commission as to which option they prefer for the
building design. The Commissioners all indicated support for Option 1.
Understanding that the Port has spent some money to design the new building, Commissioner Faires cautioned that
the Commission won't make the decision to move the project forward until a final cost analysis has been provided
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING AND STAFF RETREAT
Port Commission
May 12, 2021 Page 13
Packet Pg. 168
DocuSign Envelope ID: 308E7FCE-34F5-4C82-89FB-1418578E4356
9.1.e
and the financial impacts are clear. Mr. McChesney agreed that further work needs to be done on financing the project,
and it can primarily be done internally. However, it should not be inferred that the Port won't move forward with the
goal of having building permits and plans and specs. Once that is done, the Commission will still have to authorize
project construction.
Commissioner Harris asked how long it will take to construct the building, and Mr. McChesney answered six to eight
months.
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certification (RWDI)
Richard Manning, RWDI, advised that LEED is the most widely -used green building rating system in the world.
The program's framework covers location and transportation, sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and
atmosphere, materials and indoor environmental quality. He explained that decisions on LEED are based on the
benefits versus the costs. He reviewed the benefits of LEED Certification as follows:
• Operating Cost Savings. LEED Buildings are more energy efficient and have lower operating costs. They
also go through a process called "commissioning," where a 3rd-party agent looks at the equipment to make
sure it is installed correctly and works together. Commissioning used to be an extra expense of LEED, but
the Washington State Code now requires it whether a project is LEED built or not.
• Increased Building Value. LEED Buildings tend to have a higher market valuation, which is something to
consider when trying to lease retail space. Certain types of retailers may be motivated by a LEED space.
• Public Recognition. People are starting to recognize and favor LEED buildings.
• Third Party Verification of Green Building Claims. LEED is a way to use a 3rd party to show you are
complying with your own standards. The Port has certain environmental standards. Some of them align with
LEED and others are different.
Mr. Manning also reviewed the cost of LEED Certification as follows:
• Registration and Certification Fees. There are LEED registration and certification fees, but they are not
too high.
• Consultant Fees for Documentation Process. LEED requires back-up documentation for all of the criteria.
While this documentation aligns with the construction process, it is also an extra process and there can be
some additional soft costs.
• Energy Modeling. Energy modeling is required for LEED Certification. The Snohomish County Public
Utility District does have an incentive program to cover early design stage modeling, which can be used to
help identify energy -efficiency measures applicable to the project. Energy modeling will also be required to
comply with the code.
• High -Quality and More Efficient HVAC Equipment. This equipment will cost more.
• Contractor Fees for Documentation Tracking. During the construction phase, developers are required to
follow certain protocols and track the materials they purchase and procure. There are also some additional
meetings required. This results in additional costs for the contractor.
Mr. Manning said it is difficult to provide estimated numbers for the costs and benefits associated with LEED
Certification for the proposed new building because it will all depend on the measures the Port chooses to implement.
However, his experience is that LEED Certified buildings do not add additional cost. The higher levels of certification
do add more cost to a project.
Mr. Manning provided a copy of the LEED New Construction Scorecard, which outlines a variety of measures that
offer a total of 110 points. He explained that 40 points are needed to get to LEED Certification and 50 are needed to
get to LEED Silver Certification. After reviewing the drawings and site plan provided by Jackson Main and reviewing
the building location, he made the assumption that the project could obtain LEED Certification without a lot of extra
cost.
Mr. Manning said another type of certification program is Salmon -Safe. He suggested the Port should do this
certification program anyway since the project will be located close to the water. It is not a comprehensive green
building rating system like LEED, but it looks at stormwater, water use, and chemicals and pesticides. It addresses
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING AND STAFF RETREAT
Port Commission
May 12, 2021 Page 14
Packet Pg. 169
DocuSign Envelope ID: 308E7FCE-34F5-4C82-89FB-1418578E4356
9.1.e
operation and management more than design. There are only five requirements associated with the programs and the
cost is low.
Commissioner Harris asked if the Salmon -Safe Certification Program is intended to mitigate how much stormwater
is released to the surrounding ground and water. Mr. Manning answered affirmatively and added that it also makes
sure the water that is released from the site is clean. In addition, it looks at water use and has criteria for the chemicals
and pesticides that are used for maintenance. Commissioner Preston asked how they could reduce water usage. Mr.
Manning answered that one example is an irrigation system that uses weather data so it doesn't water if it knows it is
going to rain. Commissioner Orvis suggested that the Port would likely already qualify for Salmon Safe Certification.
Commissioner Faires asked how much extra it would cost for the project to obtain LEED Silver Certification. Ms.
Prochaska noted that all of the consultants on the design team included a line item for LEED Certification, and she
estimated the soft costs associated with LEED Silver Certification would be between $20,000 and $30,000. There
would also be additional construction costs associated with certification. Mr. McChesney recalled that when the team
of consultants was put together, the LEED consultant added about $60,000. Mr. Manning reminded the Commission
that the code will require the Port to do commissioning and energy modeling anyway. He summarized that an
additional 5% added to the cost of construction would be on the high end for a LEED Silver Certified building.
Commissioner Preston asked how much it would cost the Port to build to LEED Silver standard or better without
pursuing the actual certification. Mr. Manning agreed that is one option, and some developers use the checklist to
make sure they incorporate measures that will result in a better building without actually pursuing LEED Certification.
However, you don't get the same level of rigor if you don't go through the documentation process. You also lose out
on some of the community benefit and buy in to the project.
Commissioner Faires asked when the design team needs the Commission to make a decision relative to LEED
Certification, and Ms. Prochaska answered as soon as possible. It's much easier and cost effective to make a decision
early so that sustainability strategies can be incorporated into the initial design.
Commissioner Faires proposed that the Port do its best to build to LEED standards, but not apply for LEED
Certification. Commissioner Harris disagreed. She reminded them that environmental stewardship is part of the Port's
mission. She understands that it will add additional cost, but without actual certification, she questioned how the
community would trust them that the building is built to LEED standards. Commissioner Johnston suggested the
response could be that, given the scale and cost of the project, the Port has achieved its goal and has a high standard
for environmental practice that will continue with the new building. Commissioner Faires said it is also the Port's
mission to look after the financial future of the Port for its owners.
Commissioner Orvis observed that a LEED Certified Building is simply a building that meets all of the code
requirements. He voiced concern about the extra cost to do all of the documentation required for LEED Silver
Certification to verify that the Port did all it said it would. He said he is less inclined to pay for a lot of administrative
work when the money could be spent doing something that is more meaningful. Mr. McChesney agreed and suggested
that adding solar capability would be very visible and be a better overall use of funds. Commissioner Faires concurred.
Commissioner Preston recalled Mr. Manning's earlier comment that, either way, the code will require the Port to pay
for commissioning and energy modeling. He observed that projects that are built to current code are close to LEED
Certification. Mr. Manning commented that LEED has been trying to raise the bar with each innovation, and recent
focus has been on energy efficiency and materials requirements. He acknowledged the cost of going through the
certification process but noted that it would include additional analysis associated with energy efficiency, stormwater
design, etc. Without the LEED Program guidelines, the design team will not be pushed to achieve the higher level of
performance. LEED Certification would also allow the Port to stand out as having done something above and beyond
most other buildings in Edmonds. Mr. McChesney summarized that LEED Certification would be a political dividend
rather than an economic dividend.
Mr. McChesney raised the questions of whether it would be better to spend money adapting the building design to
achieve LEED Silver Certification or invest the same amount of money into a building apparatus like solar. Ms.
Prochaska referred to the checklist that was provided by Mr. Manning, which shows the project has a very good chance
of achieving LEED Certification. Incorporating just a few more measures into the project design could push the
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING AND STAFF RETREAT
Port Commission
May 12, 2021 Page 15
Packet Pg. 170
DocuSign Envelope ID: 308E7FCE-34F5-4C82-89FB-1418578E4356
9.1.e
building to LEED Silver Certification. The Washington State Energy Code gets projects close to LEED Certification
with no additional costs. As they get further into the design, they will have a better idea of the cost implications of
LEED Silver Certification, and the Commission will be better able to make a final decision. While she doesn't
recommend it, the Commission could decide not to conclude the 3'-party verification that is required for LEED
Certification.
Ms. Prochaska pointed out that, if the Commission decides to go down the path of LEED Certification, there are a
number of different options for meeting the requirements. She also pointed out that making the building solar ready
is very possible, and the solar array could be installed at some point in the future when funds become available. Mr.
McChesney said they will definitely want the roof structure to be designed to accommodate solar, whether it is added
now or in the future. However, he still questions the better value, a basic building that is documented and certified as
LEED, or using that money to put in solar panels now.
Commissioner Faires asked if Ms. Prochaska agrees it would cost the Port about $100,000 to get LEED Certification
with the present building, assuming that no major equipment changes would be required. Ms. Prochaska agreed that
is possible, but she can't say for certain at this stage.
Commissioner Harris said her understanding is that the Commission can direct the design team to walk down the path
of LEED Certification, recognizing that there will be several checkpoints going forward. They don't have to make a
final decision about going LEED Silver at this point. Mr. Manning agreed that they could walk down the path of
LEED Certification, filling in the scorecard as the design moves forward. However, not too much further down the
road, the Commission will need to make a final decision about LEED Certification or not.
Commissioner Faires pointed out that it will cost some money to go through the LEED Certification process,
regardless of whether or not they bump it up to Silver, because the primary contractor will have to ask the
subcontractors to track certain information. He suggested it would be best for the Port to make a decision now. Mr.
McChesney suggested the Commissioners take a few days to reflect on the issues and talk amongst themselves so they
can provide the design team with a definitive answer as opposed to an ongoing discussion.
Commissioner Orvis said he is concerned about being asked to make a decision without knowing what it will cost and
the benefit it will provide. Commissioner Johnston agreed. Mr. McChesney commented that, although Mr. Manning
laid out the benefits of LEED Certification, they don't have a full understanding of the incremental cost.
Commissioner Orvis added that, in order to look at the checklist realistically, you need to be aware of the existing
environment at the Port (i.e., stormwater program, pesticide/herbicide program, etc.). Because the Port's existing
environment, it may be easier and less costly to get the points needed for LEED Certification.
Commissioner Harris requested a cost estimate for adding solar arrays on the proposed new building. Mr. Manning
agreed to evaluate the size of solar array that would be needed and provide a rough cost estimate. The Commissioners
agreed that this information would be helpful to their decision -making process. Ms. Prochaska said it isn't possible
for a building to have all of its electricity covered by a solar array. Most projects that use solar arrays target specific
systems in the building. Mr. McChesney clarified that the Port never assumed that going solar would create energy
self-sufficiency.
Mr. McChesney summarized that there are a lot of technical, process and cost issues for the Commission to consider
before making a decision on LEED Certification, and they need a better handle on how those all fit together.
Commissioner Harris reviewed that the Commission has requested more information on solar and what would be
possible for the building. Mr. McChesney advised that the Port has already reached out to the Snohomish County
Public Utility District as a resource to help them understand the physics of solar, as well as the economic benefits.
Absent this information, it will be difficult for the Commission to make a decision as to the better value.
Ms. Prochaska reviewed that the Commission is still undecided about pursuing LEED Certification or using that
money to add solar to the building. She asked if there is any potential for doing some version of both. Commissioner
Faires commented that, at the very least, the building should be constructed in such a way that it would support solar,
whether it is added now or in the future. Commissioner Harris pointed out that if solar is added now, the project would
receive points towards LEED Certification.
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING AND STAFF RETREAT
Port Commission
May 12, 2021 Page 16
Packet Pg. 171
DocuSign Envelope ID: 308E7FCE-34F5-4C82-89FB-1418578E4356
Ms. Prochaska agreed to work with Mr. Manning to put some bookends on the cost numbers associated with LEED-
related expenditures. This may help the Commission make a decision one way or another.
Commissioner Orvis said he isn't sure how much LEED Certification would contribute to the value of the building.
He said he isn't opposed to upgrading the equipment or employing other sustainable measures from the checklist, but
he is opposed to paying someone $50,000 to $100,000 just to document and put a rubber stamp on the project. He
might be more supportive if the documentation costs were closer to $20,000. Mr. McChesney added that engineering
costs would also increase. He explained that each of the contracts has a basic fee for design work, and an additional
contingency fee for LEED Certification. Commissioner Johnston said $50,000 would be the most he would support
for LEED Certification.
Mr. McChesney said he was disappointed that the two consultants didn't provide more information about solar, as this
was a specific request he made prior to the retreat. The Commission also voiced frustration that the consultants were
not able to provide more definitive numbers for the additional costs associated with LEED Certification.
Commissioner Johnston summarized that the real issue is how far the Port wants to take the optics of the building. It
will be a fine building that is constructed to code and beyond and will likely include a solar array. The Port already
has an incredible set of environmental practices and procedures that have served it well, including stormwater
infiltration, herbicide/pesticide control and water conservation. He isn't worried about how the project will be
perceived by the public because the Port will continue to look like an environmentally -conscious organization.
Commissioner Orvis noted that the Waterfront Center is the only LEED Certified building in Edmonds. He said he
isn't sure that the optics for LEED Certification is worth the additional cost, as long as the Port is comfortable that the
building is environmentally conscious. Commissioner Faires suggested that a building with solar panels on the roof
is probably optically superior to a building that is written up in the local newspaper one time as being a LEED Certified
building.
Commissioner Harris commented that if the goal is to build an environmental building, they will be doing the work
anyway except for the cost of certification. Until they figure out what the additional cost will be, they can't make a
final decision.
WRAP UP
Mr. McChesney thanked Ms. Ebel and Ms. Michaud for their hard work preparing for the retreat.
ADJOURNMENT
The Commission meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
DocuSigned by:
Steve Joiins1o`n za...
Port Commission Secretary
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING AND STAFF RETREAT
Port Commission
May 12, 2021 Page 17
Packet Pg. 172
DocuSign Envelope ID: DA64DB24-2504-46CA-A8EA-1 11 208C4D407
9.1.f
- PORT
OF
EDMONDS
PORT COMMISSION OF THE PORT OF EDMONDS
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
(Via Zoom)
June 1, 2021
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Angela Harris, President Bob McChesney, Executive Director
David Preston, Vice President Brandon Baker, Marina Manager
Steve Johnston, Secretary Tina Drennan, Finance Manager
Bruce Faires
Jim Orvis OTHERS PRESENT
Bradford Cattle, Port Attorney
CALL TO ORDER
President Harris called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
All those in attendance participated in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag.
CONSENT AGENDA
President Harris announced that the Commission would have an executive session at the end of the regular meeting.
COMMISSIONER FAIRES MOVED THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA BE APPROVED TO INCLUDE
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
A. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
B. APPROVAL OF MAY 10, 2021 MEETING MINUTES AND MAY 12, 2021 RETREAT MEETING
MINUTES.
C. APPROVAL OF PAYMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $622,225.28
D. APPROVAL OF USCG SAFE BOATING WEEK EVENT
COMMISSIONER ORVIS SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. John Bennett from the Corinthian Yacht Club introduced himself and then introduced current Commodore David
Odendahl. Mr. Bennett said that they were here to say "hi" and introduce themselves to the Commissioners and staff.
Packet Pg. 173
DocuSign Envelope ID: DA64DB24-2504-46CA-A8EA-1 11 208C4D407
9.1.f
PRESENTATION
Bob McChesney and Brandon Baker introduced Mr. Kevin Coulombe, who serves in the USCG Auxiliary as the
Flotilla Commander. Mr. Coulombe has been a resident of Edmonds for 20 years, Port tenant for a year, and serving
in the USCG Auxiliary for 10 years.
Mr. Kevin Coulombe thanked the Port for the moorage space during the Boating Safety Week Event, which is one
of the very important missions of the USCG. The USCG Auxiliary was created in 1939 by an act of Congress. Its
purpose is to step in to take over the Coast Guard's public safety on the water mission when the Coast Guard was
called to serve overseas. They have been doing that mission ever since. Mr. Coulombe reported that last week was
Boating Safety Week and they had an excellent program/event assembled with Mr. Baker's help. Most activities that
the Flotilla conducts in Edmonds are with private vessel owners. Mr. Coulombe stated that one of the more prominent
members of the Port and the Flotilla is Chuck Olson. He has been an active member of the Flotilla for over 40 years
and still conducts missions and trainings. Mr. Coulombe reported that they brought their boat, the Salish Guardian, to
display for public, show their flag, and conduct vessel examinations upon request. He said that they had brochures
available and educated the public about the use of life jackets. Mr. Coulombe reminded everyone that May 215t was
wear your life jacket to work day, and that day kicked off the Boating Safety Week. Mr. Coulombe reported that it
was great to see that people were wearing life jackets and following safety guidelines. Mr. Coulombe shared a picture
of the Coast Guard Auxiliary's boat. All of their missions are voluntary and most of their volunteers are retired. Their
mission is to keep people safe when boating.
CONTINUATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 20-03 DECLARING LOCAL EMERGENCY AND
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
Mr. McChesney reported that he hasn't taken any action under the emergency authority.
ADMINISTRATION AND MAINTENANCE BUILDING PROJECT
Mr. McChesney summarized that the project is moving right along. He stated that we have talked about LEEDs
Certification many times over the last few months and our Retreat a few weeks ago. Katerina Prochaska with Jackson
Main is here tonight to help us further the discussion and fill in some of the information gaps that still remain. The
idea is to come up with a decision as to how to pursue LEEDs, what level LEEDs to pursue, the value proposition
and come to an agreement of how we should proceed. We shall soon be into our final design so we need to decide if
LEEDs is the right path.
Katerina Prochaska, Jackson Main stated that she and Meghan Craig are here to talk about 3 topics: Solar Array,
LEEDs Certification and Incentives and to answer any questions that the Port Commissioners and staff may have.
Ms. Prochaska reported that the solar array calculations show 50 BTU's per sq ft per year and their KW array will
produce 10% of the power and will cover about 2,000 square feet. It is approximately $80,000 rough cost for the array.
Ms. Craig stated that for another client, with a similar sized building and an array of 2,000 square feet, it is a savings
of about $4,000 per year. Commissioner Preston asked for hard number costs and differences in costs for the electricity
for the building.
Commissioner Orvis stated that he has heard from WPPA meetings that wind power is more effective in this area
than solar power. Ms. Prochaska replied that this area (the NW) has enough brightness even on cloudy days to provide
enough sun for solar power.
Mr. McChesney has reached out to the Public Utilities District and Harbor Power Engineers and has had conversations
with them concerning our electricity choices. Mr. McChesney is planning to follow up with them. Ms. Prochaska
reminded the Commissioners that if we choose to go with solar, it will benefit the LEEDs certification, adding 6
points, and it would push the effort from base certified to LEEDs silver. It's also under the WA State Energy Code,
one of the credits for energy that is a requirement for the code. For most projects the solar array covers a percentage
of the overall energy , but not enough to cover the full building costs.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Port Commission
June 1, 2021 Page 2
Packet Pg. 174
DocuSign Envelope ID: DA64DB24-2504-46CA-A8EA-1 11 208C4D407
9.1.f
Mr. McChesney remarked that solar has always been part of the design concept and we never anticipated that we could
be totally off grid. The question is how solar works with LEEDs and solar incentives. What is the value of LEEDs,
what does LEEDs get you overall?
Ms. Prochaska responded that you cannot follow WA State Energy Code and have enough points to meet LEEDs
Certification. The Washington State Energy Code centers around energy but LEEDs covers energy, water usage, the
site is used, and other aspects. In Washington state you are a lot of the way there as opposed to other states.
Mr. McChesney asked about information provided at the Retreat by Richard Manning. He thought that we could be 5
points shy from LEEDs silver with Washington State Energy Codes with the checklist.
Ms. Prochaska replied that we couldn't get that close to LEEDs certified without working with LEEDs.
Ms Prochaska announced that the energy model that PUD offers is a first step model that is not something that is
LEEDs certified or Washington State Energy Code certified. It is a free service that is supplied by a 31 party vendor.
It is an incentive, but not helpful on the LEED's points certification. Another incentive is that if we can prove through
that energy model that the building is 10% or 20% more energy efficient over code, then the price charged per kilowatt
hour will be reduced.
There is also an incentive for charging stations.
Commissioner Johnston asked about the $80,000 solar panels. He wondered if the cost included installing the solar
array or is it the raw cost. Ms. Prochaska confirmed that it is the cost of the solar array and installation, but not
preparing the roof structure to support the solar array or incentives. Commissioner Johnston stated that his rough
calculations show that the difference between building to code and LEEDs is between $100,000 and $300,000.
LEEDs silver would be a good target and lower end.
Ms. Tina Drennan requested clarification: is the cost of the solar array of $167,665 presented in the chart just for the
solar panels, or does it include the additional substructure, LEEDs certification, and installation. Katerina replied that
doesn't include installation or engineering, but it does include LEEDs.
Commissioner Orvis stated that he did research this last week trying to find actual costs. He stated that he found costs
on permitting, and he found costs charged by the LEEDs organization for various things, but some of the things are
very hard to quantify, such as the certifying of materials, the layers of costs that come from various organizations that
have to make certifications, and the tons of paper that has to be generated and certified. He said that it seems like a
squishy thing: how much does it cost you to go through the process as compared to what you got for the process?
Commissioner Orvis reported that he came up with $100,000 to $150,000 extra for administrative and certification
and in some cases some certain materials have to be used. The soft costs drive the program costs higher.
Ms. Prochaska said that she wishes that there was better information out there after 15 years of LEEDs as a program
out there. The comparisons are hard to find.
Commissioner Preston asked of all the buildings built with LEEDs certification, what percentage of the buildings are
publicly owned vs privately owned? He wondered why they don't provide the cost difference.
Ms. Prochaska replied that she maybe worded it incorrectly. Owners they start one way and follow the path that fits
them.
She did not know what percentage is public vs private, but LEEDs certification is required for Federal and Washington
State buildings. The mandate is LEEDs silver.
Commissioner Harris commented that the Port of Vancouver builds to LEEDs silver and are now moving to LEEDs
gold. At the time that they were built, silver tied closely into current building codes but now they are moving to gold
and pushing on.
Commissioner Faires is wondering if we have a consensus for solar?
Mr. McChesney stated that is sounds like it would be economical and feasible to do solar and the LEEDs silver path.
Ms. Prochaska reiterated that it's basically an incremental 3 '/z% cost for the LEEDs silver building. It uses less energy,
uses less water, and has lower operational costs. You will have a 3rd party to make sure that it has been designed and
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Port Commission
June 1, 2021 Page 3
Packet Pg. 175
DocuSign Envelope ID: DA64DB24-2504-46CA-A8EA-1 11 208C4D407
9.1.f
installed correctly, and that it's performing the way that it should. Many occupants say that it's better for the well-
being and health of the occupants. You have a building that you can say meets the Port's sustainability goals. If you
are interested in solar, you need to plan for it now, not try to add it later.
Commissioner Faires questioned if all of the commissioners are on board for solar. All of the commissioners confirmed
that they support solar.
Mr. McChesney asked where we are on charging stations. The commissioners replied that we do need to put some of
those in there at the beginning.
Commissioner Faires questioned if we need to spend money on the actual LEEDs certification. He thinks that we
would have enough points to qualify anyway. Should we spend the money on certification?
Commissioner Harris does want to try for LEEDs.
Commissioner Preston stated that he wouldn't mind going for the certification, but are we going for the plaque on the
wall or a better, efficient building? What if we build a better building than silver but don't get the plaque?
Commissioner Johnston stated that he's heard that the actual consultation and certification are not that expensive. It's
everything leading up to that certification.
Commissioner Faires then commented that we as public servants need to think about leadership and why the
government, both federal and state both mandate that new buildings need to be built LEEDs silver certified. He
believes that we should show leadership.
Ms. Prochaska said that costs will come to light as the project moves along, so decisions can be made along the way
as different costs come up.
Commissioner Preston is wondering is the codes are up high enough so we don't need to have LEEDs. Mr. McChesney
asked if the 3 '/s% incremental LEEDs cost for silver is worth it. He thinks that it is to try for silver.
All Commissioners agreed.
Commissioner Harris would like us to try for gold certification if possible. Commissioner Preston and Faires would
like more cost information .
Katrina said that she will inform the design team that there is a desire to achieve gold LEEDs certification.
Bob McChesney asked Commissioner Harris if she wanted to have a motion and a vote and include the companion to
LEEDs which is the Save Salmon Design.
Brad Cattle recommended a motion with respect to LEEDs and if it affects the design direction, you should include
that too.
COMMISSIONER ORVIS MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR TO INSTRUCT THE DESIGN TEAM TO DESIGN TOWARD ATTAINING LEEDS SILVER
WITH ASPIRATIONS OF GOLD IF IT IS FEASIBLE FOR THE NEW PORT HEADQUARTERS
BUILDING, AND IN ADDITION THAT THE DESIGN INCLUDE THE ASPECTS NECESSARY FOR THE
SAVE SALMON PROGRAM.
COMMISSIONER PRESTON SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Commissioner Harris stated that she will speak with the City Council member Buckschnis and that we may not need
the safe salmon aspect. She will keep us posted.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Mr. McChesney reminded the Commission that we are going to the design review board at 7:00pm on June 2°d. It is
a major milestone in the Administration Building design project and once we get approval from the Design Approval
Review Board we will get into the final designs and we can start turning into a reality and moving forward. If you
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Port Commission
June 1, 2021 Page 4
Packet Pg. 176
DocuSign Envelope ID: DA64DB24-2504-46CA-A8EA-1 11 208C4D407
9.1.f
would like to Zoom in, please do. The City of Edmonds planning department fully recommends this project to the
Review Board, so he doesn't expect any issues.
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
Commissioner Preston reported that he attended the Washington Public Port Association's (WPPA) Spring Meeting.
The Zoom meetings are working well, and the hybrid meetings could work well. The Administration building public
bathrooms are now open. He is grateful that all the commissioners are respectful towards each other.
Commissioner Johnston he attended the WPPA Spring Meeting. He reported that he participated in the Snohomish
County Update, but it mainly focused on COVID-19, so he was a little disappointed because he wished that it would
have focused more on Snohomish County. He reported that he also attended the Legislative Review and it was a
successful legislative session with the exception of last minute vetoes. Commissioner Johnston announced that he
would attend the WPPA Roundtable on June 81 that will talk about how WA state small businesses are rebounding
from the pandemic.
Commissioner Faires hopes that we can return to business as usual when the state opens, probably around the
beginning of July and at that time we can end the Emergency Resolution.
Commissioner Orvis attended the Washington Public Port Association's (WPPA) Spring Meeting. He wants to
consider having another public records training session because there are updates and changes with regards to
electronic records such as phones and I -pads. He stated that we should all brush up on it.
Commissioner Orvis stated that the WPPA has an embedded grant person in the National Fish and Wildlife group.
We should talk to WPPA when we need to start grant writing.
Commissioner Orvis reported that the Port of Brownsville was the target of a ransomware attack.
Commissioner Orvis agreed with Commissioner Johnston that the Snohomish County Update wasn't great. He said
that it focused on what Snohomish County did for COVID-19.
Commissioner Orvis said that at the Legislative Review, people made it known that no one is happy with the
Governor's vetoes. We need to find a way to pay for transportation.
Commissioner Orvis said that he learned in an EASC Board meeting, that so many jobs are open for people with
college degrees and STEM degrees.
Commissioner Orvis talked about the long term care insurance and that it is very hard to get a waiver.
Commissioner Harris reported that she attended the WPPA meeting. She enjoyed the speaker that talked about wanting
to get things done no matter what your political affiliation. .
Commissioner Harris said that she dropped by to see the Puget Sound Anglers to release fish from the net pen.
Commissioner Harris announced that The Puget Sound Regional Council is meeting to talk about economic strategy,
growth, housing strategy, and development.
Commissioner Harris said that she is planning to meet with Commissioner Faires and tour the Willow Creek Hatchery.
She will also meet with Lisa, who is the stewardship program manager for the marsh restoration.
Commissioner Harris announced that next week she will meet with Bob McChesney and Will Chenn, City Council
Candidate, and give Mr. Chenn a Port tour. Commissioner Harris is trying find a way to bring the waterfront together,
possibly an education course or something. She suggested maybe the fall.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Port Commission
June 1, 2021 Page 5
Packet Pg. 177
DocuSign Envelope ID: DA64DB24-2504-46CA-A8EA-1 11 208C4D407
9.1.f
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 8:41 p.m. Commissioner Harris announced that the Commission would recess into an Executive Session pursuant
to RCW 42.30.110(1)(g) to evaluate the qualifications of an applicant for public service or to review the performance
of a public employee. She advised that the Executive Session would last approximately 30 minutes, and the
Commission would resume the public portion of the meeting after the Executive Session. She further advised that no
action would be taken after the Executive Session, and the meeting would be adjourned at the end of the Executive
Session.
The Executive Session was adjourned at 9:06 p.m., and the business portion of the special meeting was reconvened
immediately.
ADJOURNMENT
The Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
DocuSigned by:
43C724BC61E4424...
Steve Johnston
Port Commission Secretary
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
Port Commission
June 1, 2021 Page 6
Packet Pg. 178