Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2021-12-07 City Council - Full Agenda-3033
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Op E D o Agenda Edmonds City Council s71. ,HvREGULAR MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE, HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA 98020 DECEMBER 7, 2021, 7:00 PM THIS MEETING IS HELD VIRTUALLY USING THE ZOOM MEETING PLATFORM. TO JOIN, COMMENT, VIEW, OR LISTEN TO THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN ITS ENTIRETY, PASTE THE FOLLOWING INTO A WEB BROWSER USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE: HTTPS://ZOOM. US/J/95798484261 OR JOIN BY PHONE: US: +1 253 215 8782 WEBINAR ID: 957 9848 4261 PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE AUDIENCE COMMENTS USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO RAISE A VIRTUAL HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED. PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE AUDIENCE COMMENTS BY DIAL -UP PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO PRESS *9 TO RAISE A HAND. WHEN PROMPTED, PRESS *6 TO UNMUTE. IN ADDITION TO ZOOM, REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS BEGINNING AT 7:00 PM ARE STREAMED LIVE ON THE COUNCIL MEETING WEBPAGE, COMCAST CHANNEL 21, AND ZIPLY CHANNEL 39. "WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS OF THIS PLACE, THE SDOHOBSH (SNOHOMISH) PEOPLE AND THEIR SUCCESSORS THE TULALIP TRIBES, WHO SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL HAVE HUNTED, FISHED, GATHERED, AND TAKEN CARE OF THESE LANDS. WE RESPECT THEIR SOVEREIGNTY, THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION, AND WE HONOR THEIR SACRED SPIRITUAL CONNECTION WITH THE LAND AND WATER. - CITY COUNCIL LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AUDIENCE COMMENTS APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of November 16, 2021 2. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of November 17, 2021 3. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of November 23, 2021 4. Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. Edmonds City Council Agenda December 7, 2021 Page 1 5. Approval of claim checks and wire payments. 6. Authorization for the City to sign the Addendum to the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement related to WRIA-8 7. 2021 Board & Commission Retirements 8. 2022 Board & Commission Reappointments 7. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Public Hearing on a Request to Extend Permitting of Streateries (30 min) 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. Presentation of Non -Represented Employees Compensation Study (45 min) 2. Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish Health District (5 min) 3. 2022 Legislative Agenda (20 min) 4. Complaint against Council President Susan Paine for City of Edmonds Code of Ethics violation (20 min) 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda December 7, 2021 Page 2 6.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/7/2021 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of November 16, 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: 11-16-2021 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 3 6.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING DRAFT MINUTES November 16, 2021 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Susan Paine, Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Brook Roberts, Student Representative 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE Michelle Bennett, Police Chief Phil Williams, Public Works Director Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir. Dave Turley, Administrative Services Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., Cultural Arts & Human Serv. Director Rich Lindsay, Parks Maintenance Manager Rob English, City Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Student Representative Brook Roberts 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, with the exception of Councilmember Buckshnis. 4. PRESENTATIONS RESOLUTION THANKING LUKE DISTELHORST FOR SERVICE ON THE CITY COUNCIL Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 1 Packet Pg. 4 6.1.a Council President Paine read Resolution No. 1482, thanking Luke Distelhorst for his service to the Edmonds City Council. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1482, AN RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THANKING LUKE DISTELHORST FOR HIS SERVICE TO THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION TO ADD THE FINANCE COMMITTEE TO THE LIST OF COMMITTEES. Council President Paine said she will email photos of the plaque awarded to Councilmember Distelhorst to GIS Analyst Dave Rhode who will display them. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. RESOLUTION REGARDING THE EDMONDS MARSH Councilmember Olson read Resolution No. 1483 recognizing the significance of the work of the community volunteers in restoring the Edmonds Marsh and thank the following volunteers (in alphabetical order) for their time and efforts toward achieving this important outcome: Mark Bailey, John Brock, Diane Buckshnis, Bernie Busch, Andy Chen, Will Chen, Zhiwei Chen, Michael Cross, Aiden Curran, Jesse Curran, Allison Doak, Briana Dolam, Jim Faulkner, Nikolas Faulkner, Greg Ferguson, Marjie Fields, Barbara Ford, Jay Grant, Evan Grey, Waylisha Grey, Belinda Hughes, Randy Hutchins, Kathy Jones, Marry Jones, Dianna Maish, Amelia Medeiros, David Millette, Bob Mooney, Jane O'Dell, Vivian Olson, Zak Ott, Lynette Petrie, Brook Roberts, Joe Scordino, Nancy Scordino Bob Seidensticker, Kathleen Sears, Scot Simpson, Sound Salmon Solutions' Edmonds Stewards, Duncan Spence, Stephanie Spence, Students Saving Salmon, Kendal Takeshita, Chris Walton, Christine White, Nathan Zeon, and Margery Ziff. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas requested her name be added as a signatory to the resolution. Council President Paine agreed it would be added. Mayor Nelson observed that Councilmember K. Johnson's audio was not operational. Mr. Rohde offered to contact her to rectify the issue. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1483, A RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL RECOGNIZING OUR MANY RESIDENTS WHO VOLUNTEERED TO HELP RESTORE THE EDMONDS MARSH. MOTION CARRIED (5-0). (Councilmember K. Johnson was not present for the vote.) Mr. Rohde displayed photographs of the plaque awarded to Councilmember Distelhorst. 3. RECOGNITION OF RICH LINDSAY 50TH WORK ANNIVERSARY Director of Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts & Human Services Director Angie Feser recognized the 50' work anniversary of Parks Maintenance Manager Rich Lindsay tomorrow. His dedication and commitment to the community for the past five decades is extraordinary and worthy of special recognition. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 2 Packet Pg. 5 6.1.a Mayor Nelson read and presented a commendation recognizing Richard Lindsay on his 50t' work anniversary with the City of Edmonds. The Council gave Mr. Lindsay a round of applause. Mayor Nelson said everyone has a Rich story and residents know to call Rich when they need help. His fingerprints are visible throughout the City's parks as are his positive interactions with residents and visitors. He has left a wonderful, lasting impression on the park system and Mayor Nelson thanked him for his dedication and service to the City and to the community. Ms. Feser said it is an honor and privilege to work with Mr. Lindsay. When she came to Edmonds, she was completely amazed at his knowledge of the City's park system and his incredible memory of everything that has been built. Mr. Lindsay said he was honored by the City Council and his co-workers for putting this on the agenda. Edmonds has been a wonderful place to work and the people he works with are wonderful and he would not have stayed this long if that wasn't the case. He has been through five mayors so far and six directors. He has done a lot of things but the most enjoyable was working with his coworkers; he enjoys talking and working with and helping people, especially children. With all the play structures in the City, he gets a lot of questions from kids. He has done hundreds of volunteer projects over the years, including a recent cub scout litter pickup at Marina Beach and is turning most of the volunteers over to Jessie now. He has been blessed to work with great people and he thanked everyone for the great job he has had. He enjoys projects and building things as well as helping others build things. As a parks manager, he has had his fingers in everything from the flower program to equipment purchases, Yost Park trails and bridges and hiring staff. Ms. Feser is a very good director, always there to help him and to answer questions. He thanked the Council for the recognition of 50 years, commenting it was difficult to image it has been 50 years, the last 20 years as a manager have gone by so fast. At Mayor Nelson's inquiry about proceeding when Councilmember K. Johnson's audio was not working, City Attorney Jeff Taraday recommended recessing the meeting until her audio is working. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess to provide time for staff to rectify Councilmember K. Johnson's audio issues. 5. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ADD ITEM 8.1, A MOTION TO CONTINUE TONIGHT'S MEETING IF NOT COMPLETED BY 10 P.M. TO TOMORROW AT 7 P.M. PER RCW 42.30.090 AND ECC 1.04.020. Councilmember Olson said she had not had any expectation of this. She has another meeting tomorrow evening where she is the liaison although she recognized the Council meeting would take priority. As there is also a Council meeting scheduled on Thursday, she questioned why tonight's meeting would be continued to tomorrow evening instead of putting it on the agenda for an upcoming Tuesday meeting. Council President Paine explained the motion was to continue the matter to tomorrow and the Council would start tomorrow where they stopped tonight. Councilmember Olson asked why the meeting could not be continued to next Tuesday instead. Council President Paine answered there was no ability to do that. Councilmember Olson asked why that was. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, pointing out the code indicates if a topic cannot be completed in one meeting, it can be moved to the next meeting. She was sorry if other Councilmembers did not know the code, advising that has been done in the past. Mayor Nelson said that was more than a point of order, it was commentary. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 6 6.1.a Councilmember K. Johnson said this was a complete surprise and she was not available at all tomorrow to continue this discussion. She did not understand why it could not be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting next Tuesday. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said Councilmember Buckshnis was not available tonight to participate in the budget discussion and she was sorry Councilmember K. Johnson had other priorities tomorrow. If Councilmembers are not willing to spend the time to be there, that's what happens. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY- MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND OLSON VOTING NO. City Attorney Jeff Taraday pointed out the motion was just to put it on the agenda. Mayor Nelson agreed, advising it would Item 8.1; the other items would be moved to 8.2 and 8.3. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. CGS (Cynthia Sjoblom), Edmonds, advised Veterans Day was November 11 t'. Her two brothers served in the Marine Corps in Vietnam; one came home with lifelong scars and the other, George, sacrificed his life along with 58,000 other soldiers, more soldiers than there are people who live in Edmonds. These soldiers fought so we could be free; many paid the ultimate price with their lives. Every time this City government breaks a law, violates an ordinance or Councilmembers don't care that statutes are broken, they spit on the graves of fallen soldiers. Part of the soldiers' service was to protect the country, the community and uphold laws that made the country great. Destroy that and there are people in office committing dereliction of duty, failing to do something that should have been. The statute recently violated was RCW 35A.33.055 that concludes as follows: prior to the final hearing on the budget, the legislative body or a committee thereof shall schedule hearings on the budget or parts thereof and may require the presence of department heads to give information regarding estimates and programs. The definition of the word shall is mandatory; the dictionary states shall pertains to laws or directives, it is a must or obliged to. The Council is obliged to follow the laws of the City and State; must do the right thing and properly schedule public hearings and allow department leaders to speak regarding the cost of programs and services. Some citizens have reached out to the state auditor's office so this matter can be researched. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas requested Mayor Nelson identify speakers by name and not just initials. She believed the last speaker was Cindy Sjoblom. Will Chen, Edmonds, thanked Councilmember Distelhorst for the service he provided to the City during the past two years, two of the most challenging years in the City's history. Even though they do not see eye to eye on some issues and policies, he wanted to recognize the time, effort and personal sacrifices he has made to the community. He expressed his concern with the aggressive spending proposed in the 2022 budget; some decision packages need to be reconsidered and amended to better suit the needs of the community. For example, decision packages 1, 22, 38 and 70, just to name a few. He strongly encouraged Council to delay final adoption until mid -December. John Brock, Woodway, referred to the marsh resolution, explaining he grew up in the Edmonds bowl, their home is near the Edmonds Marsh at the north edge of Woodway close to the fish hatchery. Over the years, both professionally and personally, he has come to understand the importance of wetlands in general Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 7 and the critical importance of a healthy Edmonds Marsh specifically. As to this effort, he was just a volunteer with a strong back, hip waders and a sharp machete; the real hero of this effort is Joe Scordino who recognized the problem, had the background to fully understand the issue, identified an effective remediation strategy and figured out how to make it all happen with volunteers. He saluted Joe and planned to volunteer again next season for this ongoing and critically important task. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said he heard Council President Paine say a few minutes ago that the Council does not have the ability to meet next Tuesday, a comment he did not think was true as the Council has a standing meeting next Tuesday and certainly has the ability to meet. He hoped Council President Paine would clarify her statement. Trust and integrity are two very important items. City of Edmonds government often finds itself in situations that involve three parties, the City and two parties with opposing interests or thoughts about a matter. It is critical that the City not make decisions after engaging with one party while excluding the other party from the related discussion. Imagine this happens to you; most would hope integrity would exert itself and City officials would demand the decision be reversed so the party kept in the dark could be heard before a decision is made. Good luck with that in Edmonds or if you are the party that was excluded from the discussions and kept in the dark. History shows former City Attorney Scott Snyder thought liability issues can force the City administration to push issues, information taken from an email sent to former Councilmember Bernheim in September 2010. Why not keep it simple and advise what state and local laws require. Mr. Reidy continued, City Attorney Jeff Taraday told the Planning Board on August 14, 2019, "I represent the City of Edmonds. I'm here to advance the interest of the City of Edmonds, not individual property owners." Individual property owners should be treated fairly under the policies adopted by the elected legislative body. In Edmonds, an unfair decision can be left in place even when efforts are later made to change the related law; he referenced the effort to update the street vacation code. The 2016 City Council was actually told the following on November 15, 2016, "while Olympic View Water and Sewer District has requested easements for their utilities within 92" d Avenue West, the City of Edmonds is not requiring an easement, thus the City should be monetarily compensated for the vacation." This was represented to the 2016 City Council even though the law is either easements or compensation. He questioned whether easement rights were equal in value to rights a utility has under a franchise agreement or an expired franchise agreement. The either or law is simple and easy to understand. Can City staff go around the either or law by making the individual property owner grant the easement to a third party? He did not think so; ECDC 20.70.140 is pure and clean; it says a grant of an easement to the City in exchange for the easement vacated, not to a third party. Integrity requires acknowledgement of that fact. He requested the Council act to correct the City's previous conduct. Bernie Busch, Edmonds, thanked the Council for the proclamation recognizing the many volunteers who are working to help restore the Edmonds Marsh. As a 2-year resident of Edmonds, he was amazed by the professional expertise, vision and willingness to do the physical work that groups such as Save Our Marsh have provided to the City. The Council must continue to act to preserve and enhance the ecological functions of the marsh. This City property will become an important wildlife sanctuary and a recreational asset for the community but the City must be proactive and take initiative to make this a reality. First, the City can begin by taking carryover money of $450,000 to be used to provide matching funds for future marsh improvement grants, place it in the Marsh Restoration Fund in the 2022 budget and hopefully add to that every year in future budgets so there will be funds to match grants requested from the state and federal governments. Second, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services is the correct department to oversee the environmental work that needs to be done professionally to restore the marsh, enhance the area for wildlife and create a major nature preserve for education, research and recreation for Edmonds and vicinity. Mr. Busch continued, third, the marsh is not simply a sewer stormwater basin, therefore the Stormwater Capital Facilities Plan for marsh restoration found on page 73 of the Capital Facilities Plan, needs to be Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 8 6.1.a removed. He urged the Council to take the time to make these three important adjustments. As the Save Our Marsh group pointed out, this is a critical moment in the development of an extremely valuable and significant resource. He urged the Council to enable the knowledgeable, professional, trained members of the group to provide helpful consultation and expertise. Save Our Marsh has shown a desire to join the City as Edmonds moves forward with marsh restoration and he urged the City to take them up on their offer as everyone wants what's best for Edmonds. He requested the Council facilitate building bridges and consensus among the community, model civility, and be receptive to innovative ideas and enlightening information from constituents. Carolyn Strong, Edmonds, recalled talking about shenanigans when she called in last week, commenting on a shenanigan that just occurred when someone turned off their video while she's speaking. The public just witnessed another shenanigan, the Council is having meeting tomorrow without notice to other Councilmembers or the public because they did not want the newly elected Councilmember to take part in the budget, a Councilmember the City of Edmonds voters voted in. The voters want to have this person on the Council to represent them and that is being ignored. This shenanigan follows other shenanigans such as having the budget originally discussed on October 5tI. The schedule was changed and swapped out, but it wasn't signed and then the public was told it had been displayed for two months when it was actually updated four days prior. The shenanigans continue with a meeting scheduled for tomorrow night without notice to citizens. She questioned when did the people get represented by this Council, noting that is what Councilmembers are supposed to do, represent the people of Edmonds. She agreed with the first caller, people served this country to maintain freedoms and have a democracy where voters can select who represents them, of them, for them, and by them. Now Councilmembers are pushing everything through without the will of the people, not representing the people. She found it despicable and disappointing that the Council was pulling these shenanigans again and urged them to prioritize the will of the people rather than their own. Janelle Cass, Edmonds, thanked Councilmember Distelhorst for his service to Edmonds and expressed that they had never had an opportunity to share their common ground. As an environmental and civil engineer, she shared his passion for transit and bought her first house in Edmonds off of the bus line on 961 that was later discontinued. She used to commute to Tukwila so she knew all the ins and outs of Sound Transit, Metro and Community Transit to get to work. She became a passionate carpooler and has established vanpools and highly recommended it; both Community Transit and Sound Transit have good programs. She and Councilmember Distelhorst as well as the people of Edmonds have many things in common. She urged the Council not to continue the meeting to tomorrow night but allow the newly elected Councilmember to have their voice. She echoed what Mr. Chen said about the budget and as he is in the lead in the election, he should be making comments and having his voice, the people of Edmonds' voice on the budget. That is right thing to do; it is time to have mending actions between Council and the people of Edmonds and allow Mr. Chen to participate in the budget as he has been elected by the people. Laurie Sorenson, Edmonds, thanked the Council for their service and City staff and volunteers for the work they do. She recalled the Council's land acknowledgement that acknowledged the Snohomish People and honored their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. Yet, the Edmonds community has nearly destroyed the Edmonds Marsh over the years; it used to be huge. From what she observed recently, the City seems to come up with ideas but still does not make adequate plans to reinstate the Edmonds Marsh as a fully functioning estuary. The marsh is hugely important for many reasons, a precious piece of the marine environment that the City has the capacity and responsibility to protect. She wanted to see more progress, recalling she never got an answer to the letter she wrote to the Council two years ago asking for a comprehensive environmental analysis of the work done by Shannon Wilson. The Unocal WSDOT property issues may end soon or not but that should not preclude the development of a comprehensive marsh estuary restoration plan. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 9 6.1.a Ms. Sorenson questioned how the Marina Beach Park renovation that staff was already working on was included and how that fit into the whole biological picture. That has not been examined and it is not well thought out. She encouraged the City to engage actual qualified scientists familiar with the ecological functions, wetlands and aquatic settings. She requested the Council put a plan together and reinstate the $450,000 for marsh restoration. She questioned what the Snohomish People would think of the City's inability to connect with nature. The message being communicated to them as well as to her grandchildren is that the Edmonds Marsh is a stormwater project and a park for dogs. She was dissatisfied with the lack of progress on a plan. Edmonds is an amazing place due to the Council and others. Many community volunteers and scientists have offered to help in the planning of this important tribute to the original, present and future inhabitants of Edmonds. Deborah Arthur, Edmonds, thanked Councilmember Distelhorst and Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, commenting she liked Councilmember Distelhorst. She expressed support for investing serious money into Highway 99. It cannot be done with a small amount of money here and there and should include major hotels for people who visit Edmonds and the surrounding area because people will not stay in Seattle unless something major changes. She acknowledged it would cost money, but there is money in this town. Next, Ms. Arthur said she never hears anyone mention Five Corners other than one meeting where a gentleman said he did not know where it was. She was disappointed 84' and 76t' were being paved so "maniacs can run down it all night long," when 80' was not getting paved. Some of the houses are worth $1 million plus and paving would make the area look better. She recalled a 450 square foot house in the area sold for $650,000. She questioned why something could not be done for the neighborhood around Five Corners. Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, expressed concern about the potential for an impromptu meeting tomorrow evening. Listening to the Council tonight, it appeared at least two Councilmembers were surprised by the motion, but others were not. He questioned the motivation of continuing the meeting to tomorrow night, commenting it was not becoming of the City that the Council was supposed to represent. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-0), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26, 2021 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2021 3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1, 2021 4. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 4, 2021 5. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9, 2021 6. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS, PAYROLL CHECKS AND DIRECT DEPOSIT 7. PART TIME RECEPTIONIST JOB DESCRIPTION REVISION 8. PROPOSED SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUD EASEMENT FOR CIVIC CENTER PARK PROJECT Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 10 6.1.a 9. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOCIATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. CONTINUE TONIGHT'S MEETING IF NOT COMPLETED BY 10 P.M. TO TOMORROW AT 7 P.M. PER RCW 42.30.090 AND ECC 1.04.020 Council President Paine suggested having a motion so that if tonight's meeting was not finished, it would be continued to tomorrow night in accordance with ECC 1.04.020 RCW 42.30.090, in the event that the City Council has not completed the business on its agenda by 10 p.m. the meeting would be recessed and adjourned to tomorrow to restart at 7 p.m. and the meeting would start where tonight's meeting left off. If the Council is able to get through everything on the agenda tonight, this won't be necessary. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ECC 1.04.020 RCW 42.30.090, IN THE EVENT THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS NOT COMPLETED THE BUSINESS ON ITS AGENDA BY 10 P.M. THE MEETING WOULD BE RECESSED AND ADJOURNED TO TOMORROW TO RESTART AT 7 P.M. AND THE MEETING WOULD START WHERE TONIGHT'S MEETING LEFT OFF. Councilmember Distelhorst commented it is only 8 p.m. now; the Council has been working on the budget and everyone has submitted their amendments. He was interested in working through the agenda and finishing it tonight and keep tomorrow as an emergency backup given that there is also a Council meeting scheduled on Thursday. Councilmember Olson commented she was well aware of the code regarding continuing the meeting, yet there has been a long standing precedent for this Council not to continue meetings to Wednesday. She was particularly concerned with doing this at the spur of moment when there is a special meeting Thursday for something that is not time critical or urgent. She found continuing the meeting to Wednesday inconsiderate of the Council and citizens and she was extremely opposed to this and the whole budget schedule. This move is a long list of things that are inconsiderate to other Councilmembers and to the public. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was very surprised by this. It is perhaps legal but unprecedented. The Council having three meetings in a row to discuss the budget when there are three meetings available on future Tuesdays begs the question of why. There is only one reason, Councilmembers want to have Councilmember Distelhorst's vote on this budget and they do not care that Councilmember Buckshnis is on vacation or that she is unavailable because it appears they have four votes. Those Councilmembers may be meeting by themselves tomorrow night and Thursday night and may approve the budget but it will not stand and it will be reviewed. She concluded this was an example of Councilmembers using their power unwisely; they may be able to do it but they shouldn't, and it will not stand and will be remanded once all the new Councilmembers are seated. This kind of behavior reflects very poorly on what elected officials are supposed to be doing, upholding the laws and regulations, representing citizens and including citizens in the decision -making process. Councilmember are failing in those points and she was very disappointed. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was very disturbed by the fact that Councilmembers K. Johnson, Olson and Buckshnis were doing nothing but trying to push back on the agenda. They have had the budget for six weeks and she found it disturbing that they continue to push back. This is precedented, at least once or twice under Steve Bernheim and perhaps Strom Peterson the Tuesday meeting has been continued to Wednesday to complete the budget. She was sorry Councilmember Buckshnis chose to go on vacation and could not call in. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was on other side of country last week and missed some very important events to call in for the Council meeting. She was sorry Councilmember Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 11 Buckshnis did not have the consideration to support her Councilmembers. She was also sorry Councilmember K. Johnson was in medical facility and was busy every night but Tuesday, and "frankly that is not my problem." Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, stating her objection to what Councilmember Fraley- Monillas was assuming or speaking about her. She has no personal knowledge and she found her remarks inappropriate and unprofessional. Mayor Nelson ruled point taken and urged Councilmembers to refrain from personal remarks. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said unfortunately Councilmember Buckshnis has been on vacation twice during the last month and Councilmember K. Johnson is unable to attend due to where she is living and "that is not the City or the citizens' problem." Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, pointing out she is attending the meeting and it has nothing to do with where she is. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas is making assumptions and deriding her. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was trying to figure out why Councilmember K. Johnson could not attend tomorrow night other than that she was in a medical facility. Councilmember K. Johnson stated Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was making assumptions about her that are incorrect. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked to be allowed to finish her statement. Mayor Nelson urged Councilmember Fraley-Monillas to wrap up. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said Councilmember K. Johnson told people in My Edmonds News where is so that is no surprise to anyone. The point she was trying to make was that she was sorry Councilmember Buckshnis was on vacation and if Councilmember K. Johnson was unable to attend tomorrow night, but this is in policy and the Council has done it twice since she has been on Council, pushing the agenda to the following day. It was appropriate and the fact that Councilmembers K. Johnson, Olson and Buckshnis were doing whatever they could to push off the agenda was highly unprofessional. If the Council wants to get the budget passed, the Council needs to move forward and not let Councilmembers' residence or the fact that they are on vacation affect the process. She was on vacation on the east coast last week and she called in. This is the second meeting Councilmember Buckshnis has missed in the last month. She understood people take vacations but it was relevant to continuing the meeting to Wednesday if the budget is not passed tonight. Council President Paine pointed out Councilmembers have had the budget since early October and have spent an enormous amount of time getting information from staff. Councilmembers provided input at the budget retreat, including a request not to have death by PowerPoint and staff delivered that. She has never seen the Council so well prepared, submitting amendments and motions. She wanted to continue that momentum and if the meeting needed to be continued, she wanted to have the ability to do that tomorrow night which is the reason she was proposing this. A lot of people are commenting and submitting emails which provides the Council a great deal of information. If the Council was unable to finish tonight and continued the meeting to tomorrow night, she was hopeful the Council could wrap up quickly. Councilmember Olson said her comments would focus on continuing this meeting to tomorrow night, something she was hearing for the first time tonight. She understood that Councilmember Fraley-Monillas remembered that happening in past years and that the code allows continuing a meeting. She asked if this was an acceptable thing to do from the standpoint of code, law and service to citizens since this is a special meeting about the budget which is important and something people cared about, and the public did not have Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 12 6.1.a notice of this and may not be available tomorrow. Mayor Nelson pointed out tonight is not a special meeting. City Attorney Jeff Taraday spoke to the legality of the motion, stating it was consistent with City code and the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), If city councils do not complete their business, they are allowed to adjourn their meetings to a date and time set forth in the order of adjournment and the City Code sets forth the specific process in such situation it can be done starting Wednesday at 7 p.m. if the Council does not finish its business. From a legality standpoint, it is strictly legal. Councilmember L. Johnson offered to make a motion to stop the obstructionism and threats and move on to debating the substance of the budget and extend the meeting to tomorrow night if that is necessary especially if the stalling continues. Mayor Nelson questioned how such a motion would be phrased or passed. Councilmember L. Johnson offered to rephrase. Councilmember Olson raised a point of order, pointing out there is already a motion. At Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' request, Council President Paine restated the motion: TO CONTINUE TONIGHT'S MEETING, NOVEMBER 16TH, IF WE ARE NOT COMPLETED BY 10 P.M., TO TOMORROW, WHICH WOULD BE NOVEMBER 17TH, STARTING AT 7 P.M. UNTIL IT IS COMPLETED AND WE WOULD BE PICKING UP WHERE WE LEFT OFF. Councilmember L. Johnson said she would not make an amendment, she would just like to move on. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS CALLED THE QUESTION. UPON ROLL CALL VOTE TO CALL QUESTION CARRIED (6-0), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2) COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY- MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, AND OLSON VOTING NO. 2. PUBLIC HEARING DELIBERATIONS AND ADOPTION OF THE 2022 BUDGET COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO PROPOSE TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THIS IS A CONTINUANCE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, IF THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ALREADY CHIMED IN AND PARTICIPATED LAST WEEK IN THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT THEIR COMMENTS BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE RECORD AND THAT WE ENTERTAIN HAVING ONLY NEW SPEAKERS TO THE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING OUR BUDGET BE CONSIDERED TONIGHT. Councilmember Olson said she could see restricting people from speaking to the same issue, but if this is a continued public hearing and another opportunity for citizens to weigh in on the budget, she did not support limiting speakers from speaking to something totally new and different. She did not support the motion. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, asking for a clarification of the motion regarding whether this was to keep people from making comments or making redundant comments. Council President Paine answered this is the third public hearing on budget; the Council has heard from a lot of community members and people who are passionate about the City's budget. She wanted to stay focused on hearing new voices so if any of the speakers have commented over the past two weeks, she wanted to ensure there were other voices as well. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 10 Packet Pg. 13 6.1.a Councilmember Olson commented one of the issues brought up was there were no minutes available from previous meetings and people wanted to see the minutes and prepare comments. She was not in favor of limiting repeat voices on different subjects or elaborations that were nuanced differently. She understood Council President Paine's point about not having people repeat themselves, but new comments from even returning commenters should be welcome. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2) COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY- MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, AND OLSON VOTING NO. Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing. Cynthia Sjoblom, Edmonds, thanked Councilmember Fraley-Monillas for repeatedly calling out citizens by name but did not believe that was allowed per MRSC rules and recommended she stop and stop now. She was appalled at what the Council was planning to do to avoid allowing citizens to participate by not holding the follow up meeting next Tuesday. It is crystal clear which Councilmembers do not represent citizens. She found it appalling and was glad there would be a change in the Council. She pointed out Jeff Taraday knows what the laws are, yet he repeatedly allowed Councilmembers to not adhere to the laws. She hoped and prayed that when Mr. Taraday's contract was up that he was gone because citizens, she spoke for thousands, are not getting a fair shake. Every time the law is not upheld, it is like spitting on the grave of her brother and other soldiers who fought for this country. She said shame on Council President Paine and hoped she would be voted out if she ran again for not listening to what the public is saying. She said shame on the Councilmembers for foregoing the voices of the citizens and she hoped to protest the decision to continue tonight's meeting to tomorrow. Mike Shaw, Edmonds, commented some people get overzealous in the comfort of their own home. Regarding the budget, he was one of many who disagree with viewing the Edmonds Marsh as a stormwater project because it was a limited and narrow vision. He recommended the designation on page 73 of the CFP/CIP be removed. Many people have talked about this is the past and he anticipated would continue to do so in the future and he hoped it would get done sooner rather than later. He reiterated what he heard others say about including annual funding for the Edmonds Marsh. There will be grants and if funds are included in the Edmonds Marsh Restoration and Preservation Fund, they can immediately be used for grant matches without a future process delaying action on the marsh. He recalled the Comprehensive Plan was to be updated last year to remove reference to the Edmonds Crossing project; that has not been done and he hoped it would be done in 2022 because it is a fly in the ointment with regard to the Unocal property and how the state looks at the property. Liz Brown, Edmonds, thanked the Council for their attention to the budget. She lives near the Madrona School and she and her husband are devoted walkers. The pedestrian improvements in the budget throughout the City are very welcome, a critical issue for safety. The Highway 99 improvements are also very welcome as they will create more of a neighborhood along Highway 99 and increase the number of crossings on Highway 99. Walking to Lake Ballinger, they see people taking their lives in their hands trying to cross Highway 99 in that area. She thanked the Council for the attention to human services; the pandemic has illustrated how many neighbors and friends live close to the ragged edge of economic collapse. The City stepping up to take a role in human services is an extremely important part of the fabric of caring for the shared community. She thanked Councilmembers Distelhorst and Fraley-Monillas for their service and said they would be missed. Deborah Lobe, Edmonds, a lobbyist at the state and federal level, told Council President Paine that under the constitutions, she could not selectively shut out the voices of people she did not want to listen to and that goes for all City Councilmembers. As a seasoned lobbyist, she was aware of the tricks that legislators at the federal and state level do when they want to shut out voices. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 11 Packet Pg. 14 6.1.a Greg Ferguson, Edmonds, relayed the primary purpose of the Edmonds Marsh restoration should be to enhance its many ecological functions, not to improve its role as a stormwater basin. The Meadowdale Beach Park restoration project received grants from agencies such as the Washington Wildlife Recreation Program, Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account, the Salmon Recovery Funding Board, WFW Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program, and NOAA's Coastal Marine Habitat Restoration Program. Funds from these sources would not be available for a stormwater basin project. He requested marsh restoration funds be removed from the stormwater utilities budget in the CFP. Janelle Cass, Edmonds, a civil and environmental engineer, referred to the previous speaker's comments and many of the people who were honored tonight for restoration of the marsh, advocates for moving the marsh restoration from Stormwater to Parks, a holistic approach to funding opportunities for grants. Everyone wants the marsh to achieve its highest benefit to Edmonds. She encouraged the Council to take that action to ensure holistic restoration of the marsh. Next, she pointed out Mr. Chen is ahead in the polls and he lives near Highway 99. If the goal is to hear everyone's voices, especially on the most important thing the Council does, the budget, she urged the Council to include Mr. Chen in the discussion and vote on the budget. The Council speaks a lot to equity, but there is a lack of diversity in Councilmembers making decisions. There is a great opportunity, but the Council is avoiding including the voice of someone who lives and has a business in that area who can bring that perspective. The Council is not walking the talk and she encouraged them to change how they doing things such as including Mr. Chen in the budget process. Neil Tibbott, Edmonds, he posed five questions to the Council as they consider the budget and incorporate decision packages into the final budget. 1. How will this Council incorporate new increases to the budget from the regional fire authority? 2. With the proposed increase in the number of staff and annual increase in expenses, how will the City balance its budget in the future? 3. What programs, services, and/or staff will we cut in the future in order to maintain a balanced budget? 4. What taxes will be raised in order to keep a balanced budget? 5. How will we maintain our reserves or replenish those reserves after they are spent down this year? Mr. Tibbott said he is asking these questions because he sees a lot of budget items that could be spread out to other years or some that could be postponed and funded through other sources like an infrastructure bill. He referred to decision package 71 related to funding new car charging stations, relaying his understanding after talking with industry experts regarding the future of EVs that battery charges last longer; 5-10 years ago they were 50-100 miles/charge and now they are 200-300 miles/charge. EV owners are also adding their own charging stations to be able to charge at home. In the past there were complaints from citizens about the expense to use City chargers. He was concerned the expense of $260,000 would be spent installing a resource that will soon become obsolete. Beth Fleming, Edmonds, said she called last week but wanted to speak about something different tonight, the marsh and other things. She echoed Mr. Tibbott's questions. She referred to previous speakers' comments about the marsh, agreeing it warranted further discussion so people could understand the reasoning for identifying the marsh as a Stormwater project versus Parks. She supported considering it in a holistic manner and ensuring it was eligible for any potential grant funds. She was concerned the proposed 2022 budget was not balanced and did not think this was the year or time to do that and preferred to be frugal. There are a number of big projects that are nice -to -have or want -to -have but are not need -to -have projects. She encouraged the Council to consider those issues in their deliberations. She thanked Council President Paine for clearly exposing herself tonight as an elected official who would make such an incredibly unconstitutional and offensive motion to try to block the voice of the people she represents. She urged her to think hard about that and anticipated people would remember that. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 12 Packet Pg. 15 6.1.a Denise Cooper, Edmonds, referred to the part-time to full-time position and suggested consideration be given to reposting the position if it will become a full-time position with benefits. Further, the City should honor its diversity and look outside the Mayor's pals since it has apparently been a challenge for Kelsey. She assured Council President Paine that she would not be forgotten and said shame on her and other Councilmembers who tried to silence the citizens of Edmonds speech. She found it deplorable and unconstitutional. Susan Hughes, Edmonds, expressed concern with what the Council was doing with the budget and why they were trying to rush it through. She agreed with Mr. Tibbott's questions and comments. She asked if Council President Paine had another nasty name to call Mr. Tibbott. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, stating the speaker's comments were inappropriate. Mayor Nelson did not respond. Ms. Hughes continued stating the citizens will not forget what Council President Paine has done. She questioned why the Council was trying to push the budget through without allowing citizens to provide comment. She found it horrendous for a Councilmember to call citizens and candidates horrible names assuring that citizens see what she is doing. She questioned whether citizens could trust that Councilmembers have studied the budget packet, voicing concern with them voting on it when they could not even maintain a schedule. She questioned the Council's process, asserting there was no process and it was made up as they went along. She found it horrendous to watch the City Council who was elected by the people to ignore citizens who were calling in with their concerns. Mayor Nelson reminded this a public hearing on the budget, and to keep comments related to the budget. Ron Eber, Edmonds, said he was seeing in the budget as a whole money being allocated for projects related to the marsh before there is an actual plan for doing the work, putting the cart before the horse. He urged the Council to put those funds in the Marsh Restoration Fund and follow through on what the Council voted unanimously to do last year, amend the Comprehensive Plan to take out reference to the Edmonds Crossing and have a policy statement about restoration of the marsh. Otherwise the other projects and expenditures are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan as it currently exists. He recommended docketing a Comprehensive Plan amendment in 2022 for work that was to have been done this year, but instead staff combined it with the broader Comprehensive Plan amendment in 2024. There needs to be a Comprehensive Plan amendment regarding the vision for the marsh before there are specific projects related to restoration. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of personal privilege, referring to Mr. Tibbott's comments that Mayor Nelson would be raising taxes to pay for programs, and asked for clarification. Mayor Nelson advised he cannot raise taxes, only the Council can raise taxes. It was his understanding that property taxes were not being raised. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked for confirmation that taxes would not be raised to purchase EVs. Mayor Nelson said he had no plans do so. Mayor Nelson commented several of the amendments were proposed by a Councilmember who is not in attendance. Administrative Services Director Dave Turley relayed there are 48 proposals to add/remove items from the budget. Department representatives are present to answer questions, but the process for tonight's deliberations is slightly different than previous meetings. Tonight he will introduce the proposal and the Councilmember making the proposal can provide an explanation. After discussion, a motion will be Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 13 Packet Pg. 16 6.1.a required for each proposal. If the Council was able to complete that process tonight, the next step would be a motion to approve the budget ordinance included in the agenda packet as amended by the changes approved tonight. Mr. Turley displayed and reviewed the proposals he has received: DP # Expense Revenue Net No. or Submitter Fund Description Increase Increase Effect on New (Decrease) (Decrease) Cash Item 1 New Staff/Rivera General Add Municipal Court restructuring $265,008 (265,008) Fund Mr. Turley explained this had been discussed in the Finance and PSPP Committees and full Council. The committees recommended approval as part of the budget process. The Council's motion would be to approve the four decision packages related to the Municipal Court Restructuring. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO APPROVE. Councilmember Olson asked for a clarification of the four items. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas restated the motion TO APPROVE WHAT THE COURT IS REQUESTING FOR A TOTAL OF $265,000. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested the Court could provide further details. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-0), COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, FRALEY- MONILLAS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES. (Councilmember K. Johnson was having technical difficulties with her audio.) Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how long the Council needed to deal with this as it has been going on week after week. She suggested staff reach out to Councilmember K. Johnson in advance so this experience does not continue every week. Mayor Nelson declared a five minute recess to resolve Councilmember K. Johnson's technology issues COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTED YES ON THE PREVIOUS MOTION. 2 New Staff/Doherty BID Fund Add Ed! Proposed budget (Business $87,680 79,209 (8,471) 140 Improvement District) Mr. Turley explained Ed!'s budget is included in the City's budget annually. At the November 9t' meeting, Community Services & Economic Development Patrick Doherty shared Ed!'s work plan and budget with the Council. The budget would increase expenditures by $87,680 with revenues of $79,209. COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO ADD ED! PROPOSED BUDGET (BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT). Councilmember Olson commented there were a lot of things she wanted to minimize because they spend more than she is comfortable spending. She asked if it was possible to separate out the additional expenditures and asked if that was the wayfinding signs. Mr. Doherty explained there are slightly more expenditures than revenues but Ed! still maintains a healthy fund balance. Their 2022 projected revenues Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 14 Packet Pg. 17 are $79,209, ending fund balance $24,151, and total expenditures $87,680. The difference between revenues and expenditures comes from their ending fund balance, leaving $14,680, a healthy percentage of 18.5% of their ongoing revenue budget. Items to be funded from the fund balance in addition to revenues are afterhours parking program ($1500), creative messaging ($2000) summer marketing campaign ($4500) and February marketing ($1000). Councilmember Olson asked if all of this was from previous years' BID funds. Mr. Doherty answered yes, it is all member fees, nothing from the General Fund. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3 1 New I Staff/Doherty General Fund I Add Satellite Office 1 $166,576 1 $36,180 1 $(130,396) Mr. Turley recalled Mr. Doherty made a presentation to the Council on November 9th. This would add $166,576 in expenses with a revenue offset of $36,180. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO APPROVE SPENDING FOR THE SATELLITE OFFICE UP ALONG HIGHWAY 99. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY- MONILLAS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. 4 1 New I Various I General Fund I Add Contribution to ECA of $50,000 1 $50,000 1 1 $(50,000) Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Council liaison to the ECA, reported the ECA is starting to come back in positive way but they still need support. In years past, the City has provided a contribution of $50,000 or $75,000. She recommended $50,000 for 2022 due to COVID. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO APPROVE A CONTRIBUTION OF $50,000 TO ECA DUE TO COVID. Councilmember Olson suggest the Council consider not making a contribution from the General Fund and do it with ARPA funds, knowing there will be another round. She recalled the ECA asked for less than they had hoped to get in the last round and needed more which is what this budget item represents. Prior years' budgets have included a contribution but she preferred not to approve this today and have them reapply for ARPA fund this year. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas encouraged Councilmembers to support the contribution, noting the ECA brings in millions of dollars in tax revenue. This is a part of them moving forward and funding their projects. Councilmember Olson said she was concerned the City was spending too much money. If the ECA was not funded with ARPA funds, she would suggest funding them via a first quarter amendment. As the Councilmember who represents the ECA, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas assured they need this money and they need it now. She asked Councilmembers to support the contribution. Mayor Nelson suggested in the interest of time that Councilmembers not repeat the same points. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY- MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND OLSON VOTING NO. Councilmember L. Johnson raised a point of order, requesting Mayor Nelson scroll through all Councilmembers to ask for comments before taking a vote. Mayor Nelsons said he is trying to scroll Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 15 Packet Pg. 18 6.1.a through. Councilmember L. Johnson asked how she could better inform him that she has comments. Mayor Nelson offered to scroll more slowly before he called for the vote. 5 New Buckshnis/ General Fund Add 411 Avenue Cultural Corridor $150,000 $(150,000) K Johnson study/design Councilmember K. Johnson advised Councilmember Buckshnis and she are sponsoring this but Mr. Doherty brought forward so she asked him to speak to it. Mr. Doherty explained the Creative District Advisory Committee sent a memo to Council recommending design development continue on the 4t' Avenue Cultural Corridor. As the administrator along with Frances Chapin of the Creative District Advisory Committee, he forwarded the committee's memo encouraging the Council to continue progress on the 4r' Avenue Cultural Corridor after concept approval this year with further design development, 30% design. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said including the 4r' Avenue Cultural Corridor study/design is five times the amount for a part-time staff at the satellite center on Highway 99. She encouraged Council not to support it and if they were interested, only fund the first year at the same $30,000 allocated for the Highway 99 community center. Council President Paine said she would not be able to support this, recalling there have been a lot of comments throughout the year including concerns when the presentation was made to Council. There are equity distribution issues with infrastructure across the City and this would seem inequitable. Possibly this could be brought back after other parts of the City have been addressed in meaningful ways. Councilmember L. Johnson concurred with Council President Paine. Councilmember Olson suggested talking to the property owners in the area about financing it though a regional park district. She was unable to justify the expenditure given the amount of investment in that area. She acknowledged the City relied on this concept for getting the Creative District designation and this is a disappointment to a lot of people but in good faith and conscience she could not support. Councilmember K. Johnson reminded the Council had a presentation a few months ago from Mr. Doherty and Ms. Chapin and voted with a 100% majority to support the project and approved an amount to move forward. She asked Mr. Doherty to summarize that presentation, expressing surprise that the Council forgot the action taken a few months ago. Mr. Doherty said the presentation summarized the public process, provided options at a concept level, and shared the public's preference (a hybrid of concepts) The City Council approved the concepts with instruction that whenever further design development was pursued, it would be a hybrid with cost savings. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed the Council has approved development of Highway 99 and the need for a community center on Highway 99, but some Councilmembers vote against it. Using $30,000 against $150,000 for a cultural corridor study/design indicates some Councilmembers do not understand what occurs on the Highway 99 corridor. She encouraged Councilmembers to vote against this and if anything is done, the money should go toward Highway 99. [No motion was made] UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (1-5), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON, L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. 6 New K General Add Marsh consultant contract to complete $60,000 $(60,000) Johnson Fund Windward stud Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 16 Packet Pg. 19 6.1.a Mr. Turley introduced this amendment, advising the funds would come out of the Council budget. Councilmember K. Johnson explained two years ago the City hired Windward to do a marsh ecological and environmental analysis. Two of the tasks were optional components; her proposal was to do those two this year; Task #5, a vegetation enhancement project using information gathered during Task #2 to identify specific areas around the marsh where dense or more diverse or otherwise better quality buffers which can be installed through volunteer vegetation enhancement projects and serve to improve the ecological functions within the marsh, and Task #6, preparation for a long term watershed management study in order to understand how the marsh, Willow Creek, Shellabarger Creek and the Shoreline Master Program restoration program all fit together. This task would be reviewed by a long list of stakeholders and would be the basis for moving forward on grants. The previous work was managed by Maureen Judge who obtained an estimate from Windward for completing these two tasks. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE $60,000 FOR TASKS #5 AND #6 WITH WINDWARD FOR THE MARSH CONSULTANT CONTRACT. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she was Council President at the time Windward did their work and believed they did a very good job. Some Councilmembers were very critical of their approach which was upsetting to the staff at Windward. She supported having Windward competed these tasks. Councilmember L. Johnson asked how this lined up with DP 55, Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Improvements, whether they were complimentary or redundant. City Engineer Rob English answered DP 55 is related to runoff and installing water quality improvements in catch basins which is different than what Councilmember K. Johnson is proposing. Council President Paine commented $60,000 was within the Council budget for professional services and would leave approximately $2160. She was not opposed to the amendment, thought it was a good idea, and understood Windward did good job, but wondered if that left enough funds for professional services such training. She noted a first quarter budget amendment could be proposed if there were other items to be funded from the Council budget. She summarized this amendment would dramatically deplete the funds in the Council budget but she was supportive of the amendment as she was eager to see more studies done regarding the marsh. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reiterated her support for this process with Windward. Councilmember Olson asked if there had been discussions with any of the marsh interested groups/parties regarding their support for this and whether they were interested in this next step. Councilmember Fraley- Monillas answered she was involved in the initial work that Windward did. Different people have different opinions regarding Windward. She found them nothing but professional and able to look at the issues. She voiced her continued support for Windward. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7 New K General Add Subarea Planning Program, 1 new FTE $235,000 $(235,000) Johnson Fund @ $135K, plus $50K from Parks and $50K from Public Works Mr. Turley introduced the amendment, explaining if this was approved, the fund for the $50,000 each from Parks and Public Works would need to be identified. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 17 Packet Pg. 20 6.1.a Councilmember K. Johnson said she submitted a very detailed proposal. This idea was based on work she did in other cities. It is time to consider specific subareas in the City and programs in those areas. For example, there are a lot of housing recommendations, but how they fit is unknown. The City's residential areas vary widely and what is good for Meadowdale may not be good for the Bowl or Highway 99. Her intent was to look closely at the environment, transportation, utilities, stormwater, etc. and tailor them to the subarea. Seven subareas were identified for the housing program and a subarea plan was recently completed for Highway 99. Two subareas could be completed each year which would allow all the subareas to be completed in four years. Councilmember K. Johnson continued, her proposal is to hire one full-time senior planner @ $135,000 with salary and benefits; their job would be to coordinate the effort of an interdepartmental team using the expertise in various departments. The person would also coordinate efforts of a community advisory committee and hold a series of meetings to help the public and the two committees decide how to move forward. The person would also coordinate a neighborhood enhancement program, $50,000 per subarea, which could be used to implement programs such as flower baskets, sidewalk crossings, stop signs, or other low cost projects that are important to the neighborhood but are often overlooked. The total annual cost would be $235,000; and she did not know from which fund the monies would come, but her proposal was $50,000 from Parks and $50,000 from Public Works because those are the type of programs that would be implemented by a neighborhood enhancement program. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed she has gotten more than one comment regarding this and $235,000 would pay for a public information person on Highway 99 for 8 years. Most of the people who have reached out to her said this was too expensive for someone to work on subarea planning. Council President Paine suggested developing this idea further with the directors during the next year and return with a budget amendment so staff can assist with assessing the need. She recalled this being mentioned along with the Housing Commission, but she was reluctant to pursue this when the departments have not requested it and she wanted to ensure the departments would be able to use this resource. Councilmember Olson appreciated this coming forward in spite of the fact that it was a chunk of money. It brought together a lot of things that she had been thinking about throughout the year regarding a more holistic approach to the tree code, stormwater, and housing. However, she feared developing a blanket housing policy without a more global and holist look at the subareas would end up missing the mark. She was excited about developing subarea plans and suggested prioritizing the less served areas as the first two. She supported this proposal in spite of the huge price tag, anticipating it will prevent a lot of other expensive mistakes like stormwater problems such as the one on Talbot Road that cost $1-3.5 million due to not doing smart planning. Councilmember Distelhorst agreed with Council President Paine, pointing out doing a subarea plan with public engagement will require consultants and cannot be wholly accomplished by staff which will add to the cost of each subarea plan. He looked forward to this idea being more fully developed by the planning and development services department including more accurate estimates before bringing it back to Council in the future, especially as the new director started today. Councilmember L. Johnson said she also hoped this would come back to Council next year, but she did not have enough information at this time to support it and did not have time to research it further. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO ADD SUBAREA PLANNING PROGRAM, 1 NEW FTE AT $135,000, PLUS $50,000 FROM PARKS AND $50,000 FROM PUBLIC WORKS. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 18 Packet Pg. 21 6.1.a Councilmember Fraley-Monillas encouraged Council to vote against the motion. She did not see the benefit and felt a $135,000 FTE to look at the issues was definitely a waste of money. It may be beneficial in the future but right now it was an overreach. Councilmember K. Johnson pointed out $135,000 is the mid -range for a senior planner's salary and benefits, the level of expertise for someone working in this capacity. The $100,000 for neighborhood enhancement would be separate. She suggested making this a two part ask, first, hire the subarea planner and they can help develop the program along with the new community development director and move forward as soon as possible. Councilmember Olson asked if that would change the expense to $135,000 instead of $235,000. Councilmember K. Johnson answered yes. Councilmember K. Johnson restated the motion: TO HIRE THE SENIOR PLANNER AT THIS POINT BECAUSE THERE IS A PERIOD OF TIME FOR CREATING PROGRAM, DISCUSS IT WITH THE DIRECTOR AND GET THINGS IN MOTION. IT WOULD BENEFICIAL TO HAVE THIS AS A NEW HIRE IN THE GENERAL FUND AND WORK OUT THE DETAILS IN 2022. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas again encouraged the Council to vote against this because regardless of whether it was $235,000 or $135,000, it was a lot of money to spend. Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, stating Councilmembers were repeating themselves. Mayor Nelson agreed there was a lot of repetition but Councilmembers should respect each other and avoid interruptions. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas continued, going from $235,000 to $135,000 is still an abominable amount to expect taxpayers to pay. She suggested the new Council can make a decision whether to pursue this in the future but at this point there is not a enough information. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. 8 New K Johnson Tree Fund 143? Add a tree retention incentive 2-year $250,000 $(250,000) Did not specify pilot program, $250K per year Mr. Turley introduced the amendment, assuming the funding would come from Tree Fund 143 but it was not specified. Councilmember K. Johnson said she has been thinking a lot about public comments and feedback from citizens about the Council's attempts to regulate trees and the stiff penalties for destruction of trees has not been successful. Her proposal was to use a carrot approach rather than using a stick approach. The City already has a specimen tree program; it would be helpful to determine how to incentivize that, reward people who want to add their specimen tree to the City's register and allow a certain number of trees per year or person. She wanted this to be a pilot program to see if it was effective. It would be better to have citizens engaged in helping figure out how to maintain the tree canopy instead of punishing them. The destruction of trees seems to correlate with how tight the regulations are in the tree code. Other jurisdictions have found their tree codes result in the loss of trees and canopy. She did not have the idea completely figured out, but wanted to set aside funds and then work with the City's new tree forester, the environmental manager, and the new community services director to design a program. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 19 Packet Pg. 22 6.1.a COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO SET ASIDE $250,000 FOR A 2-YEAR PILOT PROGRAM TO INCENTIVIZE TREE RETENTION IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. Councilmember Distelhorst referred to DP 29 regarding tree fund spending authority and asked if the beginning fund balance for Tree Fund 143 was zero. Mr. Turley said if this amendment was approved, the funds would come from the General Fund. Councilmember Distelhorst said he would not support the amendment as the beginning fund balance of Tree Fund 143 is nil and there is already a decision package related to the tree fund. Councilmember K. Johnson pointed out she just had the idea, but did not have a specific fund in mind and did not think that should be a determinant whether to fund the amendment. Councilmember Olson expressed interest in the concept, specifically stormwater fee rebates for citizens with trees on their property. She preferred to work out a plan before setting aside funds. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Olson, commenting this amendment had not been well thought out and was not helpful for anyone. She did not support the amendment. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (1-5), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. Mr. Turley referred to the instructions he sent to Councilmembers regarding the types of proposals they could make. He cautioned against making proposals without identifying a funding source as an ordinance cannot be passed without clearly identifying a funding source. The preliminary budget is balanced per state law; if $250,000 was added to the tree fund, it would not be a balanced budget which would violate state law. 9 New Paine Street Add an additional $20K for sidewalk repairs, $20,000 $(20,000) Fund specifically rindin and shimming COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL $20,000 FOR SIDEWALK REPAIRS, APPROXIMATELY 250 ADDITIONAL SIDEWALK REPAIRS, THAT INCLUDES GRINDING AND SHIMMING TO MAKE SURE THERE ARE SAFE WALKING PATHS. Councilmember Distelhorst expressed support, recalling discussions with Public Works about other items in the budget and agreed this would be a good addition. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10 1 Buckshnis/K General Fund Remove REDI Program Manager $(155,677) $155,677 Johnson Councilmember K. Johnson said she did not think this position was necessary, questioned whether it would be an ongoing cost or could be done by a consultant, and why it was under the direct management of the Mayor when it should be under a director. For those reasons, she did not support the REDI Program Manager. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO REMOVE THE REDI PROGRAM MANAGER. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 20 Packet Pg. 23 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented this amendment is absolute absurd, removing the REDI program manager is like saying there are no issues related to discrimination in Edmonds. She will continue to support the program and encouraged Councilmembers not to support the motion. Councilmember Distelhorst said this is a critical, high priority item in the budget moving forward for the community. He was talking to some residents today to help them understand REDI work; it needs to be built into all the City's systems and departments. It needs to be at the staff level and in City administration. The public agency he works for has this position as do several other public agencies. He looked forward to bringing a more equitable focus to the City administration and residents in the future. Councilmember Olson offered an amendment for a 3-year contract for a REDI program or a 3-year short term staff position like was done with the code writer. It was not that she thought there was only three years of work, but she believed it was something that was a culture and had to come from every staff member. She has experienced reviewing an ordinance and finding language about gender that needed to be changed. She anticipated over time an external person would be needed once the systemic things are addressed and everyone has been trained. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, THAT INSTEAD OF REMOVING THE REDI PROGRAM MANAGER, MAKE IT A 3-YEAR CONTRACT OR 3-YEAR STAFF POSITION INSTEAD OF AN ONGOING FOREVER POSITION. Councilmember Olson pointed out even before things were added, this budget used $7 million in reserves and she did not see that obligating funds on an ongoing basis was sustainable. She was not picking on this item as evidenced by her vote against things by virtue of the fact that the City did not have the money to spend. Councilmember L. Johnson said the decision package for the REDI program manager along with fully funding Human Services Division are the two items she has received the most wholehearted support from citizens. She acknowledged the cost of this, but this manager can be beneficial within City functions as well as outwardly when engaging with the public. She referred to incidents in other cities, anticipating if they had had a position like this that could identify things before they became an issue, possibly the city could have saved money and avoided a legal issue. She viewed this as something the City desperately needs but also a bit of an insurance policy. She viewed it as money well spent for a number of reasons and she was in fully support of retaining the REDI program manager in the budget. Mayor Nelson pointed out the time was 9:57 p.m. Anticipating the Council would not complete its discussion by 10 p.m., Council President Paine suggested having a couple more comments and continuing discussion tomorrow. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO EXTEND TO 10:15. Council President Paine asked if the Council could extend the meeting. Mr. Taraday answered the Council can always extend the meeting. He anticipated Council President Paine's question was whether it had any impact on the Order of Adjournment. Whenever this meeting ends tonight, whether it is 10:15 or 10:30, if the Council is not done with its business, the Order of Adjournment states the meeting will start tomorrow at 7 p.m. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 21 Packet Pg. 24 6.1.a Council President Paine said there did not need to be a time limit on this work. That decision can be made in the future if at some point it no longer served a purpose. She emphasized the need for having this position in place; she has heard on a weekly basis about inequities across the City. The City's programs, policies and procedures need expert review by the managers and directors and someone who can provide expertise and training. This position is crucial, particularly now due to the times we are living in. There was terrible unrest last year including protests and awareness about inequities; there are a lot of changes in behaviors and approaches that could be supported by this position. She did not support limiting it to three years. Councilmember Olson suggested adding the legislative intent, when and if this passes, continuing the position be looked at a minimum of every three years. Mayor Nelson suggested voting on this motion first. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (1-4-1), COUNCILMEMBER OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO; AND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON ABSTAINING. UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION FAILED (1-5), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE REDI PROGRAM MANAGER IN DP 1. Mr. Turley advised a motion to approve was not required for items already in the budget. A motion was only needed if the Council wanted to remove it. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE WITHDREW THE MOTION. 11 2 Buckshnis/K Various Remove VEBA contribution for Non- $(22,200) $22,200 Johnson reps Councilmember K. Johnson said this was Councilmember Buckshnis' proposal not hers She was simply asking what VEBA stood for. Mr. Turley answered it was Voluntary Employee Benefit Account. 16 11 K Johnson General Fund Remove Police Dept Mid -Level Mgmt $(266,385) $266,385 Positions Councilmember K. Johnson said she did not have her notes on this, but recalled there was a question about overtime pay added to the original payment for the positions. She was not opposed to the mid -level management positions but how they were funded, entirely by overtime of $85,000/person. She asked if the Council could come back to this amendment. Mr. Turley said the Council could possibly come back to it tomorrow night. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said, "those have gone through process so if we bypassed them that means we're not going to support it one way or the other." Councilmember Olson asked if that was correct parliamentary procedure. Mr. Taraday answered tomorrow night's meeting is a continuation of tonight's meeting. There is nothing that says the Council has to consider the items on the spreadsheet in exactly this order. Just because items are skipped does not mean they are skipped forever. For example, if Councilmember Buckshnis shows up tomorrow and wants to speak to her items, she would be able to do so. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 22 Packet Pg. 25 6.1.a Mr. Turley explained this is the City Council's meeting, not his meeting. The Council has a lot of latitude, for example, someone could make a motion to approve or deny all the proposals on the spreadsheet. Councilmember K. Johnson said she found her notes on this amendment. It assumes $58,000 in overtime per base salary per person which is what she found objectionable. Giving people a new salary description at a higher rate of pay would be one thing, but giving them $58,000 in pay for their base salary seems unreasonable. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED TO REEVALUATE THE MID -LEVEL POLICE DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT POSITIONS SALARY TO EXCLUDE THE $58,000 IN OVERTIME FOR THEIR BASE SALARY. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 17 13 K Johnson General Fund Remove Police Dept Body Camera $(731,088) $731,088 Program Councilmember K. Johnson explained she did not want to remove the program entirely. Her question was whether there could be a phrased approach to spread the cost over several years for a testing period or does state law require implementation of body cameras in 2022. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED TO CONSIDER A PHASED APPROACH TO SPREAD THE COST OF BODY CAMERAS OVER SEVERAL YEARS IF STATE LAW ALLOWS. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. As the Council will be continuing its consideration of amendments tomorrow, Mr. Turley repeated the instructions provided earlier; there cannot be changes proposed to the preliminary budget that contemplate ideas or concepts. The ordinance requires funds numbers and dollar amounts. For example, a Councilmember can propose removing or adding positions with a specific amount, but a Councilmember cannot propose an idea or concept such as spreading an expenditure over several years. He was hopeful Councilmembers could come better prepared with their decision package proposals tomorrow so the process could be more efficient. Councilmember Olson asked if Mr. Turley could update the total revenue and expenditures based on actions tonight and provide that at the beginning of tomorrow's meeting. Mr. Turley agreed. 3. PROPOSED 2022-2027 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 11. ADJOURN In accordance with ECC 1.04.020 and RCW 42.30.90, as the Council had not completed its business by 10 p.m. (extended to 10:15 p.m.) by Order of Adjournment, the Council meeting was recessed and adjourned until 7 p.m. on Wednesday, November 21, 2021. The meeting will resume at the point in which the November 16t1i meeting was adjourned. The meeting was recessed and adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 23 Packet Pg. 26 6.1.a Public Comment for 11/16/21 Council Meeting: From: Marisa and Gergo Wallace/Hegyi Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 7:56 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comment Hi council, I strongly advise against any defunding for social services, including public health related projects. We need to support our community more than ever with diversion programs, community outreach, and less of an emphasis on policing. Especially adding funding to police. Use that same money for the social "program" you are worried about. Upstream thinking - take action on preventing crimes of poverty that an officer would otherwise have to enforce. Looting? Stealing? Ask yourself why this is happening in the first place and then take action on supporting those individuals in crisis so they don't need to steal food or other basic items. Thank you for your support, A registered voter in the 98020 area (Marisa Wallace) From: Comcast Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 5:44 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comment:budget Thank you Mayor, Council President, and Council Members, First, I would like to thank CM Distelhorst for his representation and his visions for sustainable and environmentally -centered approach for Edmonds. Additionally, he has brought inclusivity and accessibility to the forefront for all Edmonds' residents. "Edmonds for all" is a model that is appreciated. His foresight will be missed. Next, I am concerned about the proposed cuts to the proposed budget. It looks as though we are gutting the budget at the core of, let's just call it, kindness and environmental impacts. "Lack of planning causes poor performance" were wise words once spoken. If we remove the plans for rooftop solar program and replace it with some type of gas -blower, we continue to be dependent on fossil fuels and decrease any positive carbon sequestration. Programs like solar plant renewal and grant application for land acquisition(s) (that can be used to protect our remaining tree canopy and open space), need to remain in the budget. We need to ensure that Perrinville Creek lower restoration program, Green Streets and Rain Gardens are included. Additionally, any monies for Edmonds Marsh need to be set aside and moved out of storm water and into it's own line items such as an Edmonds Marsh Restoration. Parks, open spaces, wooded areas, and such, are just a few of the factors that determine what is considered a "healthy city". Isn't that all of our goals? Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 24 Packet Pg. 27 6.1.a We must do everything that we can do to close the carbon gap and create a sustainable, accessible future for all. Respectfully submitted, Donna Murphy (Edmonds) Run Fast/Play Hard From: Ron Eber Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 20214:53 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comment - Marsh Restoration Dear Council: Plan first and spend on specific projects later. The Budget is still backwards and puts the cart before the horse. It allocates funds for projects in the Parks and Storm Water CFP/CIP plans inconsistent with the current comprehensive plan and before it is properly updated as budgeted for in 2021. Remove the funds from the Parks and Storm Water CFP/CIP plans (as noted in prior testimony) and place them into the Marsh Restoration Fund along with the $450,000 dollars unspent from last year. The money allocated by the Legislature for the purchase of the Unocal property should also be noted and place there. Finally, before authorizing any specific projects for the restoration of the Edmonds Marsh, amend the comprehensive plan to delete all the inconsistent provisions for the defunct Edmonds Crossing and finally adopt provisions and goals calling for the ecological restoration of the Marsh. This must be done FIRST before specific projects proceed. This was approved in the 2021 Budget but was combined with a broader update of the comprehensive plan set for 2024. This delay is inconsistent with the Council's prior action and unnecessary. It can and should be done in 2022 so that appropriate planning for the restoration of the Edmonds Marsh can finally proceed. Reasons provided for the delay during the public outreach for the 2024 update are without merit. Council can and should approve scheduling (docketing) the plan amendments for 2022 under the City Code (20.00.010). Thank for considering these suggestions and comments. Ron Eber Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 25 Packet Pg. 28 6.1.a Edmonds, WA From: joe scordino Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 1:36 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; citycouncil@lynnwoodwa.gov Subject: Inserting Council Intent in Edmonds 2022 Budget Approval - especially for excess stormwater in Perrinville Creek Watershed During one of Vivian's public gatherings about budget, there was mention of the need to get Council INTENT into the budget documents so that City staff are actually doing what the Council intends when it approves the annual budgets. Although the Council's Q&A on staff budget proposals has been effective in clarifying staff proposals and voicing Council intent for approval, what doesn't seem to happen is necessary revisions to the budget proposals unless the Council formally votes to amend them. Without something in writing in the budget document that commits City staff adherence to their responses to Council, it leaves staff totally unaccountable for their responses during Council Q&A, and allows them to sway away from Council intent in approving the budgeted items. The inclusion of legislative intent in budget approval is not uncommon in government - just look at the U.S. Congress and State Legislature appropriation bills. Council has several times asked why the City has not been working with Lynnwood to develop a joint solution to the excess stormwater issue in the Perrinville Watershed. In the minutes of the Council's 2011 meetings, there is reference to the City working with Lynnwood on a plan to install a diversion system above the Perrinville Post Office that would divert excess stormwater from Lynnwood and Edmonds through a pipe under 76th Ave (alongside the Lynnwood sewer pipe) to drain directly to Puget Sound - but instead City staff pursued more studies rather than a joint solution. I urge the Council add INTENT language to the appropriate 2022 Decision Packages to REQUIRE City staff to work with Lynnwood to develop a joint Perrinville Watershed Restoration Plan. Decision Packages #53, #59, #60 need to be modified to include Council intent that City staff MUST work with City of Lynnwood on implementing the DP and drafting a Perrinville Watershed Restoration Plan and submiting it to Edmonds and Lynnwood City Councils for public input and joint approval. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 26 Packet Pg. 29 6.1.a Further, the issue of excess stormwater going down storm drains into creeks is not unique to Perrinville Creek, we are seeing excessive erosion in Yost Park and terrible sedimentation throughout Shell Creek that is inhibiting salmon spawning success in the Creek. Rather than just replacing old storm drains on roadways, the City needs to investigate if/how those storm drains can be infiltrated to reduce/eliminate stormwater flow into over -capacity creeks. Decision Package #58 - Recommend the Council add Council intent that City staff will also investigate infiltration of the storm drains identified for replacement, and implement infiltration systems for storm drains where possible. Lastly, several decision packages are extremely vague on what the funding would actually be used for, and Council needs to not only ask for specific information, but require that the specific information be included (and committed to) in the budget document as part of the Council INTENT to provide the funding requested. For example, Decision Package #55 has no explanation whatsoever on what (proven?) technologies will be used to apply water quality treatment at individual storm drains along a State Highway. The concept is great, but the Council (and public) need to know what it entails and chances of success/failure given the cost to taxpayers of over a million dollars. It should NOT cost anywhere close to a million dollars if it is just a feasibility and conceptual design study From: berniebusch Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 12:48 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Citizen comments to the Council To the Members of the Edmonds City Council; I am sending you a written copy of what I intend to say at the meeting tonight. In case I don't get to speak due to time constraints, I would like you to read my comments: Citizen Comments to the Edmonds City Council November 16, 2021 Good evening and thanks Council members for your proclamation recognizing the many volunteers from all over Edmonds who are working to help restore the marsh/estuary. As a recent (two-year) resident of Edmonds, I'd like to say that I am amazed by the professional expertise and vision as well as the willingness to do the physical work that groups such as the Save Our Marsh group (SOM) have provided to our city, what an asset they all are. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 27 Packet Pg. 30 6.1.a The Council must continue to act to preserve and enhance the ecological functions of the marsh. This city property will become an important wildlife sanctuary and a recreational asset for the community but You must be proactive; take the initiative to make this a reality. You can begin by taking the carryover money of $450,000 that is to be used to provide matching funds for future marsh improvement grants, and place it in the Marsh Restoration Fund in the 2022 budget and hopefully add to that every year in future budgets so that when the time comes, and it will come, within the next few years, we'll have the money to match the grants that we request from the state and federal government. It is especially important, going forward, to remove the "stormwater" capital facilities plan for marsh restoration found on page 73 of the CFP/ CIP. Parks and Recreation is the correct department to oversee the environmental work that needs to be done to professionally restore the marsh and enhance this area for wildlife as well as create a major nature preserve for education, research and recreation for Edmonds and vicinity. The marsh is not simply a storm water basin. As the Save Our Marsh Committee has pointed out, this is a critical time in the development of an extremely valuable and significant resource. Please allow them to provide you with important consultation and expertise that many of SOM's knowledgeable, professionally trained members are volunteering to offer to the city as you move forward with marsh restoration. We all want what is best going forward for Edmonds. Please facilitate building bridges and consensus among us. Model civility and be receptive to innovative ideas and enlightening information from your constituents. Thank you for this opportunity to talk to you. Bernie Busch Bernie Busch "We don't inherit this land from our ancestors, We borrow it from our children" Cree Native American Proverb From: Megan Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 11:16 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Comments on the Budget As an Edmonds resident I'd like to express my strong support for parts of the budget proposal that I see as a huge benefit to our entire community. I strongly support the new REDI position. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 28 Packet Pg. 31 6.1.a There is no excuse for not putting significant funding and effort behind this important work. By opposing this important position, you are saying a lot about yourself and none of it is good. also strongly support the human services budget proposal. In the current climate, there is no way we can cut these important services! It is cruel and awful to look at cutting or eliminating this funding that would directly help the people of Edmonds during a very difficult time. It shows extreme privilege to be discussing cutting these programs. I also strongly support expanding the bike lane network and all the important environmental work that would help our community restore and sustain important natural areas. It is important to look at the budget as a moral document that tells the people of Edmonds that council does actually care about their well-being and not just about scoring cheap political points that help no one but themselves. I encourage the council to keep these important elements in the budget! Thank you, Megan Wolfe Westgate Neighborhood Resident From: Marcia L. Miller Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 5:17 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Don Miller Subject: Urgent Budget Concerns Dear Edmonds City Council Members, We are longtime residents of Edmonds, since 1965 and 1979, and would like to urge you to take action now on several important budget decisions. 1. We urge the Council to fully fund Human Services for the city. This is needed both now and for a positive future for all our residents. Do not defund this department. 2. We strongly believe in the importance of the REDI manager position for our city. Please promote and include this position in the budget. It is clear that we all, in this city, have much work to do regarding race, equity, diversity, and inclusion. 3. We do not approve of the stalling of these budget decisions. Do not delay or postpone till next year. We have elected you to do your jobs and make these decisions now. It's hard work, but we need you to do it. We appreciate all that the Mayor and City Council have done these past couple years to help improve our beloved hometown. Thank you for your efforts. Sincerely, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 29 Packet Pg. 32 6.1.a Marcia and Don Miller Ballinger Triangle Edmonds, WA From: finis tupper Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 5:03 AM To: Feser, Angie <Angie.Feser@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: CIP/CFP 2022 Dear Ms. Feser: Please find attach a letter from Paul Mar, City of Edmonds former Community Services Director to Bret Carlstad, Edmonds School District #15 about the zoning designation and use rights of the Old Woodway High School. This letter confirms the nonconforming use rights of the Old Woodway High School and was copied to the current acting Development Services Director Rob Chave. Our current City Attorney Jeff Taraday is also well aware of the content of this letter. The information in this letter was not provided to the hearing examiner at the time of the phase I approval. It was only discovered after the LUPA complaint was served on the city. Nothing has changed, in terms of zoning and the current use rights status of the property per our zoning code. Both our Planning Department and City Attorney know this land -use law and have failed to provide your department, council public this information. I respectfully request the Community Park & Athletic Complex Phase II be removed from the 2022 — 2027 Six -Year Parks Capital Improvement Program. PRK 8. Yours truly, Finis Tupper Edmonds WA 98020 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 30 Packet Pg. 33 6.1.a lL r�l CITY OF EDMONDS .r BARHARA FAHEY M AYO? • S • 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH . LON1ON45. WA Be020 . (425) 771.0220 • FAA (425) 7710231 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT T Public Works • Planning/Building • Parks and Recreation • Engineering • Wastewater Treatment Plant C. 1890 March 3. 1999 Bret M. Carlstad Edmonds School District ` 20420 68th Avenue West ` Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400 Re- Nonconforming Use Rights -- Former Edmonds Woodway High School Site at 23200 100th Avenue West, City of Edmonds Dear Mr_ Carlstad: You have inquired regarding what nonconforming use rights, if any, have vested under the City's zoning ordinances for the School District property located at 23200 100th Avenue West in the City of Edmonds. This letter is a staff decision regarding what nonconforming use rights, if any, have been vested. This opinion is appealable pursuant to the provisions of ECDC 20.105.010(A)(4) and the appeal must be filed within fourteen calendar days after the date of this decision. In addition to the District, any person who lives within 300 feet of the property or can demonstrate an interest in the action may appeal. A number of preliminary matters should be noted. The statement of facts contained in this letter is taken from evidence presented in recent proceedings before the Edmonds City Council. If you believe any of the factual findings contained in this letter are inaccurate or you wish to supplement them, you may do so within ten (10) calendar days of the date of this letter. Such a request to reconsider will suspend the effective date of the decision. Secondly, nonconforming use determinations are by their nature an application of facts to law. As such, this opinion is narrowly limited to the facts and the educational uses addressed. Any change in use, the establishment of a new "non traditional" or more burdensome educational use or an expansionlaIteration of the structures on site must be separately addressed based upon a specific review of the proposed new or expanded use or structure. FACTS The site was originally conveyed to the Edmonds School Department by the Washington State Division of Natural Resources (DNR). Evidence presented at the recent rezone hearing indicated that the land is held by the District under a public trust theory and may be used only for educational purposes. In the event that it ceases to be used for educational purposes, it reverts to the State and DNR, For 30 years or more, the site was used for a high school. In addition to the high school building, there are playfelds and other attendant open spaces. Landscaping and playilelds are currently zoned Open Space (OS) under the City's zoning ordinance. This open space zoning is consistent with the City's • Incorporated August 71, IVO • S�ator iilioc lnTarna4in+�af — Wo4i�an .lanan Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 31 Packet Pg. 34 6.1.a City's zoning ordinance. This open space zoning is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan. The remainder of the site is zoned single family residential (RS). The RS portion of the site contains the school structures. The general educational use and more specifically the high school use is therefore a nonconforming use. The evidence presented indicates that it was legally initiated but became nonconforming upon adoption of the City's zoning code. While consistent with the site's Comprehensive Plan designation as well as portions of the School District's Capital Facilities Plan now incorporated by reference into the City's Comprehensive Plan, high schools are not a permitted use in any single-family zone. Ordinances of the City now require a conditional use permit for an elementary school use in RS zones. Prior to the current Code's adoption in 1980, elementary schools were outright permitted uses in single-family neighborhoods. Chapter 17.40 governs nonconforming uses, buildings and lots in the City of Edmonds. Specifically, ECDC 17.40.010 governs nonconforming uses. ECDC 17.40.010(B) provides: B. Continuation. A nonconforming use may continue, unless required to be abated by subsection C of this section, but it may not be expanded in any way, including additional lot area, floor area, height, number of employees, equipment, or hours of operation. Please note that while nonconforming uses are regulated, this section refers to and limits their expansion by reference to "bukk' requirements -- height, lot area and other quantitative or numerical standards. ECDC 17,40.010(G)(1) indicates that; G. Lapse of Time. 1. If a nonconforming use ceases for a continuous period of six months, any later use of the property occupied by the former nonconforming use shalt conform to this zoning ordinance. Section 17.40.010(H) provides: H. Conditional Uses. A legal use does not become nonconforming because the zone in which it is located is changed to a zone district, which requires a conditional use permit for the use. However, the use may not be altered, as stated in subsection B of this section, without obtaining a conditional use permit. Section 16.20.010, paragraph C-1 provides in part as follows: -2- 1CYZ- Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 32 Packet Pg. 35 6.1.a 16.20.010 Uses. IL F 3 C. Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit. 1. Limited community facilities located on arterial or collector streets only, including only the following: elementary schools... ISSUES 1. What nonconforming use rights, if any, has the School District vested by its operation of a high school at the site and by other educational and athletic programs since closure of the high school? 2. If the School District initiates other educational uses for the site, what latitude is provided under its vested nonconforming use rights? FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION 1. The City's review of the programs and activities of the District is limited to an application of the City's zoning ordinance. Nothing in this decision should be interpreted as an attempt to limit or control the educational activities of the District regarding such matters as "... curriculum, textbooks, teaching methods, grading, school hours and holidays, extracurricular school activities or those concerning the selection, tenure and compensation of school personnel...." Edmonds School District v. City of M 1 Ter 77 Wn.2d 509 (1970). 2. This inquiry seeks to determine what use has been established at the site. It appears that the site has been used for approximately 30 years for a high school. The high school use and other related activities within the statutory educational mission of the District have been continuously operated consistent with the seasonal use of a school and ongoing maintenance cf the facility. The District's use of the site for middle school or elementary school uses will be considered as nonconforming and vested with the District's educational use of the site. Traditional middle school and elementary school activities are less intensive and within the general educational use established for the site, 3. The use of the site and the existing structures on the site for the general educational mission of the District through a high school, middle school or elementary school use may not be enlarged nor the structures altered. ECDC 17.40.010(B) prohibits the expansion of the use "... in any way, including additional lot area, floor area, height, number of -3- Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 33 Packet Pg. 36 6.1.a s- employees, equipment, or hours of operation." The District has established a nonconforming right to perform its educational mission within the existing buildings on site and with the same number of employees, equipment and hours of operation. The City recognizes that a high school, middle and/or an elementary school may have differing hours, however, the District may operate an elementary or middle school so long as it does so within the general timeframe and with the same or fewer employees and equipment as the high school. So long as the structures are not altered or expanded and the number of employees or students are fewer than those which utilized the site during the period in which the High School was operated, the nonconforming use will not be considered to have been expanded. In making this determination, I rely on the guidance given by the Washington Supreme Court in Keller v. Belling_ham, 92 Wn.2d 726 (1979). Like the City of Edmonds, the City of Bellingham in its ordinances prohibited enlargement but not "intensification" of a nonconforming use, as the Court stated in that case at page 731: The test is whether the intensified use is "different in kind" from the nonconforming use in existence when the zoning ordinance was adopted. In making this determination, I find that the education of high school, middle school and/or elementary school students is within the traditional educational mission of the District as defined by statute and is "similar in kind" within the meaning of City ordinance as interpreted by Washington case law. 4. Uses which are "... considered customary and incidental to the principle use..." may be located on the site. Ferry v, City of Bellingham, 41 Wash.App. 839 (1935) rev. denied, at p. 844 citing 4 Rothkgpf Zoning and Plannin §51.01(3) 4th Ed. 1985. Examples of customary and incidental uses to the principle educational use might include intramural athletics, pre and post -school day educational activities, the meetings of clubs and other similar activities which are normally incident to the District's educational mission. Again, the District is strongly encouraged to review specific or unusual activities with the Community Development Department prior to siting them at the Woodway High School site to determine whether they fall within existing nonconforming use rights. 5. Any change in use which is "different in kind" from a traditional high school, middle school or elementary school use may be considered to be an enlargement. For example, an expansion of the traditional elementary school by an attempt to site a trade school with shops, machinery noise and fumes has been held to be an impermissible expansion of the nonconforming use. Shields v Spokane 5rhQQI Di r , #81, 31 Wn.2d 247 (1948). Similarly, the District should not rely on this opinion as a basis to utilize the site for administrative or business purposes of the District such as the establishment of a bus barn, administrative offices or the storage of equipment and machinery. As previously noted, nonconforming use determinations are by their nature fact specific, and the District should not rely on this decision when attempting to cite any more intense or different use on the site. 6. Leasing of all or a portion of the site to profit or nonprofit organizations to conduct, for example, aerobics or martial arts classes, is a commercial use prohibited by the zoning -4- Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 34 Packet Pg. 37 6.1.a district. Commercial use of the site is not grandfathered; only the District's traditional educational activities. 7. Limits of Decision. The Edmonds City Council retains ultimate legislative discretion to alter the provisions of the City's zoning code and comprehensive plan and to exercise additional regulatory authority over the site through the exercise of its police powers. A nonconforming use is not free from the City's exercise of its police powers. v h ., 136 Wn.2d 1 (1998). Therefore this interpretation should not be interpreted as limiting or waiving the future exercise of the City Council's legislative authority. Very truly yours, CITY OF EDMONDS (9452e,,� Wd"' I Paul Mar, Director Cc! Mayor Barbara S. Fahey City Council Members Scott Snyder, City Attorney Ray Miller, Development Services Director Rgb Chave, Planning Manager ufeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor Planning Division Staff Building Division Staff Mark Quehm, Perkins Cole Parties of Record -5- Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 35 Packet Pg. 38 6.1.a From: Jeanne Petty Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2021 11:25 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Support for Public Services and Keeping Budget Plans on Schedule I am a resident, homeowner and parent in the city of Edmonds. I grew up nearby in Shoreline and have lived in this beautiful city for 12 years. I want to thank our council members for all of the work they've done recently to support our local community during the pandemic and to try and build a more accessible and welcoming city for everyone. Thank you for being willing to learn and grow, to listen to your residents and to acknowledge that racism, classism and other forms of descrimination are built into our institutions and need to be addressed. I'm sorry that recent council meetings have been filled with a small, extremely vocal group trying to tell you that you're not listening to your constituents and trying to act like the comments section on some of our local news outlets are legitimate representations of our city. Neither of those things are true. I'd like to express my support for keeping the budget on schedule and not delaying! The schedule is reasonable and in keeping with previous years. I am also in support of maintaining and growing critical human services and other community support items that ensure that ALL of our residents are taken care of. Thank you SO much for addressing the fact that we need to include all of what is geographically Edmonds, I support the plan to add city buildings to the corridor on 99. Allowing our local restaurants to maintain outdoor seating has helped keep local businesses going and given higher risk residents an option to be social and enjoy getting out in our city without fearing for their health. I'm sorry those of us who care about these issues and support them have not been more present and vocal at your regular meetings. I know so many people in our community who care about these issues, but like myself they are busy working within our school district, within great organizations like Kids in Transition, our local food bank and so many other efforts, sometimes we forget that supporting our leaders in making these critical decisions is imperative. Thank you again, Jeanne Petty From: Carol Junglov Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 2:04 PM Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 36 Packet Pg. 39 6.1.a To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Council Meeting of Nov. 9, 2021 Dear Edmonds City Council: I listed to the council meeting last night and want to voice my support for the Neighborhood City Office by Safeway. The space sounds like it will work well for many uses and be a positive addition to the neighborhood. I also want to say that I have loved the outdoor dining enclosures and the designated parking for To Go order pick-ups in the downtown area during the pandemic. I have used both many, many times and had it not been for them, I would not have frequented the restaurants and spent money thus providing tax dollars to the City during the pandemic. With winter approaching, even though I am vaccinated, I am still not comfortable eating in a restaurant in Snohomish County as there is no requirement for all patrons to be vaccinated. I will continue to order takeout and I will continue to eat at the outside tables and support our local restaurants. I love seeing the lights in the enclosures on dark winter nights, it brightens up downtown. Thank you all for your time and energy for serving on the council. You take a lot of abuse from the public, not sure why anyone would want to sit in your seats. Carol Junglov Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 16, 2021 Page 37 Packet Pg. 40 6.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/7/2021 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of November 17, 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: 11-17-2021 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 41 6.2.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING DRAFT MINUTES November 16, 2021 Adjourned until November 17, 2021 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Susan Paine, Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Brook Roberts, Student Representative COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING STAFF PRESENT Phil Williams, Public Works Director Dave Turley, Administrative Services Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., Cultural Arts & Human Services Director Shannon Burley, Deputy Parks, Rec., Cultural Arts & Human Services Director Rob English, City Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst The Edmonds City Council virtual online adjourned meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely, with the exception of Councilmembers K. Johnson and Buckshnis. PUBLIC HEARING DELIBERATIONS AND ADOPTION OF THE 2022 BUDGET (Continued) Administrative Services Director Dave Turley recalled last night Council asked to see the total affect the amendments had on the budget. He displayed Proposed Budget (page 7 in budget book), a list of Changes to Revenues, Changes to Expenditures, and Adopted Budget (proposed budget with changes made yesterday and tonight). He explained one change that was not the result of an amendment was when the Tree Fund was closed out, it affected the 2021 ending balance and the 2022 beginning balance, reducing revenues for the Memorial Tree Fund by $530 and moving those funds to the Tree Fund. So far the net effect on cash of the amendments made last night is a reduction of $533,875. He will update the Adopted Budget as amendments are made tonight. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 1 Packet Pg. 42 6.2.a Councilmember Olson raised a point of personal privilege. She requested a statement from the City attorney in response to questions of whether this was a legal meeting. She wanted to hear on the record whether he thinks it is legal or not so Councilmembers can choose not to participate if it is an illegal meeting. City Attorney Jeff Mr. Taraday asked how much detail was desired; he could provide the long or short version. Mayor Nelson suggested the long version. Mr. Taraday explained the City Code specifically contemplates this and that code section was referenced yesterday. He has been made aware of comments and concerns that people in the community have regarding whether this meeting is in compliance with state law. RCW 42.30.090 contemplates adjournment and the first sentence reads, "The governing body of a public agency may adjourn any regular, adjourned regular, special, or adjourned special meeting to a time and place specified in the order of adjournment." The order of adjournment is an order decided by the Council which is basically what the Council voted on last night. The RCW goes on to say, "If all members are absent from a regular or adjourned regular meeting, the clerk or secretary of the governing body may declare the meeting adjourned to a stated time and place. He or she shall cause a written notice of the adjournment to be given in the same manner as provided in 080 for special meetings." Mr. Taraday editorialized, this statute importantly distinguishes between orders of adjournment and notices of adjournment and does not use those two synonymously. An order of adjournment is an adjournment where the Council decides the time and place of the adjourned meeting; a notice of adjournment occurs when the clerk decides the time and place of the adjourned meeting and that only happens in the rare instance where no one shows up at a regular meeting which obviously is not what happened last night. This meeting is in the realm of orders of adjournment, not notices of adjournment. To the question of whether 24-hour notice is required to be provided of the adjourned regular meeting, there is strong evidence in the statute that that is not required. As mentioned before, the provision about providing notice for special meetings only applies to notices of adjournment, not orders of adjournment. Mr. Taraday continued, the very last sentence of the statute says, "When an order of adjournment of any meeting fails to state the hour at which the adjourned meeting is to be held, it shall be held at the hour specified for regular meetings by ordinance..." which is 7 p.m. in Edmonds. If one were to interpret the 24- hour notice provision to apply to orders of adjournment, then that would basically make it impossible to have an adj ourned meeting the next day and he did not find any evidence in the statute for that interpretation. It would not make sense to require a 24-hour notice when the City Council themselves are the ones deciding the time and place of the adjourned meeting; 24-hour notice would, however, make sense if the clerk is unilaterally deciding the time and place of the adj ourned meeting. He reiterated that was not what happened so he was firmly of the opinion that this is a legal meeting, that the process was followed properly and the 24hour notice contemplated by 080 does not apply to this adjourned regular meeting. Mr. Turley commented he was certain Mr. Taraday would not allow the Council to hold an illegal meeting but it was helpful to have the background on what makes this a legal meeting. He presented the proposed amendments as follows: DP # Expense Revenue Net No. or Submitter Fund Description Increase Increase Effect New (Decrease) (Decrease) Item Cash 11 2 Buckshnis, K Various Remove VEBA Contribution for (22,200) $22,200 Johnson Non -Reps COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO REMOVE VEBA CONTRIBUTION FOR NON -REPS. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 2 Packet Pg. 43 6.2.a 12 3 Buckshnis General Remove part-time office help for HR (3,983) 3,983 Fund No action taken. 13 4 Buckshnis General Remove pre -employment mental assessments for (6,800) 6,800 Fund Police Department No action taken. 14 5 Buckshnis General Remove 1-time funds for assessment centers to assist (15,000) 15,000 Fund with hiring in the Police Department No action taken. General Remove approval for attorney contracts; council should 15 6 Buckshnis Fund instead issue an REP or adjust the budget to include the (35,300) 35,300 escalation clause No action taken. 18 1 14 1 K Johnson I General Fund I Remove Public Safety Marine Unit 73,150 73,150 COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO DECREASE THE EXPENSE BY $10,000. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 19 15 Buckshnis General Remove Police Department Community Engagement (73,500) 73,500 Fund Program No action taken. 20 16 Buckshnis, K General Remove increase of PIO from 0.5 FTE to 1.0 FTE (69,000) 69,000 Johnson Fund COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO REMOVE INCREASE OF PIO FROM 0.5 FTE TO 1.0 FTE. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 21 1 18 1 Buckshnis I ARPA Fund I Remove expenditure authority for ARPA money (1,250,000) 1 1 1,250,000 No action taken. 22 20 Buckshnis, Olson, K General Remove rooftop solar grant program (150,000) 150,000 Johnson Fund 23 20 Olson General Replace rooftop solar grant program 85,000 (85,000) Fund with gas blower replacement initiative Councilmember Fraley-Monillas requested the amendment be separated and voted on individually. Mr. Turley responded they would need to be voted on separately, but he was asked to discuss them together because one impacts the other. Councilmember Olson requested the replacement amendment be discussed first as it explained why she recommended removing the rooftop solar grant program. Mr. Turley agreed. Councilmember Olson said the recommendation to replace rooftop solar grant program is not a statement that she does not support the idea of promoting solar. This grant program is a $5,000 grant for an average $18,000 expense for solar and Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 44 6.2.a was directed exclusively for low income households. She anticipated coming up with $13,000 to install rooftop solar would be a huge barrier and therefore she anticipated the program would not be well utilized and therefore any climate benefit would be zero if there were zero participants in the program. Alternatively, the other option (gas blower replacement initiative) is a lesser expenditure from the General Fund and she anticipated it would be well utilized as there are a lot of gas blowers in the community. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO REPLACE THE ROOFTOP SOLAR GRANT PROGRAM WITH THE GAS BLOWER REPLACEMENT INITIATIVE. Councilmember Olson explained with this initiative, residents and landscape/yard maintenance business who have regular reoccurring jobs in Edmonds that use gas blowers could turn their gas blower in for destruction and be reimbursed for a corded electric blower, or a 75% reimbursement for a battery operated blower. She noted both electric and battery operated blowers have wonderful climate impacts as gas blowers create almost as much emission as cars as well as cause noise pollution. Doing this as an incentive would have great quality of life and air quality benefits for community. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked Councilmember Olson for the idea. He did not support it as part of this budget, but agreed gas blowers were absolutely horrible for the environment, unsafe for operators, and huge noise pollutants. He hoped such a program could be more thought out and a City Code process developed in the future. He was aware that a number of municipalities, especially on the west coast, are doing this and he would be happy to support it as a resident advocate in the future if work was done via a more thorough and comprehensive process. Councilmember Distelhorst asked if Mayor Nelson or Mr. Turley could speak to the rooftop solar grant program, recalling he asked questions of Acting Director Rob Chave about capitalizing on other partnerships and initiatives that are available at the county, PUD, state or federal level to ensure the $13,000 difference is substantially reduced. Councilmember L. Johnson thanked Councilmember Olson, expressing her excitement about going down this path. This is one part of what is needed going forward, but there needs to be a larger program built around it, one that includes the City setting an example. She was concerned with enforcing that residents or businesses used electric/battery blowers once they traded in their gas blower. The program needs to be further developed, but she appreciated that thought was being put into it and wanted to continue working on it later. Council President Paine asked how Council would determine whether the rooftop solar grant program was not fully used, guessing that it would Development Services. Mr. Turley answered it was a budget proposal by Development Services. Council President Paine suggested getting an update four months into the year to see what interest had been expressed. She liked the idea, agreeing that leaf blowers are loud and the electric/battery blowers are better for the environment, but raking is an even lower cost. She suggested the rooftop solar grant program be bought back to Council in a few months to see what interest there has been and to look at a gas blower replacement program before leaf season in the fall. Councilmember Olson said she did not want this to be approved if the rooftop solar grant program was approved because it would be spending too much money; her proposal was in lieu of the rooftop solar grant program. The community is more receptive to a carrot approach versus an ordinance and she viewed this as a good opportunity. Including it in the budget would mean the program would be in place in time for next year's leaf season. She anticipated it would have a bigger climate impact because it is such a low barrier. She encouraged Councilmember to support a gas blower replacement program in lieu of the rooftop solar grant program. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 45 6.2.a Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she did not see this as either/or. It is important to have the solar program as well as electric blowers and she suggested doing both. She understood Councilmember Olson's concerns about funding and spending taxpayer's money, but she viewed this as a great opportunity to do both. Council President Paine agreed with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, why give up a good idea in lieu of another good idea. She was supportive of both programs. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO AMEND TO CREATE A PROGRAM TO TURN IN GAS BLOWERS FOR ELECTRIC BLOWERS IN THE AMOUNT OF $85,000. Councilmember L. Johnson reiterated she supports this idea, but it needs to be more than a replacement initiative. For example, there needs to be a lot of education so the money is spent in ways that are as far reaching as possible. She could support setting aside money to develop a program, but not if it was a replacement initiative without an education component. Councilmember Distelhorst agreed with Councilmember L. Johnson's statement, especially regarding who this applies to, whether it would be business or households and who would that be prioritized. He supported the idea but it needed more time in the oven to be clear about what, who and exactly how the program would work. He would not support it right now, but would support ongoing work to develop a more complete proposal in the future. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT. Councilmember Olson said a great deal more information was submitted with her amendment so it was a pretty well thought out program and included paying for rakes and bags if someone chose not to use a blower. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE SECOND. Councilmember Olson recalled she copied Councilmembers when she submitted the amendment; there were three options for reimbursement and it included residents and landscapers with recurring jobs in Edmonds. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED NOT TO DO A REPLACEMENT, BUT A GAS BLOWER REPLACEMENT INITIATIVE FOR $50,000. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO REMOVE THE ROOFTOP SOLAR GRANT PROGRAM. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember Olson referred to upcoming amendments proposed by Councilmembers Buckshnis and/or K. Johnson, suggesting for the sake of expediency, even if she was interested in talking about the amendment, if there was no second to her motion, there would not be any conversation. She suggested other Councilmember make a motion if they were interested in discussion. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred to move ahead with each item to see if there was a motion. She felt it was inappropriate to bypass the amendments simply because the proposing Councilmember was not present. 24 21 Buckshnis, K General Remove Human Services Division budget (609,500) 609,500 Johnson Fund Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 46 COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO REMOVE $200,000 FROM THE HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION BUDGET. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 25 22 Buckshnis General Remove Park Planning and Capital Project (119,840) 119,840 Fund Manager No action taken. 26 1 23 1 K Johnson I General Fund I Remove ADA Transition Plan 1 (120,000) 1120,000 No action taken. 27 1 33 1 K Johnson I General Fund I Remove Facilities Condition Assessment 15,000 15,000 COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO REMOVE THE FACILITIES CONDITION ASSESSMENT. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 28 34 K Johnson General Fund Remove Citywide Carpet Cleaning (45,000) 45,000 Service No action taken. 29 35 Buckshnis, K Fleet Remove Facilities Maintenance Vehicles (145,000) 145,000 Johnson No action taken. 30 37 Buckshnis, K General Remove ongoing building repairs and (100,000) 100,000 Johnson Fund maintenance COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO REMOVE ONGOING BUILDING REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 31 38 Buckshnis, Olson, K General Fund Remove Police Campus Pedestrian (270,180) 270,180 Johnson Safety Perimeter COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, TO REMOVE POLICE CAMPUS PEDESTRIAN SAFETY PERIMETER. Councilmember Olson said her reasoning was 2-3 fold. She was not aware until the meeting where this request was made by the police department that the public was not supposed to walk across the parking lot. Today when she walked in that direction, she made a point to walk around it knowing they did not want pedestrians in the parking lot. There has never been a sign or any indication; a chain with a few posts to would reduce the traffic through the parking lot. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, asking if there was a motion and a second. Mayor Nelson answered there was and Councilmember Olson was speaking to the motion. Councilmember Olson said cameras would be a better use of funds. There have also been questions about whether the public safety complex and city hall are in the best location and this is another investment in that campus. She suggested having those conversations and vetting the idea before making further investments. This is $270,000 that can be saved in the budget. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 47 6.2.a Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the police department has been asking for this for the 12 years she has been on Council due to a number of concerning incidents. She was unsure there was any agreement to move the police headquarters to Highway 99 at an estimated cost of $30 million. She was unsure a cost of $30 million was preferable to spending $270,000 to fence in the parking lot. This is nothing new or something that has happen in the last year. She supported having a method to prevent police and employees' private vehicles being tampered with. Council President Paine said this proposal was not made last year, anticipating she would have supported it last year if she had heard about it. There needs to be a secure sally port when transporting prisoners; it is important for officer and prisoner safety. It is also important to ensure pedestrians are not walking through the parking lot, commenting she has never understood people using a parking lot as a shortcut. She acknowledged it would be a tragedy if an officer responding to a call inadvertently hit a pedestrian or a vehicle and she did not want to have officers' personal property or police vehicles tampered with. She recalled a camera was stolen off the building a few years ago that wasn't noticed immediately. Having better perimeter safety measures is important for the integrity of the building and vehicles. She firmly supported retaining the Police Campus Pedestrian Safety Perimeter. Councilmember Distelhorst recalled he was initially supportive of the decision package but understands there are a lot of considerations, particularly regarding the sally port. He supported this decision package with hopefully the police department looking at the smallest options first before going to the full area. In discussion with the chief this last week, she provided images of what it could look like which he likened to the fortification in an inclusive community. He hoped the design/implementation would consider safety first and ensure it fits with the community and does not look like a completely gated off building. He suggested considering the sally port and most critical areas first and expanding incrementally as needed which may not use the full budget allocation. Councilmember L. Johnson said this decision package also gave her pause, but after diving deeper into it she realized it was a safety perimeter to discourage pedestrians from walking through the parking lot. While some of that could be done with signage, in the example provided, it took attending meetings to hear an explanation for a Councilmember to understand. Pedestrians are only one part of it; damage or sabotage to 60 patrol cars is significant. Another important aspect is safety for the transfer of prisoners. She summarized after deeper thought, she deemed it a reasonable and responsible ask that she will support. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (1-4), COUNCILMEMBER OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. 32 39 Buckshnis General Remove baseline adjustment for increased cost of (5,700) 5,700 Fund bank fees No action taken. 33 1 40 1 K Johnson I General Fund I Remove 2022 Commute Trip Reduction 36,000) 1 36,000 COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO REMOVE 2022 COMMUNITY TRIP REDUCTION. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 34 41 1 K Johnson I Street Fund I Remove Traffic Control Variable Message Boards 1 (30,000) 30,000 No action taken. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 48 6.2.a 35 42 K Johnson Street Fund Remove OT for Community Event (20,000) 20,000 Support COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO REDUCE OT FOR COMMUNITY EVENT SUPPORT FROM $20,000 TO $10,000. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 36 47 1 K Johnson Water Fund Remove Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment (505,000) 505,000 No action taken. 37 48 K Johnson Utility Remove Utility Rate and GFC adjustment and (120,000) 120,000 Funds analysis No action taken. 38 51 1 K Johnson Storm Fund Remove Community Event Support — Overtime 20,000 20,000 COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO DECREASE THE AMOUNT TO $10,000. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 39 53 Buckshnis Storm Fund Remove Perrinville Creek Lower (550,000) 550,000 Restoration Project COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO REMOVE PERRINVILLE CREEK LOWER RESTORATION PROJECT. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 40 55 Buckshnis Storm Fund Remove Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Improvements (190,000) 190,000 No action taken. 41 56 Buckshnis Storm Fund Remove Stormwater Comprehensive Plan Update (300,000) 300,000 No action taken. 42 1 60 1 Buckshnis Storm Fund Remove Perrinville Creek Projects 121,542 121,542 No action taken. 43 1 61 1 Buckshnis Storm Fund Remove Green Street & Rain Gardens (400,000) 400,000 No action taken. 44 1 66 1 Buckshnis Sewer Fund Remove O&M Staffing Plan (214,000) 214,000 No action taken. 45 70 1 Buckshnis Fleet I Remove 2022 Vehicle Replacements 485,000 485,000 COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO DECREASE THAT BUDGET BY $100,000. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 46 72 Buckshnis, K Johnson Building Maintenance Fund Remove Solar Plant Renewal and Grant Application (230,000) 230,000 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 49 6.2.a No action taken. 1 47 1 93 1 K Johnson I REET and Storm I Remove Elm Way Walkway 1 (901,780) 1 1 901,780 No action taken. 48 96 Buckshnis REET 126 Remove Land Acquisition Consulting (45,000) 45,000 Services COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO REMOVE LAND ACQUISITION CONSULTING SERVICES. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Mr. Turley relayed the final effect on cash was $533,875. Councilmember Olson relayed her understanding that the Council was spending $500,000 more than was in the proposed budget. Mr. Turley agreed. Councilmember Olson referred to questions she submitted to Mr. Turley regarding whether this is a responsible budget and whether the Council was spending a reasonable amount in view of reserves. Before the Council voted on the budget ordinance, she suggested recessing until Mr. Turley had time to put those items into the spreadsheet so the Council could have a more global conversation about expenditures from the allowable spendable reserves. Mayor Nelson asked Mr. Turley if he needed a recess to provide that information. Mr. Turley said this budget was relatively unchanged from the proposed budget the Council has had for six weeks other than the addition of $500,000. He summarized this was a very sustainable budget, and he did not see any problems. Mr. Turley anticipated in the future, sales tax and other taxes would come in higher than projected which would provide an additional cushion. To residents concerned about the $7 million in expenditures over revenues, he explained there is nearly $7 million in expenditures on Civic Field. The reason it looks like it is overspending the budget is because revenues came in this year or last year. For example, the bond proceeds this year, $4 million for Public Works and $1.6 million for Civic Field, came in this year and will show as revenue this year but the expenses will be next year. Therefore, it is not overspending the budget, but a timing issue. The budget book is a one year snapshot of revenues and expenditures; to provide a complete picture, revenues received in prior years need to be considered. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, whether there had been a second to Councilmember Olson's motion. Mayor Nelson clarified she was asking a question, not making a motion. Mr. Turley said he was answering Councilmember Olson's and other questions he has received. Another question that has been asked is about spending down the fund balance. The City has built up several million in fund balance, in excess of the required reserves. In the private sector, people are used to seeing profits in a business that go into the equity section and more profits are better for a private sector business, the more a private sector business retains, the more stable it is and the more longevity it will have in the future. That is not the way government works; governments collect taxes and are supposed to provide services and benefits to the citizens with those taxes. The goal of government is not to collect a big fund balance and have it continue to grow. The City's fund balance has grown eight out of the last ten years. Mr. Turley continued, in the eyes of most government accountants, the City has built up more profit over the years than it should have and it is time to spend it for the benefit of citizens. To those worried about spending down the fund balance, he assured it was entirely appropriate. The economy hasn't given him anything to worry about with regard to being conservative and even with the excess budgeted this year, the budget does not even come close to tapping into restricted reserves. He summarized this is a sustainable Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 50 6.2.a budget and more importantly it is a responsible budget and the City is doing what they should be doing with its money right now. Councilmember Olson asked about the percentage of available reserves, commenting what was so slippery and uncomfortable for her was there were things coming up that are not reflected in the budget like the $1.5 million in the fire department contract. Not having that amount show up anywhere in the budget makes her uncomfortable and she asked how that fit into the percentage of reserves that the Council is responsibly using/not using. With regard to the fire contract. Mr. Turley recalled a couple of years ago the budget was increased for the fire contract because South County Fire was unable to settle their labor contracts and planned to submit a retroactive bill. A fairly significant amount was included in the budget to account for the retro bill. Last year SCF caught up on the retro; beginning in January the annual contract will increase and there is some cushion built for the retroactive billings. The cushion will be used to cover half or more of the SCF's 2022 increase. He agreed that was a significant increase but a fair amount of it was already built into the 2022 budget. He did not feel it was appropriate to add things to the budget until the dollar amount was firm; that is the purpose of quarterly budget amendments. The Council has been kept informed via several meetings with SCF so the increase will not be a surprise. When the budget was being developed, there was some awareness that the increase would be coming but it was not far enough along to include it in the proposed budget at the time. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE [ORDINANCE NO. 4240] AS AMENDED. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS GIVEN TO US AS A DRAFT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EMAIL THAT SHE SENT ON MONDAY OR TUESDAY TO ALL COUNCIL FOR THEIR INFORMATION. Councilmember Olson asked if other Councilmembers remembered receiving the amendments. Council President Paine remembered receiving the amendments including a photo that had some pink highlighter. Councilmember Olson agreed that was the email she was referring to. Council President Paine said she looked at the changes and did not have any no objection to them, recalling one did not identify the correct year. Councilmember Distelhorst said his recollection beyond the pink highlighter was the changes were procedural dates, highlighting changes in the whereas clauses. He did not object to the changes as long as they had been reviewed Mr. Taraday to ensure they were consistent and accurate. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said considering this is a budget request, she preferred to go through the items one at a time otherwise Council was taking it on faith and this a pretty heavy budget to do that. Councilmember Distelhorst advised the email was sent at 12:45 a.m. on Tuesday, November 16' Councilmember L. Johnson said she just forwarded Councilmember Olson the email. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. Councilmember Olson relayed the first whereas in the draft budget ordinance would be unchanged from the draft. The second whereas would be replaced with, "Whereas a notice was published on October 8, 2021 and posted on the door of City Hall from October 8 to November 8, 2021. That the City would meet virtually via Zoom on November 1, November 4, November 16, November 23 and December 7 if necessary for the purpose of making and adopting a budget for said fiscal year and giving taxpayers within the limits of the city an opportunity to be heard in a public hearing upon said budget and" Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 10 Packet Pg. 51 6.2.a Councilmember Olson proposed a third whereas clause be added between the former second and third whereas clause in the draft that reads, "Whereas a notice was published on October 15 and October 22, 2021 and posted on the door of City Hall from November 8, 2021 until present. That the City would meet virtually via Zoom on November 1, 4, 9 and 16 for the purpose of making and adopting a budget for said fiscal year and giving taxpayers within the limits of the city an opportunity to be heard in a public hearing upon said budget, and" Mayor Nelson asked if the Council wanted to vote line by line. Councilmember L. Johnson suggested Mr. Taraday weigh in on the amendments as well as the necessity of the changes and whether they help with the process. Mr. Taraday said for the most part he did not have a concern about most of the revisions drafted by Councilmember Olson. He did provide comments to her, one as he mentioned before, there is no legal requirement that budget hearing notices be posted on a door; they need to be published. Therefore, it is a question worthy of discussion whether whereas clauses in the ordinance should address door posting when there is no law that requires door posting. Mr. Taraday explained he was aware that notices were posted on the door and that that caused some confusion which is one of the reason the hearing was continued until November 16th so that anyone who might have been confused could testify last night. There is always a question of what to put and what not to put in whereas clauses; that is ultimately up to the Council. Whereas clauses tell the story and provide background on what led up to ordinance adoption. If the Council feels that detail is an appropriate part of story, it can be included. He reiterated for the record that there is no requirement that he was aware of to post budget hearing notices on a door. Councilmember L. Johnson said based on that answer, a number of people were confused by the door posting. Since it is not necessary to post a door but it is necessary to publish, she questioned including the additional language and adding to the confusion instead of being clear about the requirements and how they were met. She feared the revised language would add to the confusion in future years and almost giving more credence to something that wasn't necessary versus the necessary process. Councilmember Olson said she was okay with removing the sentence about door posting if that was preferred. What got her attention and led to the modification was what was written previously was true only based on some of the notices and not others. Mayor Nelson asked for clarify about how the Council want to vote. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said as she did not have it front of her, she preferred to go line by line. She requested the entire section be read first and then go line by line. Councilmember Olson read the last whereas clause, "Whereas the city council did hold a public hearing on the budget on November 1, 9 and 16, and did then consider the matter of the proposed budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2022, and;" She asked if a draft of the budget ordinance in packet could be displayed on the screen. Mr. Turley displayed the draft ordinance. Councilmember Olson forwarded the proposed changes to Councilmembers. She also sent her proposed changes to Mr. Turley to display. Councilmember Olson advised November I't needed to be added before November 91 in the last whereas clause in the changes she emailed. Mr. Turley displayed Councilmember Olson's proposed changes. Councilmember Distelhorst said taking into consideration the comments from Mr. Taraday and to avoid further confusion, it would be appropriate to add the 9t' to the Pt and 16t' in the second existing whereas clause in the draft ordinance. The other edits seem to be more confusing rather than narratively accurate. He suggested considering if there needed to be a reference to tonight as a continued meeting. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 11 Packet Pg. 52 6.2.a Councilmember L. Johnson supported the wording proposed by Councilmember Distelhorst. Councilmember Distelhorst clarified his suggestion was to add November 91h between November 1st and November 16t1i in the second whereas clause in in the existing budget ordinance and not including any of the other suggested edits. Councilmember Olson said the issue is, depending on what notice someone was looking at, different things were actually said. That whereas clause is not a true statement depending on the notice someone was looking at. Council President Paine said as she understands it, posting on the door is not a requirement under COVID OPMA guidance, so the proposed edits may not be necessary in the second whereas clause. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO AMEND TO REMOVE "AND POSTED ON THE DOOR OF CITY HALL FROM OCTOBER 8 TO NOVEMBER 8TH 2O21" IN THE SECOND WHEREAS." UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (3-2), COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY- MONILLAS AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST AND OLSON VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO REMOVE THE STATEMENT "POSTED ON THE DOOR OF CITY HALL FROM NOVEMBER 8, 2021 UNTIL PRESENT" IN THE PROPOSED THIRD WHEREAS. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (2-3), COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Mr. Taraday explained he will be working with Mr. Turley to prepare the version of the budget ordinance that is signed by the Mayor and wanted to ensure he understood the Council's intent. A motion to amend that removed door posting in the second whereas clause passed and a motion to amend to remove door posting in the third whereas clause failed; he was having difficulty reconciling those actions. He suggested the Council continue to work on making the ordinance internally consistent so he can understand the Council's intent. Councilmember L. Johnson commented she was doing her best to follow but this whole process was confusing. She was unclear if a motion had been made regarding the changes proposed to the whereas clauses. Mr. Turley said he did not believe a motion was made to make the changes proposed by Councilmember Olson so amendments could not be made to it. Councilmember Olson said she thought she had offered it as an amendment and asked if a Councilmember remembered seconding it. City Clerk Scott Passey responded it was not clear to him. Councilmember Distelhorst said he was voting no on the amendments because he did not think they should be included in the draft budget ordinance. When this effort is concluded, he will make a motion to add November 9' to the second whereas clause. Mayor Nelson suggested Councilmember Olson make a motion to add the changes she proposed to the whereas clauses. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO ADD THE PROPOSED WHEREAS CLAUSES FOR THE SAKE OF CLARIFYING WHAT WAS NOT TRUE BECAUSE IT WAS TRUE OF CERTAIN NOTICES AND NOT OTHERS. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 12 Packet Pg. 53 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested Councilmember Olson propose the changes section by section, recognizing there were some errors. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED THE SECOND WHEREAS CLAUSE IN THE BUDGET ORDINANCE (PACKET PAGE 109) BE REPLACED WITH THE WHEREAS CLAUSE SHE PROVIDED IN THE PINK HIGHLIGHT). MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED THE THIRD WHEREAS CLAUSE THAT WOULD BE ADDED BETWEEN THE FORMER SECOND AND THIRD WHEREAS CLAUSE THAT WOULD CONTAIN THE INFORMATION FOR THE NOTICE THAT HAD DIFFERENT INFORMATION. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST, IN THE THIRD WHEREAS IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT DID NOT SPECIFY WHEN THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD, REPLACE "AT THAT TIME" WITH "NOV 1, 9 AND 16." UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-1), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST MOVED TO AMEND TO ADD NOV 9, 2021 IN THE SECOND WHEREAS CLAUSE BETWEEN NOV 1 AND 16. Councilmember Olson raised a point of clarification, pointing out the ordinance contained Nov 9. She asked if his intent was to add Nov 4. Councilmember Distelhorst agreed November 4 was not a public hearing, only budget deliberation. COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST WITHDREW THE MOTION. Councilmember L. Johnson said that date is missing in the ordinance in the binder, but the ordinance in the packet was updated to include November 9. Councilmember Olson asked if there was ever a notice that had the dates of November 1, 9 and 16 on it; the October 8 notice had November 1, 4, 16, 23 and 7. Mayor Nelson asked who she was directing her question to. Councilmember Olson answered any and all who wanted the whereas clauses to be accurate as to what the notices actually said. Mr. Passey answered the first notice was published on October 8 and it noticed two public hearing dates, November 1 and 16 and other dates for budget deliberation, adoption, etc. The follow up public hearing notice was published on October 15 and 22 and it changed the November 16 public hearing date to November 9. Other dates for adoption and deliberation also changed, but those dates are not the focal point of a public hearing notice, it is the public hearing dates. UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (4-1), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER OLSON VOTING NO. Mr. Passey advised the ordinance number was 4240. 3. PROPOSED 2022-2027 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP) & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) City Engineer Rob English explained this a continuation of the discussion regarding the 2022-2027 CFP and CIP. He reviewed: 0 CIP/CFP Schedule Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 13 Packet Pg. 54 6.2.a o October ■ Planning Board presentation - October 13 ■ City Council presentation - October 26 ■ Planning Board public hearing - October 27 - Planning Board recommendations included in the agenda memo in the packet o November ■ City Council public hearing - November 1 ■ City Council Discussion - November 16 o December ■ 60-day Department of Commerce Review ends -December 10 ■ Adopt CFP into the Comprehensive Plan - December 14 Staff recommendation o Approve the project lists in the Public Works and Parks 2022-2027 CFP/CIP and authorize the City Attorney to draft an ordinance for final approval at the December 14, 2021 City Council meeting Mr. English explained the reason approval of the ordinance was recommended at the December 14 meeting is the 60-day review period by the Department of Commerce ends December 10. Councilmember Distelhorst referred to the first Planning Board recommendation, relaying his understanding that directors have spent a considerable amount of time responding to stakeholder and resident emails regarding the marsh restoration project and Marina Beach Park. Given this forum to publicly address questions and concerns from residents and City leaders, he asked staff to provide a response similar to what has been provided to various parties in emails. Public Works Director Phil Williams said a lot of questions focused on how the City is administering issues related to the marsh and interest in an overall guide to investments made to the marsh. He and Ms. Feser both see this as a City project; all in, it is a large effort and will take extensive cooperation from a lot of departments both in fundraising and project management. Each have areas that are more appropriate to take the lead on, but always working together and always seeing it as a City project, not a departmental project. The 2021 Public Works budget includes some funds, but there are none in the 2022 budget. In approving the 2022 budget, the Council is not being asked to approve any expenditures directly related to the marsh restoration project in Public Works. The property issues that have kept that from moving forward still have not been resolved. There has been some buzz behind the scenes that announcements may be made relatively soon; when that happens, the appropriate staff, council and administration can discuss next steps. There is one project related to cleaning up stormwater inputs that go into the marsh. He summarized he has never seen the marsh restoration as a Public Works or Parks project, just as a City project. Councilmember Distelhorst requested Parks comment on the RCO and environmental components of the project. Parks, Recreation, Cultural and Human Services Director Angie Feser emphasized there is an existing fund, Marsh Restoration and Preservation Fund 017 (page 125 of the budget). There is currently $844,000 in that account to be used toward marsh restoration, for grant match or projects. There has been a lot of discussion around Marina Beach Park and how it relates to marsh restoration and the recent award of two grants totaling $1 million for that project. The daylighting of Willow Creek or the open air channel in Marina Beach Park has been designed with hydrology engineers and ties into and can accommodate all the marsh restoration effort. The design of Marina Beach Park is at the 30% level and needs some refinement, but the channel has been footprinted to connect the two main points, 1) the opening under the railroad bridge, which is a fixed point, and 2) Puget Sound. Ms. Feser continued, the Marina Beach Park work supports the future restoration of the marsh, an enormous project that needs to start somewhere and Marina Beach is a place to start. There are three primary parcels Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 14 Packet Pg. 55 6.2.a involved with the project, first, the marsh which is currently owned by the City where quite a bit of restoration work was done this year including volunteer work in October related to removal of invasives and planting native vegetation as well as volunteer work on SR 104. The Unocal property is another parcel; little can be done until ownership becomes clear. The third parcel is Marina Beach Park; there is $1 million in grants to begin the work and further refine development of the design. The channel has been funded by ALEA, an RCO grant that ranked number one in the evaluation process as well as a second grant through WWRP. These are the same grants Snohomish County received for the Meadowdale Beach project. Council President Paine referred to the marsh project and where funding is identified and asked whether it made any difference where funding was located with regard to the City's ability to get grants. She was agnostic about where funds were located, but she did not want to jeopardize the City's ability to access grants and other funding sources due to the various aspects of this large project such as stormwater, environmental, restoration, recreational access, etc. When she thinks of the Edmonds Marsh, she does not think of it as a drainage system as some people have called it and she did not want to lose an opportunity for funding due to characterization of the marsh that is very limiting. Mr. Williams answered absolutely not; those questions have been asked of RCO staff as recently as the last budget cycle and the one before that. They look at it as a city application and evaluate it on its merits. The goals for the project are clearly environmental and habitat related. The fact that it takes some stormwater, urban drainage from the developed portions of the city is a fact but does not dominate the design. Funds are invested not for stormwater but improving habitat and meeting environmental goals. There are no stormwater grants available so there is no point in trying to characterize it as a stormwater project. Where the money is in the budget is not a key factor; the funds could continue to accumulate in the marsh fund but eventually an expense budget needs to be developed to make the project happen. RCO has said they do not care what departments are involved, how many or which ones; it is a city project and whatever commitments are made to the granting agencies will be made by the City at large, not a single department. Ms. Feser said her experience has been the same. She has had numerous successful grants through RCO and there is never a qualification about where the match money comes from, it just needs to be provided and committed. Agencies do not qualify or score the project based on where the other funding comes from. In fact the two $500,000 grants the City received this year could match each other. Councilmember Olson said she has heard it said a lot, even in the Mayor's budget address, that the budget is a reflection of values and that is what she is hearing from citizens. When citizens think about the marsh, its value is as a natural space, an estuary and hopefully improved wildlife habitat and having the project in stormwater does not pay honor to that. Mr. Williams said he hears that too, but personally rejects that thinking. If citizens think Public Works is a one-dimensional bunch of linear thinkers that do not deal with habitat outcomes and understand the current and changing environmental regulations and do things the right way, they haven't been paying attention. Public Works does that a lot such as working on the Perrinville basin which is basically a habitat project. He did not understand why people think the project would look differently based on where the money is in the budget. Mr. Williams recognized there have also been concerns expressed that paying for this large project will impact stormwater rates. He assured that was never the intent. There will be a match from the City; it does not matter what department or fund it comes from, it could be General Fund, REET or some stormwater funding. It has been assumed for the last decade that at most 25% of the project cost for the marsh would come from local dollars. That is an aggressive assumption; most of the successful restoration projects in the state include a lot of local money. The City needs to plan how to assemble matching funds. As Ms. Feser pointed out, quite a lot has already been set aside, but over the years more will likely be required and it can come from general governmental dollars but some can certainly come from stormwater because there is also a stormwater element to the project. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 15 Packet Pg. 56 6.2.a Councilmember Olson referred to Mr. Williams' statement that the intent was not to affect utility rates and asked whether it would or would not affect utility rates if the project is in stormwater. Mr. Williams answered in the last rate study, some money for the marsh project was assumed to come from stormwater rates, approximately 25%. There are no funds in the budget for acquiring property rights to do the project; that is still an unknown. It would be nice to think the City would get it for free; that seems unlikely, and that cost has not included in the budget. The park improvements also were not in the original budget for the marsh project. Councilmember Olson asked if the marsh project was moved out of stormwater, the next time the utility rate study was done, would there be a lower basis. Mr. Williams answered if the assumption was that no stormwater money would go into the project, that would need to be accounted for in the next rate study. He personally felt that was unrealistic. He wished the entire project could be funded with grants and every effort will be made to keep the City's match to a minimum but there will be a match required even at the $17.2 million estimate for the west side of the tracks for the daylighting project; 25% of that would be $4.3 million in local match. A 10% match could be assumed if the Council wished, but he did not see projects like this working out that way. For example, the project to the north, 50% came from Snohomish County REET along with funds from six granting agencies and from the railroad for a new bridge. He hoped the marsh project could get a higher percentage of funding participation. He recalled the City received a grant a couple years ago that had to be returned because the timeline changed on the property transfer. The City has shown its ability to get grants; but to assume it will all come from other sources is unrealistic. Councilmember L. Johnson recalled mention of the marsh as an estuary and a wildlife preserve; NOAA's definition of estuary is a coastal body of water where the river mixes with the sea water. It provides ecosystem and services and functions that serve as natural filters of runoff and for providing nursery grounds for many species of birds, fish and other animals. She said the goal for many who have been involved is habitat restoration, but you cannot lose sight of the natural stormwater function. There needs to be a comprehensive plan that includes both elements. She was unsure where the divide is; it is wildlife preserve that the City is trying to restore, but according to the definition of an estuary, it is also natural stormwater detention. She referred to packet page 370 where during the Planning Board meeting Ms. Feser mentioned the current funds for the marsh are utility funds and they cannot be moved to park funding. She asked Ms. Feser to expand on that. Ms. Feser said the current budget has stormwater utility funds allocated toward the $17.2 million cost, utility funds have to be used for that purpose and cannot be moved to the Parks CIP because they are not park related dollars. Councilmember L. Johnson relayed her understanding that the reason utility funds could be placed in the marsh fund was in recognition of the stormwater component of marsh. Mr. Williams agreed, explaining ultimately that will be the challenge, to determine the appropriate role for utility rate revenues, the nexus between the drainage utility and this project. So far in the preliminary phases where conceptual work has been done such as feasibility study and preliminary design, half the funding has come from stormwater and half from general governmental revenues. That effort has provided a pretty good idea of the challenges, that it is doable, and there are no fatal flaws. The next step is more detailed design regarding the channel, how it is structured, etc. That has not yet been done as the preference has been to wait until the property issues are cleared up before further investments are made. He summarized there is a stormwater component to the project, once that amount is determined, the remainder of the match will need to come from general governmental funds. Councilmember L. Johnson said she did not want to miss any opportunities. As someone who has studied the impact of tire chemicals on humans and the ecosystem, she objected to the idea of defining this project as either/or and potentially missing an opportunity for funding it with stormwater especially with new information tying tire dust to the death of salmon. She wanted this comprehensive project recognized as Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 16 Packet Pg. 57 6.2.a both a restoration project and a stormwater project because she did not want to lose opportunity for grants. Mr. Williams said the small project in the 2022 budget will deal with runoff from the state highway; treatment that will be installed that will be able to pick out that small, divided crumb. Runoff from further up in the drainage basin on City streets where that material is also produced has not been addressed yet. One of the wonderful things about the marsh is as long as it isn't insulted too much, it does a nice job of treating some of that. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said in the 12 years she has been on Council, she has watched numerous projects built in the City and it is usually done by two departments; she was unsure who led people to believe that a project had to be done only one department. She encouraged Council to continue to support departments working together as a team. She was confidence that Ms. Feser and Mr. Williams will work this out moving forward. Council President Paine asked what will happen to the side streets off Highway 99 once the project that will add medians and other amenities along Highway 99 is completed and asked whether there was a plan to ensure streets adjoining Highway 99 were not damaged by heavy equipment. She asked how addressing that issue could be included in the CFP. She also wanted to ensure equitable distribution to ensure roads in other parts of the City were repaired. Mr. Williams did not anticipate that would not be a major problem. There may be some damage where construction occurs, requiring the first few feet of the street to be repaired and repaved as part of the project. Haul routes will be audited and documented before and after the project to check the pavement ratings. Mr. English explained it is a huge project that will be broken into stages. The first stage next year is the median work. The stages that will be designed next year are the more comprehensive improvements such as widening sidewalks and adding capacity at some intersections. The City will work with the State on those projects to not only widen sidewalks but provide an overlay with the overall improvements. An overlay would not go a great distance down an adjacent street but it typically goes around the corner. Council President Paine asked how that would impact the regular overlay program and whether it would take resources away from other areas. Mr. Williams did not anticipate that would happen. The City has been seeking a steady source of revenue dedicated to an ongoing, planned, disciplined pavement preservation program. The City is better off now than it was a while ago but has a ways to go. He did not anticipate that the median project or subsequent projects on Highway 99 would have a big impact on the citywide pavement program. The Highway 99 project is funded in the capital program; citywide pavement funds should not be used to supplement capital project costs. Mr. English said the success so far has been via lobbying the State, initially receiving $10 million last year and the administration was able to get $6.5 million added to the Highway 99 effort. It will be necessary to secure additional State funds to implement future stages on Highway 99. Traffic Impact Fees also can be used at some of the intersections where capacity is added. Councilmember Olson referred to letters the Council and City has received regarding the suitability of the community park and athletic complex phase 2 in the Comprehensive Plan. Apparently there had been a LUPA complaint regarding whether this can be sited there. She asked how it affected this project and whether the project was appropriate to continue pursuing. Ms. Feser said Monday's email was the first she'd heard of that. She suggested Mr. Taraday address the former Woodway High School's non- conformance with zoning. The project is listed as a long term project in the CFP and to explore partnering with the school district. She anticipated that project would be highly eligible for grant funding. Councilmember Olson offered to forward the email to Mr. Chave and Mr. Taraday. Council President Paine referred to the ADA projects, commenting it appeared only $100,000 was identified for 2023 and none in later years. She asked if that meant all the ADA improvements would be Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 17 Packet Pg. 58 completed in 2023. Mr. Williams asked if she was referring to the Parks Department conducing an ADA study of parks facilities. Council President Paine answered no, it was the Citywide ADA Transition Plan. Mr. Williams said a transition plan was developed for the transportation system and for most public building. There are things in parks that are not ADA compliant. Council President Paine referred to packet page 223 and page 59, Public Works Citywide ADA Transition Plan. Mr. English advised the plan is due for an update which is planned for 2023. Mr. Williams answered the update would show what things have been done and add new items that have been identified. When the plan was presented several years ago, the cost of citywide ADA upgrade was $146 million. The City is required by law to update the plan. Councilmember Distelhorst referred to packet page 224 or page 60, the Transportation Plan Update, which he assumed was the 6-year TIP update and asked if the update would use the City's Complete Streets Code as a basis. Williams answered yes, the City has made that commitment and it will be part of update to Transportation Plan. Councilmember Olson referred to the Marina Beach Park improvements, relaying her surprise that a Council committee recommended forwarding it to Consent when the Council has discussed prioritizing park improvements in other areas of the City where parks are in bad shape. She appreciated the time and effort that has gone into the grant applications and the concept and it looks lovely, but in many ways, it is already a lovely park. She acknowledged the park needed bathrooms but Mathay Ballinger also needs bathrooms. Those two grants are a match for each other but part of getting the grants is committing to the other $4 million in the project, much of which is recreation amenities, the boat launch, upgrades to the park and it is not all about the marsh estuary. People are concerned with doing those things when the channels leading up to it are not yet determined. She understood the complexities of having a project of this size and selecting a starting point, but she was concerned about the City committing to $4 million in the relatively short term in this area of the City except for the funds directly related to daylighting. Councilmember Olson recommended the City thank RCO and not be beholding to the commitment of those short term dollars that will be spent in this area. The City has been down this road before. She tends to be more cautious about grants, recalling some of the grants the City received for Civic Park did not allow parking in some areas of the park. In the short term it was great to get the $1-2 million in grants toward the purchase, but it prevented providing angle parking for 80 cars on the north and south sides of the park and providing that parking now will cost much more. She was concerned and possibly did not adequately appreciate the grants and what they required due to the commitment to an extraordinary investment in this area of the City when spoken priorities are elsewhere. Ms. Feser was uncertain what Councilmember Olson's question was; whether it was related to the process of accepting grants. Councilmember Olson said she may be only one who wanted to remove this from the CFP or move it further ahead in the timeline so the City was not investing in 2024. Ms. Feser said it has been identified as a project in the CIP. A key point for the Council and a big step in the project is acceptance of the grants and approving the contract for the grants. That was discussed by the Parks & Public Works (PPW) Committee last week and is on the Finance Committee meeting agenda for next month because there was no Finance Committee meeting last week. It will then go to full Council for consideration and approval and authorizing the Mayor to sign the agreements accepting the grants and adhering to the grant conditions. The City Council has the option to turn down the $1 million in grants for the project. The tradeoff would be that quite a bit of time would need to pass before the City sought funds from RCO for the project. The grant process is quite extensive and to be awarded two grants and then turn them down, RCO would remember that. Ms. Feser agreed it was a fair to discuss the PROS Plan and the lens toward equity in the community. She recalled discussion about Civic Park, the amount of park -related capital investment in the Bowl in the last couple decades. A similar discussion is appropriate for Marina Beach Park, whether the City is willing to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 18 Packet Pg. 59 6.2.a invest $4-6 million in yet another project in the downtown area or should those resources be considered for investment east of the Bowl. To the question of whether it should remain in the CIP, she explained the CIP is a planning document; keeping the project in the CIP does not commit the City to spending those funds. Things happen at different points; one of those points will be approving the grant contracts. Councilmember Olson asked whether it was critical to keep the project in the CFP/CIP. Ms. Feser answered the critical points are when the Council makes decisions to move forward with the project in the form of contracts and decision packages allocating funding for those projects. Deputy Parks, Recreation, Cultural and Human Services Director Shannon Burley pointed out the importance of having a project in the CIP in order to apply for grants; removing it from the CIP would have an adverse impact. Ms. Feser agreed, commenting that is why there are some projects in the CFP with no dollars assigned. It is important to identify them as desirable community facilities at some point. She recommended not taking the project out of the CFP/CIP, but there are touchpoints where the Council can decide whether to move the project forward or not. As Chair of the PPW Committee, Councilmember Distelhorst said when the committee discussed this last week, it was pointed out that it had been reviewed by the same committee a year prior when two different Councilmembers were on the committee as well as by the Council on the Consent Agenda in 2020. The PPW felt very confident in the level of review and how many different Councilmembers in different forums at different times have had the opportunity to review the two grants. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked City staff and the directors, especially Mr. Turley for budget. He appreciated the level and tenor of professional discussion and knowledge on all the topics and everyone's responsiveness and work to answer questions for Council, local media and the public. Mr. English relayed the staff recommendation is to approve the project list in both Public Works and Parks documents and authorize the City Attorney to draft an ordinance for final approval at the December 14' Council meeting. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO APPROVE THE PROJECT LIST IN THE PUBLIC WORKS AND PARKS 2022-2027 CFP/CIP DOCUMENTS AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE FOR FINAL APPROVAL FOR THE DECEMBER 14, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Councilmember Olson suggested putting the deletion of page 73 to a vote, relaying she felt strongly that it should be a City parks project. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED TO AMEND TO DELETE PAGE 73. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION CARRIED (5-0), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES. As this was his last Council meeting, Mr. Williams said it had been a pleasure for the last 11'/2 years o work with several different versions of the Edmonds City Council. He enjoyed the work and the process which can be animated and difficult at times with a lot of different opinions, but that is the definition of a good process. He has tried to staff the Council in a way that gets things done eventually. It has been a pleasure, he looked forward to what he would be doing next, will stay in touch and wished everyone the very best. Councilmember Olson thanked Mr. Williams, noting a lot of people in the community may not be aware of what a huge umbrella Public Works is. She thinks very highly of Mr. Williams and the job he has done and Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 19 Packet Pg. 60 6.2.a his aptitude as a manager; his team does a great job for the community which is a testimony to him. She thanked him for everything he has done for the City over the years. Council President Paine commented the imprint of Mr. Williams' work on the City will be recognized for decades. She thanked him for his work, including the wastewater treatment plant and his responsiveness to the community particularly the odor scrubber this past year. It has been a wild two years and being on Council during that time made her appreciate his creativity, flexibility and responsiveness to issues in the community. He and his teams have been very responsive and professional, a credit to the entire Public Works Department. Mr. Williams commented the City was fortunate to have Mr. English. Councilmember L. Johnson thanked Mr. Williams for his service to Edmonds, noting his expertise has helped shaped the City for the better. She personally enjoyed working with him both as a citizen the couple times they engaged, but especially as a Councilmember. He has always been very responsive to her questions even as a new Councilmember who had so much to learn, he never made her feel green and was always extremely respectful and forthright with information. She wished him the best going forward. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she had had a lovely talk with Mr. Williams the other day and she was very excited for him to move forward and eventually retire because they are both under the same retirement plan and she knows how nice it is. She thanked him for all the work he has done, he has been an important part of Edmonds. She enjoyed her discussions with him, regardless of whether they agreed, and she appreciated everything he has done. She told Mr. English he had big shoes to fill for a while and thanked him for stepping up and said she was excited to see a new future in Edmonds. Mayor Nelson said he had the pleasure of working with Mr. Williams first as a Councilmember and later as Mayor. Mr. Williams was in charge of the largest department and budget in the City and has had a profound impact. He is a wonderful advocate for Public Works staff, has explained very complex things in a very understandable way, and has a passion for the job, for Public Works and for helping the community understand how critical it is and the sacrifices that Public Works staff make everyday to keep the community safe. He recognized Mr. Williams' ability to solve whatever problems arise, whether it is a broken main, flooding, or the collapse of something, he has embraced the challenges and done a magnificent job and will be missed. Mr. Williams thanked the Council and Mayor for their comments. He said he may have been in the room when a lot of things got done or a plan developed to get them done, but it takes a lot of dedicated people to keep a city running from an infrastructure standpoint and Edmonds is blessed with wonderful employees throughout Public Works. Mr. English will have the pleasure of leading them and is up to the task and he will be smiling while watching them from a short distance away. ���K�IIJ�[y 11[K� ►� ►� To Councilmember Distelhorst, Councilmember L. Johnson said it has been a pleasure to serve alongside him. As many have noted, he is prepared, passionate, respectful, fully engaged and the true embodiment of a dedicated public servant. Serving with him has challenged her to go further in considering what is possible, to be more informed and to think bigger. Through his example and their many discussions, she has grown as a legislator, citizen, advocate and parent. Councilmember L. Johnson said some of the public comments made last night took her off guard. She is the great niece, granddaughter, daughter, niece and sister of loved ones who served our country, one of who was killed in action and another who sustained permanent injury serving in Afghanistan. She has a deep respect for veterans and their service and was saddened by the use of veterans as pollical fodder and found the reference to spitting on the graves of deceased veterans to be extremely disrespectful. People should be Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 20 Packet Pg. 61 6.2.a able to disagree without being disrespectful and should hold themselves to a higher standard than one that would misuse the memory of veterans. Councilmember Olson thanked Councilmember Distelhorst for his hard work and service over the past two years. Council President Paine said it has been absolutely wonderful working with Councilmember Distelhorst on projects. As Councilmember L. Johnson said, she learned from him how to leap into projects, and to do something when you see something. He has been very responsive to the needs of the community with foresight and thoughtfulness. She appreciated his work and the guideposts and standards he provided; he is respectful, funny and has the right tone for a lot of people. Council President Paine was thankful for all the work done by staff, all the Council's questions and responses that lead to greater appreciation for the work done by the administration on the budget. There are three meetings remaining in 2021, November 23 and December 7 and 14. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember L. Johnson regarding the comments regarding veterans. Both her parents served in WWII, her mother was an officer in the Navy and her father flew in the Air Force, and she also had a nephew who served in the Middle East who is now deceased. She found the public comments offensive because Councilmembers are actually very patriotic. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas thanked Councilmember Distelhorst for his service, commenting she depends on him for his understanding of things. He has been a joy to work with; after serving on Council for 12 years, she has served with a least 20 Councilmembers and Councilmember Distelhorst is in the top 2% of the people she has served with as far as being prepared, ready, understanding the issues, and asking questions. He has been an absolutely fabulous Councilmember and she will miss his calm attitude and approach to the issues. Councilmember Distelhorst thanked the Council for their kind words, relaying it had been his complete and absolute honor to serve along side them and with Mayor Nelson, staff and residents. He is extremely proud of a lot of the work the Council has done, recalling projects he has worked on with Councilmembers from the HASCO agreement with Councilmember Olson to Driving While License Suspended with Council President Paine, the Code of Conduct with Councilmembers L. Johnson and Olson and a number of other projects with Councilmember Fraley-Monillas. It has been his honor through all the ups and downs and he thanked the Council for allowing him to serve the residents of the City. Student Representative Roberts relayed a huge thank you to all the City staff who worked on the budget; he was glad the City was able to continue to take steps toward equity and continue to support the human services division. He relayed a huge thank you to Councilmember Distelhorst for his service, making decisions with the entire community in mind, not just the most vocal. He was grateful Councilmember Distelhorst stood up for the minority that has been unengaged with local politics. He has been an inspiration to many and an example for everyone in the community including himself and he was stoked for what he will do in the future. He thanked Councilmember Distelhorst for standing up for what is right and keeping things real on Council. Representative Roberts thanked Mr. Williams for his service to the City. Public Works is the backbone of the City and he did a wonderful job leading the department. He relayed his congratulations and best of luck in Redmond, noting he couldn't wait to see the positive outcomes of the projects he led this year, especially the new gasifier at the WWTP. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 21 Packet Pg. 62 6.2.a Representative Roberts recalled a few weeks ago now Councilmember-elect Will Chen received racist comments. He found such comments unacceptable but it goes to show that hate and racism is alive and well in Edmonds. As community leaders, we need to do everything we can to fight against this behavior. He encouraged the public to continue wearing masks and get their children vaccinated against COVID. i [ICU EVOI 3KE41130V lu M Biel V Mayor Nelson thanked Mr. Turley and his wonderful finance staff for putting together the budget, for answering Councilmembers and citizens' questions, posting all the updates and amendments and tracking everything with so many moving parts and moving dates. He thanked all City staff for their time answering questions and providing explanations for decision packages. He thanked Council for their work making the budget possible. Mayor Nelson thanked Councilmember Distelhorst for his service, relaying he will miss his passion, recalling when he was appointed, he hit the ground running and has been non-stop to the very end. He appreciated his dedication and looked forward to seeing him involved in the community in some other capacity. He wished him well on his next adventure. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:53 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 17, 2021 Page 22 Packet Pg. 63 6.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/7/2021 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of November 23, 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: 11-23-2021 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 64 6.3.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING DRAFT MINUTES November 23, 2021 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Susan Paine, Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Vivian Olson, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir Susan McLaughlin, Dev. Serv. Director Rob English, Acting Public Works Director Ryan Hauge, Capital Project Manager Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE 1. OATH OF OFFICE/SWEARING CEREMONY FOR COUNCIL POSITION 2 City Clerk Scott Passey advised Councilmember Chen was sworn in earlier today. This is a ceremonial swearing in; he introduced Councilmember Chen's wife, Lisa Chen who administered the Oath of Office to Councilmember Chen. 3. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Fraley-Monillas 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." 4. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely. 5. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. UPON ROLL CALL, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 1 Packet Pg. 65 MOTION CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER CHEN ABSTAINING. 3 t1101 Try mrsillu Iu I OWN V Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, commented on the Edmonds tree ordinance. Edmonds is listed by the GMA as a high capacity transit community on page 178 of today's agenda packet. As such it is a fast- growing community with projected population rising three times faster than metropolitan cities. Single family homes are desperately needed in Edmonds. She pled with the Council for 8 months to allow them to build 3 homes on their 1.2 acres without forcing them to purchase their property twice. They purchased their property, including the trees in 2017. In November 2020, the City halted acceptance of division applications while existing codes were changed requiring much more work from their engineers and arborist. On June 22" d, the City took ownership of their trees with the Edmonds tree ordinance. Now they must purchase their trees again from the City before they are allowed to divide their property and use it for what it is zoned, single family housing. Owners of undeveloped private properties in Edmonds are required to retain 50% of their trees or face a penalty equal to the worth of the timber and carbon footprint of each tree needing removal before they are removed and homes built, $3300 to $12,000 for each tree. 58% tree retention is equivalent to a 70% or more open space requirement on their property and will not let in sunlight or allow possible views. Business and multifamily zoned property owners are to maintain 5% open space. A cap was later placed on the tree penalty that still amounts to $100,000 of governmental taking. Ms. Ferkingstad continued, the Edmonds tree ordinance violates the 5t' and 14r' amendments and takings clause of the United States Constitution, the Washington State Constitution, the Growth Management Act and the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. It is discriminatory and enforced mainly upon undeveloped property owners who wish to build single family homes. COVID-19 has affected everyone and caused additional financial hardship for those needing to sell or divide undeveloped properties in Edmonds, devaluing them by the City's perceived worth of the trees. Before the Council passes any ordinance, City Attorney Taraday should be prepared to publicly affirm that it complies with the constitution and state laws, just as Councilmember Chen swore to do today. Each Councilmember that voted for the tree ordinance also swore to uphold the constitution while taking their oath of office. It is their duty to ensure the laws of the land are being followed in all ordinances that are passed and enforced. She urged the Council to be conscious of the legally of each ordinance and revoke the illegal tree ordinance to save the City the cost of litigation and reparation for damages it has caused. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said tonight's agenda packet page 94 proves that Ordinance 4209 made the following emergency declaration, without an immediate adoption of this interim zoning ordinance, streateries would need to continue to operate under a special event permit. Interim zoning ordinances require a public hearing within 60 days. A public hearing was never held for Ordinance 4209 or for interim zoning Ordinance 4210. He questioned why nothing had been done about those violations of state law. When Councilmember K. Johnson asked about the use of gas heaters in streateries on December 15, 2020, Shane Hope answered that in general gas heaters will not be used due to fire protection concerns with the flames and because few propane heaters are available and that the preferred option would be electric heaters. He urged the Council not to schedule a public hearing on December 7t' for streateries and instead end this unfair situation now. Next, Edmonds City Council has not met in person since August 17th; the ECA has six events scheduled between November 29t' and December 13. He requested the Council end virtual meetings at once. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 2 Packet Pg. 66 6.3.a Mr. Reidy continued, despite trust in City government at wafer-thin levels, Council President Paine made a motion to prevent certain citizens from speaking during the November 16t1i public hearing on the 2022 budget. She said she wanted to make sure to stay focused on getting new voices heard. Her motion was non-sensical, allowing all citizens to speak had no impact whatsoever on the ability of new voices to be heard. He asked whether Council President Paine would be held accountable by her fellow Councilmembers for her conduct. This put Mayor Nelson in a difficult position; as this motion was only minutes old, how did he know who suddenly was not allowed to speak? Did Mayor Nelson have instant, perfect memory recall of all the people who spoke previously? Mayor Nelson did not request a list of names; he simply proceeded as if all was good and he knew what to do. Mr. Reidy questioned why any elected officials would negatively impact citizens' trust by doing what was done on November 16t''. At most the Council saved 36 minutes assuming all 12 people who spoke previously spoke for 3 minutes each. If half those people spoke, Council saved 18 minutes. He questioned whether this hit to citizen confidence was worth saving a few minutes. Earlier during the November 16t' meeting, Council wasted 20 minutes discussing something not contemplated by the City Code. He questioned why that time was not made available to those who want to make public comment and had their hands raised throughout the entire public hearing but were not called on by Mayor Nelson. Janelle Cass, Edmonds, commented there are many things on tonight's agenda that residents and businesses are passionate about. She wished everyone could see one another's faces to see how many are tuning in but perhaps unwilling or unable to speak. She urged the Council to vote to bring City Council meetings back to hybrid which several cities in Snohomish County have been doing for quite some time including Mukilteo, Mountlake Terrace and Mill Creek. Since data has not been provided in past discussions, she offered the most current information: as of 11/16-11/22, the case rate is less than 95/100,000, hospitalization is about 51100,000 and the death rate for the past 7 days is .007/100,000. This is the downward trend and tail end of the curve compared to the week of August 3rd when there were 220 cases/100,000, cases are down 132% from that day. Councilmembers who voted against hybrid have had the privilege of being in crowds for recreation but do not do it for their jobs. For example, Council President Paine attends Kraken hockey matches in person, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas went to Tennessee and visited museums, and Councilmember L. Johnson recently went to California. Assuming they traveled by plane, she questioned what safety measures were used that made them comfortable and whether those could be applied to Council Chambers to allow in -person meetings. She acknowledged the health and safety of City staff was paramount and suggested the Council vote to pay them $4 more per hour on Tuesday evenings for hazard pay, noting if it works for grocery store workers, it should work for City staff. With regard to the streateries, Ms. Cass acknowledged the hard work and creativity that went into permitting, constructing and making the streateries available for restaurants as they recover from the economic devastation of the pandemic. The speed of their erection is a true testament to the Mayor's potential to work with some businesses. However, giving public land to some businesses and not others is not fair, where is the equity? Not only for the restaurants but also the businesses outside the Bowl. While the City should be applauded for the attempt to gather public input, it was another slanted survey on Survey Monkey with only 31/2 questions and no place to add text. Question #4 states all things considered, do you believe that outdoor dining and streateries enhances or detracts from Edmonds? However, all the things to be considered were not listed. She would have included questions like is it okay for the government to give away public real estate? Is it equitable to all businesses? Carolyn Strong, Edmonds, requested the Council repeal the budget. Last Tuesday's budget meeting selectively and inequitably did not allow certain citizens, including herself, due process to weigh in on how the City spends its money and then the Council passed the budget during an illegal meeting on Wednesday. If there are any questions about the multitude of illegalities of last Tuesday and Wednesday's meetings, why wouldn't the government take the side of accountability to the citizens and repeal the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 67 6.3.a budget in order to revisit the process and pass it without questions of legality? In the interest of accountability and transparency to the residents of Edmonds, she encouraged the Council to repeal the budget and give it the due diligence it deserves, allow citizens to give their input and pass it in a legal and transparent manner. In the case that it is then ignored and vetoed, she recommended the person who vetoed the budget take ownership of that fact in front of all the residents Edmonds. Ms. Strong asked the City Council to end the streateries downtown. They are eyesores and long overdue to disappear. Their existence has given inequitable treatment to all businesses and giving away streets as part of free rent program to a select few is unfair and harmful to other businesses, to citizens who pay to use the streets, and those with mobility issues. The charm of Edmonds has turned into the disgrace of shanty town. She questioned why the streateries were still up and what metric was used to justify their existence and justify harming other businesses in their wake. She urged the Council to give Edmonds back its charm and its streets. She also encouraged the Council to return to hybrid meetings; citizens have never been given the criteria for going to Zoom only or returning to hybrid meetings. As with the streateries, arbitrary rulings without metrics, data or science continue to undermine confidence in City government. Several other cities in Snohomish County are engaging citizens in the process of local government by exercising the right of assembly in chambers for citizens and elected officials to partake in open government. Zoom meetings have come with their fair share of disasters; it is time to return to chambers as essential workers to the residents the Council serves. If members of Council can fly all over the country, they can show up in person at Council meetings in Edmonds. She urged the Council to vote to return to hybrid meetings. Denise Cooper, Edmonds, said the streateries should go; restaurants are full and business is booming in Edmonds. The streateries are on public streets and she questioned who would be liable this winter with ice and snow if accidents occur and a car slides and hits a streatery and an injured citizen sues the City. There are parks and beaches for outside dining. Edmonds is not Europe. She urged the Council to consider the citizens and their parking needs. Tamara Nelson, Edmonds, agreed with having meetings return to a live format or at the least a hybrid. She respected that some people may need to protect their health but those who have had the pleasure of leaving Washington have seen that a majority of the country is open, free and maskless. Washington is one of the last holdouts. She recommended looking around and stopping the nonsense. People need to see each other's faces, see how many people are attending meetings, and see their facial expressions. She has not been called upon after raising her hand at meetings and is adept at using the Zoom format. She supported getting rid of the streateries, commenting the cute name has worn off. She did not receive or ask for any support for her business. The streateries use streets and sidewalks that taxpayers pay for. When she walks her dog, she walks through restaurant seating. It is ridiculous, the town is embarrassing. She used to invite fellow boaters to bring their boats and stay in Edmonds; it used to be beautiful with the flowers and now it's plastic and not a friendly area to visit anymore. Restaurants' hardship is over as they are at full capacity and it is unreasonable to allow them to double their floorspace at no additional cost except to pay for their plastic huts. Articles in My Edmonds News indicate a majority of people are sick of the streateries and want them removed. She urged the Council to listen to the citizens of Edmonds. Samuel Briesemeister, Edmonds, representing himself primarily but also for the City's and residents' benefit in proposing three improvements to the City's water system in metering, billing and payments. Adopting the changes he proposed, the City will reduce the hardship on families in the community from large surprise leaks. In addition the City will save water and save money by reducing the scale of leaks, the volume of water that is leaked and reduce the overhead cost of operating the City's water system. He unfortunately experienced a very large leak of approximately 1.3 million gallons that was completely unknown to him on his property; there was no sign whatsoever. He represents a single income household of five and paid $5000 for underground repair of the leak. He was then informed he would get an $8000 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 68 6.3.a water bill which he did not think qualified as a reasonably affordable bill. The very friendly people at the City's water billing office informed him this is the largest bill they have ever seen. Unfortunately, the combined cost for him is $13,000, but the City's water billing system rebate maxes out at $1000 or about 7% of his surprise costs. Mr. Briesemeister explained his neighbors, some of teachers and medical workers, have experienced similar leaks in recent years and seen similarly large bills that imposed real financial hardship on their families as well. The City needs three changes, 1) like the City of Lynnwood, Edmonds needs to replace existing water meters with smart meters to allow for automatic leak detection, noticeably faster than the City's current 60 day meter reading cycle, thereby reducing the amount of water leaked, 2) set up a payment plan so homeowners can manage the surprise, extremely large costs in a manageable way. Lynnwood uses a 10 month, 10% billing increment system, and 3) significantly raise or remove the $1000 limit on leak adjustments in favor of wholesale pricing above monthly average usage per household. None of the neighboring cities have a $1000 limit. These changes will reduce the operating costs of the City's water system as well as reduce hardship on homeowners. Betty Lau, Edmonds, congratulated the Council on a wonderful election and congratulated new Councilmembers including Councilmember Chen. This is the first meeting she has attended and she found the different viewpoints very interesting. She envisioned a great new year and great start to Council business. Deborah Arthur, Edmonds, congratulated Councilmember Chen. Observing that Neil Tibbott had also been elected, she asked why he wasn't sworn in today. She said the Council knows how she feels about the streateries. She relayed a suggestion she heard today about having one-way streets with streateries on one side. She did not like the streateries, thought they should be removed and thought they present a high risk for the City to be sued. She concluded all the electeds have something good about them. She supported Highway 99 and the bowl being wonderful and awesome but she wanted it fair, sweet, nice and understood and she wanted money from all the wealthy people in Edmonds. Laurie Sorenson, Edmonds, a member of the Pilchuck Audubon Society, said she is interested in the outcome of the Edmonds Marsh. Pilchuck Audubon has sponsored a 10-year study of bird habitat and behavior in the marsh area; she was excited to see the number of nesting birds and the number of visiting and migrating birds increase as a result of good planning. With regard to the lack of a revised overall plan for marsh restoration, she referred to the $60,000 budgeted for Windward and wondered about the decision process used to engage them without first having a comprehensive plan in place. She wondered why Council would engage Windward again after they did not complete the terms of their last contract and their findings were not inclusive of the biological restoration of the entire area. The Council has had at least two years since learning WSDOT will not build the ferry terminal, ample time to piece together a workable plan. She cautioned the Council to be advised by scientists and community members and to revise the master plan. Greg Brewer, Edmonds, said the streateries needed to go. They were designed and constructed as temporary structures to help restaurants during indoor dining restrictions and for that, they were a success. He enjoyed and supported outdoor dining but not in plastic shacks on public streets. The streateries are ugly, dangerous and unfair to neighboring businesses. Neighboring businesses have to compete for visibility, parking and access. Restaurant shacks and takeout parking currently dominates street space in the downtown core. Pedestrians strolling through downtown are forced through a gauntlet of diners and wait staff as they occupy both sides of the sidewalk. The structures are clunky and dangerous as cars and pedestrians have limited sightlines when navigating downtown City streets. The streateries served their purpose; now it's time to clean them up and plan for a better, sustainable outdoor dining future not on public streets in plastic shacks. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 69 6.3.a Fred Milani, Edmonds, said according to health experts, COVID-19 is here to stay and is the reality of life moving forward. Continuing to extend the streateries beyond the initial 70 days to the end of 2020, all of 2021 and into 2022 is not necessary and does not make sense. The government has been helping distressed businesses to the tune of billions of dollars and some of Edmonds streatery owners have receive those funds to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet are asking for more from Edmonds. The City inherited downtown Edmonds from previous administrations, some going back decades. The streets have one vehicle lane in each direction and parking spaces for retail, office and restaurants. The sidewalks are also narrow and the location of buildings do not allow that to change. He suggested this sarcastic scenario, why doesn't the City just change the streets in the entire bowl to just one lane each way with no shoulder, no parking and build a much wider sidewalk that would allow restaurants to set up tables in front of their buildings, retail shops to set up tables like the Garment District in LA or the bazaars in the old Middle East and let pedestrians with their dogs and strollers walk through the tables and merchandise, dining customers and servers with trays of food. Mr. Milani continued, the streets would obviously be just for driving, no parking and everyone parks blocks away on residential streets who would then be up in arms about the intrusion into their privacy and ADA requirements that are not met. He questioned if that would result in more people coming to Edmonds, whether anyone enjoyed parking blocks away and maneuvering around tables. He cautioned Edmonds was partway there now with the blocked streets and sidewalks. The time when restaurants were closed or had limited capacity has been over for months; there are currently no limitations on inside dining or seating space, nothing that necessitates street dining. He hoped the Council could see their way straight to demolishing these monstrosities without hesitation. He thanked Councilmembers who reached out to him with their kindness. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, relayed his belief that the public has lost its confidence in the Council process. It was severely tarnished by the procedures the Council undertook in adopting the 2022 budget and that needs to be fixed. On behalf of many citizens of Edmonds, he respectfully requested that the Council add an agenda item so that the Council can discuss in open public session repealing the 2022 budget as a remedy to the apparent improper if not illegal public procedures undertaken in adopting the 2022 budget. Erica (and Jeff) Barnett, Salish Sea Brewing Company, spoke regarding streateries, representing themselves and local businesses downtown. With regard to safety, she said the open air streateries that the City graciously allowed restaurants to put up over the past year allow them to seat individuals who are still not comfortable dining inside but still want to go out and be part of the community. They also allow seating for guests who have not yet had access to the vaccine; many families with young children choose to dine outside in streateries. It is also a place where people can safely meet family and friends they are not comfortable dining with inside. She requested the streateries be extended until June which will allow time to safely take down and remove the streateries and not disrupt and block streets as well as provide safe distancing during the traditional cold and flu season. Ms. Barnett continued, restaurants across the country have been through a lot this past year; streateries have allowed them to provide a sense of community and normalcy when times were anything but normal. They have allowed them to employ up to 25 people in their restaurant, people who pay rent and frequent local businesses. They appreciate that there have been issues with parking and access to other businesses but feel they bring extra sets of eyes and customers walking around and looking in the windows of those shops. Even if they do not purchase at the time they are dining because the businesses are closed, they are more likely to return to make purchases. They are open 7 days/week and their streatery is used every day, often from noon until close at 9 or 10 p.m. Some streateries may not be used as frequently and that is something that could be considered. They wholeheartedly appreciated the effort of Council to put this Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 70 together and allow them the opportunity to recover revenue and asked that the streateries be extended through June to get through the cold and flu season and make arrangement for safe removal. Courtney [no last name given] Edmonds, said she and her husband are young professionals who live in the bowl. Although she often hears negative comments about the streateries, they love them and many of their friends visit them in Edmonds because of the streateries and Walkable Main and the awesome farmers market. The streateries are always busy so a lot of people are enjoying them including some of their friends who are not comfortable dining inside yet. She hoped the streateries would stick around. Rim Benoud-Schmitz, Edmonds, echoed Courtney's comments, explaining she and her husband bought a house in Edmonds a year ago. Prior to that they lived in Mill Creek but would always come to Edmonds because they loved the atmosphere. The streateries have been a big reason why she and her family continue to dine out as they allow them to feel safe and engaged. She also loved Walkable Main Street. For years many of their friends would not come north and they had to go to Seattle; from the steps she has seen Edmonds take, it is a place where people want to come and spend their money. She appreciated the hard work the City was doing. Ricardo Bobadilla, Seattle, Manager, Santa Fe Mexican Grill, said he has been in Edmonds only since the pandemic. It is good to hear the other side of the streateries because most people tell him how great they are, how lively they make things and that they keep the city moving. He agreed with the proposal to extend the streateries to give time to get through the cold and flu season. As a young professional, he has seen a growing wave of young people moving to, visiting or considering moving to Edmonds because of how lively and charming it is, including the streateries. They invested a lot putting up the streateries safely and have not had any problems nor has he heard of any problems with their safety. He suggested more leeway with the streateries and to look for a more permanent solution. Cathy Brewer, Edmonds, said the streateries have done their job successfully as temporary assistance for restaurants during COVID. Restaurants seem to have recovered very well and are prospering. Almost two years later, the streateries are still there, blocking public sidewalks and streets, creating an obstacle and danger for pedestrian, drivers and diners and an eyesore in the charming city. She supported removing them immediately, fearing if they were extended now, restaurants would ask to have them extended again and again because they are very profitable for the restaurants and provide free space for them on public property. She supported the Council returning to in-person/hybrid meetings as the world is opening up, businesses are returning to normal, people are working, shopping and traveling, going about their business and it is past time for Edmonds government to return to normal business with in -person meetings and face-to-face contact. Anyone who feels safer staying home can use Zoom, but others should be allowed to fully participate in their government. She supported returning to government as it was meant to be — in person. Michelle Dotsch, Edmonds, said Edmonds has a common sense decision to make; are we a town where the vast majority of residents use a bicycle to shop, dine, travel to and from work in other cities, go to appointments or school and enjoy being one line of paint away from a state highway full of commerce trucks, tens of thousands of cars and the highest amount of ferry traffic used for transporting goods and services in the entire country? Anyone who travels to or through Westgate on a regular basis by car like she does almost daily notices congestion of drive lanes and turn lanes leading up to the QFC, PCC, Goodwill and ten other stores on the north side heading north on 100th Avenue West. Drivers who travel north toward Westgate on 100' or Edmonds Way pick up their kids from four neighboring schools in the area, commute to/from work, and access Bartell, Key Bank, Chopsticks and other businesses in that area not to mention 81 unit Westgate Station apartment building. There are turn lanes, drive -through lanes, bus stops, 2-way turn lanes, fully congested during school and work hours especially now that pre-COVID Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 71 6.3.a traffic levels have returned and staying healthy means staying away from mass public transportation as advised by the CDC. Ms. Dotsch questioned cutting that access in half, sitting in gridlock trying to get through or just into the parking lot to do grocery shopping. On tonight's agenda is a rejected plan to remove two drive lanes for cars to travel the Westgate corridor on 100th Ave W and the intersection with SR 104. In May 2021 City planners and consultants clearly decided there was a significant negative impact of removing two driving lanes causing longer traffic delays, reducing the intersection from a C to D level of service. A D grade is one level from flunking, which seemed to be a very bad outcome. She urged the Council to keep the drive lanes in Alternative 2. Paying $160,000 per bicyclist based on the bicycle count from Walnut & 9t', the closest intersection to Westgate, is a waste of taxpayer dollars to benefit an elite few. She requested the Council vote to return Council meetings to a hybrid format starting December 7t''. The zip code 98020 has the lowest risk of COVID in Snohomish County according to the Snohomish Health Department. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 09, 2021 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 3. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JOHN TORRES 4. CONFIRMATION OF DIVERSITY COMMISSION APPOINTEES HELM, SHIBAYAMA AND WHITE 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. REQUEST TO EXTEND PERMITTING OF STREATERIES Economic Development & Community Services Director Patrick Doherty advised this is a introduction to the issue in preparation for a more robust presentation at the December 7t' public hearing. Tonight is the first of three touches the Council will have to consider the issue. Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin reviewed: • Background o March 2020: The COVID-19 pandemic placed restrictions on indoor dining o June -august 2020: After initial easing of restrictions in early summer, the Governor tightened restrictions again in August 2020 o August 18, 2020: In response the City announced a temporary ad hoc program by Special Event Permit, starting on August 18, 2020 to allow curbside dining structures, aka "streateries." o December 15, 2020: As winter approached, and in light of continuing waves of COVID-19 and its related restrictions, the City Council passed Ordinance 4209 19 and its related restrictions, the City Council passed Ordinance 4209 as an emergency measure to protect public health and safety and formalized the allowance of streateries on a temporary basis through 12/31/21 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 72 6.3.a Permit Requirements o Streatery permits required restaurant owners to provide: ■ Site plan ■ Dining plan (location of tables, chairs, heaters, etc. ■ Platform construction drawing ■ Elevation sketch ■ Certificate of Insurance (naming City of Edmonds as additional insured with minimum $300,000 personal injury and $100,000 property damage) o Streateries are required to have Traffic Safety Controls, such as barriers, reflective delineators o Permits cost $110, with a $30 renewal fee. o Limited to 20 streatery permits. Streatery Design Standards o Must be located fully or partially adjacent to the business it serves o May not be located in ADA parking stalls, in front of hydrants, or bus stops o Maximum length is two parking stalls o No more than 2 streateries may be adjacent o One single opening, 10' wide, for customer entry o Protected at ends from adjacent vehicle parking by approved barrier o Ten feet from alleys, bus zones, parking zones, commercial loading, etc. o Must be located on an ADA accessible, raised platform flush with the sidewalk unless other ADA accessible outdoor dining is available) o Screening up to 30"; above that views into/out of streatery must be maintained o Tents, canopies, etc., must meet Fire Marshal requirements o Tents & canopies must be open to the air on at least one side o Tents, canopies, awnings, etc., shall be primarily yellow, white, or red. o Fuel burning heaters are not allowed within 3' of fabric, unless approved by Fire Mr. Doherty reviewed: • Streateries Ordinance 4209 o Streateries Ordinance 4209, approved by Council on 12/15/2020 was originally set to sunset as of 12/31/21. o City Council has the authority to extend the Ordinance into 2022 if it chooses. o The COVID 19 pandemic is not over and a winter spike has been forecasted by experts. Council may wish to reconsider the wording in Ordinance 4209 in consideration of continuing streateries : o "...this ordinance should be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety and welfare by staving off restaurant failures and creating program so that Edmonds citizens will have safer places to dine for the remainder of the COVID 19 pandemic." Washington Hospitality Association (WHA) Request o WHA wrote a letter dated 11/5/21 (in packet) to the Mayor and City Council requesting that Edmonds City Council extend the Streateries Ordinance at least through Summer 2022. The letter highlights the following issues: ■ Pandemic has not ended; concerns remain about indoor dining ■ While federal grants/funds have been available, only 44% of WA requests were granted. ■ Worker shortages, rising commodities prices, supply chain issues, and concerns about new COVID waves still hamper restaurants. ■ Restaurants still struggle to recover from the full financial hit. Streateries provide an important option for customers who remain concerned about indoor dining. Consideration of Extending Ordinance — Next Steps o City Council may consider extending the Streateries Ordinance o Public survey has been released, available until 12/6/21 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 73 6.3.a o Public hearing scheduled at December 7th Council meeting o Staff will provide results of public survey, compilation of comments received from public, retailers and restaurateurs, and responses to Council inquiries on 12/7/21 o Council can begin review after public hearing on 12/7/21 and continue consideration until 12/14/21 regular meeting Mr. Doherty encouraged Councilmembers to provide comments, questions and inquiries for staff to follow up on and be prepared to present more information at the December 7' meeting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed her understanding that there was no risk as a result of the streateries, no more risk than if patrons were inside a building and a car crashed into it. Mr. Doherty answered permitting requires traffic barriers, most are water -filled jersey barriers with some sand -filled barrels, which are inspected by building officials to foil impact from a car. He was not aware that anyone had made a judgment of the relative safety of dining indoors versus outdoors, but the City has done its best following examples from other cities to provide a safe outdoor dining space. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas summarized the comments about safety are not an issue. With regard to the public comment that referenced her business trip to Memphis, she reported everyone in Memphis was wearing masks, the main street was closed, there were streateries on both sides, and it was too crowded to get a seat. Leavenworth is also overcrowded with seating in the middle of the road. She understood the difference between the streateries and Main Street access, but many places are doing this across the country. She concluded people are trying to be safe while staying in the middle of the street. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO SUNSET THE STREATERIES AT THE END OF THE YEAR. Councilmember K. Johnson said she agreed with many of speakers and the writers in My Edmonds News who complained about streateries. She knew some people enjoy them, but after two years, they are no longer necessary. They were designed to help restaurants when they were only at 35% capacity, but the Governor has since returned all restaurants to 100% capacity. The streateries were generously extended once and now it is time for them to sunset. Restaurants may benefit from keeping the streateries open, but it is better for the town of Edmonds to return to normal and allow the streets to be used as they were intended for a multitude and variety of businesses. Council President Paine said she was not prepared to make a decision tonight. She has heard from a lot of people; the retailers have very graciously understood the economic pressures felt by the restaurants and a lot of communities have streateries. There have been a lot of good suggestions from the community via email. She suggested the City develop a streateries program that addresses the cost, placement, timing and other aspects. She also did not want to move so quickly that restaurants were hamstrung during the holiday season. She feared that sunsetting streateries tonight restaurants would not have time to make the necessary changes to get the streateries out of the right-of-way, find storage, etc. She preferred a more thought out approach and a program developed by the City if that is what the administration is considering doing. This is the first presentation to Council and she wanted to hear more from the community Councilmember Olson raised a point of clarification, pointing out the sunset date in original ordinance is December 31, 2021. The motion is based on what is already in the code. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to a public comment about her travel, explaining she recently had the opportunity to road trip down the west coast with her daughter. To keep exposure to a minimum, they drove, stayed in detached Airbnb's, did takeout and kept outings outside and in uncrowded areas such as Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 10 Packet Pg. 74 6.3.a the beach. Additionally she made sure to confirm access at each location and prepare for and Zoom into all her meetings. Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, suggesting the Councilmember speak to the motion regarding sunsetting streateries and not a travelogue. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, stating Councilmember K. Johnson was being inappropriate by interrupting Councilmember L. Johnson. Mayor Nelson allowed Councilmember L. Johnson to continue. Councilmember L. Johnson explained as they made their way down the coast, she was relieved to see a similar level of mask wearing and other safety measures in California and Oregon. They noticed streateries in almost every city along the coast. Her favorite was the rainbow streatery on Castro Street in San Francisco. Edmonds is not alone; streateries have saved restaurants up and down the coast, given the public another venue to gather socially while minimizing exposure. She acknowledged they were not perfect and could definitely be improved on, numbers were likely to spike again in the winter, but opportunities to get out and to protect one's mental health were needed. She hoped the City could work together to develop a plan that takes the best of streateries and lessens the negative impacts. It is not in the anyone's best interest to allow the streateries to sunset on December 31 St, just as rates are likely to begin rising. For all the reasons mentioned, she supported Council President Paine's idea of a streateries program. Councilmember Buckshnis said she went to a wedding last week and could not call in. She relayed her concern that Ordinance 4209 regarding streateries never had a public hearing. The Council does not seem to be following requirements for public hearing or allowing people to speak at public hearings. She was on the fence about streateries, suggesting if they were allowed to continue into 2022, the restaurant should be required to be open all the time. In other words, the restaurant cannot be open Wednesday through Sunday. Many of the streateries are vacant, a fact she knows because she is downtown a lot. She has heard more from citizens not wanting streateries than from restaurants who like the streateries. Restaurants are making money from the streateries. Other cities have streateries and she visited them when in Wisconsin and San Diego. Suddenly the Council is presented with this decision when there should have had public hearing a lot time ago. The Council continues to push things through and rush things through like the budget. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order regarding Councilmember Buckshnis' comment. Mayor Nelson said he would be consistent and allow Councilmember Buckshnis to continue her comments. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed she left the National Civil Rights Museum to call in for the Council meeting from the hotel. She saw nothing but outside eateries in the east and it is an important thing in downtown Edmonds. She relayed the Snohomish Health District is not meeting in person and of the 19 cities in Snohomish County, only 3 are meeting in person. COVID is still an issue, people are still wearing masks, being cautious and maintaining distance. Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, requesting Mayor Nelson advise Councilmembers to speak to the motion. Mayor Nelson said he was giving Councilmembers latitude and trying to be consistent. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the point she was trying to make was it is still not safe sit in close proximity to other people. Two friends contracted COVID in the last week and have no idea where they were exposed. It is appropriate to continue the outside streateries for now to continue protection. She Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page I I Packet Pg. 75 6.3.a encouraged Councilmembers to vote against the motion to give citizens an opportunity to talk about this at the public hearing next week. There are a number of factors and some Councilmembers are pandering to those who have assisted them in the past. Mayor Nelson pointed out the next Council meeting is in two weeks. Councilmember Olson observed from the comments that have been made, it appears there is will to go forward with the public hearing next week, but she will focus her comments on why she was ready to vote tonight. She has been thinking about this the entire year but a lot since the March/April/May timeframe when she began to hear vendors, many of them retailers, excited there would be an end to the streateries. Even though the Washington Hospitality Association supports continuing the streateries to assist restaurants, a number of restaurants who pay for their outdoor space find the streateries highly inequitable because they are competing for patrons who prefer outdoor space and instead of visiting their outdoor seating, patrons go to restaurants with streateries that they got for free or for a small amount. Councilmember Olson continued, she voted in favor of the streateries ordinance, not knowing that Walkable Main Street was coming. Walkable Main Street also had negative effects on neighboring businesses, retailers and other businesses on the fringe of the border. There were flaws with the survey regarding Walkable Main Street as well as with the streateries survey. There are good, free resources available through the Economic Development Commission that she wanted the City to use. She feared question #3 on the survey would result in bad feedback, asking people where they would eat if there was not the option of streateries, and not giving the option of restaurants with outdoor dining in the downtown area. When the streateries disappear, those outdoor spaces will still be available in addition to the other options provided on the survey. Using the results of the survey is a problem if not all the information is provided. Councilmember Olson assured the public she cares what they thinks and she wants them to be happy, but this a business district and as a government official whose oath included faithfully and impartially means she and the rest of the Council cannot take actions that unfairly biases an outcome for some over others. That is the reason she would be ready to vote tonight even though the public hearing has not yet been held. Councilmember Chen said as a new Councilmember he felt lucky this was the first topic to arise because he had knowledge of it from driving through the streateries as well as dining in them. Last week when the Council packet came out, he got 66 responses to his Facebook post inquiring about the pros and cons of streateries and he will compile a matrix of the responses. Tonight 19 people commented, but one segment of the population that has not expressed their opinion is the senior citizens; 20% of senior citizens rely on automobiles to get around. During the pandemic, senior citizens suffered the most. In his culture, they take care of the seniors. He wanted to have a public hearing to continue on December 7t' and he encouraged seniors to speak so the Council had an opportunity to hear from them before voting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said if the outside streateries are closed, as a middle aged person, she will go to Lynnwood or Shoreline where it is safe to eat outside as she has no interest in breathing around people in close proximity. She appreciated Councilmember Chen's interest in hearing from people at the public hearing due to the importance of the public understanding what the Council is considering. She supports all the businesses in Edmonds, not just the restaurants. Streateries are a safe place to eat in a safe environment. She recalled inviting a friend to eat outside in downtown Edmonds last October. Councilmember Olson said there is already outside dining in Edmonds, this discussion is about the streateries that occupy parking spaces. All the outside dining referenced in other ordinances and code still exist in downtown Edmonds and other areas of the City. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 12 Packet Pg. 76 6.3.a Councilmember K. Johnson said she felt strongly that she could vote on this tonight. However, after listening to everyone especially the newest Councilmember, Mr. Chen, she would withdraw her motion and proceed with the December 7t' public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Councilmember Buckshnis requested the information for the public hearing include dollar amounts regarding the difference in tax revenue with and without streateries, noting some businesses have submitted information regarding their losses. She relayed hearing that the leases for some non -restaurants tenants in buildings may be impacted by the extra money restaurants are making from the streateries. She also asked for information regarding the number of restaurants open full hours all week. Council President Paine said she submitted questions to Mr. Doherty and Ms. McLaughlin regarding restaurants that have opened or closed and if there were any new vacancies in Edmonds that may be associated with COVID response and the streateries. Councilmember Olson wondered if there was value to also discussing pickup/delivery spaces at the same time as the streateries; that ordinance has lapsed. If the streateries are discontinued, those pickup/delivery spaces might continue but currently there are both and sometimes for all the same restaurants. She suggested that be included in the decision matrix regarding the impact on parking. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Olson, if a restaurant had an outside eatery, they should not also have a 15-minute pickup space. The 15-minute pickup spaces were allowed when restaurants were closed. Councilmember K. Johnson requested Mr. Doherty to compile all the public comments and emails to Council about streateries in next Council packet, most of which are in opposition to extending streateries. She suggested he could contact Maureen Judge to obtain the ones sent to Council. In response to the previous comments, Mr. Doherty said permit requirements do not allow a restaurant to have both a takeout pickup space and a streatery. He approached all the restaurants personally, including one who spoke earlier who chose not to do a streatery because they wanted a takeout pickup space. A restaurant is allowed two spaces for a streatery so theoretically a restaurant could have one space for a streatery and one space for pickup. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. 2. PROJECT UPDATE FOR THE CITYWIDE BICYCLE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Acting Public Works Director Rob English introduced Capital Project Manager Ryan Hague, Pablo Para, PH Consulting, and Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss. He advised staff was seeking action from Council tonight on two items in order to proceed with final project design. Mr. Hague advised staff briefed Councilmember Chen on the project last Friday. He reviewed: • Brief Timeline Reap o City pursued and won a $1.85M Sound Transit grant in September, 2019 for installation of bike lanes at various locations in Edmonds o Design contract was awarded in September 2020 o Intense public interest in the project triggered a public outreach effort including ■ "Listening sessions" held with interested residents in December 2020 ■ Public meeting via Zoom in February 2021 ■ One-on-one meetings with residents as requested Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 13 Packet Pg. 77 6.3.a ■ Online surveys ■ Project email address and website o Public input combined with data to drive design decisions o Project design recommendations were presented to Council May 4, 2021 ■ Questions were raised about the Westgate intersection ■ Additional public meeting was requested - Public meeting held June 2, 2021 o Project Update was presented to PPW Committee September 14, 2021 and Regular meeting September 21, 2021 ■ Additional info was presented on Westgate intersection based on questions asked in May ■ Description and costs were presented for additional pedestrian safety improvements requested by residents and Council Westgate Intersection o Existing Conditions: SR-104 & 100' Ave W o Alternative 1 ■ Adds 1 bike lane in each direction ■ Eliminates 1 through -lane in each direction ■ Adds northbound and southbound right turn lanes o Alternative 2 (staff s recommended alternative) ■ Adds 1 northbound bike lane ■ Adds shared lane markings (sharrows) to southbound through -lane ■ Provides ramps so that southbound cyclists can exit onto the sidewalk, walk through the intersection and re-enter the roadway south of the intersection ■ Maintains current number of through -lanes ■ Travel lanes get slightly narrower Side -by -side Comparison o Impacts to motorists Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Vehicle lanes maintain current width Vehicle lanes get slightly narrower Intersection LOS drops from C to D Intersection LOS stays at C 238' Elm travel time during PM Peak: 238th Elm travel time during PM Peak: No build - 207.2s No build - 207.2s Alternative 1 - 235.3s Alternative 2 - 209.6s Delay - 28.1 s Delay - 2.4s o Queue lengths at Westgate ■ Graphic identifying 50% and 95% queue length northbound and southbound during peak hour Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Extends queues substantially impacting business driveways in both directions Substantially shorter queues, does not impact businesses any more than current o Impacts to Bicyclists Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Completes the bicycle lane network with a Southbound cyclists are required to either direct connection for all cyclists through share a lane with vehicles or exit onto the Westgate sidewalk Increases usability of corridor by cyclists Increased level of traffic stress (LTS) for cyclists who choose to ride through the intersection • Additional Improvements o Public comments indicated residents want additional pedestrian safety improvements Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 14 Packet Pg. 78 6.3.a o Design Team identified four intersections where enhanced pedestrian safety facilities could bring added quality to the project o Design Team also identified one intersection where existing pedestrian facilities could be realigned to streamline vehicle traffic. o None of these improvements were scoped in the original project and they would require additional City funds to install • Alternative 1: 9' & Pine Pedestrian improvements o Intersection experiences significant pedestrian traffic o Flashing beacons and potentially bulbed out curbs would increase safety • Alternative 2: Yost Park Entrance Improvements o Intersection sees significant pedestrian traffic (Yost Park entrance) o Bulbed-out curbs, new parking spots, and minor intersection realignment could slow down vehicles and increase safety • Alternative 3: Bowdoin & Pioneer Pedestrian Improvements o No marked crossings exist for approximately 0.8 miles between Yost Park entrance and Five Corners roundabout o Residents have requested safer crossings in this area, specifically o Possible improvements such as flashing beacons and bulbed-out curbs would increase safety • Alternative 4: 100t1i & 224' Pedestrian Improvements o No marked crosswalks exist for approximately 0.6 mile between Westgate and 220t' St SW o Flashing beacons, crosswalk markings and potentially bulbed-out curbs would increase safety • Alternative 5: Woodway Campus Entrance Improvements o Current configuration has crosswalk north of the intersection. Pedestrians interfere with motorists turning left to go north on 100t' o This requires longer green time to clear queues from high school and consequently more disruptions on 100' o Proposed configuration would mitigate disruptions to traffic on 100t' by moving crosswalk to south side of intersection • Cost of Additional Improvements Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Description Ped Yost Park Ped Ped High Totals Improve Entrance Improve & Improve & School v� & 9/Pine Bowdoin I00t''/224t'' Ent W Consultants $13,500 $17,155 $13,500 $13,500 $7,884 $65,539 U H Const. Contract $33,250 $58,150 $33,250 $33,250 $33,250 $191,150 Mgmt Reserve 10% $3,325 $5,815 $3,325 $3,325 $3,325 $19,115 U Const. Mgmt $5,985 $10,467 $5,985 $5,985 $5,985 $34,407 Cn 1% Art $333 $582 $333 $333 $333 $1,912 z Total Const. $42,893 $75,014 $42,893 $42,893 $42,893 $246,584 U Total Cost Alt $56,393 $92,169 56,93 $56,393 $50,777 $312,123 Running Total 1 $148,561 $204,954 $261,346 $321,123 Remaining Schedule o Design Phase - complete spring 2022 o Construction phase - start in spring 2022 and completed in end of 2022 Staff Recommendation o Provide direction regarding alternatives: ■ Alternative 1 or 2 at Westgate Intersection - Staff recommendation - Alternative 2 o Recommended Additional Pedestrian Safety Improvements Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 15 Packet Pg. 79 6.3.a ■ 9th & Pine ■ Yost Entrance ■ Bowdoin @ Pioneer ■ 100th & 224th ■ Woodway Campus Entrance Councilmember L. Johnson recalled the Council heard a lot from residents about adding sidewalks around the City to increase pedestrian safety, indicating pedestrian safety is of parament important to citizens. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ACCEPT ADDING THE FIVE ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT FROM EXHIBIT 1 TO THE PROJECT AND USE REET REVENUE TO PAY FOR THE EXTRA DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS. Council President Paine spoke in favor of the motion, explaining she used to live in the Westgate neighborhood and it was always treacherous crossing in that area. She knew Bowdoin very well and these improvements are absolutely essential to ensure safe pedestrian experiences in busier neighborhoods. Councilmember Chen referred to the $65,000 design cost and asked if the design could be done inhouse by the City's wonderful engineering team. Mr. English answered based on workload, staff does not have the capacity to do that work inhouse so a consultant will be used to perform the design work to keep to the schedule. The department's 2022 workload is tremendous and will rely on consultants and extra help to get through the next year. Using a consultant is the only option for moving the design phase forward. Councilmember K. Johnson read a memo she sent out earlier today to Council, Mr. English and Mr. Hauss, "The consultant for the Sound Transit bicycle lane project identified five related pedestrian improvement projects. They offered to do the design and construction work for five sidewalk projects to supplement the contract for $312,123. Staff has recommended that we approve the consultant's proposal and pay for it with REET funds. While I appreciate the consultant's work with the community, I do not support the recommendation. Instead I believe their recommendation should be considered in the upcoming update to the City's Transportation Element. The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan has a complete list of all project proposals. They are studied and ranked according to adopted criteria. We can certainly add the Sound Transit sidewalk projects to that list, but we would not give those suggestions a higher priority just because they've been proposed by the Sound Transit bicycle lane consultants. We have many other unfunded sidewalk projects that have been prioritized for completion. I think it would be a mistake to fund these five proposed projects for the consultant to design and construct. First of all, small projects such as these five proposals can be designed by our engineering division. Maybe not in 2022 but that is not to say when these projects would be installed. Secondly, we have a sidewalk crew that is capable of installing these projects. They can do bulbouts, they can do sidewalk improvements. I'm not sure about the flashing beacons but we have spent a lot of money to have them on staff and doing these kinds of projects. We currently have a 2-member sidewalk crew who is a concrete crew and they do bulbouts, all kinds of work involving sidewalks so we do not need to pay the consultant for this work at the cost of $312,123. So in conclusion, thank you very much for identifying these sidewalk projects and I appreciate the work you've done with the community. I promise we can study these when we update our sidewalk list in the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. We can prioritize the suggestions using our adopted criteria and implement them based on their relative priority." Councilmember Olson said she was glad to receive that information from Councilmember K. Johnson to be able to think about it in advance. As someone who walks in the area regularly, she was excited about all the beneficial pedestrian improvements that were identified and gave kudos to the consulting team. In creating safety for bicyclists in this project, there were some impacts on parking and decisions were made Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 16 Packet Pg. 80 to move parking to the other side of the street. That may result in more crossings, making the crosswalks more important to access cars on the other side of street. With regard to the intersection at Yost Park, the second highest priority identified, she agreed that intersection was currently unsafe for cars, pedestrian or bicyclists. Encouraging more bicyclists with the bike lanes without addressing those issues could make that intersection even worse. Although she liked Councilmember K. Johnson's thought process and encouraging Council to look at the big picture, she will support these changes. This team, including Ryan Hauge and the bicycle consultant, have been great to work with. She relayed two citizens contacted her, happy that the team listened and included in the plan ten parking spaces on the access road west of the entrance to Yost pool to replace parking lost on Bowdoin. She asked Mayor Nelson why that was no longer included in the plan and hoped the spaces could be included as part of the bicycle project. Mayor Nelson said he will look into it, but those parking spaces are only used 5% of the time. Councilmember Olson pointed out they are used during big events like birthday parties, pickleball tournaments, etc. Mayor Nelson declined to comment as he believed it was not appropriate. Councilmember Olson said she looked forward to the appropriate time. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to page 45 of the CFP where it shows REET 125, but the amount is $238,919 versus $312,123. She asked which number was correct. Mr. English answered it was a function of timing. The CFP numbers were developed in July; a decision on these improvements was anticipated in September with funding allocated via a third quarter budget amendment. The $238,909 for construction was programmed in 2022 for the five alternates. The amount needed now includes the design effort. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if flashing lights and bulbouts were needed in Alternate 3, noting she has received a lot of comments from citizens who do not like bulbouts. Mr. English answered that would be considered in the design; some of it is the function of geometry and evaluating offsets with travel lanes and bike lanes. Bulbouts are known to provide safer crossings because pedestrians are more visible and it is a shorter distance to cross. There is a balance to designing them so they do not impact turning movements and other vehicular activity. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if both bulbouts and flashing lights were needed. Mr. English answered both were not required; the flashing beacons could be provided if it was determined that bulbouts were not the right solution. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was in favor of the five improvements until she read Councilmember K. Johnson's email. She likes to do things globally and recognized changes needed to be made to the Comprehensive Plan. She asked when the Transportation Element was due. Mr. English answered it is in the budget to start in 2022 but completion will likely align with the overall Comprehensive Plan amendments in 2023. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if waiting for the Transportation Element would result in additional construction costs. Mr. English answered yes, noting he was even concerned about the numbers generated 4-5 months ago and shown tonight given what is happening with inflation and the cost of materials. The intent is to build these improvements in 2022. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if a public hearing was needed to discuss the improvements, relaying residents on Dayton were concerned with the bulbouts. Mr. English answered there has been a very robust public outreach effort. In response to comments that the consultant generated these improvements, he pointed out they were actually the result of public feedback during the public outreach. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed citizens have gloated over fact that these improvements were included. She recommended the CIP numbers be accurate. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented some seem to think the 2-person sidewalk crew can fix everything. She asked how many miles of sidewalks there were in Edmonds. Mr. English answered it is a lot. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out a 2-person sidewalk crew would not be able to fix one area over another. She lives in an area without sidewalks or lighting except for the sidewalk on 76t''. It is Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 17 Packet Pg. 81 6.3.a unrealistic to talk about the sidewalk crew that can only work 3-4 months of the year due to weather. Mr. English said they work longer than that; they work on dry, cold days but obviously are not working when it is raining. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas summarized depending on the 2-person sidewalk crew for this huge City is probably not the best option. Council President Paine said she was excited about the sidewalk projects getting underway and the sooner the better. She like bulbouts, but did not like the flashing lights as much. These improvements are a great way to go to improve sidewalks and walking paths throughout the City. It is important to have these amenities along bike lanes and she would love to see them included in the CIP for 2022. Councilmember Olson said she did not like bulbouts, but saw their value at the Yost Park entrance intersection. She recommended minimizing bulbouts except for that one place where they do add value. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested people visit 76' where there are bulbouts and flashing lights due to traffic speeds. Bulbouts slow traffic and the flashing lights allow vehicles to stop for people crossing the street. She acknowledged it may depend on how busy an area is. Councilmember K. Johnson said if bulbouts are along bicycle routes, consideration needed to be given to whether they are impeding bicyclists because they should not be weaving in and out of traffic and should have a straight shot on their bicycle route. Councilmember Chen said his personal experience with bulbouts and flashing lights is they direct drivers' attention and slow traffic. As he doorbelled in the City, traffic was residents' number one concern. These five projects are a drop in the bucket and that effort needs to continue. He expressed support for the five projects. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, FRALEY- MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Mr. English requested Council provide direction regarding the Westgate intersection. Staff s recommendation is Alternative 2. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO ACCEPT ALTERNATIVE 1 OF THE BIKE LANE SOUND TRANSIT PROJECT. Council President Paine relayed her strong preference for Alternative 1 which she realized went against the staff recommendation. She appreciated all the work that has been done and the process, but wanted to ensure safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. Having traffic delayed by a few seconds at that intersection is a courtesy that can be given to bicyclists. She was hesitant to use sharrows which are not technically a part of bicycle markings. She wanted to ensure the City was doing the most efficient and safest thing for bicycles by having both a north and south bound path. Councilmember L. Johnson said the City is undertaking this project to encourage more biking and to improve safety and as has been acknowledged, bike lanes are considerably safer than sharrows. While she appreciated all the work that has been done, she had a strong preference for Alternative 1. The few seconds delay for a few hours of the day is an acceptable tradeoff for having the other half of the road be just as safe. If the City is doing this project, she wanted to do it right and have safety coming and going. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about the major differences between Alternatives 1 and 2. Mr. English answered Alternative 1 provides a bike lane in both directions but it removes a travel lane in each direction, leaving only a through lane. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 18 Packet Pg. 82 6.3.a Councilmember Olson said the Council just thanked staff for listening to the public. She attended all the sessions and the public did not support Alternative 1. There are already annoying delays at that intersection, longer than people want to have and another 28 seconds will be noticeable. She recalled a previous presentation about the bike lanes where Alternate 3 included all sharrows and would rather consider that option over Alternative 1. She preferred to make the compromise of a 2.4 second delay in Alternative 2. She suggested the Westgate intersection be considered for improvement if the City received any infrastructure funds. Alternative 1 puts 12 pounds of sausage in an 8 pound casing which doesn't work. She preferred to put the 12 pound sausage in the 11 pound casing with Alternative 2 and hope that the City gets infrastructure money to deal with the bigger problem later. Councilmember Buckshnis did not support Alternative 1 as she did not want to degrade a major intersection from a level of service (LOS) C to D and the public was never told that drive lanes would eliminated. She agreed with staff s recommendation, recognizing that that alternative had been well thought out. There are not a large number of bicyclists that ride in this area but that could increase if society changes its use of vehicle and bicycles. This is a major intersection and she did not want it to be degraded just to facilitate bike lane enthusiasts. Councilmember Chen referred to packet page 121, the side -by -side comparison of the length of wait time, and asked about the confidence level in the models. Mr. Para answered the models were developed during COVID so there is a bit of a conservative estimation. A lot of the data was collected during the pandemic, but pre -pandemic data as well as regional models developed pre -pandemic provided another data set to collaborate the model. They applied industry standards for transportation modeling of the intersections. He had a high level of confidence in the data provided in the report. As with any traffic analysis, the further out, the lower the level of confidence is as trends change. Councilmember Chen said given that information, he did not support taking away one travel lane when the majority of people rely on automobiles. It will create lengthy backups that block traffic to businesses in the area creating inconveniences for shoppers, people going to the ferry, etc. He joked that a 28 second delay could cause someone to miss the ferry. Based on information provided and his personal experience, he supported the staff recommendation of Alternative 2. Mayor Nelson pointed out ferry riders would not be traveling in that direction unless they were cutting into the ferry lane. Councilmember L. Johnson clarified in Alternative 1, the through/right turn will be right turn only. Mr. English referenced a diagram of the existing condition at the Westgate intersection, explaining in the northbound direction there is a dedicated left, dedicated through and a combination through/right. In the southbound direction, there is a dedicated left, dedicated through and a combo right/through. Councilmember L. Johnson observed Alternative 1 would have a dedicated left, dedicated through and dedicated right. Mr. English agreed. Councilmember L. Johnson pointed out Alternative 1 increased the travel time by 26 seconds. She asked the hours represented by the peak. Mr. Para answered the increase in travel time is based on the PM peak hour. Councilmember L. Johnson summarized for one hour/day, there would be a 26 second increase but that would allow dedicated bike lanes in both directions. She preferred to put bicycle safety over a 26 second 1 hour/day delay, commenting that was a no-brainer; dedicated bike lanes in both directions versus a 26 second delay for 1 hour/day. If the City is doing this project, it should be done right. By accepting this grant the City is saying it needs bike lanes and wants to increase the number of people using alternative transportation, yet some are stuck on 26 seconds for one hour of the day. It will be a real loss if the Council does not approve Alternative 1 and does not prioritize the safety of bodies. She referred to the analogy to a sausage made earlier, pointing this was about protecting bodies on the road. She will wait 26 seconds every hour of the day to provide a bike lane so people can travel the safest way possible. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 19 Packet Pg. 83 6.3.a Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember L. Johnson about 26 seconds, and asked how much time is worth saving a life? She expressed support for the motion. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND TO ADOPT ALTERNATIVE 2. Councilmember K. Johnson commented if anyone was concerned about their safety, they can dismount and walk across. This is one of most dangerous, accident prone intersections in the City, it is a highway of statewide significance with logging trucks and all kinds of vehicles coming off the ferry using SR-104. As a former bicyclist or observing someone on a bike, she would be very concerned if they used a dedicated bike lane juxtaposed between a right turn lane and another lane. She pointed out a 26 second delay is the difference between LOS C and D which she did not find acceptable for motor vehicles which is the primary mode of traffic at that intersection. There are two classes of bicyclists, professionals who can ride in any traffic lane and a sharrow is no problem for them, but everyone else needs to take a safer approach and perhaps dismount. She was more concerned about the safety of bicyclists traveling in traffic because they have no protection against a 2,000 pound vehicle and motorist are not used to seeing bicyclists in travel lanes in Edmonds. For those reasons, she supported staff and the consultant's recommendation for Alternative 2. Councilmember Chen said his earlier reference to the ferry was people driving northbound on 100t' and turning left to the ferry. Mayor Nelson said he stood corrected. Councilmember Chen agreed with Councilmember K. Johnson that unskilled cyclists should dismount onto the sidewalk and across the street. As a cyclist with 24 years' of experience, he would just ride through the intersection. Council President Paine did not support the motion as she continued to support Alternative 1 for the following reasons: bicyclists are legal vehicles and have as much right to the road, safety is everyone's responsibility including those driving cars, and people would happily tolerate a 26 second delay for one hour in the afternoon to ensure safe passage for bicycles. She summarized even without bike lanes, drivers need to be safe around bicycles and bicyclists are legal vehicles on the road. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was amazed the Council was fussing about bike lanes at the Westgate corner of Edmonds Way & 100t' when people are cutting across 7 lanes of traffic on Highway 99 where crosswalks are nearly a mile apart. The issues in neighborhoods along Highway 99 face will continue regardless of whether she is on the Council. Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, suggesting Councilmembers speak to the motion. Mayor Nelson commented Councilmembers often use examples of something else to contrast and compare. He was giving all Councilmembers the same latitude in debating the issue. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she expected nothing less from the people who objected to her statement. Highway 99 is 7 lanes versus a couple lanes at 100t' & Edmonds Way. If bike lanes are put in, they should be the safest ones north and south along that corridor. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS CALLED THE QUESTION. UPON ROLL CALL, VOTE TO CALL THE QUESTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, FRALEY- MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE AND COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION [TO APPROVE ALTERNATIVE 21 CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 20 Packet Pg. 84 COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO. If the Council approved Alternative 2, Councilmember Buckshnis asked, what motion was on the table. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas answered the Council still needed to vote on the motion. Councilmember L. Johnson pointed out earlier discussion about losing a lane of traffic is a mischaracterization; one lane of traffic becomes a right turn only. Earlier discussion also stated bicyclists would only need to dismount at the intersection, however, according to what she was reading, it was approximately a block before and after the intersection. She suggested information be stated correctly, it not just the intersection but leading up to and exiting the intersection. Councilmember Olson said if corrections were being made, another correction was the delay is 28.1 seconds instead of 26 seconds which was stated incorrectly 6 times. One of the big reason for adding bike lanes is the big picture environment which she supports 100% and having cars idle at the intersection that long is counterproductive. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out although bicycles are legal vehicles, they do not travel 24/7 or in inclement weather like snow. Alternative 1 would degrade this very important intersection from LOS C to D. She reiterated her support for Alternative 2, the staff recommendation. Mayor Nelson restated the motion as amended: AUTHORIZE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, ALTERNATIVE 2. City Clerk Scott Passey said the amendment to approve Alternative 2 was a completely different solution which should have been treated as a substitute motion. Since it was treated a quasi -amendment, the Council was technically voting on Alternative 2 again. Since the Council had already voted on Alternative 2, it is not necessary to vote again. 3. 76TH AVE OVERLAY PROJECT - PROPOSED NORTHBOUND BIKE LANE Capital Project Manager Ryan Hague. Mr. Hauge reviewed: • Project Introduction & Background o City pursued and won a $645K PSRC grant in 2018 for overlay of 76th Ave W from 196th St SW to Perrinville ■ Design funds became available in 2021 ■ Construction funds are available in 2022 o Project is a collaboration with City of Lynnwood o Design contract was approved in April, 2021. o City of Edmonds staff, following City's Complete Streets Ordinance #3842, identified an opportunity to add a northbound bicycle lane by eliminating parking on the west side of the road throughout much of the corridor. o Parking surveys confirmed very limited parking demand on the west side of 76t' south of Perrinville and heavy parking demand in Perrinville o City of Lynnwood concurs with the addition of a northbound bike lane and it is consistent with their draft Active Transportation Plan o New bike lane would end at south end of Perrinville o Residents were notified and negative feedback was limited to only one resident • Area Map • Parking Survey Data o Parking counts were performed morning and afternoon on the following dates: ■ Monday, Aug 30 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 21 Packet Pg. 85 6.3.a ■ Wednesday, Sep 1 ■ Thursday, Sep 2 ■ Sunday, Sep 5 o Zone 1: 195th to 194th East Total Stalls 4 Average Usage 0.1 Max Usage 1 o Zone 2: 194 h to 193rd West East Total Stalls 12 7 Average Usage 1.1 1.3 Max Usage 2 2 o Zone 3: 193`d to 191st West East Total Stalls 12 12 Average Usage 0.4 0.3 Max Usage 2 2 o Zone 4: 19151 to 190' West East Total Stalls 15 9 Average Usage 0 0.1 Max Usage 0 1 o Zone 5: 190'h to Perrinville West East Total Stalls 52 28 Average Usage 0 4.1 Max Usage 0 6 o Zone 6: Perrinville West East Total Stalls: 27 28 Average Usage 16.3 9.5 Max Usage 23 12 Existing Section 0 76' Ave South of Perrinville ■ Parking on both sides ■ Southbound bike lane on left side ■ Two travel lanes 0 76' Ave in Perrinville (no change) ■ Parking on both sides ■ 6' bike lane ■ Two travel lanes Proposed Section o 76' Ave South of Perrinville ■ 6' foot bike lane on Lynnwood side ■ Buffer between bike lane and parking ■ Two travel lanes ■ 5' bike lane on Edmonds side Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 22 Packet Pg. 86 6.3.a Mr. Hauge relayed information received from outgoing Councilmember Distelhorst that the buffer should be between the bike lane and the parked vehicle lane. After researching the data, staff agrees with that design guidance. He continued his presentation: • Paving Project Schedule o Design phase ■ Complete in Winter, 2021-22 o Construction phase ■ Start in Spring, 2022 and complete by end of Summer, 2022. Striping to occur in mid - Summer ■ Preliminary Construction Estimate = $1,066,799 - $579,216 - Edmonds (more ramps than Lynnwood section) - $487,583 -Lynnwood Mr. English said staff's recommendation is to add the northbound bike lane. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO ADD A NORTHBOUND BIKE LANE. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with having the buffer between the bike lane and the parking. She pointed out Lynnwood was getting a bike lane and Edmonds was paying $100,000 more than Lynnwood. Mr. Hague answered this is a paving project, not a bike lane project; the additional cost is due to paving. Mr. English said there are more ramps, more pavement work related to access roads, and some storm drainage work on the Edmonds side. Councilmember Chen asked if there had been a public hearing on the project and if not, was one needed. Mr. English said there had not been a public hearing on this project. Councilmember K. Johnson asked why the bike lane on the Edmonds side was 5 feet and the bike lane in Lynnwood was 6 feet. Mr. Hague answered a 5-foot bike lane is standard against a curb and a 6-foot bike lane is standard against parked vehicles. Councilmember L. Johnson commented the discussion is regarding a Lynnwood side and an Edmonds side but bicyclist are not concerned about that. This was not giving anything to Lynnwood; it was providing bike lanes for Edmonds and Lynnwood so it was a win -win for both cities. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSAL AS CHANGED TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OF THE BIKE LANES. With regard to Councilmember Chen's question about a public hearing, Councilmember Olson said she was pleased to learn that postcards were sent to residents and that residents were happy with the proposed change. This is a main road to Edmonds College that has students of all ages and she was happy to have the bike lanes. Knowing that residents had an opportunity to weigh in, she was satisfied with proceeding without a public hearing. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented this is a great project and will help the people who live in Edmonds. She encouraged the Council to support this project. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO EXTEND TO 10:15. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 23 Packet Pg. 87 6.3.a 4. COUNCIL VOTE TO RETURN MEETINGS TO VIRTUAL PLATFORM IN LIEU OF IN - PERSON MEETING Council President Paine explained this is a discussion about returning to in -person, remaining virtual or considering a hybrid. She asked staff to speak to technology issues in Council Chambers related to a hybrid model. GIS Analyst Dave Rohde recalled the Council held hybrid meetings for 3-4 weeks in the past. Staff was able to create an environment where the public, Councilmembers and staff could participate via Zoom. It was possible in a pinch but long term it may not be the most stable or consistent platform. Staff could explore options for a more permanent solution if that decision was made. If the decision was to temporarily hold hybrid meeting for a couple months, staff could support that knowing everyone is flexible. It depends on the vision for future Council meetings. Council President Paine asked the estimated cost of a successful hybrid solution. Mr. Rohde answered it was potentially a few thousand to $10,000-$20,000 at the high end depending on whether consumer grade products continue to be used versus professional grade where AV professionals install a system. He said the cost is the least of the worries, the issue is determining the Council's long term decision and what will be the most reliable with the least interruptions. Councilmember Olson commented if there was one small bit of lemonade out of the pandemic saga, it is that the hybrid platform includes more people. There are people who want to attend in person, but there are people who are busy with kids at home, have mobility issues or who are ill but still have something to say who would rather participate virtually. She was excited to continue with a hybrid model and although she wanted to be up and running as soon as possible, she recognized it was important to invest in the right technology to provide a good, stable platform for hybrid meetings going forward. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented public health is not going back yet, and this discussion is about doing it for a reason. She suggested Councilmembers all return in person and the public participate via Zoom, although she noted it was not a very safe position. Councilmember Buckshnis said she has always supported a hybrid meeting format and supported in - person meetings. She recalled Councilmember Fraley-Monillas saying previously that she was not comfortable returning to in -person meetings and there may be people who are not feeling well and prefer to stay home. She supported returning to in -person meetings, noting citizens are upset their voices are not being heard and that their faces cannot be seen because a person Is face says a lot. She supported investing in the technology required for hybrid meetings, noting a lot of other cities and organizations thorough the United States are holding hybrid meetings. Councilmember K. Johnson said she supports hybrid meetings because that allows people to opt in or out depending on their level of comfort. She suggested looking at what other cities doing, relaying that the City of Port Townsend uses a hybrid model and are able to view the public which is missing from Edmonds' meetings. The Council receives a lot of public comments, but the Council cannot see the speakers and it would be nice to have them in the gallery along with the Council. She suggested looking into technology that would accommodate that. Councilmember L. Johnson said Snohomish County's rates for the last two weeks were 352 cases/100,000 population, the same rate as last winter when everyone was extremely concerned and with winter approaching, the expectation is for something similar. The rates this summer when the Council voted to return to in -person meetings were 68/100,000. As of yesterday, there are 3,652 confirmed cases in Edmonds; 3,370 have recovered though some still struggle with the challenging effects of long haulers syndrome. Returning in -person impacts staff and everyone has a different story at home related to who they are trying to protect. She agreed with setting up the technology to allow for hybrid meetings, but the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 24 Packet Pg. 88 6.3.a only hybrid option she would support would be if Council attended in -person because it would be a more controlled environment with adequate spacing, possibly verifying vaccination status, and requiring masks. In that scenario, the public would attend via Zoom. That was the most she was willing to ask staff to accept at this point. That would allow Councilmembers to know who would be present each week and their status, versus not knowing who from the public will attend and what their status is. She was not interested in a hybrid option that had no assurances about who would be present or their vaccination status due to the difficulty with enforcing mask mandates. Council President Paine said she was not in favor of returning in -person but did support beginning the process to identify technology solutions for a hybrid model and suggested that could be undertaken in the first quarter of 2022. As Councilmember L. Johnson mentioned, having Council in -person and staff making presentation in Council Chambers and the public participating via Zoom, is being done by Mountlake Terrace. The numbers are not going down fast enough to ensure in -person meetings would be following public health guidelines and regardless of vaccination status, breakthrough cases are happening more and more frequently. She summarized a hybrid solution is important for the community and will require having the right technology in place and functioning which may take a few more months. She recalled the last time Council was in -person in Chambers, the microphones didn't work well and another time a computer went to sleep resulting in a 45 minute delay. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said for now if all Councilmembers came back other than an occasional illness, having the Council in -person is a good thing. Having citizens participate via Zoom is safer for them and safer for the Council. She has been deeply involved with public health for the last 11 years and today they were talking about the potential for more cases as more activities move indoors. Three of the 19 cities in Snohomish County have returned to in -person meetings; the health district has not returned in - person. She questioned the wisdom of returning to in -person meetings due to pressure from some individuals. She preferred to continue to have the public attend via Zoom. Councilmember Chen asked whether the Council could, 1) require citizens to wear masks, and 2) require proof of vaccination to be present to provide comment. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said there are probably differences of opinion; the legal guidance on that question is not as clear as he would like. In the past he has provided conservative advice that the Council not limit who can attend in -person Council meetings. The Governor's proclamation regarding that issue is not crystal clear so lacking clarity, he cannot assure that there would not be litigation from placing that requirement on attendance at a public meeting. He has heard through the grapevine that other cities are doing that; he heard that Mountlake Terrace was doing something he did not know was legal. He summarized he did not know if it was legal to require masks and proof of vaccination. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Taraday said sometime the guidance provided is not very clear. The law is a year old and there have not been any cases interpreting it so every lawyer has their own spin on what the Governor's proclamation means. He has erred on the side of caution in his advice so the City did not have a lawsuit. Knowing there are cities doing it, Councilmember Olson said she would assume there was a legal way to do it. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO ADD AN IN -PERSON OPTION TO THE VIRTUAL OPTION AND IMPLEMENT IT AT THE START OF THE NEW CALENDAR YEAR TO GIVE THE STAFF AND LAWYER TIME TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THAT. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 25 Packet Pg. 89 COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AMEND TO HAVE COUNCILMEMBERS GO BACK IN -PERSON AND COMMENTERS AND ATTENDEES WILL ALL BE DONE VIRTUALLY THROUGH ZOOM. Since the intent was to have this begin at the first of the year, Councilmember Buckshnis suggested letting citizens and Councilmembers decide if they want to attend in -person or not. She preferred to figure out a hybrid option in January. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said citizens want Council to return in -person in Chambers and she did not understand why any Councilmember would object to doing that. The more controversial issue is whether citizens are allowed to only attend via Zoom. In her professional opinion that was safer for them and the Council. Mayor Nelson referred to the issue of whether it was legal to have a meeting where the Council meets in - person but public cannot attend. Mr. Taraday advised the Council has to at least provide a phone line, there does not have to be Zoom or video, for people to call in and that includes Councilmembers. He did not think Councilmembers could be required to attend in -person as long as the Governor's proclamation is in effect. Councilmember L. Johnson said she was asking to create an environment where Councilmembers feel safe enough and comfortable to come back, an environment that is predictable, that staff knows what they are getting into. She did not want to force Councilmembers to return in person, but if an environment was created that was as safe and as predictable as possible and provided plenty of space, the Council should be able to return and do the people's business. Other scenarios are unpredictable and change from week to week which she was not comfortable with. The intent of the amendment is to provide an atmosphere where everyone knows what they are getting themselves into. It sounds like everyone is interested in researching a hybrid model so if this amendment fails, she will make another one. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember L. Johnson that that was the safest way to move forward. If Edmonds was the in the minority in Snohomish County returning to in -person meetings, she would not find it so objectionable, but only 3 of 19 cities in Snohomish County are meeting in person. She summarized having Council come back and having citizens online is a good start. Councilmember K. Johnson did not support the amendment. Council President Paine said she wanted to have a good hybrid option for the community. She did not think the Council was ready to come back yet, the numbers are still too high, breakthrough cases are happening too often and she agreed with Mr. Taraday. The format has to be safe for everyone including ensuring people do not contract a disease while in Council Chambers. She supported getting the right equipment in place but was not ready to return in person. Mr. Taraday referred to the Governor's proclamation, explaining four things need to be satisfied to have an in -person meeting but the one that pertains the most to this discussion is number 2, "Any person wishing to attend in person a public meeting with an in person component must be able to do so at a physical location meeting the requirements herein either in a primary meeting location or an overflow physical location that provides the ability for all persons attending the meeting to hear each other at the same time." He did not think the Council Chambers could be opened to just electeds and not have the public present. Councilmember Olson reminded the motion was for implementation of hybrid meetings for the first meeting in January which provides time to develop technology as well as time for people to get boosters. Some of the breakthrough cases are due to people being six months out from their original vaccinations. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 26 Packet Pg. 90 6.3.a She anticipated the numbers will turn around and if something drastic happens between now and January, a change can be made. She summarized the first meeting in January was a good target date. Councilmember L. Johnson amended her amendment: REMOVE THE PORTION ABOUT JUST THE COUNCIL COMING BACK, AND START THE PROCESS OF WORKING THE TECHNOLOGY OUT AND REVISIT THIS AT THE FIRST MEETING OF THE YEAR ONCE THE TECHNOLOGY IS IN PLACE WHEN WE CAN REVIEW WHERE THE NUMBERS ARE AT AND MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION AT THAT POINT ONCE WE KNOW WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY AND ARE AT LEAST STARTING TO GET A WINDOW INTO WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE FALLOUT OF THE HOLIDAY SEASON AND PEOPLE GETTING TOGETHER AND WHETHER THERE WILL BE A SPIKE IN THE NUMBERS. Mayor Nelson restated the motion: REVISIT THE ISSUE JANUARY 1ST WITH THE IDEA OF EVENTUALLY GOING BACK TO A HYBRID MODEL AND BETWEEN NOW AND THEN RESEARCH THE TECHNOLOGY TO ENABLE HYBRID MEETINGS. Mr. Rohde said a temporary hybrid could be set up in month with no problem. Mayor Nelson said the intent is a permanent, reliable hybrid solution. Mr. Rohde said it took him five months to hire a computer tech specialist, it will take an unknown amount of time to hire someone for this. It depends on the level of liability the Council wants; if the intent is no issues and things solved immediately when they happen, that will require someone to be onsite which will be a long term situation and be more difficult to fill. The temporary situation like was done a few months ago could be taken care of in a month. Mayor Nelson said the interest is considering what this will look like long term such as costs, staffing needs, etc. Mr. Rohde advised ideas could be developed in a month but implementation would take some time. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said just because someone had two vaccinations and a booster did not mean they would not get COVID. People with boosters are still having breakthrough COVID cases. Council President Paine expressed total support for getting information and the requirements for a long term for a hybrid model because that direction is important for the City. COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND TO 10:45. MOTION CARRIED (5-1-1), COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO AND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON ABSTAINING. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was not in support of the revised motion but wanted to comment on the main motion. Councilmember Olson expressed support for the amendment, but also wanted to vote on the main motion. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS CALLED QUESTION. VOTE TO CALL THE QUESTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember L. Johnson restated the amendment: RESEARCH THE TECHNOLOGY, GET ALL THAT INFORMATION AND COME BACK AT THE FIRST OF THE YEAR WITH THAT INFORMATION IN HAND AND DECIDE WHAT WE WANT TO DO FROM THERE. BY THEN WE'LL START TO GET THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT INFORMATION AT THE SAME TIME SO WE CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. Councilmember L. Johnson restated the motion again: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 27 Packet Pg. 91 6.3.a TO START THE PROCESS OF RESEARCHING WHAT OUR OPTIONS ARE FOR A HYBRID, WHAT COST AND COME BACK WITH THAT INFORMATION AT THE FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY AND WEIGH THAT WITH THE INFORMATION COMING IN FROM SNOHOMISH COUNTY HEALTH AND MAKE THE DECISION ABOUT WHAT WE WANT TO DO AT THAT POINT. Councilmember Chen observed that was another entire month. Mayor Nelson said the intent would be to continue meeting virtually and revisit this in January. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented Councilmember Chen may not be aware the Council is not meeting the lasts two weeks of December. Mayor Nelson advised the Council has two more meetings scheduled, December 7' and 14' UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, FRALEY- MONILLAS, L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING NO. Mayor Nelson advised the main motion was now irrelevant. 9. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Chen read a statement, "Friends and neighbors, tonight you make history by electing a first generation Chinese American, a naturalized citizen, to Edmonds City Council. You show the world that Edmonds is an open and welcoming community. I am humbled by your support and honored to have your trust. I look forward to representing you on the Council. As always, I will do my best to balance my deeds and decisions and look out for the best interest of Edmonds as a whole, not just part of the City. I want to thank my family, friends, volunteers, campaign team supporters and the countless members of the community who stood by my side during the last ten months of the campaign. This election victory is not about me, but making sure everyone has a voice. I'm committed to working for Edmonds and hope that in time..." Councilmember Fraley-Monillas interrupted with a point of order, stating it was not legal to talk about campaign stuff on City airwaves. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered there was no campaign; the filing deadline is about 18 months away. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether Councilmember Chen could thank those who helped him get elected Mr. Taraday reiterated there is no campaign pending right now. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas apologized to Councilmember Chen. Councilmember Chen continued, "I also want to thank my opponent, Janelle Cass, for conceding with honor and dignity. You and your supporters have run a very successful campaign and the election results reflect your hard work. Although we have some differences in political views and policies, I truly believe that we can be united by our common love of our city. I look forward to working with our mayor, city staff, my council colleagues and most important, you, the people of Edmonds, to ensure that our community continues to be the best city for all who choose to live and work here. From the bottom of my heart, thank you Edmonds." Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 28 Packet Pg. 92 6.3.a Councilmember L. Johnson gave a warm welcome to Councilmember Chen. She encouraged everyone to use caution if/when gathering with friends and family during the coming days. There are a number of things people can do besides avoiding it all together including purchasing self -tests, getting tested ahead of time, choosing to wear masks, etc. She urged everyone to used caution, anticipating the coming months will be rough. Councilmember Buckshnis welcomed Councilmember Chen and said she was happy to have another finance person on the Council for the next four years. She thanked everyone who contacted her last week, explaining there are many things going on and many questions about the Open Public Meeting Act, the timing, postings, the adjournment procedures, etc. A former auditor, she contacted the state auditor's office and they will likely include any issues during their audit in 2022. Councilmember Olson has obtained information from MSRC. If any improprieties are found, rather than repealing the budget, it will be reopened. The investigation will continue as there are two meetings remaining in 2021. She advised this was not a threat but factual information. She expressed appreciation for citizens who have been working tirelessly to provide RCWs, information about adjournment procedures, etc. She wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving, be safe and enjoy their family. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the budget process is important and electeds not participating in it over time is an issue. The budget is one of the foremost basic things the Council does and not participating it as a point of rebellion because they did not get their way was inappropriate. There was a good budget process with a number of public meetings. Unfortunately, 80% of the comments at public meetings were regarding the process and not what they wanted to see in the budget. She commented the auditor's office was receiving a full understanding of what's been occurring. She wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. Councilmember Olson reminded of a significant, emotional event; in 2016 Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell denied President Obama the opportunity to fill a supreme court vacancy that occurred during his term. This moved this important, right duty to another president whose selection he and the senate majority would prefer. In 2021 Edmonds City Council President similarly moved the important budget vote out of Councilmember Chen's term and into the term of a Councilmember that she and a majority preferred. Councilmember Chen's term began today, November 23rd, well before the historic window for budget passage, December 5-16. This is obviously not about partisanship. Things that undermine good government and public trust should not be done even if they are legal and even if you have the political power and can. The 2022 budget process to date was wrong, but whether the budget process is legal or illegal in addition to wrong, that is unknow and she is pursuing that through MRSC. Choices of what to do will be considered after that is determined. She welcomed Councilmember Chen and was happy to have him on the Council. She wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO EXTEND TO 10:55. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember K. Johnson welcomed Councilmember Chen, commenting they were both certified to their positions today, a happy day. Thursday will also be a happy day as everyone celebrates Thanksgiving. She expressed her disappointment in the way the budget calendar was revised to fit Councilmember Distelhorst's departure and it was evident the majority wanted his vote because without it, they might not be in the majority. She was very surprised Monday night that there would be a Tuesday night meeting that she was unable attend. She referred to disparaging remarks made about Councilmember Buckshnis' absence, pointing out the wedding she attended was planned a year in advance with no understanding or anticipation that there would be a rush on the budget process. She encouraged Councilmembers to quit making disparaging comments. She was very disappointed in the way the budget was handled, ignoring the advice of two senior members of the Council. In addition to concerns with the process, she was very uncomfortable dipping into unrestricted reserves especially at a Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 29 Packet Pg. 93 6.3.a time when the country is experiencing unprecedented inflation, higher than it has been in 31 years. This is not the time to spend the surplus, it is a time to tighten our belts. Council President Paine welcomed Councilmember Chen, commenting she was very glad to have him on the Council. She also thanked him for coming into the office and spending time with Maureen Judge and herself over the last week and a half. Regarding moving the budget timeline, she explained Councilmember Distelhorst has been involved in all the projects with a level of diligence and appreciation for the finetuned needs the budget deserves. Councilmember Chen is certainly a very bright man and she had no doubt he would be a strong performer on the Council, but moving the timeline a bit was the right thing to do because the right people were in place who understood all the projects. The motion to adjourn was strictly legal as Mr. Taraday has said via email. She acknowledged there will be other leadership next year and she looked forward to having a strong relationship with everyone. The City has a solid budget with no big surprises. She was sorry not all Councilmembers were able to attend the last meeting because it could have been a chance to have other input that would have been welcomed. With regard to inflation, Council President Paine explained property taxes are increasing at a rate of 20% so revenues come in at a faster rate than the inflation at the grocery store. She acknowledged there was inflation, but most of the City's revenue comes from property taxes and the rate of increase due to the growth of property values outstrips inflation and the City receives greater revenue from property taxes. She recognized there was inflation in the grocery store that created problems for a lot of families, but she was glad there was enough money in unrestricted reserves to help support all the families in Edmonds. She hoped everyone had a great Thanksgiving and were able to spend time with their loves ones. 12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson welcomed Councilmember Chen, commenting he hit the ground running. This was a standard meeting other than technical glitches. He wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving break and urged whatever they did to gather with their families that it be done safely because the COVID threat is still present. He urged the public to get vaccinated, get boosters and wear masks. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:51 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 30 Packet Pg. 94 6.3.a Public Comment for 11/23/21 Council Meeting: From: Comcast Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 12:54 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Donna M Murphy <dmurphy04@comcast.net> Subject: Public Comment/street-eateries Mayor, Council President and Council Members, After visiting a few ski towns, one of the our favorite components of the experience was the "apres-ski" experience in a small town. Outdoor dining, meeting new people, and visiting with their dogs, was such a highlight. So much so, that when we returned to Edmonds after one of our trips, we sought out a similar dining experience. The only local restaurant to offer anything close was Giradi's, and we became frequent patrons. Then bam the pandemic hit; we ordered our food for take-out and hunkered down. As the months ticked by, we missed seeing people around and Edmonds was like a ghost town. As the outdoor spaces began to pop-up, they offered an alternative for people to see one another again. The sounds of people talking with one another, the smell of food, and their laughter filled the Bowl once again. It felt hopeful after such a long period of unknowns. It has been so much fun watching this idea of outdoor dining build community once again. I have enjoyed seeing neighbors out for lunch or dinner then some local shopping. I know that there has been some "push -back" about the street -eateries, and I am sure that the local business can come up plan to accommodate parking, and accessibility issues (like maybe rent some golf carts and use a service to transport patrons to and from their cars), or other creative community centered ideas to continue to see downtown Edmonds grow as a destination. Respectfully submitted, Donna Murphy (Edmonds) Run fast, play hard From: Kathy Brewer Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 12:20 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Doherty, Patrick <Patrick.Doherty@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Time for streateries to go! Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 31 Packet Pg. 95 6.3.a To Council Members and Mayor Nelson, The streateries have done their job as a TEMPORARY assistance for restaurants during Covid. Almost two years in and they are still there blocking public sidewalks and streets, creating an obstacle and danger for pedestrians, drivers and diners and being an eyesore to our charming city. The restaurants have recovered and are prospering. There appears to be more diners in Edmonds than before Covid! The restaurants and streateries are full on the weekends. I have heard of no restaurants closing and, in fact, some owners are opening new restaurants in Edmonds and elsewhere. The restaurant owners are profiting at no expense of their own except for the price to build these shanties. Taxpayers are footing the bill for their extended eating space. This is not fair to other businesses and patrons, restaurants off Main Street with existing outdoor eating areas, pedestrians who would like to walk unencumbered on our PUBLIC sidewalks and drivers who would like to park on our PUBLIC streets. My husband and I have just returned from a two month road trip across the country. Nowhere in the towns and cities of the Midwest or New England did we see these ugly structures marring their downtowns. Walking and driving was delightful not worrying about dodging pedestrians and looking for parking due to streateries hogging the sidewalks and streets. If they were once there, they are gone; and it is time to remove them from our downtown as well. Give the sidewalks and streets back to the citizens! Restore the charm and beauty of Edmonds! Remove the streateries! Sincerely, Kathy Brewer From: joe scordino Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 11:44 AM To: Paine, Susan <Susan.Paine@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Will Chen <friendsofwill2l@gmail.com> Subject: Please amend tonight's agenda to include a "Repeal adoption of the 2022 budget" agenda item Council President, This is to provide proper notice of a request by affected Edmonds citizens to amend the November 23, 2022 City Council Agenda to include an agenda item on "Repeal adoption of the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 32 Packet Pg. 96 6.3.a 2022 budget." This will allow Council members the opportunity to discuss in public session the apparent procedural and process errors that preceded the Council's adoption of the 2022 budget, and allow the Council to provide a remedy to such by repealing the adoption of the 2022 budget. I understand that such request is a necessary first step in a potential legal proceeding. Please see my Commentary in today's My Edmonds News and followup comments from the public. https://myedmondsnews.com/2021/11/commentary-city-council-needs-to-repeal-2021- budget-2022-2026-capital-facilities-plan/ From: joe scordino Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 5:21 PM To: Buckshnis, Diane<Diane.Buckshnis@edmondswa.gov>; Olson, Vivian <Vivian.Olson@edmondswa.gov>; Johnson, Kristiana<kristiana.johnson@edmondswa.gov>; Will Chen <friendsofwill2l@gmail.com>; Neil Tibbott <connect@neiltibbott.com> Subject: Repeal the 2022 budget and CFP/CIP See my Commentary in My Edmonds News at: https://myedmondsnews.com/2021/11/commentary-city-council-needs-to-repeal-2021- budget-2022-2026-capital-facilities-plan/ Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes November 23, 2021 Page 33 Packet Pg. 97 6.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/7/2021 Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Lori Palmer Background/History Approval of Holiday Buy Back checks #64890 through #64938 for $148,127.01 dated 11/22/2021 and payroll direct deposit and checks #64939 through #64941 for $691,211.80, benefit checks #64942 through #64946 and wire payments of $651,206.35 for the pay period November 16, 2021 through November 30, 2021. Staff Recommendation Approval of 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: holiday buyback 11-30-21 benefit checks summary 11-30-21 Payroll Earnings Summary Packet Pg. 98 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,079 (11/18/2021 to 11/18/2021) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours 149 KELLY DAY 153 HOLIDAY KELLY DAYS BUY BACK HOLIDAY BUY BACK Amount 27.00 1,327.72 3,961.00 202,181.52 3,988.00 Total Net Pay: $203,509.24 $148,127.01 6.4.a 3 c r 0 a 0 U w L IM 0 L Q 4- 0 0 L Q 12/01 /2021 Packet Pg. 99 6.4.b Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,019 - 11/16/2021 to 11/30/2021 Bank: usbank - US Bank Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt 64942 12/03/2021 bpas BPAS 8,752.20 64943 12/03/2021 jhan JOHN HANCOCK 348.39 64944 12/03/2021 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 4,014.02 64945 12/03/2021 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 4,099.39 64946 12/03/2021 afscme WSCCCE, AFSCME AFL-CIO 2,248.26 19,462.26 Bank: wire - US BANK Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt 3289 12/03/2021 pens DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 311,450.35 3292 12/03/2021 aflac AFLAC 4,512.56 3294 12/03/2021 us US BANK 159,778.65 3295 12/03/2021 mebt WTRISC FBO #N3177131 124,219.80 3296 12/03/2021 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 24,962.54 3298 12/03/2021 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 6,055.69 3300 12/03/2021 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 764.50 631,744.09 Grand Totals: 651,206.35 c r .y O m Direct Deposit .r 0.00 0.00 Y 0.00 0.00 0.00 r w m c 0.00 c O Direct Deposit 0.00 a 0.00 0 0.00 > 0.00 0 0.00 a 0.00 Q 0.00 E 0.00 E 3 N 0.00 Y v a� t v r a� c m N O M r 12/ 1 /2021 Packet Pg. 100 6.4.c Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,019 (11/16/2021 to 11/30/2021) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount 111 ABSENT NO PAY LEAVE 9.50 0.00 112 ABSENT NO PAY NON HIRED -48.00 0.00 121 SICK SICK LEAVE 510.75 19,535.52 122 VACATION VACATION 1,058.25 46,928.35 123 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOURS 236.00 10,975.51 124 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY 43.00 1,422.14 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 250.38 10,121.66 130 COMP HOURS Holidav Compensation Used 18.00 682.18 135 SICK WASHINGTON STATE SICK LEA 2.50 49.05 141 BEREAVEMENT BEREAVEMENT 36.00 1,350.19 150 REGULAR HOURS Kelly Day Used 136.00 6,218.72 154 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY BUY BACK 4.00 115.52 155 COMP HOURS COMPTIME AUTO PAY 118.28 6,367.25 157 SICK SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 414.44 34,243.72 158 VACATION VACATION PAYOFF 363.31 29,165.84 160 VACATION MANAGEMENT LEAVE 26.00 1,827.70 170 REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL BASE PAY 800.00 11,333.28 174 REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAY 0.00 300.00 175 REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL PAY FOR NO MEDICP 0.00 3,714.40 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 14,369.92 603,446.94 191 REGULAR HOURS FIRE PENSION PAYMENTS 4.00 5,912.37 194 SICK Emerqencv Sick Leave 192.00 7,172.25 195 REGULAR HOURS ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE 16.00 681.54 196 REGULAR HOURS LIGHT DUTY 40.00 2,490.02 210 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -STRAIGHT 211.88 10,644.15 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 48.00 2,698.64 216 MISCELLANEOUS STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT 15.00 1,466.35 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 332.25 23,798.17 225 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -DOUBLE 18.25 1,261.08 400 MISCELLANEOUS MISC PAY 0.00 7,895.79 405 ACTING PAY OUT OF CLASS - POLICE 0.00 502.45 410 MISCELLANEOUS WORKING OUT OF CLASS 0.00 349.01 411 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 0.00 896.06 12/01 /2021 Packet Pg. 101 Hour Type Hour Class 600 RETROACTIVE PAY 602 COMP HOURS 603 COMP HOURS 604 COMP HOURS 606 COMP HOURS 903 MISCELLANEOUS 905 KELLY DAY acc MISCELLANEOUS acs MISCELLANEOUS boc MISCELLANEOUS colre MISCELLANEOUS cpl MISCELLANEOUS crt MISCELLANEOUS ctr MISCELLANEOUS deftat MISCELLANEOUS det MISCELLANEOUS det4 MISCELLANEOUS ed1 EDUCATION PAY ed2 EDUCATION PAY ed3 EDUCATION PAY firear MISCELLANEOUS fmlv VACATION hol HOLIDAY k9 MISCELLANEOUS less MISCELLANEOUS Iq1 LONGEVITY Ig11 LONGEVITY Ig12 LONGEVITY Ig13 LONGEVITY Ig14 LONGEVITY Iq2 LONGEVITY PAY Iq4 LONGEVITY Iq5 LONGEVITY 6.4.c Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,019 (11/16/2021 to 11/30/2021) Description Hours Amount RETROACTIVE PAY 0.00 891.55 ACCRUED COMP 1.0 89.00 0.00 Holiday Comp 1.0 54.00 0.00 ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5 115.00 0.00 ACCRUED COMP 2.0 6.00 0.00 CLOTHING ALLOWANCE 0.00 -37.50 Police Kellv Day Adjustment -39.00 0.00 ACCREDITATION PAY 0.00 82.61 ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT 0.00 172.94 BOC II Certification 0.00 96.39 Collision Reconstructionist 0.00 90.46 TRAINING CORPORAL 0.00 180.92 CERTIFICATION III PAY 0.00 593.15 CTR INCENTIVES PROGRAM 0.00 250.00 DEFENSE TATICS INSTRUCTOI 0.00 165.44 DETECTIVE PAY 0.00 123.92 Detective 4% 0.00 850.86 EDUCATION PAY 2% 0.00 773.36 EDUCATION PAY 4% 0.00 585.90 EDUCATION PAY 6% 0.00 6,406.08 FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR 0.00 447.84 Family Medical Leave Vacation 72.00 3,066.96 HOLIDAY 2,590.20 106,331.03 K-9 PAY 0.00 266.41 LESS LETHAL INSTRUCTOR 0.00 86.54 LONGEVITY PAY 2% 0.00 973.61 LONGEVITY PAY 2.5% 0.00 684.10 Lonqevitv 9% 0.00 4,595.08 Lonqevitv 7% 0.00 633.16 Lonqevitv 5% 0.00 888.02 LONGEVITY PAY 4% 0.00 251.44 Lonqevitv 1 % 0.00 388.54 Lonqevitv 3% 0.00 1,268.93 12/01 /2021 Packet Pg. 102 6.4.c Hour Type Hour Class Iq6 LONGEVITY Iq7 LONGEVITY Iq8 LONGEVITY mels SICK melv VACATION mtc MISCELLANEOUS ooc MISCELLANEOUS pds MISCELLANEOUS pfhc HOLIDAY pfmp ABSENT pfms SICK pfmv VACATION phv MISCELLANEOUS prof MISCELLANEOUS pto MISCELLANEOUS sdp MISCELLANEOUS sqt MISCELLANEOUS st REGULAR HOURS traf MISCELLANEOUS Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,019 (11/16/2021 to 11/30/2021) Description Hours Amount Lonqevitv .5% 0.00 307.81 Lonqevitv 1.5% 0.00 408.72 Lonqevitv 8% 0.00 477.80 Medical Leave Sick -47.32 -1,708.31 Medical Leave Vacation 119.32 4,307.59 MOTORCYCLE PAY 0.00 123.92 OUT OF CLASS 0.00 186.00 Public Disclosure Specialist 0.00 116.54 Paid Familv Medical -Hol Comp 9.00 267.17 Paid Familv Medical Unpaid/Sup 125.49 0.00 Paid FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK 20.28 712.19 Paid Familv Medical Vacation 60.23 1,787.95 PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY 0.00 2,582.06 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 0.00 196.58 Traininq Officer 0.00 157.28 SPECIAL DUTY PAY 0.00 301.49 ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT 0.00 196.58 Serqeant Pay 0.00 147.44 TRAFFIC 0.00 123.92 22,399.91 $995,366.32 Total Net Pay: $691,211.80 12/01 /2021 Packet Pg. 103 6.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/7/2021 Approval of claim checks and wire payments. Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #250145 through #250210 dated November 24, 2021 for $682,630.09, claim checks #250211 through #250288 dated December 2, 2021 for $245,773.46 (re -issued check #250218 $100) and wire payments of $34,293.81, $9,762.47 & $4,084.53. Staff Recommendation Approval of claim checks and wire payments. Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Attachments: claims 11-24-21 claims 12-02-21 wire 11-19-21 wire 11-22-21 wire 11-24-21 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 12-02-21 Packet Pg. 104 6.5.a vchlist 11 /24/2021 1:53:48PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 250145 11/24/2021 064088 ADT COMMERCIAL Voucher List City of Edmonds Page Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun vi 142663071 ALARM MONITORING - PARKS MAIL y ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS I E 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 27.2' a ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS I 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 2.& 10.4% Sales Tax Y 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 2.& y 142663072 ALARM MONITORING - #16 ALARM MONITORING FOR FIRE ST E 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 30.9E 'sa 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 3.2, O 142663073 ALARM MONITORING - FS #17 ALARM MONITORING FOR FIRE ST, o 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 70.9E a 10.4% Sales Tax Q 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 7.3£ r 142663074 ALARM MONITORING - HISTORICAI N ALARM MONITORING FOR Hist Mus N 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 116.9( 10.4% Sales Tax N 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 12.1 E •� 142663075 ALARM MONITORING - WASTEWAT U ALARM MONITORING - Wastewater 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 45.9E 10.4% Sales Tax E t 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 4.7£ um 142663076 ALARM MONITORING - PUBLIC SAF Q ALARM MONITORING FOR FIRE ST 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 101.9( 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 10.6( Page: 1 Packet Pg. 105 vchlist 11/24/2021 1:53:48PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 250145 11/24/2021 064088 ADT COMMERCIAL 250146 11/24/2021 071634 ALLSTREAM 250147 11/24/2021 065568 ALLWATER INC 250148 11/24/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 142663077 FIRE INSPECTION - FS #17, MUSEI FIRE INSPECTION - FIRE STATION 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 FIRE INSPECTION - MUSEUM 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 FIRE INSPECTION - PUBLIC SAFET 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 Total 17843684 C/A 768328 PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service 512.000.31.518.88.42.00 Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929; 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines 001.000.61.558.70.42.00 Total 111621014 111621015 656000137105 FINANCE DEPT WATER Finance dept water 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 PARKS & RECREATION DEPT WATE PARKS & RECREATION DEPT WATE 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 Total PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.5.a Page: 2 Amoun m E 55.4, a a� 35.0, 3 153.31 708.7; Y a� t 1,348.5� •� 10.& p Ta 10.8< p 1,370.2° a Q N 42.0( � N 4.3, N E 22.5( c 2.3z E 71.21 �a a 1.6- 6.1- Page: 2 Packet Pg. 106 vchlist 11 /24/2021 1:53:48PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 250148 11/24/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 3 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) vi PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS a0i 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 6.1' E PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS a 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.1' PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 3 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.1 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0£ Y 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.3' 10.4% Sales Tax E 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6, 'M 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6 1 O 10.4% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6, o 10.4% Sales Tax a 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6, Q 10.4% Sales Tax r 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.3< 656000137110 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT N FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 9.2� FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 19.1( U 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 1.5E 10.4% Sales Tax E t 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.4' 656000138612 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE Q PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 63.4, 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 6.5� Page: 3 Packet Pg. 107 vchlist 11 /24/2021 1:53:48PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 250148 11/24/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 4 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) vi 656000138616 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE E 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.4£ a PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 5.6, .3 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 5.6, PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 5.6, Y PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 5.6'' E PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 5.6( 10.4% Sales Tax o 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.3" > 10.4% Sales Tax o 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6" a 10.4% Sales Tax Q 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6" r 10.4% Sales Tax N 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6' N 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6' 10.4% Sales Tax E 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.3, U 656000142043 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 63.4, E 10.4% Sales Tax U 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 6.5� Q 656000142046 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 29.5E 10.4% Sales Tax Page: 4 Packet Pg. 108 vchlist 11/24/2021 1:53:48PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 5 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 250148 11/24/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 3.0 j Tota I : 272.1( 250149 11/24/2021 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 0014818 WWTP: 9/25-10/22/21 PROF SERV 9/25-10/22/21 PROF SERVICES 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 1,197.8E Total : 1,197.8E 250150 11/24/2021 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 22117 EODC SERVICES THRU 10/2/21 EODC SERVICES THRU 10/2/21 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 9,009.0( Total: 9,009.0( 250151 11/24/2021 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY 10052 YOGA 10052 YOGA INSTRUCTION 10052 YOGA INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 1,264.9( Tota I : 1,264.9( 250152 11/24/2021 078759 BROOKS, TAYLOR WOTS CONTEST WOTS WRITING CONTEST AWARD WOTS WRITING CONTEST AWARD 117.100.64.573.20.41.00 175.0( Total : 175.0( 250153 11/24/2021 069295 BROWN, CANDY 10012 BIRD CLASS 10012 OWLS AND RAPTORS CLAS: 10012 OWLS AND RAPTORS CLAS: 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 112.2( Total : 112.2( 250154 11/24/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 27644745 BLD DIV PRINTER - CONTRACT CH Bld Div printer - contract charge 11/1 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 32.3z 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 3.3E 27644746 PLANNING PRINTER - CONTRACT 1 Planning printer - contract change 11i 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 32.3z Page: 5 Packet Pg. 109 vchlist 11 /24/2021 1:53:48PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 6 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 250154 11/24/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) 10.4% Sales Tax (D 001.000.62.524.10.45.00 3.3E E 27644747 P&R PRINTER IRC2501F CONTRAC' a P&R PRINTER IRC2501F CONTRAC' 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 32.3z .3 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 3.3E 27644748 PARK MAINT IRC2501F COPIER COI Y PARKS IRC2501F COPIER CONTRAi U 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 W 26.4z 10.4% Sales Tax E 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 2.7.' 27644750 CONTRACT CHARGES - contract charges- o 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 13.3, �a 10.4% Sales Tax o L 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 1.3� a 27644751 CANON COUNCIL COPIER Q Monthly contract charge- _. T 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 26.4z N 10.4% Sales Tax N 001.000.11.511.60.45.00 2.7E 27644753 INV 27644753 - EDMONDS PD N 11/21 - CONTRACT - WXD01878 E 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 185.7z u 10.4% Sales Tax }; 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 19.3, 27644756 INV 27644756 - EDMONDS PD E 11/21 CONTRACT- FAXBOARD 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 M 36.0, 10.4% Sales Tax Q 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 3.7E 27644760 INV 27644760 - EDMONDS PD 11 /21 - CONTRACT - 3AP01257 Page: 6 Packet Pg. 110 vchlist 11/24/2021 1:53:48PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 250154 11/24/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 250155 11/24/2021 003320 CASCADE MACHINERY & ELECTRIC 485986 250156 11/24/2021 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY 250157 11/24/2021 064369 CODE PUBLISHING CO 250158 11/24/2021 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING CG104368 PO # Description/Account 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 11/21 - CONTRACT - 3AP01253 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 Total : PM: YOST POOL PUMP REPAIR PM: YOST POOL PUMP REPAIR 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 Total PM: YOST POOL CARBON DIOXIDE PM: YOST POOL CARBON DIOXIDE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Total 71606 CODE WEB UPDATE web code update 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 Total OCT 2021 OCT 2021 DRY CLEANING - EDMOI` OCT 2021 DRY CLEANING CHARGE 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 SEPT 2021 SEPT 2021 - COLLINS DRYCLEANII` PERSONAL CHARGE -EMPLOYEE 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 Total 6.5.a Page: 7 Page: 7 Packet Pg. 111 vchlist 11/24/2021 1:53:48PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 8 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 250159 11/24/2021 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3373268 E22FA INVITATION TO BID E22FA INVITATION TO BID (D 422.000.72.594.31.41.00 511.7( E Total: 511.7( a 250160 11/24/2021 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 499050 E21 DA SERVICES THRU 10/30/21 L E21 DA SERVICES THRU 10/30/21 3 126.000.68.595.61.41.00 4,489.2z E21 DA SERVICES THRU 10/30/21 y 422.000.72.594.31.41.00 2,636.5z Total : 7,125.71 t 250161 11/24/2021 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 03 INV699758 INV699758 - CUST 26891 - EDMON[ E REPAIR & CERTIFY GHD-20638 f6 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 132.5( o MISC HARDWARE '@ 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 25.0( o L Q 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 15.4z Q INV700719 INV700719 -CUST 26891 - EDMON[ CALIBRATE RADAR GHD-08496 N 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 80.0( FUEL SURCHARGE N 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 30.0( N Freight E 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 10.0( n 10.4% Sales Tax U 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 12.4E c Total: 305.4: E t 250162 11/24/2021 072174 DEMIERO JAZZ FESTIVAL DiMiero 11242021 ERPF NONPROFIT SUPPORT GRAD ERPF NONPROFIT SUPPORT GRAD Q 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 18,000.0( Total : 18,000.0( 250163 11/24/2021 006626 DEPTOF ECOLOGY 22-WA0024058-1 WWTP: 1ST HALF 2022 WWR PERP Page: 8 Packet Pg. 112 vchlist 11/24/2021 1:53:48PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 250163 11/24/2021 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 250164 11/24/2021 047450 DEPTOF INFORMATION SERVICES 2021100030 250165 11/24/2021 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 21-4127 250166 11/24/2021 076790 DUNGENESS CONSTRUCTION CORP EOFB.Pmt 2 250167 11/24/2021 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BID-5138646243 250168 11/24/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 250169 11/24/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2688 6-00025 6.5.a Page: 9 PO # Description/Account Amoun 1ST HALF 2022 WWR PERMIT #WA (D 423.000.76.535.80.41.50 29,244.2, E Total: 29,244.2' a CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 SWV#0098 Scan Services for October 2021 3 512.000.31.518.88.42.00 285.0( Total: 285.0( y Y V CITY COUNCIL, PSPP, PPW MEETII city council, pspp, ppw meeting minut 001.000.25.514.30.41.00 1,335.6( . Total: 1,335.6( U EOFB.PMT 2 THRU 10/30/21 4- _0 EOFB.Pmt 2 thru 10/30/21 f6 422.000.72.594.31.65.20 207,125.2( a EOFB.Ret 2 a 422.000.223.400 -10,356.2( Q Total : 196,768.91 N BID/ED! TREE LIGHTING SPONSOF N BID/ED! TREE LIGHTING SPONSOF 140.000.61.558.70.49.00 500.0( N Total : 500.0( •� PM: HOOKS PM: HOOKS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 19.7, E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.0E v, Total : 21.8: Q MARINA BEACH PARK SPRINKLER MARINA BEACH PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 449.7( Page: 9 Packet Pg. 113 vchlist 11 /24/2021 1:53:48PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 250169 11/24/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 10 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) vi 6-00200 FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS E 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 921.4E a 6-00410 BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPF BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPF 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 600.9E 6-00475 ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,441.9E 6-01250 CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER t CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 510.1E 6-01275 CITY PARK PARKING LOT CITY PARK PARKING LOT p 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,864.5, �a 6-01280 CITY PARK SPRAY PARK o CITY PARK SPRAY PARK a 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 952.E 1 Q 6-02125 PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKL PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKL 04 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 913.3( N 6-02727 BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER N 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 309.6< E 6-02730 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE I 2 CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE I U 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 309.6( 6-02735 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TF E PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TF t 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,610.0E 6-02736 FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH A� Q FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH A� 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 13.5, 6-02737 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / Page: 10 Packet Pg. 114 vchlist 11 /24/2021 1:53:48PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 11 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 250169 11/24/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 493.7.E 6-02738 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGA E PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGA ca 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 a 635.3z 6-02745 VETERANS PLAZA 3 VETERANS PLAZA 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 528.5E 6-02825 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 3,832.8, 6-02875 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF E E 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 23.7E 6-02885 DOWNTOWN RESTROOM p DOWNTOWN RESTROOM 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 551.6E o 6-02900 FAC SPRINKLER a FAC SPRINKLER Q' Q 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,426.3E .r 6-02925 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( 4 N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,179.9 , 6-03000 CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI N CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI E 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 621.1 z 2 6-03275 HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKI U HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKI 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 203.0� E 6-03575 MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER f° 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 382.0E Q 6-04127 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ; 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,292.2 6-04128 FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TF Page: 11 Packet Pg. 115 vchlist 11 /24/2021 1:53:48PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 12 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 250169 11/24/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TF (D 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 13.5, E 6-04400 SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER a SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,612.4, 3 6-04425 SEAVIEW PARK SEAVIEW PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 718.1 E Y 6-04450 SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER U SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER t 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 744.3z 6-05155 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 222.1 o PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; �a 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 844.3< o PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH : L a 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 844.3' Q PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH T 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 844.3' N PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; N 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 844.3' PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; N 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 844.3E . 6-05156 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 �a U PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 }; 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 1.7( PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 E 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 t 6.4z 0 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 Q 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 6.4z PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 6.4z PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 Page: 12 Packet Pg. 116 vchlist 11/24/2021 1:53:48PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 13 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 250169 11/24/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 6.4, PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 E 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 6.4< a 6-06040 5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGF 5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGF 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 105.1 < 6-07775 MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,742.5, 6-08500 YOST PARK SPRINKLER t YOST PARK SPRINKLER 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,691.6E 6-08525 YOST POOL YOST POOL o 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 321.6E �a Total: 34,495.7' o L Q 250170 11/24/2021 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR205876 WWTP: 10/16-11/15/21 OVERAGE C Q• Q 10/16-11/15/21 Contract overage cha 423.000.76.535.80.45.00 54.& N 10.4% Sales Tax N 423.000.76.535.80.45.00 5.7( AR205894 CUST# MK5533 C5750I 3AP07496 C N Meter charges 10/16/21 - 11 /15/21 - E 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 20.1 E 2 Meter charges 10/16/21 - 11/15/21 - U 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 36.1( 10.4% Sales Tax E 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 5.8E AR205895 P&R COPIER USAGE: C5750I fd P&R COPIER USAGE: C5750I: accot Q 001.000.64.571.22.45.00 40.0< 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.22.45.00 4.1 E AR206174 ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600-02 Page: 13 Packet Pg. 117 vchlist 11/24/2021 1:53:48PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 250170 11/24/2021 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES (Continued) AR206242 250171 11/24/2021 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH942586 EDH942929 EDH943116 EDH943214 250172 11/24/2021 072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC 171158 PO # Description/Account Maintenance 10/21/21 - 11/20/21 Car 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 Color copies Asset #A11617 HP M28: 001.000.31.514.20.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.20.48.00 ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600-02 Maintenance 11/21/21 - 12/20/21 Car 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 Total E22FA INVITATION TO BID E22FA INVITATION TO BID 422.000.72.594.31.41.00 LEGAL DESCRIPT: CIP & CFP UPD Legal Descript: CIP & CFP UPDATE- 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 LEGAL DESCRIPT: PLN2021-0059 Legal Descript: PLN2021-0059 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 LEGAL DESCRIPT: PLN2021-0037 Legal Descript: PLN2021-0037 order 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 Total NOV-2021 SUPPORT SERVICES Nov-2021 Support Services 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 6.5.a Page: 14 Amoun m 307.2( E �a a 15.6( L 3 31.9E c �a 1.6, Y U t 307.2( E 31.9E 862.3E O �a 0 L a 162.4( Q T N 33.6( N N 63.0( E 2 U 41-1111I 27.5( Page: 14 Packet Pg. 118 vchlist 11/24/2021 1:53:48PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 250172 11/24/2021 072493 072493 FIRSTLINE COMMUNICATIONS INC (Continued) 250173 11/24/2021 078757 FORSBERG, NANCY 11/23/21 250174 11/24/2021 078226 GEIGLE SAFETY GROUP INC 250175 11/24/2021 073821 GEODESIGN INC DBA NV5 250176 11/24/2021 012560 HACH COMPANY 211118-001 C 229017 12730151 12731978 6.5.a Page: 15 Description/Account Amoun Total : 292.5E CPL RENEWAL REFUND - FORSBE E E CPL LATE RENEWAL REFUND �a 001.000.322.90.000.00 21.0( c CPL LATE RENEWAL REFUND = 001.000.237.190 21.0( Total: 42.0( �a WWTP: JRICHARDSON OSHACADE JRICHARDSON OSHACADEMY CLP 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 t 203.9" u Total: 203.91 E �a E21 CA SERVICES THRU 7/31/21 E21CA SERVICES THRU 7/31/21 ,U 0 112.000.68.542.30.41.00 271.3: > E21CA SERVICES THRU 7/31/21 0 125.000.68.542.30.41.00 971.2E a E21CA SERVICES THRU 7/31/21 Q 126.000.68.542.30.41.00 723.51 r Total : 1,966.1; Iq N WWTP: PO 697 COD RECYCLING PO 697 COD RECYCLING N 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 454.0( •� Freight U 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 110.9" 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 58.7E E WWTP: PO 697 GEL PROBE PO 697 GEL PROBE Q 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 319.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 33.1 £ Total : 975.8° Page: 15 Packet Pg. 119 vchlist 11 /24/2021 1:53:48PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 250177 11/24/2021 073780 KAMINS CONSTRUCTION INC 250178 11 /24/2021 078719 LESS LETHAL LLC Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 16 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun E7DC Pmt No.4 E7DC PMT NO.4 E7DC Pmt No.4 m 112.000.68.595.61.65.00 84,862.5( E E7DC Pmt No.4 a 125.000.68.595.61.65.00 1,162.5( E7DC Pmt No.4 3 126.000.68.595.61.65.00 30,225.0( Total: 116,250.0( IN5630 IN5630 - EDMONDS PD N SCENTED PWDR TRNIG PROJECTI 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 2,565.0( GLASS BREAKER PROJECTILES E 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 120.0( Z SPEED LOADERS p 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 198.7E HIGH PRESSURE BOTTLE O RINGE, p 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 L 39.0( 0- FILL ADAPTER O RINGS c' Q 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 14.2E .r VKS MAINTENANCE KIT T N 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 67.5E N Freight 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 65.0( y IN5637 IN5637 - EDMONDS PD E HIGH PRESSURE AIR BOTTLES - 5 2 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 U 335.0( }; Freight 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 18.0( E IN5638 INV5638 - EDMONDS PD 5 VKS FEED ELBOW- PEPPERBALL 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 89.7.E Q Freight 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 7.0( Total : 3,519.3( Page: 16 Packet Pg. 120 vchlist 11/24/2021 1:53:48PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 250179 11/24/2021 075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER December Cigna DECEMBER CIGNA PREMIUMS December Cigna Premiums 811.000.231.550 Tota I : 250180 11/24/2021 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC Nov-2021 11-2021 LEGALS FEES 11-2021 Legal fees 001.000.36.515.31.41.00 Total 250181 11/24/2021 067235 MARYS TOWING INC 100025 INV 100025 - CS 21-26502 - EDMON TOW GRAY BMW - CS 21-26502 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 96162 INV 96162 - CS 21-26691 - EDMONE TOW RED SUBARU- CS 21-26691 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 Tota I : 250182 11/24/2021 075746 MCMURRAY, LAURA 10030 FELDENKRAIS 10030 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTIOI 10030 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTIOI 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 Total 250183 11/24/2021 072746 MURRAYSMITH INC 20-2775.01-7 E21 GA SERVICES THRU 10/31/21 E21GA SERVICES THRU 10/31/21 423.000.75.594.35.41.00 Total 250184 11/24/2021 065720 OFFICE DEPOT 191731811001 INV 191731811001 - ACCT 9052043� 3 - BLUE HIGHLIGHTER BOXES 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 2 - STENO NOTE PADS 12/PK 6.5.a Page: 17 Page: 17 Packet Pg. 121 vchlist 11/24/2021 1:53:48PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 250184 11/24/2021 065720 OFFICE DEPOT 250185 11/24/2021 075494 OREGON MILITARY DEPT 250186 11/24/2021 077808 OSBORN CONSULTING INC 250187 11/24/2021 027450 PAWS 250188 11/24/2021 069633 PET PROS Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 18 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) N 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 26.8( C BATTERIES E 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 26.9� a 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 5.4£ .3 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 2.8" cm Total : 87.91 Y ARBR 1595 ARBR 1595 - SWAT - EDMONDS PD 10/29-11/05/21 196 NIGHTS 628.000.41.589.40.31.00 8,200.0( •� 10/30-11/5/21 - 46.25HRS 628.000.41.589.40.31.00 1,156.2E o 11 /01-11 /05/21 - 3 DAYS 628.000.41.589.40.31.00 585.0( p Total: 9,941.2E a Q 6614 E21 FD.SERVICES THRU 10/31/21 E21 FD.SERVICES THRU 10/31/21 N 422.000.72.594.31.41.00 10,834.7E N Total : 10,834.7° OCT 2021 OCT 2021 - ANIMAL SHELTERING - 6 ANMLS X $207. - $35 RCLM FEE 001.000.41.521.70.41.00 1,102.0( Total: 1,102.0( a� 1476 INV 1476 - EDMONDS PD - ACE E t ACE FOOD -DISCOUNT 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 130.1 Q 10.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.26.31.00 13.6 Total : 143.81 Page: 18 Packet Pg. 122 vchlist 11/24/2021 1:53:48PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 250189 11/24/2021 070431 PITNEYBOWES EASYPERMIT POSTAGE 6873 BULK MAIL bulk mail 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 Tota I : 250190 11/24/2021 071594 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT 466255 INV 466255 - CUST 7522 - EDMOND SWAT FN RIFLES 001.000.41.521.23.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.23.31.00 Total 250191 11/24/2021 077429 PURE WATER AQUATICS 2830 PM SUPPLIES: CONNECTING NUT' PM SUPPLIES: CONNECTING NUT' 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2830-A PM SUPPLIES: PUMP TUBE, VALVE PM SUPPLIES: PUMP TUBE, VALVE 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Tota I : 250192 11/24/2021 078733 QUIET THYME WELLNESS 10049 YOGA 10049 YOGA INSTRUCTION 10049 YOGA INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 Tota I : 250193 11/24/2021 078758 RUSSO, LORI 2006301.009 REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOl' REFUND: ACTIVITY CANCELLATIOl' 001.000.239.200 Total 250194 11/24/2021 072440 SCORDINO, JOE 031 E7FG.STUDENTS SAVING SALMON E7FG.STUDENTS SAVING SALMON 6.5.a Page: 19 Page: 19 Packet Pg. 123 vchlist 11/24/2021 1:53:48PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 20 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 250194 11/24/2021 072440 SCORDINO, JOE (Continued) 001.000.39.554.90.49.00 1,561.5� ED Total: 1,561.55 E 250195 11/24/2021 071655 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP B14350131 OCT-2021 CLOUD SERVICE CHARC �a Q- Oct-2021 Cloud Service Charges 512.000.31.518.88.41.00 719.4z 10.4% Sales Tax c 512.000.31.518.88.41.00 �a 74.8, N Total: 794.2E 250196 11/24/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200202547 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95- PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95- E 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 17.1, 200260271 YOST POOL YOST POOL o 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 �a 1,357.7. o 200398956 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ; a FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST : c- Q 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 942.0< 200496834 LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT R N LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT R 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 76.4E N 200611317 LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 131.6Z 'M 200739845 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 20.5z 201184538 HICKMAN PARK HICKMAN PARK M 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 27.1 z Q 201431236 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLY PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLY 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 17.1, 201441755 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME Page: 20 Packet Pg. 124 vchlist 11 /24/2021 1:53:48PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 250196 11/24/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 21 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) vi TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME (D 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 215.8E E 201551744 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / IN a SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / IN 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,088.4< 3 201751476 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 53.3, w 201942489 PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ; PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ; t 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 80.2' PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ; •@ 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 304.8� u PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ; o 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 304.8� �a PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ; o L 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 304.8� 0- PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ; Q 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 304.8� r PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH : N 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 304.8 1 N 202250627 9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPED BED 9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPED BED N 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.7, . 202289450 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / ME �a U TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / ME }; 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 83.4, 202291662 CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1, E CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1; 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 4,897.Of �a 202439246 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER Q CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2, 377.2 202807632 TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW Page: 21 Packet Pg. 125 vchlist 11/24/2021 1:53:48PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 22 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 250196 11/24/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW (D 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 19.8E E 203652151 FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191 a FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 123.9E .3 204425847 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 88.1' w 220216386 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MI PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MI t 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 83.0( 222704280 WWTP: 10/19-11/16/21 METER 100C 10/19-11/16/21 METER 1000135381: 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 20,828.9E o Total: 35,071.4E 0 250197 11/24/2021 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2021-7060 INV 2021-7060 - OCT 2021 - EDMON a 140.17 -BASE RT HOUSING @ $142 Q- Q 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 19,992.4.' " 28.5 - BOOKINGS @ $128.88EA N 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 3,673.0E N 8 - VIDEO CT HRS @ $207.96EA 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 1,663.6E N Total: 25,329.21 E .; 250198 11/24/2021 037303 SO SNOHOMISH CO FIRE & RESCUE 21-0029 Q3-21 EMS BILLING, POSTAGE & R U Q3-21 Ambulance billings, postage & 001.000.39.522.70.41.00 15,602.7E E Total: 15,602.7E �a 250199 11/24/2021 071585 STERICYCLE INC 3005769492 INV 3005769492 - CUST 6076358- E Q MONTHLY SERVICE FEE 001.000.41.521.80.41.00 10.3E Total : 10.3E Page: 22 Packet Pg. 126 vchlist 11/24/2021 1:53:48PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 23 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 250200 11/24/2021 040250 STEUBER DISTRIBUTING 2909866 PM: GREENHOUSE PLASTIC PM: GREENHOUSE PLASTIC (D 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 265.0( E, 9.2% Sales Tax a 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 24.3E Total: L 289.3f .3 250201 11/24/2021 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 180020388-00 WWTP: PO 676 SCREWS, ANCHOF PO 676 SCREWS, ANCHORS, PLUC y 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 316.0E 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 32.8 1 180021108-00 WWTP: PO 676 BOLTS & NUTS PO 676 BOLTS & NUTS 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 195.1 < p 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 20.3( p Total: 564.3E a a Q 250202 11/24/2021 078756 TANGOSIX LLC NOV 2021 NOV 2021 NWM SWAT SUPPORT - 11/2-4 /2021 SWAT TRAINING N 628.000.41.589.40.31.00 18,000.0( 4 Total: 18,000.0( 250203 11/24/2021 071666 TETRATECH INC 51788854 EOFA.SERVICES THRU 9/17/21 N EOFA.Services thru 9/17/21 422.000.72.594.31.41.00 22,719.6� 51820147 EOFA.SERVICES THRU 11/5/21 EOFA.SERVICES THRU 11/5/21 422.000.72.594.31.41.00 18,280.7E t Total: 41,000.4' 250204 11/24/2021 066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES 45883 MAYOR BUDGET MESSAGE MAILEI Q Mayor's budget message mailer 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 6,819.8( 10.4% Sales Tax Page: 23 Packet Pg. 127 vchlist 11/24/2021 1:53:48PM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 250204 11/24/2021 066056 THE SEATTLE TIMES (Continued) 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 Total: 250205 11/24/2021 076135 TOTAL SATELLITE TV INC 29135 INV 29135 - EDMONDS PD ANNUAL 800 DAS TESTING 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 Total 250206 11/24/2021 070767 UNITED RENTALS NW INC 195966501-004 WWTP: LAST CRANE RENTAL- OVI AST CRANE RENTAL - FOR 11/8-11/ 423.000.76.535.80.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.45.00 195966501-05 WWTP: 11/17/21 CREDIT FOR OVEI 11/17/21 CREDIT FOR OVERCHARC 423.000.76.535.80.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.45.00 Total: 250207 11/24/2021 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9892732138 C/A671247844-00001 Cell Service Fac-Maint 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 Cell Service-PD 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 Cell Service-PW Sewer 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 Total: 250208 11/24/2021 074609 WEST COAST ARMORY NORTH 2406327 INV 2406327 - EDMONDS PD RANGE FEES SEPT & OCT 2021 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 6.5.a Page: 24 Page: 24 Packet Pg. 128 vchlist 11 /24/2021 1:53:48PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 250208 11 /24/2021 074609 WEST COAST ARMORY NORTH 250209 11 /24/2021 063008 W SDOT 250210 11/24/2021 011900 ZIPLY FIBER Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 25 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) N 001.000.41.521.40.41.00 11.9E y Total: 127.O1 E RE 41 JZ0186 L019 E20CE.PROJECT COSTS FOR OCT, �a Q- E20CE.PROJECT COSTS FOR OCT 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 847.7E 3 RE 41 JZ0605 L009 GATEWAY SIGN RELOCATION PLAI c GATEWAY SIGN RELOCATION PLAI N 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 156.& Total : 1,004.6° 425-697-6502 MUSEUM ALARM LINES - 118 5TH P E Museum Alarm Lines - 118 5th Ave N 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 108.8( o 425-712-0417 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE > 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 35.9, a TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE c- Q 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 35.9, 425-712-8251 PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX, N PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 16.9, N PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 84.8E E PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 71.2E PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 71.2E E PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 95.0< 425-775-2455 CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5 Q CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUSIC 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 68.2, 425-776-3896 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER ALA FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF Page: 25 Packet Pg. 129 vchlist 11 /24/2021 1:53:48PM Bank code: usbank Voucher Date Vendor 250210 11/24/2021 011900 ZIPLY FIBER 66 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 66 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 26 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) vi 00 1. 000. 66.518.30.42. 00 138.6E Total: 726.9: E Bank total : 682,630.05 �a L Total vouchers : 682,630.05 3 c �a Y V t V E V O O L Q 0. 21 N N N E 2 V C E t V a Page: 26 Packet Pg. 130 6.5.b vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 250211 12/2/2021 076040 911 SUPPLY INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Page Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun vi CM-2-1578 INV-2-13555 - ITEMS BORROWED F y FIRST TAC POLOS - SIZING E 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 -319.9, a 10.1 % Sales Tax a� L 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 INV-2-13555 INV-2-13555 - EDMONDS PD - POLC FIRST TACTICAL POLOS FOR SIZIN �a 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 319.9, Y 10.1 % Sales Tax U 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 32.3, u INV-2-13746 INV-2-13746 - EDMONDS PD - SANC E BIANCHI DBL MAG POUCH 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 _M 39.5( MOLLE RADIO CASE O 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 39.0( TOURNIQUET POUCH o 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 33.0( a 10.1 % Sales Tax Q 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 11.2, r INV-2-14246 INV-2-14246 - EDMONDS PD - WEIE N ACADEMY S/S SHIRTS o 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 39.9E 2 - SEWN MILITARY CREASES N 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 16.0( •� 2 - SPORT TEK SHORTS W/POCKE' U 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 37.9E GILDAN CREW SWEATSHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 11.9E E ACADEMY HEAT PRESS - SET �a 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 15.0( Q 3 - HANES T SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 20.9, HEAT PRESS T SHIRTS - SET 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 45.0( Page: 1 Packet Pg. 131 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 250211 12/2/2021 076040 911 SUPPLY INC Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.b Page: 2 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) vi PROWOOL VELCRO CAP 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 12.9E E BOSTON 6605 BELT a 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 21.6( SWEAT PANTS 3 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 18.9E IRON GLOVES GRAVITY GRIP �a 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 9.9� Y TRAFFIC TEMPLATE 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 14.0( 10.1 % Sales Tax E 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 26.I 'M INV-2-14309 INV-2-14309 - EDMONDS PD - HARE EXTERNAL NAME TAPE o 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 8.0( NAME TAPE VELCRO o 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 6.0( a 10.1 % Sales Tax Q 001.000.41.521.21.24.00 1.4, r INV-2-14311 INV-2-14311 - EDMONDS PD - LEEN N 3 BLAUER S/S SHIRTS o 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 239.9 1 2 BLAUER L/S SHIRTS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 159.9E .� SHIRT ALTERATIONS X 5 HRS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 60.0( 5 NAME TAPES 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 40.0( 10.1 % Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 50.5( Q INV-2-14312 INV-2-14312 - EDMONDS PD - LEEK JS ALTERATIONS 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 12.0( ADD FLASHLIGHT POCKET - JS Page: 2 Packet Pg. 132 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.b Page: 3 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 250211 12/2/2021 076040 911 SUPPLY INC (Continued) vi 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 15.0( y 10.1 % Sales Tax E 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 2.7; Q INV-2-14314 INV-2-14314 - EDMONDS PD - WEIE HEAT GEAR US SHIRT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 59.9E 10.1 % Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 6.0E N INV-2-14315 INV-2-14315 - EDMONDS PD - WEIE CLIP ON TIE t 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 9.9E BLAUER 6 PKT TROUSERS M 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 104.9� BLAUER US SHIRT o 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 89.9E Ta SOFT SHELL FLEECE o L 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 119.9E 0- NAME TAPE Q 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 8.0( r 10.1 % Sales Tax N 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 33.6' o Total : 1,442.2( N N 250212 12/2/2021 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 51513 PARK MAINT PEST CONTROL CUSI E PARK MAINT PEST CONTROL CUS 2 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 125.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.41.00 13.0( E Total: 138.0( �a 250213 12/2/2021 008835 ALTEC INDUSTRIES INC 50876230 UNIT 18 - RATS & LABOR Q UNIT 18 - RATS & LABOR 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 1,200.7� SERVICE CHARGE 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 27.5( Page: 3 Packet Pg. 133 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 250213 12/2/2021 008835 ALTEC INDUSTRIES INC 250214 12/2/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.b Page: 4 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) vi 10.4% Sales Tax (D 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 124.8E E Total: 11,353.111, a 656000144064 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.6- PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE y 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.1- PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 6.1- PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE E 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.1 - Z PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE p 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.1- PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE p 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 L 6.0E m 10.4% Sales Tax Q' Q 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.3' .r 10.4% Sales Tax T N 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6 1 c 10.4% Sales Tax cv 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6 1 N 10.4% Sales Tax E 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6; u 10.4% Sales Tax }; 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6, 5, 10.4% Sales Tax E 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 t 0.X 656000144070 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS Q 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 9.2� FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 19.1( Page: 4 Packet Pg. 134 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 250214 12/2/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.b Page: 5 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) vi 10.4% Sales Tax (D 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 1.5f E 10.4% Sales Tax a 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.4' 656000146480 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 3 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 63.4, 10.4% Sales Tax N 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 6.5� u 656000146484 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS E 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 3.0; o 656000149342 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE �a PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE o L 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.6- 0- PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE Q 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.1' .. PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE N 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 6.1' o PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.1' N PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE E 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.1 u PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE }; 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0E 10.4% Sales Tax E t 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.3< um 10.4% Sales Tax Q 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6 1 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6 , 10.4% Sales Tax Page: 5 Packet Pg. 135 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 250214 12/2/2021 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 250215 12/2/2021 078763 ARTIFACT 250216 12/2/2021 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.b Page: 6 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) vi 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6 1 y 10.4% Sales Tax E 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6, a 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.3: 656000149347 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 9.2� N FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 19.1( 10.4% Sales Tax E 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.4 0 Total: 236.2f 0 111521 CIVIC ART: AGREEMENT FOR ARTI a CIVIC ART: AGREEMENT FOR ARTI Q' Q 117.200.64.575.50.41.00 5,000.0( " Total: 5,000.0( 122355 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS N G N UB Outsourcing area Printing 721 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 50.4z E UB Outsourcing area Printing 721 ca 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 50.4z UB Outsourcing area Printing 721 c 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 51.9 1 E 10.25% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 5.1, 10.25% Sales Tax Q 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 5.3< UB Outsourcing area Postage # 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 154.51 UB Outsourcing area Postage # Page: 6 Packet Pg. 136 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.b Page: 7 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 250216 12/2/2021 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER (Continued) 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 154.5' ED 10.25% Sales Tax E 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 5.1, a 122417 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area Printing 670 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 46.8 UB Outsourcing area Printing 670 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 46.8 � N UB Outsourcing area Printing 670 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 48.3( UB Outsourcing area Postage # E 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 UB Outsourcing area Postage # 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 149.9� o 10.25% Sales Tax 7a 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 4.8" o 10.25% Sales Tax a 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 4.8- Q 10.25% Sales Tax r 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 4.9, N Total : 934.1 F o N 250217 12/2/2021 078762 AZAR, TAYLOR STRONG 10105 HEALTH 10105 HEALTH CLASS INSTRUCTIC y 10105 HEALTH CLASS INSTRUCTIC E 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 144.0( 2 Total: 144.0( }; c 250218 12/2/2021 078535 BIRDABILITY 05102021.Birdability BIRD FEST 2021 PRESENTER: TRA E BIRD FEST 2021 PRESENTER: TRA 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 100.0( M Total: 100.0( Q 250219 12/2/2021 076741 BLOSSMAN SERVICES INC SO0046709 UNIT 451 - PARTS UNIT 451 - PARTS 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 36.8� Page: 7 Packet Pg. 137 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 250219 12/2/2021 076741 BLOSSMAN SERVICES INC 250220 250221 250222 12/2/2021 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 12/2/2021 076240 CADMAN MATERIALS INC Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.b Page: 8 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) vi Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.9E E, Total: 47.8E a 1281287 FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 616.20 GF FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 616.20 GF 3 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 1,349.5( 1284195 FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 605.00 GF y FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 605.00 GF U 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 1,311.2E Total: 2,660.7E 5799016 ROADWAY -ASPHALT, LIQUID ASP f° ROADWAY -ASPHALT, LIQUID ASP U 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 o 216.5 '@ 10.1 % Sales Tax o 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 21.8 , a 5800577 ROADWAY -ASPHALT, LIQUID ASP Q- Q ROADWAY -ASPHALT, LIQUID ASP 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 345.5- N 10.1 % Sales Tax c4 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 34.9( N 5802059 ROADWAY -ASPHALT, LIQUID ASP ROADWAY -ASPHALT, LIQUID ASP E 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 303.2E 'ca 10.1 % Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 30.6' c 5802449 ROADWAY - ASPHALT, ASPHALT BI ROADWAY - ASPHALT, ASPHALT BI 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 344.7E ;a 10.1 % Sales Tax Q 111.000.68.542.31.31.00 34.8, Total: 1,332.3, 12/2/2021 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 95263441 STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA Page: 8 Packet Pg. 138 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 250222 12/2/2021 018495 CALPORTLAND COMPANY 250223 12/2/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) STREET - 5.5 SK 3/8 AEA 125.000.68.542.61.31.00 10.1 % Sales Tax 125.000.68.542.61.31.00 27644733 CANON 2501 F contract charge 11/2021 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 27644749 FLEET COPIER Fleet Copier 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 27644754 WATER SEWER COPIER Water Sewer Copier 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 Water Sewer Copier 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 27644755 PW ADMIN COPIER PW Office Copier for 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 PW Office Copier for 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 PW Office Copier for 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 PW Office Copier for 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 Total : 6.5.b Page: 9 Amoun m 427.9E E �a a 43.2; L 471.1 f '3 c �a 26.4z a� t 2.7E E 32.3z o �a 3.3E p L a a Q 54.0 " T N 54.7' c N 5.7( y E 5.6E c a� 66.1 E E t 37.4E a 37.4� 26.4E Page: 9 Packet Pg. 139 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.b Page: 10 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 250223 12/2/2021 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) PW Office Copier for 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 26.4E E 10.4% Sales Tax a 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 6.8E 10.4% Sales Tax 3 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 3.9( PW Office Copier for 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 26.4E Y 10.4% Sales Tax U 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 3.9( 10.4% Sales Tax E 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 2.7E 'sa 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 2.7,' O 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 2.7E o Total: 429.15 a Q 250224 12/2/2021 077353 CAPITOL CONSULTING LLC 11 STATE LOBBYIST NOVEMBER 2021 STATE LOBBYIST NOVEMBER 2021 T N 001.000.61.511.70.41.00 3,750.0( c Total : 3,750.0( 250225 12/2/2021 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY CG104998 PM: YOST POOL CARBON DIOXIDE E E 10.4% Sales Tax 2 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 16.8E U PM: YOST POOL CARBON DIOXIDE c 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 a� 162.3' E Total: 179.21 �a 250226 12/2/2021 078770 Cl TECHNOLOGIES INC 4004 INV 4004 - EDMONDS PD Q IAPRO SOFTWARE 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 8,000.0( 2 DAY ON -SITE REMOTE TRAINING 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 2,400.0( Page: 10 Packet Pg. 140 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.b Page: 11 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 250226 12/2/2021 078770 Cl TECHNOLOGIES INC (Continued) BLUE TEAM UNLIMTED USE LICEN 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 6,000.0( E BLUE TEAM 1 DAY ONSITE TRAINII` a 001.000.41.521.10.41.00 1,200.0( Total: L 17,600.0( .3 250227 12/2/2021 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I21006015 WATER QUALITY LAB ANALYSIS c WATER QUALITY LAB ANALYSIS y 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 1,069.2( Total : 1,069.2( t 250228 12/2/2021 070323 COMCAST BUSINESS 8498310300732547 PUBLIC WRKS - DIGITAL CABLE E Public Works - 7110 210th S SW f6 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 2.3( o Public Works - 7110 210th S SW '@ 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 11.0E o Public Works - 7110 210th S SW a 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 11.0E Q Public Works - 7110 210th S SW _. 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 11.0E N Public Works - 7110 210th S SW c*4 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 10.6z 004 Total: 46.1f y 250229 12/2/2021 077245 CRASH DATA GROUP INC INV10646 INV10646 - EDMONDS PD CDR ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION 21-2; 001.000.41.521.71.49.00 1,250.0( Total: 1,250.0( t 250230 12/2/2021 060914 CUMMINS NORTHWEST LLC E3-93433 FLEET - INSITE PRO, QUICKSERVE �a FLEET - INSITE PRO, QUICKSERVE Q 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 1,820.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 189.2E Page: 11 Packet Pg. 141 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 250230 12/2/2021 060914 060914 CUMMINS NORTHWEST LLC (Continued) 250231 12/2/2021 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3373362 250232 12/2/2021 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 250233 12/2/2021 072145 DISTINCTIVE WINDOWS INC 250234 12/2/2021 076172 DK SYSTEMS 3373404 496592 498442 22775 PUBLIC WORKS 22781 MEADOWDALE Description/Account Total LEGAL AD Hwy 99 Renewal Plan - RFQ advertis 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 LEGAL AD Correction ad for Hwy 99 Community 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 Total E6GB.SERVICES THRU 9/25/21 E6GB.SERVICES THRU 9/25/21 423.000.75.594.35.41.00 E6GB.SERVICES THRU 10/30/21 E6GB.SERVICES THRU 10/30/21 423.000.75.594.35.41.00 Total PUBLIC WORKS - FURNISH AND IN PUBLIC WORKS - FURNISH AND IN 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE - FUF MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE - FUF 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 Total 28684 PUBLIC SAFETY - LABOR PUBLIC SAFETY - LABOR 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 28768 F.A.C. - LABOR & PARTS 6.5.b Page: 12 Amoun 2,009.2F C m E �a 1,002.0E 3 63.7( c 1,065.7E y U a� t 258.9( E v 214.3E 473.2E > 0 L Q a 2,647.0E r N N 275.2c o N N 1,046.5� 108.81 4,077.7E t �a 600.0( Q 62.4( Page: 12 Packet Pg. 142 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.b Page: 13 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 250234 12/2/2021 076172 DK SYSTEMS (Continued) F.A.C. - LABOR & PARTS 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 11007.2- E, PREVAILING WAGE a 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 40.0( Freight 3 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 183.7E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 123.8E Y Total: 2,017.2E u t 250235 12/2/2021 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 2690 PM: WINDOW HOOKS, SIGNS PM: WINDOW HOOKS, SIGNS E 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 29.1E 10.4% Sales Tax o 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 3.0< 2694 PM: HOLIDAY LIGHTS 0 0 PM: HOLIDAY LIGHTS a 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 12.9� Q 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 T 1.3E N Total : 46.5: c N 250236 12/2/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-01808 LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL S' LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL S E E 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 63.2E n 3-03575 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL U CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL c 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 477.8- E 3-07490 HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING F HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING F ;a 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 109.8, Q 3-07525 LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 53.9z 3-07709 LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST S Page: 13 Packet Pg. 143 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.b Page: 14 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 250236 12/2/2021 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST S 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 53.9, E 3-09350 LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD i a LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD i 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 114.4E .3 3-09800 LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT R LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT R 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 53.9z 3-29875 LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / t 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 53.9z 3-38565 SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 c SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 c 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 53.9z o ERPF UB Grant HL ERPF UTILITY BILLING SUPPORT C �a ERPF UTILITY BILLING SUPPORT C o L 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 335.0( a ERPF UB Grant HNH ERPF UTILITY BILLING SUPPORT C Q ERPF UTILITY BILLING SUPPORT C .r 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 T 589.4, N ERPF UB Grant JN ERPF UTILITY BILLING SUPPORT C N 0 ERPF UTILITY BILLING SUPPORT C 04 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 237.6E N ERPF UB Grant JP ERPF UTILITY BILLING SUPPORT C E ERPF UTILITY BILLING SUPPORT C 2 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 U 223.7, }; ERPF UB Grant SC ERPF UTILITY BILLING SUPPORT C ERPF UTILITY BILLING SUPPORT C a� E 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 412.2 1 ERPF UB Grant TT ERPF UTILITY BILLING SUPPORT C fd ERPF UTILITY BILLING SUPPORT C Q 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 265.6( Total: 3,098.7( 250237 12/2/2021 008969 ENGLAND, CHARLES 9890 DANCE 9890 DANCE INSTRUCTION Page: 14 Packet Pg. 144 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.b Page: 15 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 250237 12/2/2021 008969 ENGLAND, CHARLES (Continued) 9890 DANCE INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 321.7,' Total: 321.7E 250238 12/2/2021 075136 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOC 169265 PROF SVCS Professional Services- 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 4,550.0( Total : 4,550.0( 250239 12/2/2021 078771 ESTATE OF ANDREW PAUL TEUBER 1-38175 #4201-3823786 UTILITY REFUND #4201-3823786 Utility refund due to 411.000.233.000 133.7E Total : 133.7° 250240 12/2/2021 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD EDH940558 STORMWATER CODE UPDATE - SE STORMWATER CODE UPDATE - SE 422.000.72.531.90.41.20 43.4( EDH942928 ORDINANCE 4238, 4239 ordinance 4238 and 4239 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 32.2( EDH943666 STREATERIES CC HEARING streateries hearing 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 37.8( EDH943672 ORDINANCE 4240 ordinance 4240 001.000.25.514.30.41.40 18.2( Total : 131.6( 250241 12/2/2021 076751 FALK, NICHOLAS NFALK Nov2021 EXPENSE REIMB - MILEAGE Mileage Reimb- 001.000.62.524.10.43.00 40.5z Total : 40.5' 250242 12/2/2021 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0999890 WATER - PARTS WATER - PARTS 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2,751.4- Page: 15 Packet Pg. 145 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.b Page: 16 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 250242 12/2/2021 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC (Continued) 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 286.1 1026317 WATER - INVENTORY WATER - INVENTORY 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 4,828.9E 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 502.2- 1026317-1 WATER - INVENTORY WATER - INVENTORY 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 4,828.9E 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 502.2- Tota I : 13,699.8 , 250243 12/2/2021 077248 FRIDAY HARBOR JOLLY TROLLEY 027 HOLIDAY TROLLEY SERVICES FOR HOLIDAY TROLLEY SERVICES FOR 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 2,452.0( Total : 2,452.0( 250244 12/2/2021 012199 GRAINGER 9102370534 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 177.1 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 18.4, Total : 195.5E 250245 12/2/2021 074722 GUARDIAN SECURITY SYSTEMS 1184561 OLD PW - SECURITY OLD PW - SECURITY 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 55.0( 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 5.7< Total : 60.7; 250246 12/2/2021 074804 HARLES, JANINE 284605 PHOTOGRAPHY & INSTAGRAM SEI PHOTOGRAPHY & INSTAGRAM SEI Page: 16 Packet Pg. 146 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 250246 12/2/2021 074804 HARLES, JANINE 250247 12/2/2021 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC 250248 12/2/2021 074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account (Continued) 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 Tota I : 15954135 WATER - PARTS WATER - PARTS 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 Total 2019-282 TOURISM PROMOTION & MARKETI TOURISM PROMOTION & MARKETI 120.000.31.575.42.41.00 REIMBURSEMENT - CALENDAR ED 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 Total 250249 12/2/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1514298 1611923 3053206 4010422 PM SUPPLIES: STAKES PM SUPPLIES: STAKES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 PM SUPPLIES: EXTENSION CORD PM SUPPLIES: EXTENSION CORD 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 PM SUPPLIES: PLANTS PM SUPPLIES: PLANTS 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 PM SUPPLIES: CONCRETE, PLYWC PM SUPPLIES: CONCRETE, PLYWC 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.5.b Page: 17 Page: 17 Packet Pg. 147 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 250249 12/2/2021 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 250250 12/2/2021 061013 HONEY BUCKET Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.b Page: 18 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) vi 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 9.0, E 4513790 PM SUPPLIES: WASP & HORNET K a PM SUPPLIES: WASP & HORNET K 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 21.8E .3 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 2.2E 6024755 PM SUPPLIES: AEROSOL SPRAY, 5 Y PM SUPPLIES: AEROSOL SPRAY, 5 U 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 167.6z 10.3% Sales Tax E 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 623416 PM SUPPLIES: FLOWERS PM SUPPLIES: PLANTS o 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 45.9z �a 10.3% Sales Tax o L 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 4.7< a 7020295 PM SUPPLIES: HEAVY DUTY TOTE; Q PM SUPPLIES: HEAVY DUTY TOTE; .r T 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 59.9( N 10.3% Sales Tax o 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.1 ; cV 8073790 PM SUPPLIES: FLOWERS N PM SUPPLIES: PLANTS E 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 22.4; u 10.3% Sales Tax }; 001.000.64.576.81.31.00 2.3" Total: 706.7; E t 0552395820 BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH PAF +° BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH PAF Q 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 1,659.1' 0552395821 PINE RIDGE PARK HONEY BUCKET PINE RIDGE PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 249.1 E Page: 18 Packet Pg. 148 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.b Page: 19 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 250250 12/2/2021 061013 HONEY BUCKET (Continued) 0552397302 BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH PAF BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH PAF E 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 -727.3" a 0552400484 HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET 3 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 644.9� 0552400485 YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 439.6( 0552400486 HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUC t HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUC 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 346.0( •@ 0552400487 PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE U PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE p 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 120.4E �a 0552400488 SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET o SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET a 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 120.4.E Q 0552400489 WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY I .r WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY I N 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 221.6E c 0552400490 MARINA BEACH/DOG PARK HONED 04 MARINA BEACH/DOG PARK HONED N 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 1,514.1 , E 0552429776 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER HC @ FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER HC U 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 352.0( 0552437497 MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY E MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 111.6E Total: 5,051.8E Q 250251 12/2/2021 076488 HULBERT, MATTHEW STIEG CD21-09 HULBERT PHOTOGRAPHY SERVIC HULBERT PHOTOGRAPHY SERVIC 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 500.0( Page: 19 Packet Pg. 149 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # 250251 12/2/2021 076488 076488 HULBERT, MATTHEW STIEG (Continued) 250252 12/2/2021 069733 ICONIX WATERWORKS INC U2116059417 250253 250254 250255 12/2/2021 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED Description/Account WATER - PARTS WATER - PARTS 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 3520845 CALENDARS Calendars 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.31.00 3520847 10 KEY CALCULATOR 10 key calculator 001.000.31.514.23.35.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.35.00 12/2/2021 065980 INDUSTRIAL SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS SIN008033 12/2/2021 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 300-10094160 Total Total Total : WATER & SEWER - SOFTWARE RE WATER & SEWER - SOFTWARE RE 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 WATER & SEWER - SOFTWARE RE 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 Total FLEET PO# 702 - 24V BATTERY CH, FLEET PO# 702 - 24V BATTERY CH, 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 6.5.b Page: 20 Amoun 500.0( r- m E �a 985.41 L 102.4E 1,087.9: U a� t 59.4, E 6.19 4- 0 M 119.11 o a 12.3( Q 197.11 .r r N N O 1,302.5( N 1,302.5( 135.4E a� 135.4E t 2,875.9, .r a 459.9E Page: 20 Packet Pg. 150 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.b Page: 21 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 250255 12/2/2021 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS (Continued) 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 47.8< Total: 507.7E E, 250256 12/2/2021 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 300592370 INV 300592370 - CUST 100828 - EDI �a Q- KLEENEX TISSUE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 57.8E HANDELING FEE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 19.1( N 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 6.0, Total: 82.9f 250257 12/2/2021 066489 KENT D BRUCE CO LLC 9603 UNIT 665 - PARTS/ HEAVY DUTY G/ f° UNIT 665 - PARTS/ HEAVY DUTY G1 U 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 o 235.6E '@ Freight o 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 15.0 , a 10.4% Sales Tax Q 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 26.0 , " Total: 276.75 N 250258 12/2/2021 067568 KPG INC 10-0421 E7DC SERVICES THRU 10/25/21 N G E7DC SERVICES THRU 10/25/21 04 112.000.68.595.61.41.00 3,196.0E E7DC SERVICES THRU 10/25/21 125.000.68.595.61.41.00 394.1( E7DC SERVICES THRU 10/25/21 126.000.68.595.61.41.00 1,071.7, E7DC SERVICES THRU 10/25/21 t 422.000.72.594.31.41.00 144.1E 5-1121 E7DC SERVICES THRU 5/25/21 Q E7DC SERVICES THRU 5/25/21 112.000.68.595.61.41.00 2,223.8' E7DC SERVICES THRU 5/25/21 125.000.68.595.61.41.00 274.2, Page: 21 Packet Pg. 151 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.b Page: 22 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 250258 12/2/2021 067568 KPG INC (Continued) E7DC SERVICES THRU 5/25/21 126.000.68.595.61.41.00 745.7, E E7DC SERVICES THRU 5/25/21 a 422.000.72.594.31.41.00 100.3, 6-1121 E7DC SERVICES THRU 6/25/21 3 E7DC SERVICES THRU 6/25/21 112.000.68.595.61.41.00 2,352.2E E7DC SERVICES THRU 6/25/21 Y 125.000.68.595.61.41.00 290.0E E7DC SERVICES THRU 6/25/21 126.000.68.595.61.41.00 788.8( E E7DC SERVICES THRU 6/25/21 422.000.72.594.31.41.00 _M 106.1 , 7-0921 E7DC SERVICES THRU 7/25/21 0 E7DC SERVICES THRU 7/25/21 �a 112.000.68.595.61.41.00 964.6z o E7DC SERVICES THRU 7/25/21 a a 125.000.68.595.61.41.00 118.9E Q E7DC SERVICES THRU 7/25/21 r 126.000.68.595.61.41.00 323.4E N E7DC SERVICES THRU 7/25/21 0 422.000.72.594.31.41.00 43.5, c4 9-0821 E7DC SERVICES THRU 9/25/21 E7DC SERVICES THRU 9/25/21 E 112.000.68.595.61.41.00 1,891.8E 2 E7DC SERVICES THRU 9/25/21 }; 125.000.68.595.61.41.00 233.2E E7DC SERVICES THRU 9/25/21 E t 126.000.68.595.61.41.00 634.4' 0M E7DC SERVICES THRU 9/25/21 Q 422.000.72.594.31.41.00 85.3E Total : 15,982.9 , 250259 12/2/2021 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 11132021-01 INV 11132021-01 OCT 2021 - EDMOI Page: 22 Packet Pg. 152 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.b Page: 23 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 250259 12/2/2021 017050 KW ICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH (Continued) OCT 2021 CAR WASH CHARGES 001.000.41.521.22.48.00 60.8z Tota I : 60.8' 250260 12/2/2021 078471 LEMM, KEVIN 10037 TAEKWON-DO 10037 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTIOI` 10037 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTIOI` 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 466.8( Total : 466.8( 250261 12/2/2021 078428 MANU GROUP LLC 9897 SPANISH 9897 SPANISH CLASS INSTRUCTIC 9897 SPANISH CLASS INSTRUCTIC 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 283.8( Tota I : 283.8( 250262 12/2/2021 066258 MARENAKOS INC 1068673-IN GATEWAY SIGN LANDSCAPE ROCI GATEWAY SIGN LANDSCAPE ROCI 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 5,040.9( 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 524.2( Total: 5,565.2, 250263 12/2/2021 067235 MARYS TOWING INC 96382 UNIT 872 - TOWING - UNIT 872 - TOWING- 511.000.77.548.68.48.00 55.2( Total: 55.2( 250264 12/2/2021 068489 MCLOUGHLIN & EARDLEY GROUP INC 0259080 E191 PO - PARTS E191 PO - PARTS 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 1,950.6( 10.4% Sales Tax 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 202.8E Total : 2,153.4E 250265 12/2/2021 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0635721-IN STORM - SUPPLIES STORM - SUPPLIES 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 644.3( Page: 23 Packet Pg. 153 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.b Page: 24 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 250265 12/2/2021 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC (Continued) 10.4% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 67.0- E Total: 711.31 a 250266 12/2/2021 078404 NISHIYAMA, YURI 10122 9899 MAHJONG 10122 9899 MAHJONG CLASS INST 10122 MAHJONG CLASS INSTRUCT 3 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 66.0( 9899 MAHJONG CLASS INSTRUCTI y 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 66.0( U Total : 132.0( t 250267 12/2/2021 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT ERPF UB Grant TW ERPF UTILITY BILLING SUPPORT C E ERPF UTILITY BILLING SUPPORT C f6 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 1,253.9, o Total: 1,253.9: 250268 12/2/2021 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS 3685-170703 UNIT 8 - PARTS/ AIR & OIL FILTER o UNIT 8 - PARTS/ AIR & OIL FILTER CL 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 27.7, Q 10.4% Sales Tax r 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 N 2.8£ N 3685-171840 UNIT 3 - PARTS/ OIL FILTER c UNIT 3 - PARTS/ OIL FILTER T- 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 5.7- E 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.5� 3685-171905 UNIT 17 - PARTS/ WIPER BLADES UNIT 17 - PARTS/ WIPER BLADES 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 8.8E t 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 0.91 Q Total : 46.61 250269 12/2/2021 078772 PAUL & SHEILA MARTIN 8-50194 STORM DRAIN REFUND Storm drain refund - Page: 24 Packet Pg. 154 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.b Page: 25 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 250269 12/2/2021 078772 PAUL & SHEILA MARTIN (Continued) 411.000.233.000 26.2f Total: 26.2f 250270 12/2/2021 072507 PEACE OF MIND OFFICE SUPPORT 112221 PROF SVCS 11/3/21 ADB Meeting Minutes 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 48.0( Total : 48.0( 250271 12/2/2021 071783 PIGSKIN UNIFORMS 2021-40 INV 2021-40 - EDMONDS PD - GAGE SUMMER WT JUMPSUIT- GAGNER 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 515.0( SUMMER WT JUMPSUIT-GONZALE 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 515.0( Freight 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 30.0( Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 91.1E 2021-43 INV 2021-43 - EDMONDS PD - SAN( SUMMER WT JUMPSUIT 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 590.0( Freight 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 24.0( Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.24.00 52.8( Total : 1,817.9E 250272 12/2/2021 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2D99396 CEMETERY - PARTS CEMETERY - PARTS 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 518.3E Freight 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 37.5z 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 57.8- Total : 613.7( Page: 25 Packet Pg. 155 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 250273 12/2/2021 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.b Page: 26 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 200000704821 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( (D 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 11408.3( E 200002411383 YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN a YOST PARK/POOL 9535 BOWDOIN 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 4,382.0E .3 200007876143 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 307.1 ' N 200009595790 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ; FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ; t 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 842.7( 200011439656 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 76.4£ o 200016558856 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME �a CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME o L 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 299.3E a 200016815843 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / Q FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / .r 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 686.1 £ T N 200017676343 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7 N 0 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7 04 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 427.7( N 200019375639 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 E MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 2 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 278.2E U }; 200019895354 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � E 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 213.2.E 200020415911 PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ; PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ; Q 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 26.2 PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ; 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 99.6( PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ; Page: 26 Packet Pg. 156 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.b Page: 27 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 250273 12/2/2021 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY (Continued) 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 99.6( ED PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; E 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 99.6( a PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 99.6( .3 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 99.6" 200024711901 CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE Y CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 360.4z Total: 9,806.0: E 250274 12/2/2021 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 5-034108 UNIT 48 - PARTS U UNIT 48 - PARTS - 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 103.1 E @ 10.4% Sales Tax o 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.7 a Total : 113.91 Q 250275 12/2/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200348233 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W N TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W N 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 41.9E N 200468593 LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / E 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 305.6E 'ca 200493146 MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 16.6( E 200638609 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 273.6E Q 200714038 SEAVIEW PARK SEAVIEW PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 21.2' 200865202 LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE Page: 27 Packet Pg. 157 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 250275 12/2/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.b Page: 28 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) vi LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 79.1 E E 201197084 SEAVIEW PARK a SEAVIEW PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 29.1 3 201236825 FISHING PIER RESTROOMS FISHING PIER RESTROOMS 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 207.7.E N 201265980 LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL � LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL � t 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 164.8, 201327111 PINE ST PARK PINE ST PARK 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.3, o 201572898 TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME �a TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME o L 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 47.2E 201582152 TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W Q TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W .r 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 T 35.2.E N 201611951 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W N 0 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W 04 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 34.3, N 201656907 DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN! E DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN! 2 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 U 277.3E }; 201782646 TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / l\ TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / l\ E 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 18.8� 201907862 TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW fd TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW Q 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 32.9< 202087870 LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 170.4; Page: 28 Packet Pg. 158 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 250275 12/2/2021 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 250276 250277 250278 12/2/2021 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 12/2/2021 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 202289120 202620415 223189747 118045/4 435093/1 S 103580647.001 12/2/2021 074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC 10154 6.5.b Page: 29 PO # Description/Account Amoun TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME (D TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME E 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 62.6z a MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGA MATHAY BALLINGER PARK IRRIGA 3 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 17.7z PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 8326 196- PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 8326 196- 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 82.5z Total : 1,937.7z STORM - WORK WEAR M. JOHNSC E STORM - WORK WEAR M. JOHNSC E U 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 139.9� p 10.4% Sales Tax @ 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 14.5E o STORM - WORK WEAR M. BROWN a STORM - WORK WEAR M. BROWN Q• Q 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 9.8% Sales Tax N 422.000.72.531.90.24.00 13.7, c Total : 308.2E cv FIRE STATION 17 - PARTS/ BATTER N E FIRE STATION 17 - PARTS/ BATTER 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 201.6( 10.5% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 21.1 Total: 222.7, �a SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR NO' Q SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR NO' 001.000.61.557.20.41.00 550.0( Total : 550.0( Page: 29 Packet Pg. 159 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 250279 12/2/2021 078764 SWANSON REALTY INC 250280 250281 12/2/2021 041960 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice 12022021 61492 61497 12/2/2021 067216 VIKING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER CO 62240 62241 62242 62243 6.5.b Page: 30 PO # Description/Account Amoun ERPF BUSINESS SUPPORT GRANT ERPF BUSINESS SUPPORT GRANT (D 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 10,000.0( E, Total: 10,000.0( a FIRE STATION 17 - INSTALL CAHINL FIRE STATION 17 - INSTALL CAHINL 3 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 5,747.0( 10.4% Sales Tax N 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 597.6� FIRE STATION 20 - INSTALL CHAINL FIRE STATION 20 - INSTALL CHAINL 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 33,058.0( •� 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 3,438.0< p Total : 42,840.7, F.A.C. - ANNUAL FIRE SPRINKLER o a F.A.C. - ANNUAL FIRE SPRINKLER Q- Q 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 703.6E 10.4% Sales Tax N 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 73.1 E N FIRE STATION 20 - ANNUAL FIRE C N FIRE STATION 20 - ANNUAL FIRE 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 703.6E E 10.4% Sales Tax ea 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 73.1 £ FIRE STATION 17 - ANNUAL FIRE c FIRE STATION 17 - ANNUAL FIRE 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 703.6E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 73.1 £ Q BOYS & GIRLS CLUB - ANNUAL FIF BOYS & GIRLS CLUB - ANNUAL FIF 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 682.1( 10.4% Sales Tax Page: 30 Packet Pg. 160 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.b Page: 31 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 250281 12/2/2021 067216 VIKING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER CO (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 70.9z Total: 3,083.5: 250282 12/2/2021 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 215987 INV 215987 - CS 21-27622 - EDMON TOW WHT AUDI- CS 21-27622 1.25 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 260.0( 10.5% Sales Tax 001.000.41.521.22.41.00 27.3( Total : 287.3( 250283 12/2/2021 077785 WASHINGTON KIDS IN TRANSITION 2 PMT 2 ERPF HOUSEHOLD SUPPOF PMT 2 ERPF HOUSEHOLD SUPPOF 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 34,762.7E PMT 2 ERPF HOUSEHOLD SUPPOF 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 3,476.2E Total : 38,239.0E 250284 12/2/2021 045912 WASPC INV030099 INV030099 EDMONDS PD - FALL W, WASPC FALL CONFERENCE-BENN 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 350.0( Total : 350.0( 250285 12/2/2021 078302 WEBER, CAROL 10 VISIT EDMONDS WEBSITE SUPPOI VISIT EDMONDS WEBSITE SUPPOI 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 500.0( Tota I : 500.0( 250286 12/2/2021 069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS 0000048633 TRAFFIC - PARTS/ ANCHOR BOLT TRAFFIC - PARTS/ ANCHOR BOLT; 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 45.0E 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.64.31.00 4.6� Tota I : 49.7 , 250287 12/2/2021 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 21-EDM00011 NOV-2021 RETAINER Monthly Retainer Page: 31 Packet Pg. 161 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.b Page: 32 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 250287 12/2/2021 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC (Continued) 001.000.36.515.33.41.00 18,062.5( ED Total: 18,062.5( E 250288 12/2/2021 011900 ZIPLY FIBER 253-007-4989 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR) R Q- SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR) 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 31.1 , 253-012-9166 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES c TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES y 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 162.7- TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES t 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 302.1, 253-014-8062 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE E TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE f° U 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 19.8, ,- TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE '@ 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 36.9( o 253-017-4360 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE a TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE Q- Q 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE N 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 87.3E c 425-712-8347 CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE N CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE N 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 73.5; E 425-771-0158 FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FA} 2 FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FA) U 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 138.6E 509-022-0049 LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACC[ E LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACCI 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.4, +° Total: 925.8( Q 78 Vouchers for bank code : usbank Bank total : 245,873.4( 78 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 245,873.4E Page: 32 Packet Pg. 162 vchlist 12/02/2021 10 :41:06AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 6.5.b Page: 33 Amoun Page: 33 Packet Pg. 163 6.5.c vchlist 11 /23/2021 2:06:35PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 11192021 11/19/2021 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Page Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun . . ui 0747 PW CC - 11/08/2021 c AMAZON - CAMERA MOUNTS FOR, E 111.000.68.542.90.31.00 8.8, SEWER EQUIPMENT - SEWER PAR a 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 241.2E .� AMAZON - FACE MASKS 3 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 28.1 c ZAGG - WATER IPAD CASE WITH K 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 107.6< AMAZON - PUBLIC WORKS AED BA aD t 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 138.0( u APPLE CHARGE FOR PHIL WILLIA� E 001.000.65.518.20.31.00 0.9� 2 1807 HAWLEY CC -1807 11/08/21 EDMOI` c GAS -PRISONER TX FROM PORTLA 'R 001.000.41.521.22.43.00 52.9- c FOOD -CORPORAL ASSESSMENT C a 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 41.3( Q RECORD FOR CPL REQUEST 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 1.0( 1814 BENNETT CC -1814 11/08/21 EDMO 1ST NITE STAY- WASPC CON 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 151.9£ FBINAA WINTER TRAINING/LUNCH 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 3 152.2E .. HOTEL - AXON CONF - BENNETT c 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 m 339.9E E 1880 AMAZON REFUND: COPY PAPER U AMAZON REFUND: COPY PAPER:° 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 -24.2£ Q 1880 parks 1880 PARKS CREDIT CARD Amazon: Admin supplies: Webcams 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 54.6£ Amazon: Rec supplies: Notepads Page: 1 Packet Pg. 164 vchlist 11 /23/2021 2:06:35PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 11192021 11/19/2021 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.c Page: 2 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) ^ N 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 27.41 Amazon: Rec supplies: Pickleball Net E 001.000.64.571.25.31.00 264.9< Amazon: Rec supplies: Copy Paper a 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 25.5E Amazon: Admin supplies: Paper trays 3 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 56.1 < Amazon: Admin supplies: Drawer Orc `6 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 19.8E Amazon: Admin supplies: Notebooks 001.000.64.571.21.31.00 19.7( U Amazon: Rec supplies: paper plates, E 001.000.64.571.22.31.00 147.4E u KudosBoard: Recreation: Subscriptioi c 001.000.64.571.22.49.00 19.9E @ 1880 police ROBINSON CC -1880 11/08/21 EDMi c HOUSING FOR HOMELESS WOMAI a 001.000.39.565.40.41.00 79.5E Q BUSINESS CARDS - PEER SUPPOF �- 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 102.7- N 1885 PD 2 CC -1885 11/08/21 EDMONDS c� GAS -TRAVEL TO/FM SWAT TRAININ 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 69.1( SUPPLIES FOR SWAT TRAINING L 628.000.41.589.40.31.00 120.1E 3 1937 FLEET CC - 11/08/2021 WSDOT - GOOD TO GO 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 30.0( WSDOT - GOOD TO GO 588-POL +g 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 27.3E Q WSDOT - GOOD TO GO 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 2.7E WSDOT - GOOD TO GO 437-POL 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 3.2E Page: 2 Packet Pg. 165 vchlist 11 /23/2021 2:06:35PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 11192021 11/19/2021 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.c Page: 3 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) -71 ui SAFEWAY - SUPPLIES 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 7.7, EMERALD CITY HARLEY - UNIT 96C 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 218.7< HARBOR FREIGHT - UNIT 342 26" T 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 242.8, 3 EMERALD CITY HARLEY - UNIT 928 c 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 416.9, N HARBOR FREIGHT - UNIT EE183PC 511.000.77.548.68.34.10 242.8, t UPS STORE - UNIT 437 SHIPPING U 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 12.7E . WEATHERTECH - E191 PO FLOORN 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 134.4( o WEATHERTECH - UNITS 665, 664, £ 'R 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 547.5� o D&R ELECTRONICS - E191 PO, E19: a 511.100.77.594.48.64.00 668.7E Q TRIVAN - UNIT 24 DOOR BALANCEI 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 696.7, N METAL SUPERMARKET - UNIT 282 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 71.9 1 AMAZON - UNIT 872 HEADLIGHT A; 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 199.8- •3 TALLEY - UNIT 282 PARTS r 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 161.1 , 2519 PD #1 CC -2519 11/08/21 EDMONDB E SHIP TO SEATTLE SCHOOLS & AD[ U 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 33.7E m SHIP TO WSP TOX LAB Q 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 20.5( FUEL SURCHARGE FOR ITEM #1 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 3.2� SHIP TO WSP TOX LAB Page: 3 Packet Pg. 166 vchlist 11 /23/2021 2:06:35PM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.c Page: 4 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 11192021 11/19/2021 062693 US BANK (Continued) ui 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 17.0' 2660 ZOHO DESKTOP CENTRAL PROFE; Zoho ManageEngine Desktop Centra 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 441.6( 2686 KEYBOARDS, MOUSE, MOUSEPAD Amazon - Keyboards, Mouse, Mousel 3 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 82.7 1 c Amazon - Keyboards, Mouse, Mousel 512.000.31.518.88.31.00 86.5 , Y 2985 WWTP: REFUND FOR CARPORT aUi REFUND FOR CARPORT - VENDOF U 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 -3,798.0( E 10.4% Sales Tax R 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 -394.9£ � 2985 WWTP: HRO+EDUENAS CLASSES, G PSI: Hyuk Ro - Operator 2 exam > 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 102.0( a Amazon: Carport $3798+$394.99 tax Q. 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 4,192.9� Q Amazon: Tlmer $189.44+$19.70 tax N 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 209.1 Amazon: Syringes: $15.99+1.66 tax 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 17.6E Amazon: Ball Valve 63.65+6.62 tax L_ 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 70.2; 3 Amazon: Typing chair for Ross Hahn: 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 121.4- Amazon: Door Gasket: $68+7.08 ysc 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 75.0£ +g Amazon: Erase Board: $65+6.76 tax-, Q 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 71.1 , Amazon: Dry Erase Markers $18.25+ 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 19.91 Karport Kings: $1000 deposit for Page: 4 Packet Pg. 167 vchlist 11 /23/2021 2:06:35PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 11192021 11/19/2021 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.c Page: 5 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) -71 ui 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 1,028.1E Royceu.com: Eric Duenas: Activated E 423.000.76.535.80.49.71 69.0( 3048 THOMPSON CC -3048 11/08/21 EDN a REUSABLE FACE MASKS 001.000.41.521.30.31.00 116.3< 3 HEPA FILTER - CLERKS AREA 001.000.41.521.11.31.00 75.3� VORTEX OPTICS TORQUE WRENC 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 97.1.E t CHRONOGRAPH FOR ARMORY U 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 109.2, ,E DV AWARENESS BRACELETS �a 001.000.41.521.30.31.00 U 43.7( o SHATTERPROOF FRAMES —a 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 8.8, o BIRTHDAY CLUB GIVEAWAYS a 001.000.41.521.30.31.00 162.4< Q BATTERIES FOR PATROL �- 001.000.41.521.22.31.00 170.4, N TRASH BAGS FOR ANIMAL CONTR, c� 001.000.41.521.70.31.00 18.2 1 SERVICE PLAQUE FOR A. COLLINE 001.000.41.521.10.31.00 m 93.8z .L BARREL MOUNT - SWAT 3 628.000.41.589.40.31.00 36.2, c RIFLE SLINGS SWAT E E 628.000.41.589.40.31.00 177.6� 4171 MCCLURE -4171 11/08/21 EDMOND EXPLORER RECRUITMENT FLYER: Q 001.000.41.521.30.31.00 37.0( APPLE MONTHLY DATA STORAGE 001.000.41.521.40.41.40 0.9� CANVA PRO ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTI( Page: 5 Packet Pg. 168 vchlist 11 /23/2021 2:06:35PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 11192021 11/19/2021 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.c Page: 6 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) ^ N 001.000.41.521.40.41.40 119.4( c HOTEL - AXON CONFERENCE d E 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 339.9E 4474 COUNCIL VISA - SUPPLIES a Business Costco - Council paper supl 001.000.11.511.60.31.00 37.3( 3 Amazon supplies for CM K. Johnson 001.000.11.511.60.31.00 56.6, Amazon supplies for Council 001.000.11.511.60.31.00 16.5E t 4697 CANVA SUBSCRIPTION U postage DOE amendment E 001.000.21.513.10.42.00 5.1 - 2 kleenex 4- 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 14.0( o space heater c 001.000.21.513.10.31.00 39.7< a Canva subscription 11/2021 Q- Q 001.000.21.513.10.49.00 12.9E 4929 DEV SVCS - US BANK N Dev Svcs Office Supplies- c, 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 41.0E Amazon- 001.000.62.524.10.35.00 310.8z .L SquareSpace (Edmonds Housing Stn 3 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 238.4E c International Code Council- E 001.000.62.524.20.49.00 219.0( Seattle Times - monthly subscription- +g 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 58.5( Q GMR Transcriptions- 001.000.62.558.60.41.00 749.7.E Amazon- 001.000.62.524.10.31.00 29.3 Page: 6 Packet Pg. 169 vchlist 11 /23/2021 2:06:35PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 11192021 11/19/2021 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.c Page: 7 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) ui Adobe- c 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 117.0( ISA-Arbor.com- 001.000.62.558.60.31.00 196.2E a Forestry Suppliers- _(D 001.000.62.558.60.31.00 56.2, 3 New Egg- _ 001.000.62.558.60.35.00 772.7E N MailChimp- Y U 001.000.62.524.10.49.00 23.1, Amazon- U 001.000.62.524.20.31.00 98.5, . 5336 STANLEY -5336 11/08/2021 EDMONI GAS- VCQB TRAINING - RICHLAND o 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 39.8E -@ HOTEL- RICHLAND TRAINNG-STAN o 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 595.6E a HOTEL-RICHLAND TRAINING-GAGP Q- Q 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 595.6E GAS-VCQB TRAINING - RICHLAND N 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 46.7E M FUEL -SWAT TRAIN. - OREGON 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 77.4E 5593 CITY CLERK'S CC PAYMENT L amazon office supplies 3 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 23.7( c snohomish county auditor m E 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 80.0( snohomish county auditor 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 80.0( Q amazon office supplies 001.000.25.514.30.31.00 252.8E snohomish county auditor 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 100.0( Page: 7 Packet Pg. 170 vchlist 11 /23/2021 2:06:35PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 11192021 11/19/2021 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.c Page: 8 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) —71 ui Snohomish county auditor 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 100.0( WAPRO Cert Quan 001.000.25.514.30.49.00 50.0( a 5639 PAYFLOW PAYMENT PROCESSOR %v Payflow payment processor 3 001.000.62.524.20.49.00 14.7< Payflow payment processor 001.000.62.558.60.49.00 14.7' Payflow payment processor 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 14.7z U 5810 5810 RICH LINDSAY CREDIT CARD E ISA: PM MEMBERSHIP RENEWALA 2 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 U 185.0( o AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: HOLIDAY 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 �a 490.8( o 5919 5919 FRANCES CHAPIN CREDIT Ci a PAYPAL: SHAWGUIDES: WOTS: AN Q- Q 117.100.64.573.20.49.00 500.0( 5923 CS/ECON DEV CREDIT CARD OCT( N Facebook Advertising for Diversity Fil a, 001.000.61.557.20.41.40 35.0( Facebook Advertising for Diversity Fil 001.000.61.558.70.41.40 7.0£ .L OfficeSpace website listing for Octobf 3 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 100.0( c Holiday Market - Paint for marking E 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 6.4£ ERPF Business Support Grant Postc< +g 001.000.61.558.70.49.00 1,660.8E Q 6459 6459 ANGIE FESER CREDIT CARD WASHINGTON ROCK QUARRIES: P 001.000.64.576.80.48.00 2,334.9£ 6654 SULLIVAN CC - 11/08/2021 Page: 8 Packet Pg. 171 vchlist 11 /23/2021 2:06:35PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 11192021 11/19/2021 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.c Page: 9 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) y INSPECTIONS - OLD PUBLIC WORI 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 750.0( INSPECTIONS - F.A.C. INSPECTION 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 750.0( a CITY OF EDMONDS - FIRE STATION 001.000.66.518.30.49.00 165.0( 3 CITY OF EDMONDS - FIRE STATION � c 001.000.66.518.30.49.00 55.0( N NATIONAL SAFETY - SAFETY VEST 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 33.1, t 7573 SMITH CC -7573 11/08/21 EDMOND: U 15 STREAMLIGHT WEAPON LIGHT; E 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 2,296.6E u USB HUB o 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 44.1E 'R WALL BRACKETS X/STRAPS o 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 136.1 z a 8017 ENG CREDIT CARD OCTOBER 202- Q- Q E20CE Click 2 Mail 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 513.1- N E20CB Click 2 Mail c� 112.000.68.542.30.41.00 48.2E E20CB Click 2 Mail 126.000.68.542.30.41.00 m 12.6E .L Hauss- ITE Annual Membership 3 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 327.0( c Sound Meter E E 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 254.3E u Stapler, Binder tab dividers R 001.000.67.518.21.49.00 43.4z Q 8111 8111 MICHELE PARKER CREDIT CA SWAN TRAIL FARMS: PRESCHOOL 001.000.64.571.29.49.00 182.0( SAFEWAY: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES Page: 9 Packet Pg. 172 vchlist 11 /23/2021 2:06:35PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 11192021 11/19/2021 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.c Page: 10 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) ui 001.000.64.571.29.31.00 29.1E AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES: E 001.000.64.571.29.31.00 8.8, AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES: a 001.000.64.571.29.31.00 12.6E AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES: _W 3 001.000.64.571.29.31.00 33.0� WALMART: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIE, `6 001.000.64.571.29.31.00 9.91 AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES: t 001.000.64.571.29.31.00 149.4E u AMAZON: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES: E 001.000.64.571.29.31.00 7.7, u FRED MEYER: PRESCHOOL SUPPI. o 001.000.64.571.29.31.00 12.5E 'R WALMART: PRESCHOOL SUPPLIE o 001.000.64.571.29.31.00 10.6E a FRED MEYER: PRESCHOOL SUPPI. Q- Q 001.000.64.571.29.31.00 15.4E 8842 INTEL COFFEE LAKE I5-8259U PRC N HK Sunrise - Intel Coffee Lake i5-825 c� 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 1,947.0( 9821 GREENMUN CC -9821 11/08/21 EDh STARBUCKS COFFEE FOR TRAIN F L 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 106.71 3 COB SLINGS-PEPPERBALL LAUNC c 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 262.9, E STARBUCKS COFFEE FOR TRAIN F 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 49.3-° CUPS/LIDS FOR TRAINING ROOM Q 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 262.7' PRINTS DEPT PHOTOS-RECRUITIN 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 73.8E HARDHATS FOR DRUG BURN SITE Page: 10 Packet Pg. 173 vchlist 11 /23/2021 2:06:35PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 11192021 11/19/2021 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.c Page: 11 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) ^ N 001.000.41.521.80.31.00 100.7E c DIGITAL MONITOR -CHIEFS CONF F d E 001.000.41.521.10.35.00 750.0< APPLE MONTHLY DATA STORAGE a 001.000.41.521.40.31.00 0.9� L_ TRAINING CUFFS, BLUE GUNS 3 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 523.0; c TRAINING TASERS 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 300.2� LEIRA TRAINING - SMITH t 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 150.0( U TLO REPORTS - OCTOBER 2021 E 001.000.41.521.21.41.00 82.8" 2 VAN FOR AXON CONF - 9 PEOPLE o 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 791.6; 'R HOTEL -AXON CONF-BROMAN o 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 339.9E a HOTEL -AXON CONF - SAUNDERS Q- Q 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 339.9E HOTEL - AXON CONF - SUTTON N 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 339.9E 0) VAN PARKING - AXON CONFEREW 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 54.0( BID-9798 BID/ED! CREDIT CARD OCTOBER 2 L BID/Ed! Facebook Advertising 3 140.000.61.558.70.41.40 249.9- c BID/Ed! Zoom Meeting Charges Octo E 140.000.61.558.70.49.00 16.5z U BID/Ed! Holiday 2021 Campaign Sigr R 140.000.61.558.70.49.00 903.7, Q BID/Ed! Squarespace Annual Subscri 140.000.61.558.70.49.00 238.4E Total : 34,293.81 Page: 11 Packet Pg. 174 vchlist 11 /23/2021 2:06:35PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 1 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.c Page: 12 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun Bank total : 34,293.8. ui c Total vouchers : 34,293.81 �a a a� L 3 c U a� U E 0 U 4- 0 El N d �3 r c m E R r a Page: 12 Packet Pg. 175 6.5.d vchlist 11 /23/2021 2:45:31 PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 11222021 11/22/2021 062693 US BANK Voucher List City of Edmonds Page Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun . . ui 1558 BLUEBEAM, REMOTE PC, NEWEG( c Bluebeam - Bluebeam Revu: Standar E E 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 3,984.1 , Bluebeam - Delayed Maintenance Fe a 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 2,323.3( .(D Amazon - ORICO USB 3.0 Hub, 7 poi 3 512.000.31.518.88.31.00 79.4( c Zoom - Cloud recording monthly (IT), 001.000.25.514.30.42.00 44.1 E Zoom - Cloud recording monthly (IT), t 001.000.61.557.20.42.00 44.1( u Zoom - Cloud recording monthly (IT), E 001.000.23.512.50.42.00 54.1( Zoom - Cloud recording monthly (IT), c 512.000.31.518.88.42.00 44.1E -@ Zoom - Cloud recording monthly (IT), c 001.000.62.558.60.42.00 88.3, a ENOM - Domain name registration - Q' Q 512.000.31.518.88.49.00 30.I " ENOM Domain Name registration - 512.000.31.518.88.49.00 16.1 E N Newegg.com - APC BE650G1 Back-1 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 496.7E m Duo.com - MFA monthly qty 90 3 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 270.0( Amazon - APC UPS 650VA Back -UP; r 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 369.9', E Newegg.com - HDMI-3 Longwwin Hig 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 33.0E Newegg.com - Logitech MK120 Wire( Q 001.000.41.521.22.35.00 77.5� Rev.com - Zoom Live Captions add o 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 40.0( Remote PC - Enterprise yearly Page: 1 Packet Pg. 176 vchlist 11/23/2021 2:45:31PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 11222021 11/22/2021 062693 US BANK 1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 1 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.d Page: 2 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) ui 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 599.5( ENOM Domain Name registration - E 512.000.31.518.88.49.00 32.3, 5401 SAUNDERS CC -5408 11/08/21 EDM a HOTEL -AXON CONFERENCE-ALLEI 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 339.9E 3 HOTEL -AXON CONFERENCE -BARE 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 339.9E HOTEL -AXON CONFER-GREENMUI Y 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 U 339.9E t HOTEL -AXON CONFERENCE -KERN U 001.000.41.521.40.43.00 339.9E ,E UAG OPERATOR TEST - SAUNDER: �a U 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 175.0( o UAG OP TEST-MORRIS-SEE CREDI 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 �a 175.0( o RESCHEDULED UAG OP TEST- MO 0- 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 175.0( Q 5401 SAUNDERS -5401 11/08/21 CM EDN CANCELLED UAG TEST - MORRIS N 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 175.0( 04 USA JUDO TRAINING REFUND 001.000.41.521.40.49.00 -575.1( Total : 9,762.41 .3 Bank total : 9,762.41, m Total vouchers : 9,762.4, E U fC Q Page: 2 Packet Pg. 177 6.5.e vchlist 11 /24/2021 2:09:30PM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 11242021 11/24/2021 062693 US BANK 1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 1 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds Page Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun . . ui 8474 8474 JESSE CURRAN CREDIT CAR c AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: HEARING E 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 51.8E GO NATIVES: PM SUPPLIES: PLAN- a 125.000.64.576.80.31.00 2,175.3z .(D GO NATIVES: PM: PLANTS 3 127.000.64.575.50.31.00 404.0< c PAYPAL: LOWES: PM SUPPLIES: H( ca 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1,319.5( AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: HANDWAI t 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 22.5" u AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: EYE WAS E 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 23.6z 2 ISA: CLASS REGISTRATION FEES: c 001.000.64.576.80.49.00 241.1 z -@ LOWES: PM SUPPLIES: RABBIT CA 0 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 397.6( a AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: HOLIDAY Q' Q 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 91.9E v AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: GLOVES 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 36.9E N AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: HIGH VOL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 39.9< m Total : 4,804.5: 3 Bank total : 4,804.5: m Total vouchers : 4,804.5: U fC Q Page: 1 Packet Pg. 178 6.5.f PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STM 174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements c521 175th St. SW Slope Stabilization c560 E21 FB �STM STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 EBGA STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Projec c525 EBFC WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 EBJA MENISTML. 2019 Traffic Calming i038 - STIR 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades i045 E9AD TILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s020 E WTR 2019 Waterline Overlay i043 E9CB 111111LR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA STIR 2020 Guardrail Installations i046 EOAA 2020 Overlay Program i042 - STIR 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program i049 EODB STIR 2020 Pedestrian Task Force s02 STIR 2020 Traffic Calming i048 EOAC u20 Traffic Signal Upgrades i047 STIR 2020 Waterline Overlay i053 EOCC STIR 2021 Guardrail Installations i057 E21 AB STIR 2021 Overlay Program 051 E21 CA I Pedestrian Task Force i062 E21 DB SWR 2021 Sewer Overlay Program i06O E21 CC F_ STM 2021 Stormwater Overlay Program 061 E21 CD STIR 2021 Traffic Calming i056 E21AA MMMU2021 Waterline Overlay Program i059 E21 CB STIR 2022 Overlay Program i063 E22CA NNNdi@L 2022 Sewerline Overlay Program i065 E22CC STIR 2022 Stormwater Overlay Program i066 E22CD UTILITIES 2022 Utility Rate and GFC Study s030 E22NB STIR 2022 Waterline Overlay Program i064 E22CB STIR 220th Adaptive i028 EBAB STIR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps i037 STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA STIR 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) i052 E20CB L STIR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 EBCA STIR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1 CA 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th 03 STIR 89th PI W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD STIR ADA Curb Ramp 03 STIR Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing i040 E9DA Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB STM Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design s022 E9FA STIR Bikelink Project c474 ESDA STIR Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project i050 EODC SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I" c488 E6GB STIR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC STIR ywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion 015 E6AB PRK Civic Center Playfield (Construction) c551 EOMA PRK Civic Center Playfield (Design) c536 EOMA WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 ESJB STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE Revised 11/17/2021 Packet Pg. 179 6.5.f PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project c564 STR Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector c478 E5DB WTR Elm St. Waterline Replacement c561 E21JB STR Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave i058 E21 DA WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 E51KA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization STR Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 3 (224th-238th) i067 E22CE evitalization Stage 4 (224th-220th) i068 E22CF STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study sol l E5GB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC STR Wnor Sidewalk Progr1axorw i017 E6DD STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG _ Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update s025 EONA STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA STM Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements c552 E20FC STM Perrinville Creek Recovery Study s028 E21 FC Phase 10 Sewerline Rep Facement Project c566 E22GA WTR Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c549 EOJA WTR Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c558 E21JA WTR Phase 13 Waterline Replacement Project c565 E22JA STM Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project c547 EOFB STM Phase 3 Storm Utility Replacement Project c563 E21 FD STM Phase 4 Storm Utility Replacement Project 1 c567 E22FA SWR Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c548 EOGA SWR phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project FAC PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South c502 E9MA SWR Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services c562 E21GB STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 E5FD STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 c546 EOFA WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA STR SR 104 Adaptive Systems (136th-226t i069 E22CG STR SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) i055 E20CE UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo E5NA STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STR Trackside Warning Sys te c470 E5AA UTILITIES Utility Funds reserve Policies Study s029 E22NA Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4 i044 PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) c544 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) c496 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) m103 E7MA STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 E5HA WTR Yost & Seaview Reservoir Asses s026 EOJB WTR Yost & Seaview Reservoir Repairs and Upgrades m160 E22JB PRK Yost Park Infiltration Facili c556 E21 FA Revised 11/17/2021 Packet Pg. 180 6.5.f PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title STIR i046 2020 Guardrail Installations STIR EOAB i047 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades STIR i048 2020 Traffic Calming STIR EOCA i042 2020 Overlay Program STR i053 2020 Waterline Overlay STIR EODA s024 2020 Pedestrian Task Force STIR EODB 1049 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program STIR EODC i050 Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase STM EOFB c547 Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project SWR EOGA 8 Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Projec WTR EOJA c549 Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project EOJB s026 Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessmen PRK EOMA c551 Civic Center Playfield (Construction) Civic Center Playfield (Desig GF EONA s025 Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update - STIR E1CA 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STIR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STIR E20CB 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) STIR E20CE i055 SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) STM E20FC c552 Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements STIR E21 AA i056 2021 Traffic Calming STIR E21AB i057 2021 Guardrail Installations STIR E21 CA i051 2021 Overlay Program WTR E21 CB jm� 2021 Waterline Overlay Program SWR E21 CC i060 2021 Sewer Overlay Program STM E21CD INW1 2021 Stormwater Overlay Progra STIR E21 DA i058 Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave STIR E21 DB i062 2021 Pedestrian Task Force PRK E21 FA c556 Yost Park Infiltration Facility STM c560 175th St. SW Slope Stabilization An. STM E21 FC s028 Perrinville Creek Recovery Study STM E21 FD c563 Phase 3 Storm Utility Replacement Project STM E21 FE c564 Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project SWR E21� c559 Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Projec SWR E21GB c562 Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services E21JA JW c558 Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project WTR E21JB c561 Elm St. Waterline Replacement STIR E22CA i063 2022 Overlay Program STIR E22CB i064 2022 Waterline Overlay Program ST4�22CJNENNIIL65 2022 Sewerline Overlay Program STIR E22CD i066 2022 Stormwater Overlay Program STIR E22CE Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 3 (224th-238th) STIR E22CF i068 Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 4 (224th-220th) STIR E22CG i069 SR-104 Adaptive Systems (136th-226th) STM E22FA c567 Phase 4 Storm Utility Replacement Project SWR J� J� Phase 10 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E22JA c565 Phase 13 Waterline Replacement Project WTR E22JB IM160 Yost & Seaview Reservoir Repairs and Upgrades UTILITIES E22NA s029 Utility Funds reserve Policies Study 4R030 UTILITIES E22NB 2022 Utility Rate and GFC Study STIR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) Revised 11/17/2021 Packet Pg. 181 6.5.f PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Funding Number STM E4FC Protect Accountinq Number Project Title c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STM � c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study WWTP E4H c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab STIR E5AAL c470 Trackside Warning System STIR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector STM E5FD c479 Seaview, Park Infiltration Facility SWR E5GB s011 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study WWTP E51HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) WTR E51KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating UTILITIES E5NA Standard Details Updat STIR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization STIR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STIR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) Minor Sidewalk Program STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update SWR E6GB 88 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase III STIR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals STIR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STIR E7CD i025 89th PI W Retaining Wall E7DC Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization nnnoriipr E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) EWE7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement PRK E71MA c544 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) PRK E71MA m103 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) STIR E8AB 8 220th Adaptive STIR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements STIR F8CC 031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th STIR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps STIR E8DC 37 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps STM E8FA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study STM E8FB c521 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements STM E8FC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project SWR E8GA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E8JA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement UTILITIES E8J13 s020 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Updat PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STR,, E9AA JA i038 2019 Traffic Calming STIR E9AD i045 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades WTR E9 i043 2019 Waterline Overla STIR E9DA i040 Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing STIR E9DC A4 Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th STM E9FA s022 Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South Revised 11/17/2021 Packet Pg. 182 6.5.f PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title PM EBMA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STIR E1 DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STIR E1 CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STIR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STM E41FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study STIR ESAA c470 Trackside Warning System WTR ESKA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating STIR ESDA c474 Bikelink Project STIR ESDB c478 Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector STM ESFD c479 Seaview, Park Infiltration Facility WWTP ESHA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR ESJB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) STIR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase III STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW PRK E7MA c496 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement FAC E9MA c502 PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South SWR EBGA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project STM EBFB c521 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements WTR EBJA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement STM EBFC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project PRK EOMA c536 Civic Center Playfield (Design) PRK E7MA c544 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) STM EOFA c546 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 STM EOFB c547 Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project SWR EOGA c548 Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project WTR EOJA c549 Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project PRK EOMA c551 Civic Center Playfield (Construction) STM E20FC c552 Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements PRK E21 FA c556 Yost Park Infiltration Facility WTR E21JA c558 Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project SWR E21 GA c559 Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project STM E21 FB c560 175th St. SW Slope Stabilization WTR E21JB c561 Elm St. Waterline Replacement SWR E21 GB c562 Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services STM E21 FD c563 Phase 3 Storm Utility Replacement Project STM E21 FE c564 Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project WTR E22JA c565 Phase 13 Waterline Replacement Project SWR E22GA c566 Phase 10 Sewerline Replacement Project STM E22FA c567 Phase 4 Storm Utility Replacement Project STIR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STIR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STIR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program STIR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals STIR E7CD i025 89th PI W Retaining Wall STIR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Revised 11/17/2021 Packet Pg. 183 6.5.f PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title STR EBAB i028 220th Adaptive STR EBCA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements STR EBCC i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th STIR EBDB i033 ADA Curb Ramps STR EBDC i037 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps STR E9AA i038 2019 Traffic Calming STR E9DA i040 Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing STR EOCA i042 2020 Overlay Program WTR E9CB i043 2019 Waterline Overlay STR E9DC i044 Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) STR E9AD i045 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades STR EOAA i046 2020 Guardrail Installations STR EOAB i047 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades STR EOAC i048 2020 Traffic Calming STR EODB i049 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program STR EODC i050 Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project STR E21 CA 051 2021 Overlay Program STR E20CB i052 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) STR EOCC i053 2020 Waterline Overlay STR E20CE i055 SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) STR E21AA i056 2021 Traffic Calming STR E21AB i057 2021 Guardrail Installations STR E21 DA io58 Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave WTR E21CB i059 2021 Waterline Overlay Program SW R E21 CC i060 2021 Sewer Overlay Program STM E21CD i061 2021 Stormwater Overlay Program STR E21DB i062 2021 Pedestrian Task Force STR E22CA i063 2022 Overlay Program STR E22CB i064 2022 Waterline Overlay Program STR E22CC i065 2022 Sewerline Overlay Program STR E22CD i066 2022 Stormwater Overlay Program STR E22CE i067 Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 3 (224th-238th) STR E22CF i068 Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 4 (224th-220th) STR E22CG i069 SR-104 Adaptive Systems (136th-226th) STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization WTR E22JB m160 Yost & Seaview Reservoir Repairs and Upgrades UTILITIES ESNA solo Standard Details Updates SWR ESGB s0l l Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study STR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update STM EBFA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study UTILITIES EBJB s020 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update STM E9FA s022 Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design STR EODA s024 2020 Pedestrian Task Force GF EONA s025 Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update WTR EOJB s026 Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment STM E21 FC s028 Perrinville Creek Recovery Study UTILITIES E22NA s029 Utility Funds reserve Policies Study UTILITIES E22NB s030 2022 Utility Rate and GFC Study Revised 11/17/2021 Packet Pg. 184 6.5.f PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Project Engineerinq Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E41MB FAC PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South c502 E9MA GF Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update s025 EONA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA PRK Civic Center Playfield (Construction) c551 EOMA PRK Civic Center Playfield (Design) c536 EOMA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) c544 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) c496 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) m103 E7MA PRK Yost Park Infiltration Facility c556 E21 FA STM 174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements c521 EBFB STM 175th St. SW Slope Stabilization c560 E21 FB STM Phase 4 Storm Utility Replacement Project c567 E22FA STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 EBFA STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 EBFC STM 2021 Stormwater Overlay Program i061 E21 CD STM Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design s022 E9FA STM Phase 3 Storm Utility Replacement Project c563 E21 FD STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA STM Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements c552 E20FC STM Perrinville Creek Recovery Study s028 E21 FC STM Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project c547 EOFB STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 ESFD STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 c546 EOFA STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STM Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project c564 E21 FE STIR 2019 Traffic Calming i038 E9AA STIR 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades i045 E9AD STIR 2020 Guardrail Installations i046 EOAA STIR 2020 Overlay Program i042 EOCA STIR 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program i049 EODB STIR 2020 Pedestrian Task Force s024 EODA STIR 2020 Traffic Calming i048 EOAC STIR 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades i047 EOAB STIR 2021 Guardrail Installations i057 E21AB STIR 2021 Overlay Program 051 E21 CA STIR 2021 Traffic Calming i056 E21AA STIR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STIR 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps i037 EBDC STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA STIR 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) i052 E20CB STIR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 EBCA STIR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA STIR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 EBCC STIR 89th PI W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD STIR Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 3 (224th-238th) i067 E22CE Revised 11/17/2021 Packet Pg. 185 6.5.f PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Project Engineerinq Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STIR Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 4 (224th-220th) i068 E22CF STIR SR-104 Adaptive Systems (136th-226th) i069 E22CG STIR ADA Curb Ramps i033 EBDB STIR Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing i040 E9DA STIR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB STIR Bikelink Project c474 ESDA STIR Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project i050 EODC STIR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC STIR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion 015 E6AB STIR Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector c478 ESDB STIR Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave i058 E21DA STIR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA STIR Minor Sidewalk Program 017 E6DD STIR SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) i055 E20CE STIR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA STIR Trackside Warning System c470 ESAA STIR Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) i044 E9DC STIR 2021 Pedestrian Task Force i061 E21 DB STIR 2022 Overlay Program i063 E22CA STIR 2022 Waterline Overlay Program i064 E22CB STIR 2022 Sewerline Overlay Program i065 E22CC STIR 2022 Stormwater Overlay Program i066 E22CD STIR 2020 Waterline Overlay i053 EOCC STIR 220th Adaptive i028 EBAB SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 EBGA SWR 2021 Sewer Overlay Program i060 E21CC SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase III c488 E6GB SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s0l l ESGB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC SWR Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c548 EOGA SWR Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c559 E21GA SWR Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services c562 E21GB SWR Phase 10 Sewerline Replacement Project c566 E22GA UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s020 EBJB UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo ESNA UTILITIES Utility Funds reserve Policies Study s029 E22NA UTILITIES 2022 Utility Rate and GFC Study s03O E22NB WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 EBJA WTR 2019 Waterline Overlay i043 E9CB WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA WTR 2021 Waterline Overlay Program i059 E21CB WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 ESJB WTR Elm St. Waterline Replacement c561 E21JB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 ESKA WTR Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c549 EOJA WTR Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c558 E21JA WTR Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment s026 EOJB WTR Phase 13 Waterline Replacement Project c565 E22JA WTR Yost & Seaview Reservoir Repairs and Upgrades m160 E22JB WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 ESHA Revised 11/17/2021 Packet Pg. 186 6.6 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/7/2021 Authorization for the City to sign the Addendum to the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement related to WRIA-8 Staff Lead: Council Department: City Council Preparer: Maureen Judge Background/History The City is a current signatory to the Interlocal Agreement for the Watershed Basins within the Water Resource Inventory Area 8 (WRIA 8). Staff Recommendation Approve authorization for the City to sign the updated interlocal agreement (Exhibit 1). Narrative The City of Everett is joining WRIA 8. This means that all cities that are part of the current Interlocal Agreement with WRIA 8 need to approve the addendum with the addition of the new city. The ILA addendum for the City of Everett is attached. There are no other substantive changes with the existing agreement. Attachments: Exhibit 1 - WRIA 8 Interlocal Agreement Packet Pg. 187 6.6.a 1 K 9 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ADDENDUM TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT For the Watershed Basins within Water Resource Inventory Area 8 ("WRIA 8") PREAMBLE THIS ADDENDUM ("Addendum") to that certain Interlocal Agreement for the Watershed Basins within Water Resource Inventory Area 8 ("Agreement") is entered into by the Parties to that Agreement and the City of Everett ("City"), for the purposes of allowing the City to become a member, with full rights and obligations under the Agreement, of the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council, as described in the Agreement ("Council"). This Addendum sets forth the rights and obligations of the City and memorializes the unanimous consent of all Parties to the Agreement to the City's joining the Council as a voting member, in accordance with the terms of Section 8 of the Agreement. The City is identified in Section 1.1 of the Agreement as an eligible jurisdiction for participation in the Council. The Parties and the City share interests in and responsibility for addressing long-term watershed planning and conservation for the watershed basins in WRIA 8 and wish to provide for funding and implementation of various activities and projects therein. TERMS FOR THE CITY OF EVERETT'S PARTICIPATION IN THE COUNCIL 20 1. The City of Everett's legislative authority, by City Council Action, has authorized the City's 21 becoming a member of the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council in accordance with the terms of the 22 Agreement and has authorized the City's appointed representative (Mayor) to sign this 23 Addendum on behalf of the City. 24 2. In order to become a voting member of the WRIA 8 Salmon Recovery Council, the City of Everett 25 and the Parties agree to the following conditions: 26 2.1. The City's annual cost share contribution for 2022 is projected to be $8,447 for the 27 programs and activities of the Council, which is subject to change for 2022 and future 28 years based on changes in one or more parameters of the formula, or by agreement of 29 the parties, including Everett, changing the total dollar amount of the assessment to be 30 collected. The City's cost share is based on the portion of the City that falls within the 31 geographic boundary of WRIA 8, including a population of 32,846 (1.96% of the 32 watershed), assessed value within the City of $4,850,621,800 (0.86% of the watershed), 33 and an area in square miles of 5.2 (1.10% of the watershed). 34 2.2. For the City to become a member of the Council, all existing members must unanimously 35 express their consent to the City's becoming a member. The City becomes a member of 36 the Council on the date when this Addendum is last signed by the Party representing the 37 final signature of unanimity. The date of such signing shall be the effective date of this 1 Addendum to WRIA 8 ILA 2016-2025 September 2021 Packet Pg. 188 6.6.a 20 21 22 23 24 43 44 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 2 Addendum. Representatives of the Parties shall sign this Addendum after the City has signed it in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 above. 3. Upon the effective date of this Addendum, the City of Everett shall be a member of the Council, and shall have all the rights, privileges, duties, and obligations afforded the Parties under the terms of the Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the City of Everett and the Parties have executed this Addendum on the dates indicated below: Addendum to WRIA 8 ILA 2016-2025 September 2021 Packet Pg. 189 6.6.a 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 City of Edmonds By: Title: Date: 3 Addendum to WRIA 8 ILA 2016-2025 September 2021 Packet Pg. 190 6.7 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/7/2021 2021 Board & Commission Retirements Staff Lead: Carolyn LaFave Department: Mayor's Office Preparer: Carolyn LaFave Background/History This year we have five community volunteers retiring from various City boards and commissions: 1. Patricia O'Neill, Arts Commission 2. Jerry Janacek, Cemetery Board 3. Donnie Griffin, Diversity Commission 4. Sarah Mixson, Diversity Commission 5. Mindy Woods, Diversity Commission See attached list for details on service dates Staff Recommendation Narrative Mayor Nelson would like to thank these retiring volunteer board and commission members for their service to the City of Edmonds and the community. Attachments: 2021 Retirements Packet Pg. 191 6.7.a 2021 Board & Commission Retirements ➢ Arts Commission - term limits: 2 consecutive 4-year terms o Patricia (Pat) O'Neill, Position #5 General, 2018 - 12/31/2021 ➢ Cemetery Board - term limits: 4-year terms with no term limits o Jerry Janacek, Position #5, 2014 - 12/31/2021 ➢ Diversity Commission - term limits: 3-year terms with no term limits o Sarah Mixson, Position #7, 2018 - 12/31/2021 o Donnie Griffin, Position #8, 2018 - 12/31/2021 o Melinda Woods, Position #9, 2019 - 12/31/2021 12/1/2021 11:00 AM Packet Pg. 192 6.8 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/7/2021 2022 Board & Commission Reappointments Staff Lead: Carolyn LaFave Department: Mayor's Office Preparer: Carolyn LaFave Background/History The attached list of board and commission members have requested reappointment. All members and positions have been vetted for eligibility. Staff Recommendation Reappointment of the attached list of board & commission members. Narrative Community volunteers are essential to the operation of the City's various boards & commissions. They provide knowledge and experience to the Mayor, City Council, and staff on a variety of issues. They also organize community events and help influence and shape our community. Edmonds is fortunate to have such a dedicated and hard working group of volunteers and we thank them for their willingness to serve the Edmonds community. Attachments: 2022 Boa rd_Commission_Reappointments Packet Pg. 193 6.8.a 2022 Board & Commission Reappointments ➢ Architectural Design Board - term limits: 2 consecutive 4-year terms o Alexa LeBouef Brooks, Position #4 Landscape Designer, 2021 - 2021. New term will expire 12/31/2025 ➢ Arts Commission - term limits: 2 consecutive 4-year terms o Rhonda Soikowski, Position #4 Performing, 2018 - 2021. Final term will expire 12/31/2025 ➢ Cemetery Board - term limits: 4-year terms with no term limits o Tracy Little, Position #2, 2018 - 2021. New term will expire 12/31/2025 ➢ Historic Preservation Commission - term limits: 3-year terms with no term limits o Tim Raetzloff, Position #7, Citizen, 2012 - 2021. New term will expire 12/31/2024 o Larry Vogel, Position #5, Citizen, 2008 - 2021. New term will expire 12/31/2024 ➢ Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Members - One-year terms, renewable annually with no term limits o Frances Chapin, Position #4, Tax User, 2000 - 2022 o Joe Mclalwain, Position #6, Tax User, 2007 - 2022 o Pat Moriarty, Position #2, Tax Provider, 2013 - 2022 ➢ Planning Board - term limits: 4-year terms with no term limits o Todd Cloutier, Position #7, 2010 - 2021. New term will expire 12/31/2025 ➢ Sister City Commission - term limits: 3-year terms with no term limits o Rae Podrebarac - Position #1, 2019 - 2021. New term will expire 12/31/2024 12/1/2021 11:01 AM Packet Pg. 194 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/7/2021 Public Hearing on a Request to Extend Permitting of Streateries Staff Lead: Susan McLaughlin, Patrick Doherty Department: Planning Division Preparer: Rob Chave Background/History Ordinance #4209 permitting Streateries in the City right-of-way was adopted by the City Council on December 15, 2020. The Ordinance has a sunset date of December 31, 2021. This item was presented briefly during the Council meeting of November 23, 2021 in preparation for a public hearing. Staff Recommendation This is a public hearing to consider the extension of Streateries Ordinance #4209. A draft ordinance has been drafted for Council review. Staff recommends this item be forwarded to the consent agenda on December 14, 2021 for approval. Narrative The Edmonds City Council adopted Ordinance #4209 permitting Streateries in the City right-of-way on December 15, 2020. The existing ordinance has a sunset date of December 31, 2021 and is included as Exhibit 1. COVID-19 has created significant impacts to people's health and well-being, which includes not only immediate physical health, but economic health. Washington's Governor has been proactive in trying to responsibly address coronavirus issues and some of his actions have included orders to close, or partially close, businesses where COVID-19 transmission has the most risk. In Edmonds, food and beverage services, such as restaurants, have been especially impacted by full and partial closures. COVID-related restrictions on restaurants and similar businesses have limited or prohibited indoor dining over most of the past two years. Even without a state order, many people that want to eat at a restaurant would still prefer to do so in an outdoor environment rather than inside an enclosed restaurant. The new Omicron variant indicates that the risk of COVID-19 transmission is not behind us. It emphasizes the need to take precautious measures to protect public health and safety until we are certain that the risk of COVID-19 transmission is lessened and the pandemic is over, or at a level where public confidence to eat indoors without a mask is more universal. In August 2020, the City first issued a special event permit to allow outdoor dining in designated vehicle parking spaces within the public right-of-way; this was extended until the end of 2020. To replace and extend this temporary measure, the Council enacted Ordinance 4209 in December of 2020 to establish a way to more uniformly allow Streateries to occur within the public right-of-way (i.e. in on -street parking spaces). Packet Pg. 195 7.1 Note that Streateries are distinct and different from long-established other outdoor dining opportunities on private commercial property or on sidewalks outside of ADA-required pedestrian traffic areas (the latter is known as Bistro Dining). The City recently received a letter from the Washington Hospitality Association asking the City of Edmonds to consider continuing its Streateries program through the summer of this coming year (2022). The letter was shared at the last Council meeting on November 23, 2021 and cites a number of reasons for the request, including financial hardship, reluctance of some customers to return to indoor eating, worker and supply chain issues, and continued struggles in the restaurant and hospitality industry. The letter is included as Exhibit 2. In addition to Edmonds, a brief survey of other jurisdictions showed a number of other cities have Streateries and are extending their programs. A sampling of jurisdictions doing this includes Kirkland, Bellevue, Bellingham, Everett, Tacoma, Spokane, and Anacortes (where the permit fees are waived). There are currently 17 Streateries in Downtown Edmonds and 16 of those have pulled permits. The 17th Streatery is in the permit process. The permit process requires an engineering inspection, a building inspection and fire inspection. The insurance required by Ordinance #4209 was also verified prior to permit issuance. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Streateries Ordinance 4209 Exhibit 2: WA Hospitality Assn Edmonds Streateries letter Exhibit 3: 2021-12-01 Ordinance 42_. draft Letter from an interested citizen Facebook comments on Streateries survey post Comments on Streeteries for 12 7 21 PH Packet Pg. 196 7.1.a ORDINANCE NO.4209 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 18.70 ECDC, ENTITLED "STREET USE AND ENCROACHMENT PERMITS," TO ALLOW "STREATERIES" FOR DINING IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDINANCE WHREAS, COVID-19 has created significant impacts to people's health and well-being, which includes not only immediate physical health, but economic health; and WHEREAS, Washington's Governor has been proactive in trying to responsibly address coronavirus issues and some of his actions have included orders to close or partially close businesses where COVID-19 transmission has the most risk; and WHEREAS, in Edmonds, food and beverage services, such as restaurants, have been especially impacted by full and partial closures; and WHEREAS, COVID-related restrictions on restaurants and similar businesses have limited or prohibited indoor dining during much of the year; and WHEREAS, even without a state order, many people that want to eat at a restaurant would prefer to do so in an outdoor environment, rather than indoors; and WHEREAS, in August 2020, the City issued a special event permit to allow outdoor dining in designated vehicle parking spaces within the public right-of-way until October 11, 2020, and said permit was extended until November 8, 2020, and then again, until December 31, 2020 or the effective date of a Council -adopted ordinance for streateries, whichever comes sooner; and WHEREAS, City staff has worked to develop amendments to the Edmonds Community Development Code that would allow outdoor dining in designated parking spaces in the public right-of-way (i.e., "streateries") through an individual permitting process and more specific standards; and 1 Packet Pg. 197 7.1.a WHEREAS, the concepts for amending the code to allow streateries were presented in a November 12, 2020 meeting of the City Council's Public Safety, Planning, and Personnel Committee and subsequently presented in a November 24, 2020 meeting of the City Council; and WHEREAS, the concepts for streateries have been incorporated into a set of amendments to Chapter 18.70 of the Edmonds Community Development Code; and WHEREAS, a sunset clause on the effectiveness of these provisions has been included in the code amendments because these provisions are not currently intended to be permanent, but rather, are primarily intended to mitigate the impacts of COVID-19; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 18.70 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Street Use and Encroachment Permits," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike through). Section 2. Emergency Declaration. The city council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the council (RCW 35A.12.130), and that the same is not subject to a referendum. Without an immediate adoption of this interim zoning ordinance, streateries would need to continue to operate under a special event permit, but that permit was supposed to expire on December 31, 2020. Any uncertainty in the ability of the city's restaurants to continue offering streatery-dining could further jeopardize an already struggling restaurant industry. Therefore, this ordinance should be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety and welfare by staving off restaurant failures and creating program so that Edmonds citizens will have safer places to dine for the remainder of the COVID-19 pandemic. Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. 2 Packet Pg. 198 7.1.a Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth in Section 2, as long as it is approved by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. If it is not adopted by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the council, then the language declaring an emergency shall be disregarded, in which case, this ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: M OR MIKE NELSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: C CLERK, SCOT ASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY 2t�� -NOW JEFF TARAD Y FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: December 11, 2020 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: December 15, 2020 PUBLISHED: December 18, 2020 EFFECTIVE DATE: December 23, 2020 ORDINANCE NO. 4209 3 Packet Pg. 199 7.1.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.4209 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 15th day of December, 2020, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 4209. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 18.70 ECDC, ENTITLED "STREET USE AND ENCROACHMENT PERMITS," TO ALLOW "STREATERIES" FOR DINING IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS ORDINANCE The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 15th day of December, 2020. CI ERK, SCOTT PAS Y 0 Packet Pg. 200 7.1.a Exhibit A Chapter 18.70 STREET USE AND ENCROACHMENT PERMITS Sections: 18.70.000 Permits required. 18.70.010 Exemptions. 18.70.020 Applications. 18.70.030 Review. 18.70.040 Revocation. 18.70.050 Fees. 18.70.000 Permits required. No person shall use or encroach upon any public place without obtaining a permit from the development services director or city engineer. A. Encroachment Permit. An encroachment permit is required to encroach upon any portion of city public space, right-of-way or easement area with permanent structures. "To encroach" means to construct, erect or maintain in, over or under any public place, right-of-way, easement, roadway, parking strip and/or sidewalk, including the airspace above them, any structures permanent in nature, including but not limited to building extension, marquee, fence, retaining wall, artwork, or any other building or structure. B. Street Use Permit. A street use permit is required to use any portion of public space or city right-of-way for objects which are temporary in nature. 1. To "use" means to place or maintain in, over or under any public place, right-of-way, roadway, parking strip and/or sidewalk, including the air space above them, any temporary or movable object. 2. "Temporary in nature," in reference to street use permits, means not having or requiring permanent attachment to the ground, or involving structures which have no required permanent attachment to the ground. 3. "Temporary object" for the purposes of this chapter refers to all objects placed in the right-of-way that are temporary in nature including but not limited to chairs, tables, planters, sandwich boards, benches, stanchions, platforms, rope, and fencing. None of the above definitions shall be interpreted to prohibit the parking of a properly licensed vehicle within the parking strip adjacent to their property line of sight, and street plantings, except as otherwise provided in ECDC 18.70.030.C.6. 18.70.020 Applications. Applications for street use or encroachment permits shall contain, in addition to the information required under any other applicable city code, the following information: A. Street Use Permit. 1. Architectural design board approval, when applicable. 2. Complete application requirements for Edmonds arts commission, when applicable. 3. Certificate of insurance. 4. Complete street use or streatery permit application. 5 Packet Pg. 201 7.1.a B. Encroachment Permit. 1. Critical areas determination, when applicable. 2. Complete application requirements for Edmonds arts commission, when applicable. 3. Architectural design board approval, when applicable. 4. Partial site plan, to be recorded with Snohomish County, clearly showing proposed encroachment, private property lines, all existing structures and driveways, easements and/or public property (developed or undeveloped). 5. Legal description, including copies of all recorded easements on the property. 6. Elevation view or side view of the proposed encroachment. 7. Ownership. Evidence showing the applicant to be the agent record owner of the property immediately adjoining the public place or right-of-way. An application to place artwork in the public right-of-way will be exempt from this requirement. 8. Certificate of insurance. 9. Complete encroachment permit application. 10. Complete encroachment agreement, to be recorded with Snohomish County. C. Such other information as the city engineer or designee of the development services director shall require. D. The encroachment agreement shall require prompt removal of the encroachment by the applicant at his/her/its expense upon reasonable demand by the city engineer and be legally adequate for recording in the land records of Snohomish County and the chain of title of the applicant's property. Such encroachment agreements may be executed as acknowledged on behalf of the city by the city engineer and recorded by the city clerk following approval as to form by the city attorney. 18.70.030 Review. A. Architectural Design Board. Any application for a permit to construct, erect or maintain an awning, marquee, sign or any structure in a public place, except as otherwise allowed in ECDC 18.70.030.C, may be referred by the development services director or his/her designee to the architectural design board. If referred to the board, the board shall review the plans and specifications as they relate to Chapter 20.10 ECDC. Applications for mobile street vending units shall be reviewed in accordance with ECC 4.12.055 by the architectural design board. B. Edmonds Arts Commission. Applications for an encroachment permit or a street use permit to install art in the public right-of-way shall be subject to the review and recommendation of the Edmonds arts commission. No art shall be permitted in the public right-of-way except as expressly permitted herein. Artwork that is reviewed under an encroachment permit shall be exempt of the requirements of ECDC 18.70.020(B)(5), (6), (7) and (10). 1. The terms "art" or "artwork" as used in this section shall refer only to a work of visual art existing in a single copy or in multiple copies of 200 or fewer that are consecutively numbered by the author and bear the signature or other identifying mark of the author. 2. The terms "art" or artwork" do not include: 0 Packet Pg. 202 7.1.a a. Any poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing, diagram, model, applied art, motion picture or other audiovisual work, book, magazine, newspaper, periodical, database, electronic information service, electronic publication, or similar publication; b. Any merchandising item or advertising, promotional, descriptive, covering, or packaging material or container; c. Architectural details such as masonry, ironwork, or other building fixtures or materials; d. Any portion or part of any item described in subsection (A), (B) or (C) of this section; e. Any work not subject to copyright protection under the Visual Artists Rights Act, as codified under federal copyright law, U.S.C. Title 17, as the same exists or is hereafter amended. 3. An encroachment permit or street use permit requires determination of public benefit. The Edmonds arts commission (EAC) is mandated in Chapter 10.20 ECC to advise the city on matters pertaining to art. When the proposed encroachment or street use is art, EAC will review and make written recommendations to the community services director and city engineer for use and consideration in permit issuance. (See subsection (C) of this section.) 4. The public right-of-way is a traditional forum for public expression. By this permit program the city acknowledges that it is approving uses in a limited public forum. Art, like other exercises of First Amendment rights, may be limited by reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. In this case, these criteria will be utilized to protect the safety of the public who use the right-of-way for pedestrian or vehicular traffic and to ensure that the city provides for accessibility for the disabled. No recommendation or denial shall be based upon the content or message expressed by an artist or in a work of art as long as there is no commercial content. Applicants are encouraged to coordinate their artwork with the design of the building and the historic and pedestrian -oriented character of the downtown area. 5. Specific submission requirements for EAC review include, but are not limited to: a. Site plan sketch showing locations of artwork; b. Minimum one -quarter -inch scale rendering of the art concept or art component, including at least one elevation showing the art in context or comparable photographs of actual artwork in context; c. Material/color samples; d. Model (optional); e. Written proposal: seven copies of a written proposal in eight and one-half by 11-inch format to include: i. A description and summary of a final design proposal for the artwork for the proposed project; ii. Detailed maintenance requirements; iii. Schedule for development, fabrication, and completion; iv. Artists' resume/background; v. Evidence of assumption of liability by applicant or designee. For proposal to be reviewed at next scheduled EAC meeting, a complete submission of all requirements must be received a minimum of 10 days prior to the date of the meeting. 7 Packet Pg. 203 7.1.a Additional requirements may be requested based on staff input or information sought by EAC members. 6. Review Criteria. Art in public places may be art standing alone, modifiers or definers of space, functional, or used to establish identity. The use of art as an integral part of the structure and function of building is encouraged, e.g., the interpretation of light fixtures, benches, hardware, doors, surface finishes, walkways, gates, and other features with the artwork or as a part of the artwork, although only some of these elements would occur in the public right-of-way. The criteria for review of encroachment or street use review artwork submissions are as follows: a. Constructability of proposed artwork. No artwork shall impair disabled accessibility and barrier -free design requirements. b. Artist's credentials and recognition. c. Durability and craftsmanship in fabrication and production quality. Quality of the work is a high priority. d. Due consideration shall be given to the structural and surface soundness of artworks and to their permanence, including ability to withstand age, theft, vandalism, weathering, and maintenance and possible related repair costs. Careful consideration shall be given to the materials used and the appropriateness of those materials for the conditions of the site. e. Coordination of the artwork with the design of the building and the historic and pedestrian - oriented character of the downtown area is encouraged. f. Maintenance/conservation plan. g. Relationship to other existing artwork in vicinity. h. No Commercial Content. Artwork shall not be used as signage (see definition of signage). C. Issuance by the Development Services Director or City Engineer. The development services director, city engineer or their respective designee may administratively, without hearing, approve a street use or encroachment permit if: 1. The proposed use shall not interfere with vehicular or pedestrian traffic, including but not limited to the following requirements: a. No portion of the public right-of-way designed and intended for vehicular traffic or parking shall be permanently occupied, except to the extent allowed under ECDC 18.70.30.C.6. b. Requirements of the State Building Code, including but not limited to all provisions relating to disabled accessibility and barrier -free design requirements shall be met; c. Any mobile vending units shall be properly licensed pursuant to Chapter 4.12 ECC; d. Permit application fees have been paid (see ECDC 18.70.050); e. A "clear zone" must be maintained on public sidewalks or walkways. A clear zone refers to an area seven feet in height and five feet in width providing a level, safe walking surface along the public sidewalk. Clear zone on sidewalks shall not include any curbing, planting strips or ramps. For tables and chairs placed in the public right-of-way, the clear zone can be reduced to four feet in width in front of obstacles (trees, street lights, sign posts, etc.); Packet Pg. 204 7.1.a f. All temporary objects shall be removed from the right-of-way on 24 hours' notice to accommodate public events. Temporary objects are subject to removal in the event of an emergency; and g. All temporary objects, excluding approved awnings, -ark wall signs, and permitted streateries, that project more than 36 inches into the right-of-way shall be removed each day at the close of business. 2. Exclusive Bistfa and Ou4 Sidewalk Dining. In an effort to enhance street life of the city and serve both an economic development purpose as well as enhance the livability of the city's urban core, exclusive bistre and et4deer sidewalk dining shall be allowed pursuant to ECDC 17.70.040. a. For purposes of this section the following terms are defined as: i. "Exclusive sidewalk dining" shall refer to a properly zoned and licensed food or beverage service establishment that uses the public right-of-way to serve only its customers at the exclusion of the general public. ii. "Barrier" shall refer to any temporary object or objects (e.g., stanchion, rope, feneing, planters, markers) used to establish an exclusive bistro and outdoor dining area. Barriers shall be approved by the city engineer. b. All conditions and requirements set forth in this chapter have been met and adequate compensation for the exclusive use of the public right-of-way and applicant fees pursuant to ECDC 18.70.050 have been paid. c. All barriers, with the exception of markers and marking, shall be removed each day from the right-of-way at the close of business. d. The design and use shall comply with all requirements of state law, city ordinance and city policy including but not limited to: i. Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Eenttel-Board (WSLCB) and Snohomish County health division (SCHD). When applicable, the business shall provide a written approval from the WSLCB and/or SCHD for use of public rights -of -way; ii. ECDC 17.70.040, Bistro and otud Exclusive sidewalk dining; and iii. All litter and nuisance regulations, including but not limited to RCW 70.93.060 and Chapter 6.40 ECC. 3. The design board has reviewed and approved any proposal which includes a request to construct, erect or maintain an awning, building, sign or any building or structure, except as otherwise allowed in ECDC 18.70.030.C; 4. The proposal will not unreasonably interfere with the rights of the public; and 5. The proposal (if for an encroachment permit) either benefits the public interest, safety or convenience (e.g., supports or protects the city street, reduces pedestrian hazards) or is an accessory structure such as a fence normally associated with residential use of the property and fully complies with the requirements of subsections (13)(1) through (3) of this section. 6. Streateries. Streatery means a type of parklet located within the public right of way, typically in a vehicle parking space, that has been designed to allow for food and beverage services. To provide rgreater opportunities for outdoor dining and beverage service. streateries may be permitted. subiect to the following requirements: 0 Packet Pg. 205 7.1.a a. A streatery may be permitted as a type of street use in the parking lane of any public street on a block where retail or restaurant use is located. b. The business applying for the streatery is herein after referred to as the Permittee. c. Streateries must meet applicable city and state statutes, including for fire, electrical, and building safety, as well as for liquor service and other applicable agency requirements. d. Streateries must be operated in a manner that complies with orders from the state health department or governor related to coronavirus protection and with health district standards for food and beverage service or with this chapter, whichever is stricter. e. A complete street use permit application for a streatery shall be submitted to the city on a form provided by the development services department. City review of any streatery application will be completed in a timely manner and include opportunity for review by engineering, building, and fire staff. A street use permit for the streatery may be issued with any conditions as necessary Field inspection will follow. f. Any streatery in existence on December 1, 2020 under a special event permit may continue such use until January 17, 2021, provided that a street use permit for the streatery is applied for by January 11, 2021 and the City determines that the streatery meets or can meet the requirements of this section and issues a permit for it, with any conditions. g. Timingand nd expiration. i. The streatery shall be permitted for a period of no more than one year, provided that the permit may be extended in three- to six-month increments. ii. If the streatery has been cited with more than three violations of the city code within a 12-month period, its permit may be expired without allowance for extension. iii. After the streatery has begun operating or within 30 days of street use permit approval, whichever is first, if the streatery is not used by the applicant for at least 15 days of any 30-dayperiod, the City may expire the permit in order to avoid leaving the parkin space pace unavailable for use. A notice of potential expiration shall be provided by the City to the permittee at least ten days in advance of any expiration taking effect. h. Number of allowed streateries. In the BD zone, after the first 20 streateries have been approved, no more streatery permits shall be accepted by the City unless the permit is to replace an existing streatery or this section is amended to allow additional streateries. A business is allowed to have no more than one streaterypermit. i. Location. i. A streatery must be located fully or partially adjacent to the business that it serves, provided that if the business is not adjacent to one or more suitable parking spaces, another business or property owner may give its written concurrence for the parking space in front of it to be used for a streatery, ii. All streatery use shall be entirely within the approved space(s) and shall not extend into the travel lane of the public right-of-way_ iii. Streateries shall not be located in ADA parking stalls, in front of fire hydrants or bus stops, or over the top of city storm catch basins. iv. The maximum length of a streatery is two vehicle parking spaces. For corner locations, the two spaces may be comprised of one parking space on each of the adjacent intersectingstreets. V. No more than two streateries shall be located next to each other. vi. Where only one parking space exists between two streateries on a block face, each of the two streateries must be set back at least one foot from the intervening parkin sg space. j. Other site requirements. i. A streatery must be located on an ADA-accessible raised platform that is flush with the sidewalk and has no more than a'h- inch horizontal ggp between the sidewalk and platform. The platform must be ADA-accessible from the public sidewalk and, upon entering the streatery, a wheelchair -user must be able to access at least one seat at a table on the platform. Exception: A streatery may be allowed without a platform if the 10 N 2 �L m L CO 4- 0 0 c E `m a c a k w 0 m 0 m a� c m am 2 0 IL CD 0 N m c m c O am �L m 0 L Cn x w c m E z c� Q Packet Pg. 206 7.1.a business has other oven -air dining that is ADA- compliant and available for customer use. ii. Each streatery must be protected at its end(s) from any adjacent vehicle parking space by a water -filled jersey barrier, substantial planter at least 30 inches high, or other approved barrier. The preferred color for a jersey barrier is white. Each barrier must include w adequate lighting or reflective markings, as approved by the city engineer, for night-time 'L visibility to drivers. iii. Screening shall be located on the streatery side that is adjacent to and parallel with the 2 traffic lane. Such screening shall be at least 30 inches high and primarily consist o£ (a) CO lattice, picket, or solid fencing; (b) fabric or membrane material; or (c) containerized o plantings where the container is at least 30 inches in height. Above 36 inches in height, c any screening from the traffic lane will have views into and out of the streatery. An applicant may propose a different material that provides both external views and a sense E of separation, subject to approval by the building official. Reflecting markings or a lighting as approved by the city engineer, are required along the traffic side for night- time visibility to drivers. 43 iv. All tents, canopies, fabric screens, and umbrellas are subject to approval by the building w official for any structural requirements and by the fire marshal for flame-retardance. 0 Tents and canopies must be fully open to the air on at least one side. If the open side is less than 8 linear feet, a second side must have ventilation. V. Tents, canopies, awnings, fabric screens, and umbrellas that are documented as being purchased by the applicant prior to January 1, 2021, may be of any color. Otherwise, the M color of said items shall be primarily, yellow, white, or red, or any combination of those c colors. Material that is transparent may also be acceptable. a� vi. Fuel -burning heaters and open flames, such as candles, torches and fire pits, are not allowed within 3 feet of any fabric (including tents and canopies) unless approved by the _ fire marshal. k. Signage. A streatery shall have no more than one sign. The allowed sign does not need a separate permit but must be no more than eighteen inches in length and eight inches in height and must not a be internally lit nor have components that wave or otherwise appear to move. The sign shall not be placed on the longest side of the streatery facing traffic and shall not be attached to the ground. It CD N may be attached to or part of a streatery component but cannot interfere with traffic or sight visibility. m 1. Maintenance. The permittee is responsible for maintenance of all streateromponents, including c c surface and furniture cleaning and keeping the area underneath and adjacent to the streatery free of `a obstruction so that stormwater can flow freely at the curb. O m. Insurance. Insurance is required, per ECDC 18.70.030.G. m n. Installation and removal. The permittee is responsible for providing and installing all components +; of the streatery and for removing the components when the permit has expired. The City may also m remove or require removal of the streatery as needed to deal with emergency conditions or Cn infrastructure repair. o. City staff may provide additional details or guidance for applicants to implement this section, consistent with direction from the city engineer and the development services director or their t respective designees. w gip. This section shall sunset on December 31, 2021, unless the effective date is changed by action of the City Council. D. Bay Windows, Decks, and Related Architectural Features. In an effort to allow for more creative designs and a better overall appearance in the downtown area, bay windows, decks, and related c�a architectural features may encroach into the public right-of-way within the central business district or any Q other zone in which no setback from the lot line is required, subject to the following requirements: 11 Packet Pg. 207 7.1.a 1. All conditions and requirements set forth in this chapter have been met and adequate compensation has been paid; 2. The encroachment shall not occur over alleys; 3. The building encroachment shall not project more than two feet (24 inches) into the right-of-way; 4. The encroachment shall not exceed 30 percent of the length of the facade on any one side of the building; 5. The encroachment shall provide for a minimum clearance height of eight feet over any pedestrian right-of-way and a minimum clearance height of 11 feet over any vehicular right-of-way, whichever is greater; 6. The encroachment shall be approved by the architectural design board as contributing to a modulated facade design which enhances the variation and appearance to the public of the overall building design and public streetscape. E. Appeal. The decision of the development services director, city engineer, or their respective designees may be appealed to the hearing examiner as a Type II proceeding under the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC; provided, however, that the establishment of compensation for use of the public right-of-way is a legislative decision of the city council and is not subject to judicial review. F. Awnings and Canopies. Consistent with ECDC 22.43.040, awnings and canopies, whether architectural or temporary, excludingthose hose permitted under ECDC 18.70.030.C.6, may encroach into the public right of way within the central business district or any other zone in which no setback from the lot line is required, subject to the following_ 1. The awning or canon shall hall provide a minimum clearance height of 8 feet above the walking surface, not to exceed 15 feet at its highest point. 2. Awning and canopy projection over the right of way shall be determined as follows, provided that no awning or canon shall hall project within two feet of the street curb (measured from the back of curb): Sidewalk Width Minimum Projection Less than 8 feet 5 feet 8 feet or greater 6 feet 3. Awning and canopies shall not be constructed at a location or in a manner that will obstruct, obsure, or interfere with any streetlight, flower pole, utility pole or appurtenance, street tree, or an.. transportation -related sign, signal, or traffic control device. 4. All awning and canopy designs shall meet the above criteria, unless otherwise approved by the city engineer. FG. Insurance Requirement. When the application is for use or encroachment onto a public right-of-way including but not limited to streets, roads, alleys, trails, sidewalks, bike paths, pedestrian easements, and any other easement intended for the use of the public, the applicant who operates a business or commercial operation shall be required to provide and continually maintain during the term of the permit a certificate of insurance naming the city as an additional insured, with respect to liability, and providing that it shall be primary as to any other policy of insurance. The policy must contain the additional insured statement, coverage amounts and cancellation notification indicated on the sample insurance form provided by the city. In addition, a business and commercial applicant as well as all residential or nonprofit applicants shall sign a covenant to hold harmless and indemnify the city which will be recorded and run with the land in a form approved by the city attorney. GH. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to permit the base or ground support for any sign to be located upon or attached to the ground within the public right-of-way. 12 Packet Pg. 208 7.1.a 18.70.040 Revocation. A. Except as provided below, all permits approved under this chapter shall be temporary, shall vest no permanent right and shall be issued and may in any case be revoked at the sole discretion of the city upon 30 days' notice, or without notice in the event any such use or occupation shall become dangerous; any structure or obstruction so permitted shall become insecure or unsafe; shall become a public nuisance; or shall not be constructed, maintained or used in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. The determination by the city engineer that a structure is dangerous, insecure, unsafe, a nuisance or has not been constructed, used or maintained in accord with this chapter shall be conclusive. B. Permits shall also be revoked if: 1. Following written notice of the lapse of an insurance policy required to be maintained by ECDC 18.70.030(F), the permittee fails to supply a valid certificate of insurance; or 2. Following written notice of the lapse of an annual application fee, renewal fee, or fees for the exclusive use of the right-of-way by ECDC 18.70.050(B), the permittee fails to bring fees/account current. C. Pei:Faits issued for- afek4eetufal fe�ufes pufsuan4 te ECDC 18.70.030(P) shall be issued for- a -a initial subseetion (A) of this section. if revoked before the end of the 10 year term, at the will of the ei�, t holder of the per-mit shall be reimbufsed for any eonsideration provided for the permit. Reimburseme shall not be required if the permit is revoked due to its having beeome dangerous, a publie nuisanee, unsa or is not eonstrdeted in aeeor-d with the terms of permit issuanee. Permits for ar-chiteetual feat"es shall be automati eally renewed, if not revoked by the eity, for- additional 10 y-ar- terms subj eet to sueh addit C. D. If any such structure, obstruction, use or occupancy is not discontinued on notice to do so by the city engineer and within the time period designated, the city engineer may remove any structure or obstruction, or make such repairs upon the structure or obstruction as may be necessary to render the same secure and safe, at the expense of the permittee, or his successor, and such expense may be recorded as a lien and otherwise collected in the manner provided by law. 18.70.050 Fees. A. Application fees for street use or encroachment permits are those established by the city council by resolution in its sole legislative discretion. Application fees shall be paid to the city prior to issuance of any permit. B. Fees for the exclusive use of the public right-of-way are those established by the city council by resolution in its sole legislative discretion. The fee for a streatery permit shall be the same as for a street use permit, provided that a technology fee shall not be charged for a streatery. C. There shall be no judicial appeal from a determination of the compensation to be paid for the use of public right-of-way. 13 Packet Pg. 209 7.1.a Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Dicy Sheppard being first duly swom, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH915965 ORDS 4206-4211 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 12/18/2020 and ending on 12/18/2020 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee far such publicatign is $68.60. rr+ Subscribed 9nd swo � rn o me on this �day of Lw Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds -LEGAL ADS 114101416 SCOTT PASSEV Lin7PhillipsNoState My Appointm Packet Pg. 210 Classified Proof 7.1.a N q1 L ORDINANCE SUMMARY yO.i of Ih4 Clly of Eam pn 1hn 15rn day oily Caune+l the emix,2riaCm11nCso0ohft6eecuwpw fLy+ oyaf Etld rO ordlnances oorrals" of Mfes are wldad as foli— 4208 AN jqORDINAq%NO. ORDiNANG OF EOMOND3, H— WASHINGTON. CHANGING THE REGULAR MEETING O TIMES OF 0 Ty COUNCIL MEETINGS AND CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS. REINSTATING THE SECOND O TUESDAY REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, ESTABLISHING •ram+ REGULAR COMMITTEE MEETING TIMES PRIOR TO THE SECOND TUESDAY REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING •� DR01NAi�I E NO.4207 AN ORDINANCE�F 'f � 6rrY OF EDMONDS. L WASHINGTON. AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 410 AS A fy RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND d EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE 'a OR0jNANO F NO.4208 C AN ORDINANCE OF EDMONDS, fy WASHINGtON. ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE +' x CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE LLJ SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE ORDi YA NCE NO- 4209 O y� AN ORDINANC��DF THE CITY OF EDMONDS. WASHINGTON. AMENDING CHAPTER 18.70 ECOC, fn ENTITLED 'STREET USE AND ENCROACHMENT fy PERMITS; TO ALLOW 'STREATEAWS' FOR DINING IN O THE PLIOLIC R[GHT-OF-WAY, DEM-ARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION fy AN D EFFECTIV ENESS OF THIS OR DINANC E ORDINANCE HO- 4210 AN ORDINANCE P THE C1TY OF EDMONDS, � YVASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 17-75 ECDC, ENTITLED 'DUTOOOR DINING,' AND A RELATED C SECTION IN CHAPTER 17,70 ECAC, DECLARING AN O EMERGENCY NECESSITATING IMMEDIATE ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS INTERIM ZONING O ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO-4211� AN ORDINANCE A T FOR THE CITY M OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR = COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2021. The full Iox1 of these ❑lanan[es vtV be mslbrd upon requoul. DATED Ih15 15th Day of December, 2020. , V CITY CLERK. SCOTT PASSEY PubUahod; December 18, 2020- E01-1916965 7 a as 0 N q1 t� C O C L 0 d �L fy M L r t x W c� G t fJ M -w Q Proofed by Sheppard, Dicy, 12/18/2020 08:47:48 am Page: 2 Packet Pg. 211 7.1.b OWashington Hospitality Association Dear Mayor Nelson, November 5, 2021 The pandemic has had a devastating impact on small local restaurants and the entire hospitality community over the last 18 months. Indoor dining closures or significant capacity restrictions were required by the state and local governments for the majority of this period. One tool to support local restaurants was the expansion of outdoor dining through streateries. We are grateful Edmonds was one of the many jurisdictions which implemented a streateries program. These programs helped save local restaurants across the state and in Edmonds. It has come to our attention Edmonds may let its program expire. The pandemic has not ended nor have the challenges facing local restaurants. The continued availability of streateries is an important tool to support the survival of local restaurants and hospitality businesses. We respectfully ask Edmonds to continue its program through the summer. While capacity restrictions ended in June, this did not mean return to profitability for restaurants, which incurred considerable debt over the course of the pandemic. While the federal Paycheck Protection Program was beneficial to many, it did not alleviate all need. The Restaurant Revitalization Fund (RRF) had over $40 billion in unmet need nationally. Washington had 7,236 eateries submit applications for a total requested amount of more than $2 billion in relief. Unfortunately, only 3,247 (approx. 44%) of requests were approved for $921 million. Washington has one of the largest gaps between requested funds and funded applications. Worker shortages, supply chain issues, and concerns about variants continue to impact local restaurants and hospitality businesses. Nationally, 95% of restaurants have experienced supply delays or shortages of key foods. Beef prices are up 58% and eggs are up 39%. Menu prices have risen 4.7% in the past 12 months. Locally, we have seen restaurants reduce hours or days of operation due to lack or staff and remove menu items because of unavailability or cost. Restaurants are continuing to struggle and streateries remain an important tool in supporting restaurant survival as the pandemic and its impacts linger. Streateries also provide an important option to restaurant customers who remain concerned about indoor dining with the delta variant. Many jurisdictions, such as Seattle, have programs which extend into the spring currently and are in the process of extending beyond. We ask Edmonds to join these other jurisdictions and continue this important program. Please let us know if you have any additional questions or information we could provide. Sincerely, John Lane Director of Local Government Affairs Washington Hospitality Association Packet Pg. 212 7.1.c ORDINANCE NO.42_ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 18.70 ECDC, ENTITLED "STREET USE AND ENCROACHMENT PERMITS," TO EXTEND THE ALLOWANCE FOR "STREATERIES" (DINING IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY) WHEREAS, COVID-19 has created significant impacts to people's health and well-being, which includes not only immediate physical health, but economic health; and WHEREAS, Washington's Governor has been proactive in trying to responsibly address coronavirus issues and some of his actions have included orders to close or partially close businesses where COVID-19 transmission has the most risk; and WHEREAS, in Edmonds, food and beverage services, such as restaurants, have been especially impacted by full and partial closures; and WHEREAS, COVID-related restrictions on restaurants and similar businesses could arise again as the COVID-19 virus continues to mutate and vaccination rates remain lower than may be needed to end the pandemic; and WHEREAS, even without a state order, many people that want to eat at a restaurant would prefer to do so in an outdoor environment, rather than indoors, especially as the COVID-19 virus continues to mutate and each mutation raises questions about whether even the vaccinated are adequately protected; and WHEREAS, in August 2020, the City issued a special event permit to allow outdoor dining in designated vehicle parking spaces within the public right-of-way until October 11, 2020, and said permit was extended until November 8, 2020, and then again, until December 31, 2020 or the effective date of a Council -adopted ordinance for streateries, whichever comes sooner; and WHEREAS, City staff has worked to develop amendments to the Edmonds Community Development Code that would allow outdoor dining in designated parking spaces in the public right-of-way (i.e., "streateries") through an individual permitting process and more specific standards; and Packet Pg. 213 7.1.c WHEREAS, the concepts for amending the code to allow streateries were presented in a November 12, 2020 meeting of the City Council's Public Safety, Planning, and Personnel Committee and subsequently presented in a November 24, 2020 meeting of the City Council; and WHEREAS, the concepts for streateries have been incorporated into a set of amendments to Chapter 18.70 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, which regulations were originally adopted through Ordinance 4209 on December 15, 2020; and WHEREAS, those regulations contained a sunset clause that prevents streateries from operating beyond Decmeber 31, 2021 without city council action to amend this code; and WHEREAS, the city council held a public hearing on December 7, 2021 regarding streateries; and WHEREAS, the city council, being fully informed on the issue would like to extend the sunset date for streateries; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 18.70 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled "Street Use and Encroachment Permits," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strileugk). Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an administrative function of the city council, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. 2 Packet Pg. 214 7.1.c ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Im JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. APPROVED: MAYOR MIKE NELSON December 11, 2020 December 15, 2020 December 18, 2020 December 23, 2020 4209 L Packet Pg. 215 7.1.c SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 4209 of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 15th day of December, 2021, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. 4209. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 18.70 ECDC, ENTITLED "STREET USE AND ENCROACHMENT PERMITS," TO EXTEND THE ALLOWANCE FOR "STREATERIES" (DINING IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF- WAY) The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of December, 2021. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 216 7.1.c Exhibit A Chapter 18.70 STREET USE AND ENCROACHMENT PERMITS Sections: 18.70.000 Permits required. 18.70.010 Exemptions. 18.70.020 Applications. 18.70.030 Review. 18.70.040 Revocation. 18.70.050 Fees. 18.70.000 Permits required. No person shall use or encroach upon any public place without obtaining a permit from the development services director or city engineer. A. Encroachment Permit. An encroachment permit is required to encroach upon any portion of city public space, right-of-way or easement area with permanent structures. "To encroach" means to construct, erect or maintain in, over or under any public place, right-of-way, easement, roadway, parking strip and/or sidewalk, including the airspace above them, any structures permanent in nature, including but not limited to building extension, marquee, fence, retaining wall, artwork, or any other building or structure. B. Street Use Permit. A street use permit is required to use any portion of public space or city right-of-way for objects which are temporary in nature. 1. To "use" means to place or maintain in, over or under any public place, right-of-way, roadway, parking strip and/or sidewalk, including the air space above them, any temporary or movable object. 2. "Temporary in nature," in reference to street use permits, means not having or requiring permanent attachment to the ground, or involving structures which have no required permanent attachment to the ground. 3. "Temporary object" for the purposes of this chapter refers to all objects placed in the right-of-way that are temporary in nature including but not limited to chairs, tables, planters, sandwich boards, benches, stanchions, platforms, rope, and fencing. None of the above definitions shall be interpreted to prohibit the parking of a properly licensed vehicle within the parking strip adjacent to their property line of sight, and street plantings, except as otherwise provided in ECDC 18.70.030.C.6. 18.70.020 Applications. Applications for street use or encroachment permits shall contain, in addition to the information required under any other applicable city code, the following information: A. Street Use Permit. 1. Architectural design board approval, when applicable. 2. Complete application requirements for Edmonds arts commission, when applicable. 3. Certificate of insurance. 4. Complete street use or streatery permit application. 5 L Packet Pg. 217 7.1.c B. Encroachment Permit. 1. Critical areas determination, when applicable. 2. Complete application requirements for Edmonds arts commission, when applicable. 3. Architectural design board approval, when applicable. 4. Partial site plan, to be recorded with Snohomish County, clearly showing proposed encroachment, private property lines, all existing structures and driveways, easements and/or public property (developed or undeveloped). 5. Legal description, including copies of all recorded easements on the property. 6. Elevation view or side view of the proposed encroachment. 7. Ownership. Evidence showing the applicant to be the agent record owner of the property immediately adjoining the public place or right-of-way. An application to place artwork in the public right-of-way will be exempt from this requirement. 8. Certificate of insurance. 9. Complete encroachment permit application. 10. Complete encroachment agreement, to be recorded with Snohomish County. C. Such other information as the city engineer or designee of the development services director shall require. D. The encroachment agreement shall require prompt removal of the encroachment by the applicant at = his/her/its expense upon reasonable demand by the city engineer and be legally adequate for recording in 3 the land records of Snohomish County and the chain of title of the applicant's property. Such encroachment a agreements may be executed as acknowledged on behalf of the city by the city engineer and recorded by the city clerk following approval as to form by the city attorney. 18.70.030 Review. I A. Architectural Design Board. Any application for a permit to construct, erect or maintain an awning, v marquee, sign or any structure in a public place, except as otherwise allowed in ECDC 18.70.030.C, may 4) be referred by the development services director or his/her designee to the architectural design board. If referred to the board, the board shall review the plans and specifications as they relate to Chapter 20.10 ECDC. E O Applications for mobile street vending units shall be reviewed in accordance with ECC 4.12.055 by the architectural design board. B. Edmonds Arts Commission. Applications for an encroachment permit or a street use permit to install art in the public right-of-way shall be subject to the review and recommendation of the Edmonds arts commission. No art shall be permitted in the public right-of-way except as expressly permitted herein. Artwork that is reviewed under an encroachment permit shall be exempt of the requirements of ECDC 18.70.020(B)(5), (6), (7) and (10). 1. The terms "art" or "artwork" as used in this section shall refer only to a work of visual art existing in a single copy or in multiple copies of 200 or fewer that are consecutively numbered by the author and bear the signature or other identifying mark of the author. 2. The terms "art" or artwork" do not include: rel Packet Pg. 218 7.1.c a. Any poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing, diagram, model, applied art, motion picture or other audiovisual work, book, magazine, newspaper, periodical, database, electronic information service, electronic publication, or similar publication; b. Any merchandising item or advertising, promotional, descriptive, covering, or packaging material or container; c. Architectural details such as masonry, ironwork, or other building fixtures or materials; d. Any portion or part of any item described in subsection (A), (B) or (C) of this section; e. Any work not subject to copyright protection under the Visual Artists Rights Act, as codified under federal copyright law, U.S.C. Title 17, as the same exists or is hereafter amended. 3. An encroachment permit or street use permit requires determination of public benefit. The Edmonds arts commission (EAC) is mandated in Chapter 10.20 ECC to advise the city on matters pertaining to art. When the proposed encroachment or street use is art, EAC will review and make written recommendations to the community services director and city engineer for use and consideration in permit issuance. (See subsection (C) of this section.) 4. The public right-of-way is a traditional forum for public expression. By this permit program the city acknowledges that it is approving uses in a limited public forum. Art, like other exercises of First Amendment rights, may be limited by reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. In this case, these criteria will be utilized to protect the safety of the public who use the right-of-way for pedestrian or vehicular traffic and to ensure that the city provides for accessibility for the disabled. No recommendation or denial shall be based upon the content or message expressed by an artist or in a work of art as long as there is no commercial content. Applicants are encouraged to coordinate their artwork with the design of the building and the historic and pedestrian -oriented character of the downtown area. 5. Specific submission requirements for EAC review include, but are not limited to: a. Site plan sketch showing locations of artwork; L b. Minimum one -quarter -inch scale rendering of the art concept or art component, including at least one elevation showing the art in context or comparable photographs of actual artwork in v context; m U c c. Material/color samples; c d. Model (optional); E 0 e. Written proposal: seven copies of a written proposal in eight and one-half by 11-inch format to N include: r i. A description and summary of a final design proposal for the artwork for the proposed project; ii. Detailed maintenance requirements; iii. Schedule for development, fabrication, and completion; iv. Artists' resume/background; v. Evidence of assumption of liability by applicant or designee. For proposal to be reviewed at next scheduled EAC meeting, a complete submission of all requirements must be received a minimum of 10 days prior to the date of the meeting. 7 Packet Pg. 219 7.1.c Additional requirements may be requested based on staff input or information sought by EAC members. 6. Review Criteria. Art in public places may be art standing alone, modifiers or definers of space, functional, or used to establish identity. The use of art as an integral part of the structure and function of building is encouraged, e.g., the interpretation of light fixtures, benches, hardware, doors, surface finishes, walkways, gates, and other features with the artwork or as a part of the artwork, although only some of these elements would occur in the public right-of-way. The criteria for review of encroachment or street use review artwork submissions are as follows: a. Constructability of proposed artwork. No artwork shall impair disabled accessibility and barrier -free design requirements. E b. Artist's credentials and recognition. m IL c. Durability and craftsmanship in fabrication and production quality. Quality of the work is a c d x high priority. w 0 d. Due consideration shall be given to the structural and surface soundness of artworks and to m their permanence, including ability to withstand age, theft, vandalism, weathering, and a maintenance and possible related repair costs. Careful consideration shall be given to the materials used and the appropriateness of those materials for the conditions of the site. M e. Coordination of the artwork with the design of the building and the historic and pedestrian- c 0 oriented character of the downtown area is encouraged. c •L f. Maintenance/conservation plan. _ g. Relationship to other existing artwork in vicinity. h. No Commercial Content. Artwork shall not be used as signage (see definition of signage). a C. Issuance by the Development Services Director or City Engineer. The development services director, city engineer or their respective designee may administratively, without hearing, approve a street use or encroachment permit if: N v 1. The proposed use shall not interfere with vehicular or pedestrian traffic, including but not limited to U the following requirements: coo c a. No portion of the public right-of-way designed and intended for vehicular traffic or parking E O shall be permanently occupied, except to the extent allowed under ECDC 18.70.30.C.6. 0 b. Requirements of the State Building Code, including but not limited to all provisions relating to r disabled accessibility and barrier -free design requirements shall be met; N c. Any mobile vending units shall be properly licensed pursuant to Chapter 4.12 ECC; 0 N ai d. Permit application fees have been paid (see ECDC 18.70.050); t x e. A "clear zone" must be maintained on public sidewalks or walkways. A clear zone refers to an w area seven feet in height and five feet in width providing a level, safe walking surface along the public sidewalk. Clear zone on sidewalks shall not include any curbing, planting strips or ramps. a) For tables and chairs placed in the public right-of-way, the clear zone can be reduced to four feet in width in front of obstacles (trees, street lights, sign posts, etc.); N. Packet Pg. 220 7.1.c f. All temporary objects shall be removed from the right-of-way on 24 hours' notice to accommodate public events. Temporary objects are subject to removal in the event of an emergency; and g. All temporary objects, excluding approved awnings, wall signs, and permitted streateries, rhat project more than 36 inches into the right-of-way shall be removed each day at the close of business. 2. Exclusive Sidewalk Dining. In an effort to enhance street life of the city and serve both an economic development purpose as well as enhance the livability of the city's urban core, exclusive sidewalk dining shall be allowed pursuant to ECDC 17.70.040. a. For purposes of this section the following terms are defined as: i. "Exclusive sidewalk dining" shall refer to a properly zoned and licensed food or beverage service establishment that uses the public right-of-way to serve only its customers at the exclusion of the general public. ii. "Barrier" shall refer to any temporary object or objects (e.g., stanchion, rope, , markers) used to establish an exclusive bistro and outdoor dining area. Barriers shall be approved by the city engineer. b. All conditions and requirements set forth in this chapter have been met and adequate compensation for the exclusive use of the public right-of-way and applicant fees pursuant to ECDC 18.70.050 have been paid. c. All barriers, with the exception of markers and marking, shall be removed each day from the right-of-way at the close of business. d. The design and use shall comply with all requirements of state law, city ordinance and city policy including but not limited to: i. Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) and Snohomish County health division (SCHD). When applicable, the business shall provide a written approval from the WSLCB and/or SCHD for use of public rights -of -way; ii. ECDC 17.70.040, Exclusive sidewalk dining; and iii. All litter and nuisance regulations, including but not limited to RCW 70.93.060 and Chapter 6.40 ECC. 3. The design board has reviewed and approved any proposal which includes a request to construct, erect or maintain an awning, building, sign or any building or structure, except as otherwise allowed in ECDC 18.70.030.C; 4. The proposal will not unreasonably interfere with the rights of the public; and 5. The proposal (if for an encroachment permit) either benefits the public interest, safety or convenience (e.g., supports or protects the city street, reduces pedestrian hazards) or is an accessory structure such as a fence normally associated with residential use of the property and fully complies with the requirements of subsections (13)(1) through (3) of this section. 6. Streateries. Streatery means a type of parklet located within the public right of way, typically in a vehicle parking space, that has been designed to allow for food and beverage services. To provide greater opportunities for outdoor dining and beverage service, streateries may be permitted, subject to the following requirements: 9 L Packet Pg. 221 7.1.c a. A streatery may be permitted as a type of street use in the parking lane of any public street on a block where retail or restaurant use is located. b. The business applying for the streatery is herein after referred to as the Permittee. c. Streateries must meet applicable city and state statutes, including for fire, electrical, and building safety, as well as for liquor service and other applicable agency requirements. d. Streateries must be operated in a manner that complies with orders from the state health department or governor related to coronavirus protection and with health district standards for food and beverage service or with this chapter, whichever is stricter. e. A complete street use permit application for a streatery shall be submitted to the city on a form provided by the development services department. City review of any streatery application will be completed in a timely manner and include opportunity for review by engineering, building, and fire staff. A street use permit for the streatery may be issued with any conditions as necessary. Field inspection will follow. f. reserved eantinue suehUse until janiiar-y 17, 2021, provided that a stfeettise pefmit for- the str-eate i applied for- by iarntaf-y 11, 2021 and the City deteFtnines that the stfeater-y meets or can meet the requirements of this seetion and issues a pefmit for- it, with any conditio g. Timing and eExpiration and termination. i. T4ie-A streatery shall be ,..-. hied for- a period of no more e than one yeaf, provided that the -permit may be extended in - eo to six-month increments-, PROVIDED THAT no streatery may continue to operate or hold space in the right-of-way beyond the sunset m a M date in subsection 6.p, below, regardless of the expiration date set forth on the permit. p ii. If the streatery has been cited with more than three violations of the city code within a aM c 12-month period, its permit may be terminated ithe t allo ... nee for- exte s iii. After the streatery has begun operating or within 30 days of street use permit approval, x whichever is first, if the streatery is not used by the applicant for at least 15 days of any V 30-day period, the City may e*pire-terminate the permit in order to avoid leaving the 3 parking space unavailable for use. A notice of potential eicPifatieff-termination shall be a provided by the City to the permittee at least ten days in advance of any termination taking effect. h. Number of allowed streateries. In the BD zone, after the first 20 streateries have been approved, no more streatery permits shall be accepted by the City unless the permit is to replace an existing N streatery or this section is amended to allow additional streateries. A business is allowed to have no more than one streatery permit. m U c i. Location. � i. A streatery must be located fully or partially adjacent to the business that it serves, =a provided that if the business is not adjacent to one or more suitable parking spaces, O another business or property owner may give its written concurrence for the parking c space in front of it to be used for a streatery. r ii. All streatery use shall be entirely within the approved space(s) and shall not extend into N the travel lane of the public right-of-way. N iii. Streateries shall not be located in ADA parking stalls, in front of fire hydrants or bus stops, or over the top of city storm catch basins. iv. The maximum length of a streatery is two vehicle parking spaces. For corner locations, t the two spaces may be comprised of one parking space on each of the adjacent U j intersecting streets. V. No more than two streateries shall be located next to each other. d vi. Where only one parking space exists between two streateries on a block face, each of the z two streateries must be set back at least one foot from the intervening parking space. 2 j. Other site requirements. Q i. A streatery must be located on an ADA-accessible raised platform that is flush with the sidewalk and has no more than a''/2- inch horizontal gap between the sidewalk and 10 Packet Pg. 222 7.1.c platform. The platform must be ADA-accessible from the public sidewalk and, upon entering the streatery, a wheelchair -user must be able to access at least one seat at a table on the platform. Exception: A streatery may be allowed without a platform if the business has other open-air dining that is ADA- compliant and available for customer use. ii. Each streatery must be protected at its end(s) from any adjacent vehicle parking space by a water -filled jersey barrier, substantial planter at least 30 inches high, or other approved barrier. The preferred color for a jersey barrier is white. Each barrier must include adequate lighting or reflective markings, as approved by the city engineer, for night-time visibility to drivers. iii. Screening shall be located on the streatery side that is adjacent to and parallel with the traffic lane. Such screening shall be at least 30 inches high and primarily consist of: (a) lattice, picket, or solid fencing; (b) fabric or membrane material; or (c) containerized plantings where the container is at least 30 inches in height. Above 36 inches in height, any screening from the traffic lane will have views into and out of the streatery. An applicant may propose a different material that provides both external views and a sense of separation, subject to approval by the building official. Reflecting markings or lighting, as approved by the city engineer, are required along the traffic side for night- time visibility to drivers. iv. All tents, canopies, fabric screens, and umbrellas are subject to approval by the building official for any structural requirements and by the fire marshal for flame-retardance. Tents and canopies must be fully open to the air on at least one side. If the open side is less than 8 linear feet, a second side must have ventilation. V. Tents, canopies, awnings, fabric screens, and umbrellas that are documented as being purchased by the applicant prior to January 1, 2021, may be of any color. Otherwise, the color of said items shall be primarily yellow, white, or red, or any combination of those colors. Material that is transparent may also be acceptable. vi. Fuel -burning heaters and open flames, such as candles, torches and fire pits, are not allowed within 3 feet of any fabric (including tents and canopies) unless approved by the fire marshal. k. Signage. A streatery shall have no more than one sign. The allowed sign does not need a separate permit but must be no more than eighteen inches in length and eight inches in height and must not be internally lit nor have components that wave or otherwise appear to move. The sign shall not be placed on the longest side of the streatery facing traffic and shall not be attached to the ground. It may be attached to or part of a streatery component but cannot interfere with traffic or sight visibility. 1. Maintenance. The permittee is responsible for maintenance of all streatery components, including surface and furniture cleaning and keeping the area underneath and adjacent to the streatery free of obstruction so that stormwater can flow freely at the curb. in. Insurance. Insurance is required, per ECDC 18.70.030.G. n. Installation and removal. The permittee is responsible for providing and installing all components of the streatery and for removing the components when the permit has expired. The City may also remove or require removal of the streatery as needed to deal with emergency conditions or infrastructure repair. o. City staff may provide additional details or guidance for applicants to implement this section, consistent with direction from the city engineer and the development services director or their respective designees. p. This subsection C.6 shall sunset on Peeember--May 31, ��2022, u r'-,& *' effe a�*� D. Bay Windows, Decks, and Related Architectural Features. In an effort to allow for more creative designs and a better overall appearance in the downtown area, bay windows, decks, and related 11 L Packet Pg. 223 7.1.c architectural features may encroach into the public right-of-way within the central business district or any other zone in which no setback from the lot line is required, subject to the following requirements: 1. All conditions and requirements set forth in this chapter have been met and adequate compensation has been paid; 2. The encroachment shall not occur over alleys; 3. The building encroachment shall not project more than two feet (24 inches) into the right-of-way; 4. The encroachment shall not exceed 30 percent of the length of the facade on any one side of the building; 5. The encroachment shall provide for a minimum clearance height of eight feet over any pedestrian right-of-way and a minimum clearance height of 11 feet over any vehicular right-of-way, whichever is greater; 6. The encroachment shall be approved by the architectural design board as contributing to a modulated facade design which enhances the variation and appearance to the public of the overall building design and public streetscape. E. Appeal. The decision of the development services director, city engineer, or their respective designees may be appealed to the hearing examiner as a Type II proceeding under the procedures set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC; provided, however, that the establishment of compensation for use of the public right-of-way is a legislative decision of the city council and is not subject to judicial review. F. Awnings and Canopies. Consistent with ECDC 22.43.040, awnings and canopies, whether architectural or temporary, excluding those permitted under ECDC 18.70.030.C.6, may encroach into the public right of way within the central business district or any other zone in which no setback from the lot line is required, subject to the following: 1. The awning or canopy shall provide a minimum clearance height of 8 feet above the walking surface, not to exceed 15 feet at its highest point. L 2. Awning and canopy projection over the right of way shall be determined as follows, provided that no awning or canopy shall project within two feet of the street curb (measured from the back of curb): Sidewalk Width Minimum Projection Less than 8 feet 5 feet r_ cc 8 feet or greater 6 feet 3. Awning and canopies shall not be constructed at a location or in a manner that will obstruct, E O obsure, or interfere with any streetlight, flower pole, utility pole or appurtenance, street tree, or any transportation -related sign, signal, or traffic control device. N 4. All awning and canopy designs shall meet the above criteria, unless otherwise approved by r the city engineer. c G. Insurance Requirement. When the application is for use or encroachment onto a public right-of-way N including but not limited to streets, roads, alleys, trails, sidewalks, bike paths, pedestrian easements, and cVi any other easement intended for the use of the public, the applicant who operates a business or commercial operation shall be required to provide and continually maintain during the term of the permit a certificate of insurance naming the city as an additional insured, with respect to liability, and providing that it shall be w primary as to any other policy of insurance. The policy must contain the additional insured statement, coverage amounts and cancellation notification indicated on the sample insurance form provided by the d city. In addition, a business and commercial applicant as well as all residential or nonprofit applicants shall z sign a covenant to hold harmless and indemnify the city which will be recorded and run with the land in acc form approved by the city attorney. Q 12 Packet Pg. 224 7.1.c H. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to permit the base or ground support for any sign to be located upon or attached to the ground within the public right-of-way. 18.70.040 Revocation. A. Except as provided below, all permits approved under this chapter shall be temporary, shall vest no permanent right and shall be issued and may in any case be revoked at the sole discretion of the city upon 30 days' notice, or without notice in the event any such use or occupation shall become dangerous; any structure or obstruction so permitted shall become insecure or unsafe; shall become a public nuisance; or shall not be constructed, maintained or used in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. The determination by the city engineer that a structure is dangerous, insecure, unsafe, a nuisance or has not been constructed, used or maintained in accord with this chapter shall be conclusive. B. Permits shall also be revoked if: 1. Following written notice of the lapse of an insurance policy required to be maintained by ECDC 18.70.030(F), the permittee fails to supply a valid certificate of insurance; or 2. Following written notice of the lapse of an annual application fee, renewal fee, or fees for the exclusive use of the right-of-way by ECDC 18.70.050(B), the permittee fails to bring fees/account current. C.. If any such structure, obstruction, use or occupancy is not discontinued on notice to do so by the city engineer and within the time period designated, the city engineer may remove any structure or obstruction, or make such repairs upon the structure or obstruction as may be necessary to render the same secure and safe, at the expense of the permittee, or his successor, and such expense may be recorded as a lien and otherwise collected in the manner provided by law. 18.70.050 Fees. A. Application fees for street use or encroachment permits are those established by the city council by resolution in its sole legislative discretion. Application fees shall be paid to the city prior to issuance of any permit. B. Fees for the exclusive use of the public right-of-way are those established by the city council by L resolution in its sole legislative discretion. The fee for a streatery permit shall be the same as for a street � determined by the administration. N v m C. There shall be no judicial appeal from a determination of the compensation to be paid for the use of r_ public right-of-way. c EL O 13 Packet Pg. 225 7.1.d From: Melinda Grout Sent: Sunday, November 7, 2021 12:48 PM To: Doherty, Patrick Subject: Love those Streeteries! I heard that some Edmonds residents are unhappy with the seating structures outside of our restaurants. I wholeheartedly disagree. My family and friends are so happy they are there! We have finally been able to dine out at our local restaurants during Covid. Covered seating with heaters - and in covid safe fresh air! Even when the weather is bad, we still go ahead and head into downtown several times a week for breakfast, lunch, dinner, or even just coffee and a pastry. In fact, my bookclub, which includes a member with severely compromised health, decided to come to Edmonds for dinner for our next meeting, entirely because we have so many covered, heated, fresh air options. Also other friends from other neighboring areas choose to meet us herein Edmonds for the same reason. And when we come to downtown Edmonds to eat, we end up stopping into the nearby shops, strengthening the retail business community. The structures are not quaint, nor beautiful, but they do have the ability to be more like an outdoor market feel, by, for example, planting up attractive planter boxes on the ends, or in other planters, or adornments created by some of our local artists. Perhaps a volunteer group could work on this, or the Chamber or the City could help fund it. Whatever has to be done, my friends and family will be very disappointed if the structures are removed this winter, and we will have to start crossing the County line to go to restaurants in King County (where proof of vaccination is required) in order to eat out. Melinda Grout Misspelled from my iPhone, which spells as it pleases and is not grammar correctly. Packet Pg. 226 12/2/21, 9:55 AM Facebook a = + 4 City of Edmonds - Community and Government Published by Patrick Doherty Q - November 22 at 3:13 PM Q City Seeks Public Opinions on Downtown Edmonds Outdoor Dining ("Streateries") Follow the link below for a brief survey intended to gather public opinions on the outdoor dining structures (also known as "streateries") that have been located throughout Downtown Edmonds since mid- 2020. Streateries were initially allowed in mid-2020 in response to pandemic -induced closures and/or restrictions on restaurants and cafes. Streateries were intended to help restaurants by providing outdoor dining options that would continue to attract residents and visitors to Downtown Edmonds and where restaurant patrons could feel more comfortable in the fresh air. Information gathered from this survey may be used by City leaders to determine whether to continue to allow streateries into 2022. The survey will remain open until 8AM December 6, 2021. Survey Link: SURVEYMONKEY.COM Public Opinions on Downtown Edmonds Learn more Outdoor Dining ("Streateries") See Insights View Ad Results 51 Comments 5 Shares L, I Like Comment 'I Share I https://www.facebook.com/cityofedmonds/posts/263350032490171?comment_id=263359835822524&reply_comme nt_id=26926069856 Packet Pg. 227 12/2/21, 9:55 AM 0 Facebook *' Write a comment... + © a Andy Cline The Streateries were good idea in the past when seating capacity was limited. I personally enjoyed the option and I'm sure most restaurants and bars did as well. Do I think the are needed moving forward No. This is public property being used for private businesses. The city is doing a greatjob once again of creating devisiveness. Please talk to other business that have leases in the area that did not sign up for this. What is this survey trying to accomplish? Like last time creating a survey that gets the results you are looking for to present to the council. I see restaurants and bar owners pleading with their customers to help them out with this survey. I see these streateries empty a majority of the time with some exceptions. I love this town and our great restaurants/bars. I would want additional seating if I had the option as well. That being said that is not what the city/council should be doing. Like • Reply • Hide • 1w 111 Jennifer Williams Bardsley Andy Cline You make some excellent points! The survey should have asked if the impact on parking due to Streateries is causing residents to avoid shopping at downtown retail locations. It didn't, which shows bias towards restaurants. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to survey creators and assuming this was unintentional. But I don't believe this survey should be used to make any decisions that could further impact local shops. Like • Reply • Hide • 1w NO Nikki Okimoto Glaros Andy Cline I'm interested in your view as one of the flagship businesses downtown, if you don't mind sharing. How has business been for you this year? I feel like downtown has become very vibrant despite the pandemic - I see so many more people around, both shopping and dining, than I did pre- Covid. I'm personally kind of surprised at the negative views of the Streateries because it seems like they are drawing a ton of people downtown. Is this I really not translating into sales for retailers? 1I https://www.facebook.com/cityofedmonds/posts/263350032490171?comment_id=263359835822524&reply_comment_id=26926069856 Packet Pg. 228 12/2/21, 9:55 AM 0 Facebook ii Andy Cline Nikki Okimoto Glaros Thanks for asking. First off let me say if I was given extra space for my business for no additional money I wouldn't want it to end either. Our sales are up significantly. I can speak for the jewelry industry that sales are up significantly around the country. Downtown Edmonds has been becoming more vibrant every year since I can remember. Edmonds is benefiting from the turmoil in Seattle, lots of new clients have moved North. Retail therapy has been a real thing during Covid. I have continued to reinvest in my business every year, increased marketing and advertising. Continual staff growth, raises and benefits. It pains me to see empty Streeteries. Parking spaces = tax revenue. We have a wide variety of age groups the shop with us. The parking issue has increased and our elderly clients have been increasing frustrated. My fear is no end to this. Heck build a parking garage at the City of Edmonds property if the Streeteries are so successful. It feels like the city is trying to take credit for the growth of some Edmonds businesses. 7107 Like • Reply • Hide • Message • 5d p a https://www.facebook.com/cityofedmonds/posts/263350032490171?comment_id=263359835822524&reply_comme nt_id=26926069856 Packet Pg. 229 12/2/21, 9:55 AM 0 Facebook Nikki Okimoto Glaros Andy Cline thank you for your very candid response. I think this whole issue is very emblematic of the growth and change Edmonds is going through, and the variety of needs its residents and businesses have. I do wish this whole debate was framed in a less "us vs. them" way - the animosity benefits no one and probably serves to damage the reputation of DTE as a desirable destination more than any perceived parking woes do. With the threat of new Covid strains/waves and the usual post -holiday drop in business/shopping - I hope some sort of compromise can be reached that will benefit both retailers and restaurants. Outdoor seating will still be needed, as many people still are not comfortable dining indoors. A temp extension of outdoor dining is entirely appropriate as we are still very much in a pandemic. Perhaps adding a few 30 minute spots would help the shoppers looking park close and go to only go to one business - maybe the first spot or two on each street closest to the fountain for "express" parking? Like • Reply • Hide • Message • 4d Anderson Paul Nikki Okimoto Glaros the restaurants gave up their pick up spaces by building the streateries and then their customers take up the pick-up areas for other businesses. I don't see express parking working. Like • Reply • Hide • Message • 10h Reply to Andy Cline... I p a https://www.facebook.com/cityofedmonds/posts/263350032490171?comment_id=263359835822524&reply_comment_id=26926069856 Packet Pg. 230 12/2/21, 9:55 AM 0 Facebook Almond -been Van Haamster The survey seems to be missing some options - like choosing take out instead of dining (indoors or outdoors). It might have been helpful to include an open comment area as well. For example, I like the outdoor dining option, but have serious concerns about the constraints it puts on sidewalk access and impacts to bus stops. That creates pinch points that are difficult to impossible for some people to safely navigate (immune compromised individuals, ADA access, families with strollers, etc). Like • Reply • Hide • 1w Jennifer Williams Bardsley There is a huge problem with this survey and it shows bias towards streateries. Question #3 should also include an option that asks: "If streateries are eliminated in 2022 will that increase the likelihood of you dining out in Edmonds?" How many people are choosing to eat elsewhere because there are less places to park? This survey should be finding the answer to that question too. Like • Reply • Hide • 1w • Edited ,< 18• Kristine Manz Jennifer Williams Bardsley I just was thinking how biased the questions were asked. Like • Reply • Hide • 1w 3 Katherine Kidwell Jennifer Williams Bardsley yes! I was surprised there was no question about parking, or at least an open field for comments Like • Reply • Hide • 1w Anderson Paul Jennifer Williams Bardsley my thoughts exactly. Like • Reply • Hide • Message • 10h Reply to Jennifer Williams Bardsley... Darrell Statema Retail outlets are suffering. It is time for us all to start dining inside. The "outdoor/indoor" plastic barriers are ridiculous. Restaurants have spent time and money making welcoming environments and we should take advantage of that. p a I 1 u:.a,. 6 1 https://www.facebook.com/cityofedmonds/posts/263350032490171?comment_id=263359835822524&reply_comment_id=26926069856 Packet Pg. 231 12/2/21, 9:55 AM 0 Facebook Jim Fairchild These are public parking spaces not private property. At the very least we who pay for the roads should be compensated for the private use 25-50 per day. Parking in downtown is one of our most valuable resources it shouldn't be just given away to private business. Like • Reply • Hide • 1w Beth Scheuer Hopkins I just hope everyone is taking the time to express their concerns by completing the survey. Like • Reply • Hide • Message • 1 h Anna Heckman When eating at a Streetery do you feel safe with cars driving by and parking next to you? On busy days do you enjoy watching the non masked pedestrian parade go by your table while you are eating. Is it possible to keep streeteries open through this winter and remove in May for summer when many places can use their out door seating and open windows without the need for extra heaters. Like • Reply • Hide • 1w • Edited h Jenn Tucci Anna Heckman there is a wall between the streateries and the road. Plus, with all the pedestrians and stop signs downtown, cars are not driving that fast. Seating is also a few feet from the pedestrians on the sidewalk and you often have your own private booth. In most restaurant interiors, there is little -to -no separation between tables. And because of recent trends in restaurant interior design (open concept, exposed ductwork, metal finishes, no carpets, rugs, or curtains to absorb noise), the outdoor streateries, even with street noise, are usually quieter than indoor seating. Noise and privacy are the main reasons I prefer to dine in the streateries. Like • Reply • Hide • 1w JKristine Hovde Anna Heckman never sat in one due to safety and the lack of distance from the motor vehicles. 3 Like • Reply • Hide • 1w 2 p a Reply to Anna Heckman... https://www.facebook.com/cityofedmonds/posts/263350032490171?comment_id=263359835822524&reply_comment_id=26926069856 Packet Pg. 232 12/2/21, 9:55 AM 0 5 Facebook Kristi Urquhart Another biased survey. Like • Reply • Hide • 1w 4 + © a 91 Denise Cooper Kristi Urquhart let them hear your voice anyway! Like • Reply • Hide • 1w 1 ® Kristi Urquhart Denise Cooper v J 1 Like • Reply • Hide • 1w Reply to Kristi Urquhart... J Deborah Arthur Thank you for doing this survery. Like • Reply • Hide • 1w 3 Anderson Paul Talk to the city council members. They will make the decision. Let's get back to normal and open our streets to everyone. Like • Reply • Hide • 1w El Trr Nuwen As long as its not using sidewalks designed for walking.... Like • Reply • Hide • Message • 6d 2 Pam Brisse I'd love to see a way to have more outdoor dining all the time, not just in a pandemic. Maybe the city could study the impact of changing a couple streets to one-way streets and fit in some space for both parking and attractive outdoor dining areas with plantings. Restaurants could choose to rent this space from the city if they wanted. Like • Reply • Hide • Message • 4d 8 Christine Wilson Pam Brisse I agree! You have provided some great ideas! 1 Like • Reply • Hide • Message • 1 d Reply to Pam Brisse... 1 I 1 https://www.facebook.com/cityofedmonds/posts/263350032490171?comment_id=263359835822524&reply_comment_id=26926069856 Packet Pg. 233 12/2/21, 9:55 AM 0 Facebook Jenna Nand It benefits the restaurants by expanding their real estate for practically free, but retailers suffer due to even more reduced parking. And it makes access to the downtown core more difficult for senior citizens, families with young children, and people with disabilities, so there is an ADA consideration, as well. It's a balance of equities. Also, it's causing resentment between the restaurant owners and the retailers at a time when our small business community should be banding together. Like • Reply • Hide • 1w Jim Fairchild Jenna Nand no equality in this arrangement. Is this a example of government's idea of equity? Like • Reply • Hide • 1w Jenna Nand Jim Fairchild, I strongly suspect that this has to do with the wishes of certain members of the business community in Edmonds who command a lot of respect and deference from the other elites. (I can say that because almost all of the elites here have a bone to pick with me. I'm very unpopular, at the moment, in some circles.) They have a certain vision for Edmonds, and it would be strongly modeled after walled, cobblestone streets like what you see in Lyon or Avignon in France. The difference is is that those are medieval towns, designed to withstand medieval sieges, whose downtown cores have been deliberately devoted to tourism in modern times, i.e. most of the "townfolk" don't live in their downtown core or drive their cars through them. The city of Edmonds was planned in the late 18th and early 20th centuries, and is based on automobile transport for anyone who can afford a car, instead of horse-drawn carriages for the elites and foot travel for the peasants. That is why sacrificing our parking to accommodate the vision of a few affluent business owners is not a smart idea, in my honest opinion. p a https://www.facebook.com/cityofedmonds/posts/263350032490171?comment_id=263359835822524&reply_comment_id=26926069856 Packet Pg. 234 12/2/21, 9:55 AM 0 Facebook Nikki Okimoto Glaros Jenna Nand I was wondering about the accessibility issue, too. Yesterday I asked a friend who is an accessibility advocate here in Edmonds what his take was and he said that the Streateries are seen as actually improving accessible dining options. They are nearly all easily accessible, provide more space than some indoor options do, plus for those who are immunocompromized, the safer outdoor dining option is very important. As for parking, a member of my household uses a disabled parking placard, so I looked into the parking issue. It turns out that no disabled parking was removed for the Streateries. The city actually added more spots, mostly near the City Hall area. Like - Reply - Hide - 1w - Edited D17 View 3 more replies 71 Jenna Nand Nikki Okimoto Glaros, I just don't see why all of this money, attention, and resources have to be devoted to the business owners in the downtown core, like me. Why not develop Perrinville, Firdale, Five Corners, and Highway 99 for a luxury tourist experience? Spread the wealth a little? Like • Reply • Hide • 1w • Edited 2 ONikki Okimoto Glaros Jenna Nand you're not wrong about 99. 1 actually do think that will start to happen - I know at least some of the folks on city council have committed to making that a priority. I've already seen some things in motion to make the 99 corridor a priority. I really hope district based council seats will happen ASAP so that everyone in Edmonds is more fairly represented. Like • Reply • Hide • 1w • Edited 5 p a https://www.facebook.com/cityofedmonds/posts/263350032490171?comment_id=263359835822524&reply_comment_id=26926069856 Packet Pg. 235 12/2/21, 9:55 AM 0 Facebook Amber MB Jenna, I find your comment biased. There are many affordable restaurants that operate in Edmonds and utilize streateries. I think the real problem is the fact that citizens are more concerned with free parking directly in front of where they're going than they are about whether businesses survive the pandemic. Let's be real for a second, when stores close at 5, people aren't coming into Edmonds to shop, they're coming into town to eat. Anyone saying otherwise is delusional. Like • Reply • Hide • 1w 0 Jenna Nand Amber MB, I don't care if you find my comment biased. Also, it is ableist to accuse people who disagree with you on a topic of current events of being "delusional." Do better. Like • Reply • Hide • 1w • Edited Geoff Olson Jenna, as much as I agree that dinning out every night is a luxury, that's hardly the story of DT Edmonds restaurants. Wealthy folks and lower middle class like myself both patronize these restaurants, and that's a small part of the picture. The restaurant employees from the teenage bussers (like my son), to the waitstaff, and kitchen aren't represented in the "elite" picture you paint. The more successful food retail is, the better off they are. The jobs and tax base created by the restaurants dwarfs that of any other retail business type in downtown. So if we want to talk tax dollars for public real estate, perhaps they deserve more of this space they help to fund. Also, as downtown real estate evolves the question for some businesses becomes, "does my current location best serve my clientele, or am I located here because I like the luxury of being downtown?" Like • Reply • Hide • Message • 3d U 3 p a Reply to Jenna Nand... NONE https://www.facebook.com/cityofedmonds/posts/263350032490171?comment_id=263359835822524&reply_comment_id=26926069856 Packet Pg. 236 12/2/21, 9:55 AM 0 Facebook Leanne Brunette Wow; outdoor dining is a priority over the abandoned houses that the city allows to be havens for drug addicts and other illegal activity? The house next door to us in the Seaview neighborhood has been sitting empty for thirteen years. It may be longer but that is how long our neighbors have been reporting problems to the city. We have been reporting frightening incidents for six years. It seems like a survey and city government action to mitigate the abandoned home problem would be more of a priority than outdoor dining? Like Reply • Hide • Message • 2d Anderson Paul Leanne Brunette can you give me an account of all the vacant houses in Edmonds? City can't tear them down. Whoever owns the property is responsible. It's probably a bank. We had a house behind us that sat for almost 15 years and was finally sold and it is a beautiful home now. Like • Reply • Hide • Message • 10h 19 Reply to Leanne Brunette... ' Gretchen Goodman Pawling That last question was poorly worded. I thought outdoor eating was amazing and beneficial during the height of COVID, I thought it was highly beneficial, attractive and encouraged dining in Edmonds. I'm ok eating indoors now, so outdoor eating feels mostly inconsequential, like it's run it's course? It is fun in the summer, less fun when it's pouring rain, freezing or there are ample indoor options. Like • Reply • Hide • Message • 5d tjAnderson Paul Gretchen Goodman Pawling made it harder for us walkers to get through the small space we were given. I chanced it an walked out in the street to avoid the people eating. Like • Reply • Hide • Message • 10h �I., 0 3 p a https://www.facebook.com/cityofedmonds/posts/263350032490171?comment_id=263359835822524&reply_comment_id=26926069856 Packet Pg. 237 12/2/21, 9:55 AM a Facebook Gretchen Goodman Pawling Anderson Paul f I walk by dog through downtown daily and didn't have that experience, but that is in the mornings. Edmonds does seem to have a lot of people in the downtown area in the afternoons/evenings, very different than when I first moved here and the town felt empty. Like • Reply • Hide • Message • 3h Reply to Gretchen Goodman Pawling... Pam Peters Barnett Downtown Edmonds looks like a shantytown. It's embarrassing! Like • Reply • Hide • Message • 1d E4 Ann Christiansen Pam Peters Barnett shantytowns don't look at all like Edmonds streateries! Quite uniform in construction, neat, clean (no open sewage or outdoor fires), no panhandling or theft... Your exaggeration is way off Like • Reply • Hide • Message - 1 d ILIPam Peters Barnett Ann Christiansen you are entitled to your opinion and so am I. 2 Like • Reply • Hide • Message • 1d PIZ Ann Christiansen Pam Peters Barnett okay, then your "opinion" isn't based in reality. Downtown Edmonds bears zero resemblance to a shantytown Like • Reply • Hide • Message • 20h U Reply to Pam Peters Barnett... Write a comment... p a https://www.facebook.com/cityofedmonds/posts/263350032490171?comment_id=263359835822524&reply_comment_id=26926069856 Packet Pg. 238 1212/21, 9:55 AM 0 Facebook + © a https://www.facebook.com/cityofedmonds/posts/263350032490171?comment_id=263359835822524&reply_comment_id=26926069856 Packet Pg. 239 7.1.f Comments to Council and through Public Comment on Streeteries: Most recent to oldest comments: May — December 2, 2021 From: Kaytee Thomas Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 11:S2 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Streateries Hello Edmonds City Council, I've been a resident in Edmonds for a year now but have worked in the Edmonds school district for 10 so this community is one I am very connected to. I have 2 boys, an almost 3 year old and a 4 week old baby. Since Snohomish county does not have the restaurant vaccine mandate like King county, I only feel comfortable eating outside since my 2 boys are not vaccinated. If the Streateries discontinue, I will not be eating at any restaurants in Edmonds. I imagine this will also impact my support of other local businesses downtown since eating at the Streateries bring me to the other businesses while I'm out and about. In addition to safety, I really feel the Streateries have added to the positive climate Edmonds already has. It creates an atmosphere where my family wants spend time. Please don't end the Streateries contract. Thank you, _ Kaytee Johnson a From: don giles Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 11:03 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Streateries I am writing in support of keeping the Streateries in Edmonds at least through 2022. All the reasons why this program was started still remain today and not sure how it could be justified to end this program when our own city government is still largely working remote and or limited and at times virtual. I live in downtown Edmonds and know the congestion issues we have but that is part of a vibrant community. I am not aware of any real numbers available on how much revenue is being generated by the Streateries compared to the claimed loses of other businesses but I'm sure the net gain to the city and community is positive. While I am not a local downtown business owner,l just don't buy the argument that non Streatery businesses are suffering when clearly the traffic (people) has increased dramatically in downtown.Maybe they are suffering but I don't see it as a result of the Streateries. I think the City would be wise to use 2022 to really define the cost/benefit and any negative effects of the Streateries. As a local downtown resident I see the increased traffic downtown ( it was happening long before Covid) and many communities (and businesses in those communities) would love to have such issues in their community. Packet Pg. 240 7.1.f No business has been hit harder than the bars, restaurants and food service during this Covid mess.l can't imagine the challenges they continue to face today with all the supply issues, increased costs and lack of workers. Now is NOT the time to end the Streateries as there is no doubt in my mind many would have to shut down and would not survive with the continued restrictions and Covid challenges. I urge the City to continue the Streateries through 2022 and give these businesses some certainly on at least this issue as they face the continued challenges going forward in 2022. Thank You Don Giles From: Amanda Bradshaw Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 9:23 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Streateries First, I'd like to thank our councilmembers for your consideration. I wanted to reach out regarding the Streateries in Edmonds and the survey that was recently composed to inquire regarding the public's feelings regarding these structures. First, the survey missed the opportunity to ask whether these Streateries deter people from visiting Edmonds, and whether they detract from the atmosphere of our z downtown. From personal experience, our family who had previously visited downtown Edmonds z whenever possible to give our business to our local vendors, has made the decision to refrain from a visiting Edmonds recently on many occasions due to the concern for parking. There is also a concern xa regarding the safety of having dining so close to moving traffic. These are not complete structures, and there is very little barrier between traffic and diners. In addition, in a time where we have been focusing on equity, it is inequitable to favor main street dining over our downtown shops, by limiting the ability of their shop patrons to easily access their storefront. The combination of Streateries, parking slots reserved for curbside pick up and the increased presence of paid parking lots have significantly limited access to the downtown core. Walkable weekends further limit access. We want all of our downtown businesses to thrive, not just a select few restaurants. Please consider removing these structures, and restoring the charm and access to Edmonds. Sincerest Thanks! Amanda From: Kathy Brewer Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 1:17 PM To: Chen, Will <will.chen@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com> Subject: Re: Illegal streateries need to sunset December 31st as scheduled. Hello Council Member Chen, Packet Pg. 241 7.1.f Thank you for your response. I am including a link at the bottom of my email to a Letter to the Editor in My Edmonds News dated November 6, 2021 by Ken Reidy which explains how the streateries are not legal. I believe Mr. Reidy has informed Council and Mr. Taraday but will bcc Council as well. Also, please read the comments responding to Mr. Reidy's letter. He has 100% support. People are tired of the streateries, concerned about safety and fairness, and would like to once again walk on city sidewalks and drive and park on city streets unencumbered by these ugly and dangerous sheds. Citizens rightfully want them off public property! After 1.5 years, including a one year extension, we are done with the streateries, and the restaurants and City should be too. Regarding the public hearing for December 7th, there was discussion on November 23rd but no vote to hold it, as required by Council procedure. I am not opposed to the hearing, it's just that it should be irrelevant at this point. The one required to extend the streateries through 2021 was never held. Now 2021 is almost over and the streateries are scheduled to sunset on December 31st, as they should. Please allow that to happen. Nevertheless, I have prepared comments and look forward to speaking to Council on December 7th. I hope Council will do the right thing for the citizens and allow the streateries to sunset. Sincerely, Kathy Brewer https://mvedmondsnews.com/2021/11/letter-to-the-editor-questions-confusion-about-ordinance-that- allowed-streateries/ On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 9:27 PM Chen, Will <will.chen@edmondswa.gov> wrote: Hi, Kathy, I am copying city attorney Mr. Taraday so he can provide professional options on the legality of the streateries. As far as the December 7 public hearings, it's the right thing to do and the council did agree on holding the hearing. Are you against the public hearing? The rest of the council are bcc so they are aware of this communication. Sincerely, Will. From: Michael Stenchever Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 12:55 PM To: Olson, Vivian <Vivian.Olson@edmondswa.gov> x a Packet Pg. 242 7.1.f Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: RE: Restaurant Seating Thank you for the note, I have also frequented very regularly the restaurants that you mentioned and they are absolutely great alternatives. I can however say That I am not the only person who prefers the outside spots as they are usually either filled well in advance or require a reservation well in advance. If you remove many of the existing curbside seating the demand at those locations you mentioned will likely go through the roof. I agree with you that the outdoor seating should not be a forever thing however we are clearly not out of the covid world. If you watch the News covid has continued to attack many in our communities. I have many friends and coworkers who have had to deal with that. I still firmly believe that as long as we have covid infections running high a community such as Edmonds with more than its share of sr citizens Owes it to the community both business and individual to place our resources to support the public well being. The covid world has not moved away from Edmonds just because we want it to. Thanks again for your thoughts. Michael A Stenchever VP, District Manager East King, Snohomish County From: Olson, Vivian <Vivian.Olson@edmondswa.gov> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2021 12:13 PM To: Michael Stenchever <Michael.Stenchever@homestreet.com> Subject: Re: Restaurant Seating EXTERNAL EMAIL: Please use caution before clicking on links or opening attachments. Michael, thank you for taking the time to write. If I may start with the history- this was a temporary measure with an automatic sunset date, never intended to be a forever thing. We thought this would help restaurants survive. We did not necessarily x a Packet Pg. 243 7.1.f know it would hurt retailers, but in the big picture and long term, even known short term detriment to keep the restaurants in town as an ongoing draw would be in the retailers enlightened self interest. Certainly all things can be reconsidered and original intent can be altered by the experience of the original temporary measure. To be clear, I am telling you that Council can of course extend temporarily or permanently if it was thought to be a good idea. What is truly difficult with this issue is that there are very different opinions on the subject- not only in the business community but also among the members of the public. I have a strong business background, both in personal experience and education. I can tell you that if the streateries (or walkable Main Street for that matter) were generating more business, the retailers would be all for them. They are not (different crowd, different reason for being there, don't want to keep track of packages while socializing, etc). In fact, in conversations and emails, it has been clear that that the retailers have been eagerly awaiting the end of the term and that many have expressed that it was about 6 months past due. Also, we have quite a few restaurants in the same DT area who do also offer OFF STREET/ non streatery outdoor dining options. These restaurants are paying for that amenity as part of their lease. When they are not full because of increased competition/choice provided through the streatery in the nearly free public parking spaces, they are making LESS money than they otherwise would if the streateries did not exist. Thus this government action is helping some and hurting others —even in the same (restaurant) industry. And then there are those who have the streateries who want them to continue. The expanded square a footage (and in some cases outdoor dining when they don't otherwise have it) was the help surviving we = intended it to be in the short term and an opportunity for increased profits now and going forward. I am a sure I too would want it to continue if I were in their shoes. `1' We have heard from many members of the public who do not like the streateries— again for many months. These complaints range from disliking what this did to overall look and feel of the town, to ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) complaints regarding use of that dining space and navigating the sidewalks crowded by the structures and the staff crossing back and forth from the restaurant or bar to the space, to loss of parking" to.... You are representing the public that likes the additional safe choices to dine outside. As a member of the public, I too have utilized more than one streatery over these 15 months they have been available I have a different hat on as a councilmember than I do as a member of the public. This one comes down to equity for me. You could choose to go to U Village instead; or you could choose to eat at MANY of the outdoor dining options in the same DT area where the streateries have been, even without the streateries. Some of those with streateries now also have other outdoor dining. In this latter category is San Kai, Fire and the Feast, Market, The Loft, Kelnero. Additionally, non streatery restaurants like Epulo, Demetris, Girardis, Rory's and Churchkey all have outdoor dining on their premises as part of their restaurant lease. Having government action that helps some businesses while it hurts others, and thus Packet Pg. 244 7.1.f has the government picking winners and losers, is a problem and not something I can in good faith support. If the restaurants need more support from the government in the future, I hope we can come up with a solution that is more fair to all parties as opposed to falling back on this solution which we gave a long trial and which we know to have downsides for many. Again- thank you for writing and if my email back prompts more thoughts or concerns, please email again or call me. Sincerely, Vivian Olson Councilmember 425 361-8176 From: Michael Stenchever Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 11:33 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Restaurant Seating Good afternoon I hope you all had a nice holiday last week. I was very disturbed to hear this weekend that you will soon be voting to decide if the outside a restaurant seating will be allowed x a To continue after year end. As a Edmonds resident in the bowl I frequent many downtown restaurants every week. Always utilizing the outstanding outdoor seating set up By many of the locally owned restaurants. The shortsighted comments by some of the retail shop owners who believe that the loss of a few parking stalls is costing them business Was very surprising to hear. The restaurants are the pull into the downtown area, once people arrive then we do always stop by and Visit other retail businesses. While I occasionally walk downtown I usually drive and have never not been able to find parking on the street. I really hope that you vote to continue the curbside seating as I believe this has had a very positive impact on the overall economics Of the business community. Packet Pg. 245 7.1.f If this seating opportunity should be removed it appears that Edmonds business will definitely suffer as people such as myself adjust dollars to outdoor friendly places such as Univ Village. Please make the right decision and keep this valuable resource in place in downtown Edmonds. Michael A Stenchever Edmonds wa From: Jim Moynihan Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 11:49 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Streeteries I filled out the online survey, but it had no provision for additional comment. I am opposed to the extension of the streeteries. 1. My wife is disabled and uses a wheelchair. There has been a reduction if not elimination of = disabled parking spaces as a result of the streeteries — in both parking lots and on the streets. It 2 was especially convenient to use the disabled spot in Fire & Feast's parking lot. That spot is now 3 taken by their streetery. We no longer patronize the central downtown Edmonds restaurants a due to the difficulty finding a disabled space. We now patronize Five and Epulo because they a have disabled parking. N 2. The wooden structures are not attractive. 3. It is unfair to the "other" restaurants that are not within the "streeteries" zones because they do not get the floor space for additional seating. 4. The streeteries were a good short term solution to a serious problem. With vaccines, that problem has been substantially reduced and the streeteries should go. James P. Moynihan From: D Talmadge Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 10:51 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Streateries. Need or want Council persons, This is an article from the Everett Herald this morning about the expansion of Salish Sea Brewery. https://www.heraldnet.com/life/salish-sea-sets-sail-at-second-location-in-edmonds/ Packet Pg. 246 7.1.f It is just hard to understand why the owners were making a case for the need to continue their free use of our public street when they are opening a new and large facility on the waterfront. Good for them, and hope they will succeed. But it is truly bewildering that on the one hand the restaurants and streateries argue hardship, and yet we have seen new ones pop up and like this one expand. They seem to be doing well at this point. Please insist on seeing the permits and compliance documents for the existing streateries before considering any extension at all. Have and are those shacks complied with the ordinances? Has the City done inspections to assure safety and compliance? Where are those records? Please look at them carefully. Is there actually insurance being provided by those streateries? By what carrier? Should those limits remain so low? Please also step back and look to who is profiting from all of this. Recall that money both from the feds and the state was pumped into these businesses. Our retailers have borne the brunt of this. Our casual walkers downtown have been impacted by the unsafe conditions created. Who benefited and profited from the streateries? Did the city show favor to one business over another? Has the city done the inspections to assure safety? I don't think so, but I don't know. It is my impression that the smaller eateries are struggling while the Feedme group restaurants are thriving. Just my impression. Salish Sea seems to be doing just fine. Please, please look at the records for safety inspections, the provision of insurance documents and the requirements you set forth in the ordinance. Does reality match that? Diane Talmadge From: Lynn Fortune Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2021 5:09 PM a To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov> Subject: Streateries -- Time for an equitable ending. a To Council Members and Mayor Nelson, The streateries give an unfair advantage to downtown restaurants over restaurants in other parts of Edmonds. By allowing a cluster of restaurants in a highly desirable area to take over public streets and sidewalks, creating a street fair atmosphere, many residents choose to go to the Bowl for food and entertainment. This is good for the downtown restaurants but what about restaurants in other parts of Edmonds, like those on Highway 99, Uptown and in the International District? Many are owned by immigrants and minority families -- like Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Indian, Mexican and more! These restaurants get overlooked when people go downtown instead. This is not good for their businesses or for the outlying areas. The City has created this inequity by giving special privileges to downtown restaurants. If you are concerned about the Bowl getting most of the money and attention, then you should be concerned about the special treatment the downtown restaurants are getting. Please even out the playing field. End the streateries and let the restaurant wealth spread throughout Edmonds. Thank you, Lynn Fortune Packet Pg. 247 7.1.f From: swanjol Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 11:34 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: sidewalk streateries Dear City of Edmonds Council: I am writing in regard to the sidewalk restaurants in the the city. I am a fit senior, and walk regularly, all over the city. I have lived in the city for a little over 20 years. I support businesses here. I try to buy here, first. I go to restaurants regularly. here. I would like to see the sidewalk restaurants removed immediately! We should be supporting the people, like me, who are fully vaccinated and can go into restaurants. It is too cold and rainy to be sitting outside, comfortably. I would like more available parking for when I go shopping and to restaurants. When I purchase something I have a hike to get packages into my parked car.( I don't buy as much because it is now so inconvenient, which was the beauty of shopping in Edmonds) The sidewalk buildings cause a confusing maze of getting in and out of parking without clear visibility to watch for pedestrians as well as other cars. It is a nightmare around the fountain area! Saturday Market mornings used to be a pleasure, and it is now overcrowded with vehicles pulling in and out with x pedestrians trying to find room on the sidewalk to safely get to the market. a I think there should be limitations on furniture allowed on the sidewalk, as well. There are some places on Upper Main Street that look to be out of compliance with ADA access on the sidewalk. In addition, the Edmonds Commons construction takes up a lot of parking with trucks going in and out, and taking up parking spaces.(There is already a substantial loss of parking on Main Street, coupled with the parking lot that used to be there because of that project). The streateries are also an eyesore. Let's restore our town sidewalks for everyone to use! Thank you all for your service. I hope you will restore our city, as soon as possible. Joanne Swanson From: D Talmadge Sent: Friday, November 26, 2021 11:02 AM Packet Pg. 248 7.1.f To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Safety First and foremost Council, Your first and foremost obligation is pubic safety. It should be top of list for any project you engage in. It should also be a top priority in any budget. Clearly that has not been the case in Edmonds for years and was and is painfully obvious with the pandemic. Do the streateries actual meet the requirements for those supposed permits? Try though I have I have not been able to see one. As a former insurance adjuster, it is hard to believe they are providing insurance for those shacks. What commercial insurer would underwrite the risk? Lloyds maybe at a very high price just maybe. Do they meet basic building and fire safety codes? Dubious. Do they conform to any traffic safety laws and codes? Again not likely. Clearly, if a tragedy happens, Edmonds will be held liable as frankly, it should be. Why have the restaurants ( and new ones have opened during this time when they have whined that the are struggling) been gifted our streets in such an unsafe fashion? My grandparents were out walking years ago, something they did daily, about this time of year. They crossed the street on a well marked crosswalk in Ballard. A car with the sun in his eyes hit them. My grandfather died. My grandmother survived with some serious injuries. Things can and do happen. This is my context as I look at the streateries mess. Everyone knows those streateries are unsafe. It is obvious when you see them or try to navigate near them on foot or in a car. We have eateries who pay big bucks for outdoor eating space. Off street, safe areas. The Feedme Group is behind much of this and has profited mightily from space it never paid for. That too, is blatantly obvious. It is well past time to let them sunset, and return to providing safety to residents who want to use the area as intended. 1 got to know my grandmother as an adult, after the accident. When she could finally walk again she a was out on those same streets in Ballard. Walking is important to many of our seniors for a variety of = reasons. Downtown used to provide a unique area for them to do that in Edmonds. The bread and a butter for the shop keeps was our seniors during the day. CIA The streateries were a huge mistake and you all know it. You have allowed and supported an unsafe condition to exist exposing Edmonds to serious liability to benefit one industry and one special interest. `V Please do not compound the mistake by allowing it to go forward. Then start fixing up the sidewalks, ,o providing sidewalks in places that have none, and safe crosswalks all over town, and worry about bike N m lanes later. The proposed changes at west gate are in a word nuts. And the first bicyclist to get injured will, and again deservedly so, sue the city and win. Safety first and foremost. Diane Talmadge From: James Ogonowski Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2021 5:36 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Streateries Thank you Councilmember Chen for reaching out to the community for additional input on streateries. As one of the older folks you were looking for additional input from, I offer a few comments, suggestions, and ideas. Packet Pg. 249 7.1.f I've segmented my response into a number of categories with some commentary and thought - provoking questions. Hope this helps in your deliberations. (Sorry about the length of this note) • Economy o I applaud the administration and Council for taking some proactive steps early on in this pandemic to save as much of the business community as possible through either grants or providing temporary code changes to help. To a large extent, it seems to have worked. I'm not dismissing the hardship that still exists, however, what I expect to happen, and we're seeing it already, is that many businesses will increase prices to make up for lost revenue because the demand is there (maybe even more so than before the pandemic). So, do we as a city need to continue to subsidize any business going forward? If so, then we need to do it equitably. • Equity o For this discussion I would like to take our equity mindset and use it to assess our strategy. Is carving out public space (parking) for some businesses equitable to those who were not afforded the same opportunity? If given a similar opportunity, would other business have opened a sidewalk, or street -side extension of their business? This would in essence have become an open air, bazaar -type environment. Imagine the Farmer's or Holiday/Winter Market intermingled throughout all of the downtown business district parking spaces. On the flip side, is it equitable to take away near -by parking for businesses which cannot avail themselves of sidewalk or street displays and sales? And then what about other areas of the city? Is it the job of the city to pick winners and losers to have an opportunity to use public space on an ongoing basis? We can't continue to over emphasize one part or segment of our city over the (literal) expense of other parts of the city. • Health o The Governor has opened up all restaurants to full capacity. This suggests that the temporary nature for which the ordinance was initially approved, has passed. Some restaurants had made a strategic business decision and invested in outdoor dining provisions prior to the pandemic, so there are options available to those who still prefer to eat outdoors. At this point, I believe that we individually know what to do to help best protect ourselves and others and what environment we feel comfortable in. There are dining options already out there to satisfy individual desires. As one of the "older" groups, I feel that there are options which satisfy my personal wishes without the need for streateries. • Usage o How are the streateries being used? I would suggest that we survey the indoor and outdoor dining at each establishment to help quantify how the streateries are being used. Just like we do when we decide whether or not to eliminate parking spaces for bike lanes, however, we did not do this prior to enacting the ordinance to eliminate parking spaces for streateries. Take a survey over a set period of days and time -of -day and let's see the facts and data. To what extent are both indoor and outdoor dining being used concurrently? • Character x a Packet Pg. 250 7.1.f o There has been much said about the construction and visual appearance of the current streateries. I agree that, as they are, they are an eyesore and do not enhance the character of our city. There was no attempt by any of the restaurants to make them visually appealing because they knew they were temporary. • Fees o The current fee structure is too low going forward (beyond the end of the year). Economic recovery is well underway. If we intend to extend the streateries, I would suggest that we increase the fees associated with them. We may want to start with looking at current parking rates at some of our paid parking sites. What does parking cost on an hourly basis? 24 hours/day, 7 days per week may be a starting point to charge for "parking" of streateries. Or, incrementally apply the same "fines" for exceeding the three-hour time limit posted in some areas for on -street parking to streateries. This would help incentivize restaurants to relook at their business and not just look for further concessions. • Timing o The discussion I've heard about the inability of restaurants to dismantle their outside dining by the end of the year is nonsensical. They all know when the current ordinance expires, so it's up to them to plan accordingly. The emergency ordinance was to be a temporary helping hand. That's what we're debating, what does "temporary" mean? Having said that, I could see compromising and possibly extending the current ordinance until April, 2022, but not beyond. • The Future o The proceeding part of this note has led to my main point. One could argue, as I just have, the pros and cons of the streateries, but that is not at the heart of the issue. What we're lacking is a vision for our city. Is making downtown a walkable, closed -to -traffic, open-air bazaar what we envision for our city core? Do we envision a denser urban a environment or a stronger suburban neighborhood environment? Are we a destination city or a waterfront community? How do we want to generate revenue? How do we NN integrate the entirety of the city to feel as one? What's our vision for cohabitating with N the natural environment? Just a few of the many intertwined questions that are easily put off but if left unanswered leads to ad -hoc decision making. o I'm still strongly advocating that we develop a vision for our city before we embark on the next Comprehensive Plan update. The Comprehensive Plan is a strategic document which should be used to navigate us to a future state. But we need to know where we're going first - our vision. Developing a vision will take time, so I suggest that we start now in advance of the upcoming Comprehensive Plan update. Will, I hope this is the type of input you were looking for. Feel free to contact me if you, or any other councilmember, would like any clarification on these remarks. Thank you, Jim Ogonowski Packet Pg. 251 7.1.f From: Pete Spiess Sent: Thursday, November 2S, 2021 10:13 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comment I want to express my support to keep the streets open to businesses to expand their opportunities by keeping the streetery going, people over car parking. Peter Spiess, Edmonds, Wa, 98026 From: Greg Martin Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2021 3:31 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Please keep Streeter is open Streeteries are one of the best things to come from pandemic. Please do not take them away. So much added charm, function, and access to downtown Edmonds. Best regards, Greg Martin From: Michael Murdock Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2021 8:16 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Streateries Good Morning, My wife and I don't believe in or use Facebook. I suspect others in Edmonds don't use it as well. Other residents may be being missed with information both young and seasoned. I was downtown at 4-6 PM and the streateries were empty. Those eating in establishments that were open were inside eating. They no longer serve any purpose and should be removed. It is a shame that all that parking is not available now for the Christmas shopping season for all merchants. Why are they still there? Regards, Mike Murdock Packet Pg. 252 7.1.f From: James Ogonowski Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 8:38 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Streeteries Councilmembers, Another thought. Why wouldn't we impose a "parking fee" on those who have streeteries? After all they are using public parking space and the current fees are minimal. With the right fee structure we should see who is benefiting from the streeteries and who would abandon them. In addition, just like we do when we evaluate on -street parking vs. bicycle lanes, we should determine the usage of the streeteries. When are they occupied and how is the associated indoor dining occupied? Facts and data may help the conversation and decisions. Jim Ogonowski From: Elizabeth Morgan Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 6:53 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Streateries in Edmonds Hello Council Members, I wanted to reach out quickly to you all regarding the streateries. I know you must be receiving a ton of emails and feedback and I know the opinions vary greatly. This is a hot topic and I'll be brief. As a business owner on Main Street and a local who dines often in downtown, I've had a front row seat to experience these structures. One of my guilty pleasures this summer was to open our windows and door at the shop, just to listen to the chatter, laughter and clinking of glasses well into the night. The energy, the joy that people were experiencing as they gathered for a meal (many for the first time in well over a year), was incredible. I don't want to get too dramatic about it but, it was really soul -filling and gave me hope for the future of our community. I understand and have also experienced the issues with lack of parking. Multiple customers complain each week. Here's what I would suggest and what I would love to see happen. 1. Create outdoor eating parklettes that are aesthetically pleasing and are in keeping with the look and feel of Downtown. Keeping the weather and safety in mind (flush with the sidewalk). The city would design these and install them. 2. Offer these to restaurants (and maybe even other merchants?) seasonally. Spring to early Fall. This will free up parking during the darker and wetter months, when visitors are less willing to walk. x a Packet Pg. 253 7.1.f 3. Have the restaurants apply for a use permit for this space and pay for leasing this space from the city. Use those funds to increase other mobility/transportation options to visitors and citizens. Shuttles? Bikes? You have a difficult decision here and regardless of what you decide, there will be people upset and writing LTE's, I'm sure. Thanks for listening and considering! Liz Morgan FIELD/Morgan & Moss From: Shubert Ho Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 5:23 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Doherty, Patrick <Patrick.Doherty@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Streateries Hello Councilmembers, Mr. Mayor and Mr Doherty, I'm writing to you regarding the upcoming Streateries program discussion. I'd like to state that our local = restaurant industry has been very grateful for the opportunity to survive and thrive through this 2 pandemic. It has been a difficult journey on the road to recovery, and we still have a very long way to a go, but less so because of programs like the Streateries, Economic Relief Funds and the undying support of the Greater Edmonds Community. a From the very beginning of the pandemic, there has been no greater industry burdened with such pause, responsibility, and financial hardship. The Restaurant/Hospitality Industry has its inherent difficulties and employs a huge number of individuals, while serving an exponentially greater number of guests. This summer was no exception with the return to reduced indoor and outdoor dining, when we saw an influx of consumers enter our town for a nice meal and some shopping. From the first month of the pandemic where we laid off over 200 of 210 employees, we began recuperating by hiring back 90% of the employees we had to lay off. This was all possible because of the Streateries program. Our town created a destination for dining, shopping, and sightseeing! I think it's safe to say that no one has more to lose than Feedme Hospitality with the ending of the Streateries program. It has helped us bring in revenue to heal our wounds and serve a greater population by attracting neighboring cities that don't have such an amenity. With that said, I'd like to point out that even before outside dining was a possibility, we never stopped contributing to the community on our own dime. Here's a brief timeline of what we provided to Edmonds as a whole, even when we were dollars away from an empty bank account: During the Pandemic, Feedme HRG sought to fulfill gaps in the community through creating a Community Kitchen that served Seniors, Children and Front -Line Workers. Below is a list of accomplishments that will forever add to our business model as a private business entity. Packet Pg. 254 7.1.f • March 2020, schools were shut down first before restaurants and kids were transitioned to remote learning. We decided to provide an affordable kids menu daily to help parents feed their kids anytime of the day at Salt & Iron. • March 2020, we were shut down by the Governor and health officials and were forced to lay off 200 of the 210 employees we had. • April 2020, we activated our Feedme Hospitality Community Kitchen in our Salt & Iron location providing meals for children, front line workers and seniors. We worked with organizations like the Foundation for Edmonds School District, South County Fire Foundation, and Local Area Hospitals. We distributed several thousand meals over the course of one year. • June 2020, we activated a fundraiser for the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce for the 4th of July. This was a lemonade stand through a few of our units (Salt & Iron and The MARKET) to raise money for the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce that had to lay off their entire staff because of the cancellation of their money -making events like Taste Edmonds and Classic Car Show. We raised over $2000 from the profit generated from flavored & spiked lemonades. • July 2020, we partnered with the Edmonds Senior Center to provide weekend lunch deliveries for at home seniors. The Senior Center provided grant money to pay for these meals and volunteers for the delivery. Our staff focused on healthy gourmet lunches as a premium service and alternative from the normal cafeteria style lunch. d! • August 2020, we announced the School Lunch Program providing $5 kids lunches Mon -Fri for c the 2020-2021 school year to support parents, teachers, and children during school lunch. This ° a offering provided a balanced scratch made meal which included a protein, starch, vegetable, L and fruit. To date, we have sold several thousand school lunches between Salt & Iron and The MARKET to date. The idea was to not only provide an easy way to prepare lunch for students, _ but to also provide a healthy alternative to what is usually served in schools. The price of the meal is basically the cost of the ingredients. a • November 2020, our restaurants were shut down again for inside dining. We had to pivot back = to takeout only and wait it out. a • January 2021, we successfully got the Streatery ordinance passed by City Council and built 9 8x16ft Streatery verandas for covered outside dining. We also shared our preliminary approved designs to the entire restaurant community in Edmonds. Today, no less than 10 local restaurants have built our structures to provide safe dining and additional capacity to supplement their reduced inside dining. • March 2021, we started our first senior subsidized meals to members of the Edmonds Waterfront Center, FROM the Edmonds Waterfront Center kitchen. This will mark the first of many meals we will provide 5 days a week for those who need meal assistance. • July 2021, we reactivated the previous year's fundraiser for the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce, Edmonds Kind of Fourth and raised another $2000 with community support. • November 2021, Feedme HRG Community Kitchen was tasked to assist the Edmonds School District in supply chain and production issues by sourcing food from our vendors, and by producing enough meals to serve over 25,000 student meals while product and staffing levels were addressed. • December 2021, Feedme HRG Community Kitchen will be providing over over 500 individual holiday meals for food insecure families in the School Disctrict. • Feedme Hospitality Community Kitchen will forever live on as a part of who we are as a result of the Pandemic and Local Community Support. Never in the history of our company have we achieved this level of community service in such a short period of time. Some may comment that our Streateries have come a cost to the public. We see it that Packet Pg. 255 7.1.f we are constantly looking for ways to pay it forward because of opportunities given, hard work, and dedication. Attached is a PDF of the current state of the industry presented by the Washington Hospitality Association. It clearly shows that we are not out of the woods. I am hoping that Council and City Officials can see the need for a short extension of six months for the Streateries program while the covid case numbers ebb and flow through the colder months. We understand that this program was never meant to be permanent, but a temporary solution to provide a safer way to dine. We agree with that sentiment and are willing to pay a higher premium for using these parking spaces while we wait out the last spikes in covid cases (hopefully). I want to thank you for your time and wish you all a Happy Thanksgiving. Best, Shubert Ho Proprietor I Executive Chef Feedme Hospitality & Restaurant Group From: Kathy Brewer Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 12:20 PM = To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Doherty, Patrick<Patrick.Doherty@edmondswa.gov>; a Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> _ Subject: Time for streateries to go! a To Council Members and Mayor Nelson, The streateries have done their job as a TEMPORARY assistance for restaurants during Covid. Almost two years in and they are still there blocking public sidewalks and streets, creating an obstacle and danger for pedestrians, drivers and diners and being an eyesore to our charming city. The restaurants have recovered and are prospering. There appears to be more diners in Edmonds than before Covid! The restaurants and streateries are full on the weekends. I have heard of no restaurants closing and, in fact, some owners are opening new restaurants in Edmonds and elsewhere. The restaurant owners are profiting at no expense of their own except for the price to build these shanties. Taxpayers are footing the bill for their extended eating space. This is not fair to other businesses and patrons, restaurants off Main Street with existing outdoor eating areas, pedestrians who would like to walk unencumbered on our PUBLIC sidewalks and drivers who would like to park on our PUBLIC streets. My husband and I have just returned from a two month road trip across the country. Nowhere in the towns and cities of the Midwest or New England did we see these ugly structures marring their Packet Pg. 256 7.1.f downtowns. Walking and driving was delightful not worrying about dodging pedestrians and looking for parking due to streateries hogging the sidewalks and streets. If they were once there, they are gone; and it is time to remove them from our downtown as well. Give the sidewalks and streets back to the citizens! Restore the charm and beauty of Edmonds! Remove the streateries! Sincerely, Kathy Brewer From: pedro@ Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 12:13 PM To: kyle; Doherty, Patrick <Patrick.Doherty@edmondswa.gov>; mclaughlin@edmondswa.gov; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Girardisosteria Subject: RE: Fwd: Vote on Streateries Hello everyone. I will try to be the most organized I can and use the best words for it. I just did a walk-through main street and I saw multiple infractions (not see by any of you for 18 U months). Basically, all restaurants but Market open for dinner only between 5t" and 6t". It does surprises me that's you guys have 0 knowledge about the businesses that you saying you are trying to help. It's a not your money, why bother, right? What data are you using to decide what restaurants need help or a not? Maybe you should ask for their financial statement and renew upon lost of business, so they can prove they need help, no? I attached a list of loans disbursed in Edmonds for the RRF (that doesn't include the 2 rounds of PPP money). After talking with some council members, they didn't know about that as well... So I ask you again, if you don't know how much help they got from the federal government already, how do you know they need help still with the streeteries. I bet that 100% of those restaurants are doing waaaaaaaaay better than prior pandemic. Anyway, the information is bellow, that's the last time I give my public option about this issue. Like Kyle mentioned before, We have a lawyer taking a look in some options for a class action lawsuit against the city of Edmonds. I will detail bellow what I did see in some restaurants: Rusty Pelican - They have streeteries and side walk tables. They have 34 seats extra allowed by the city of Edmonds; - There is open flame heaters underneath wood/plastic structure (I don't think that's ok, is it?) Packet Pg. 257 7.1.f Their structure is blocking a city sign; Just opened for Brunch, after 2 pm there is no more business or usage of the space... ti- Dafnes - First of all, that's not even a parking lot, so literally the city allowed anyone to build anything anywhere; - There is open flame heaters underneath wood/plastic structure (I don't think that's ok, is it?); - No a good ADA space, specially when they are operating. - They open for dinner only, there no usage during morning; - The owner triple his restaurant seating with the 20 seats for free with the streeterie. Packet Pg. 258 7.1.f Salt and Iron - That's clearly against ADA laws...; - There is open flame heaters under the plastic/wood structure; - They open daily at 4pm and closes at 8pm during the week. In another words, there place is = open for 4 hours, but somehow has the right to take 2 parking spaces and more than a half of 2 the sidewalk; 3 - Salt and Iron has 38 seats outside, oh my God ... 38. That's half of the seats of my patio at a Demetris, to remodel it cost me over 200k to provide outdoor seating to my customers. Maybe = a next pandemic I will wait to see what I can get away with the city of Edmonds... Packet Pg. 259 7.1.f M IF .4w . Ik kfz I t The loft - They already had outdoor seating prior pandemic, but somehow, they were allowed to use 2 parking spaces and 50% o the sidewalk; - I'm pretty sure that's not ok for ADA; - They have SUPER open flames heaters under the structure; - They added 28 seats with the streeteries - They are open for dinner only 4pm — 9pm, and again, somehow, they got all of that. Packet Pg. 260 7.1.f m Maize Barley (no picture) n . �U RN., - - They added 10 seats with the streeteries - There is no covers for the streeteries or heaters, please tell me how in the world that spot will be used during winter? - They have outdoor seating prior pandemic. The Left Craft - They had outdoor seating prior pandemic. - They added 16 seats with the streeteries x a N i NI L 0 m �L d d m L r c 0 c m E E 0 U a aD E U ca a Packet Pg. 261 7.1.f Kelneros - They added 16 seats with the streeteries; - The parking spaces has no covers or heaters, please tell me how it will be used during the winter? - They had Outdoor spaces prior covid Fire & Feast - In my personal opinion, that's the biggest joke of all; - They added 48 seats in the parking lot + 12 more seats at the street, for free... Packet Pg. 262 7.1.f There is several open flames heaters inside the structures, fans and lights There is not water/barrier protection requested by the city; Just open for dinner _ 1 loin a $ 4-A auui Market - They had outdoor seating prior pandemic; - They added 16 seats at the street for free; - There is open flame heaters inside the structure; - Their podium take half of the sidewalk - They add tables and chairs in the sidewalk Taki Tiki - They had outdoor seating prior pandemic; - They added 16 seats at the street for free - They add tables and chairs on the sidewalk. x a N I I N L O U) d �L d d d L r N C 0 U) Y E E 0 V C aD E ca a Packet Pg. 263 7.1.f Anyway, only with Shubert's restaurant combined, He added 114 seats on main street. That's sounds like a good deal for him and for the city of Edmonds... You all have a great day. Claire's - 16 seats Chanterelle - 12 Salt and iron - 38 Dafnes - 20 Mexican spot - 24 + 6 sidewalk Pelican - 26 + 8 sidewalk Market - 16 Loft - 28 Left craft - 16 Maize barley - 10 Kelneros - 16 Fire feast - 48 parking lot + 12 street Takintiki -16 + sidewalk -----Original Message ----- From: kyle Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 6:56 PM To: Pedro <pedro@kafeneo.net>; patrick.doherty@edmondswa.gov; mclaughlin@edmondswa.gov; council@edmondswa.gov; Subject: Re: Fwd: Vote on Streateries All: I was forwarded this email below. Packet Pg. 264 7.1.f We have been restaurant owners in Edmonds for over 25 years and do appreciate the city trying to help restaurants in particular, although you have chosen to only help a very few of them specifically, at the detriment of others, and non restaurant businesses in downtown Edmonds. Many of us outside the "chosen zone", between 3rd and 6th streets on and along main street are not being helped, in fact hurt. As many of you might know, one restaurant owner has several restaurants in the chosen zone, and is unfairly helped by the city. He is hurting so badly, he keeps opening restaurants in the chosen zone during the pandemic. LOL Lease rates in downtown Edmonds are in the $40.00 PSF area currently. Yet you give these chosen restaurants 200 SF or more in PUBLIC PARKING spaces, for $100.00 a year I was told by one of you on this email list. At 40 PSF, market value would suggest an $8,000.00 fair market value for that prime space. Why is the public not being paid back for this cost? Why are those restaurants not paying to use PUBLIC property for exclusive use anywhere near a market value for square footage in downtown Edmonds? I would also like to rent for exclusive use 200 SF on Main street in downtown Edmonds for $100.00 a year. Certainly beats paying market rate PSF of $40.00. Clearly the public is being shorted here Many of these 20 plus public parking spaces are not even being used 7 days a week by these chosen = restaurants as they are closed a couple of days a week, and many are only used by the restaurants for 6 hours a day when the actual restaurant chooses to open. The public has not had use of their public a parking spaces now for almost 18 months. _ a Good city government should represent the best interests of all their constituents relatively equally and provide the same opportunities to all. Clearly this is not being done. Only allowing 10 plus restaurants these freebies and not others in the city, is a discrimatory practice. I would have hoped you were all against discrimination. I have also asked to see the list of ED members repeatedly. I have asked the city and the ED group for this list, and have asked to have a list of restaurants in the ED group that are delinquent on dues, or have not paid period. I have never been provided this list. I believe one of the current restaurants in the chosen zone that has Streeteries spots, has not paid Ed dues in years, if at all actually. If that remains the case and they are not paying ED dues, why are they being rewarded with Streeteries spaces at all? Please do provide me a list of restaurants in the ED group that are delinquent on their Ed payments. Covid has been around for well over a year now. Restaurants have been negatively impacted for sure, like most businesses. New strains will likely appear in the future, so you could make the case it will never go away. Restaurants are not closed by government mandate anymore. If the restaurant is any good, they will survive without all the propping up by the city of Edmonds to only a select few of them in the city, at the detriment of the others. You are creating more seats for only a select few Packet Pg. 265 7.1.f restaurants. As those new free seats to those restaurants are filled, it takes away that opportunity to fill a seat in another restaurants dining room. Level the playing field please and stop using policies that are discriminatory in nature. Offer the same opportunities to all, not just a select few in the city. I have already contacted attorneys to pursue legal actions against the city. Feel free to have any businesses or restaurants that would like to band together on legal action against the city for these practices contact me. Again, thank you for helping a select few when the pandemic started. Times and rules have changed, restaurants are open with basically no restrictive requirements now, and if they are any good, they will survive without special treatment given to them by the city. Give the PUBLIC their PUBLIC parking spaces back please. Stop using your discriminatory practices and rules and start representing all of your constituents, not only a select few restaurant owners. Fred: If you or any other businesses in Edmonds want to join on and pursue a lawsuit against the city for these practices if it is extended, please have them contact me and join the cause. Together we can make a difference. Thank you Kyle Huffman >> From: Fred Milani >> Date: November 22, 2021 at 9:48:57 AM PST >> To: "Doherty, Patrick"<Patrick.Doherty@edmondswa.gov>, >> susan.mclaughlin@edmondswa.gov, council@edmondswa.gov >> Subject: Vote on Streateries >> Greetings Patrick, Susan, Honorable City Council >> There is an uneasy feeling about town for the retail and restaurant >> businesses who have been negatively impacted by the Streateries >> knowing what is about to be voted on: another extension to the >> Streateries and another 6 months to a year of business losses for >> those who are already negatively impacted. How long must this be >> going on? >> Let me address exhibits 1 and 3 on council agenda items for the >> request to extend permitting of Streateris. >> Exhibit 1. 1 have already emailed Mr. Lane from WA Hospitality Assn x a Packet Pg. 266 7.1.f >> and requested that he consider the larger picture. His numbers impact >> me as well. But allowing Streateries takes away my customers and >> negatively impacts my business, along with many more restaurants and >> retail stores who are negatively impacted one way or another. >> The City of Edmonds might be collecting more taxes as a result of >> more business for the Streateries, but it is collecting fewer taxes >> on a much larger number of restaurants that are losing customers as a >> result of the Streateries. Mr. Lane's request is short-sighted at >> best. >> Exhibit 3. Letter from Ms. Melinda Grout to Patrick Doherty on >> November 7th is valid. People love eating outdoors. That is why >> Girardi's has a patio, all paid for as part of its rent and >> preserving street parking for their guests. That is why 190 Sunset, >> Harry's Hamburgers, Bucatini, and many more have outdoor patios as >> part of the lease and don't have to use the public street as an >> extension of their restaurants, rent-free. Ms. Melinda would be just >> as happy dining with her friends at one of the available restaurant >> patios in the Edmonds Bowl. The city doesn't have to allow certain >> eateries to erect monstrosities in the middle of their streets to >> accommodate their dining pleasure. >> There have been several "letters to the editor" and many responses. >> Please read through all and take the overall picture. > https://myedmondsnews.com/2021/08/letter-to-the-editor-how-edmonds-Str > eateries -and -street -closure -hurt -restaurants -not -on -main -street/ >> [1] > https://mvedmondsnews.com/2021/08/letter-to-the-editor-outdoor-eaterie > s-take-up-parking-hurting-retailers/ >> I'm going to paste the entire short email Q&A exchange between a >> councilmember and a local restauranteur regarding Streateries. >> Please read my response in Red text inline. I have some wrap-up >> comments at the end and I hope you would read them and bring them up >> in the council meetings just like you do with the ones in the >> original Q&A and exhibit 3. >> 1) do the restaurants need this government intervention to survive >> and/or thrive? Consider past grants, restaurant usage rates- current >> and forecasted -with and without the Streateries, takeout parking >> spots, etc) >> _Restaurants definitely need these to provide a means of making up x a Packet Pg. 267 7.1.f >> for lost time as the majority of restaurant in the country have not >> fully recovered from the last year and a half downturn. Currently >> restaurant are still seating outside because if hesitancy for inside >> dining. It will really help us get past this last hump of winter. >> Moving forward as long as more people keep getting vaccinated and the >> country recovers from supply chain and product pricing issues, it >> will help restaurants with one last recovery period into summer._ >> This is valid but short-sighted. This request seems to repeat every >> time there is a need to renew, to extend by another 6 months. This >> "Edmonds" government intervention helps a few but hurts a larger >> number of restaurants and retail stores and the solution should be >> one that helps all or most, rather than a few. >> 2) are the retailers less likely to survive or thrive as a result of >> this government intervention for the restaurants? >> _Retails overall have had a fairly good year according to Edmonds tax >> income, given all the traffic restaurants are driving into town. >> Customers may not buy right away, but they may buy the next time >> they're in town. _I do not have access to the numbers and what this >> person is saying is probably unfounded information. Customers may not >> buy at all and go to streets where they can park in front of the >> store they intend to shop at. I would! >> 3) are the restaurants who do not have the ability to have a >> Streatery less likely to survive or thrive as a result of the >> restaurants who do? (For example, Demand for their paid outdoor >> spaces less as a result of supply of quasi free outdoor spaces >> provided through Streateries?) >> _Restaurants have always been one of the toughest industries for >> survival regardless of a pandemic. It's up to the restaurant owner >> to create their own Niche, regardless of Streateries. If your >> product is good, people will come. _OH? I would love to compete on >> product and atmosphere, but when the deck is stacked and you are >> seating your guests on a public street with the blessing of the city, >> then that is not competing on product. It is called influence >> peddling and getting an unfair advantage. _ Quasi free is an >> incorrect term. We paid a small fee to enact this permit, and have >> spend thousands to provide a public service for safer dining. >> _Don't fool yourself. That is not a public service. That is profiting >> from an unfair advantage the city gave you in the form of free of >> monthly rent and space on the public street, and your recouped your >> inventment in a month because as you seem to indicate, if not for the >> Streateries, you would not have survived._ There are restaurants that >> have Streateries, that have still been busy though the year based on >> the product they serve. _The person who provided the responses, who >> wants restaurants owners to create their own Niche, chose to rent a x a Packet Pg. 268 7.1.f >> space with no outdoor facility or patio. This person pays a much >> lower rent because they have an enclosed space that can be used all >> year. Restaurants with a patio pay for their patio all year even >> though they typically get to use it for 3 months of summer. >> Fortunately those patios have come pretty handy during COVID, but the >> Streateries are pulling customers away from the paid patio spaces. >> 4) how does the value to the public of the ADDITIONAL outdoor dining >> (Streatery-provided; patios, decks and other outdoor dining included >> in restaurants' lease will exist for outdoor dining either way) >> compare to the negatives to the public of keeping it (less parking >> and less attractive downtown)? >> _The goal is not to keep the Streateries forever. That was never the >> intent of this program. _Yet you seem to continue advocating for >> extensions of the Streateries at every turn._ We restaurants needed a >> period of time for outside dining to provide a safe dining >> atmosphere, vs a confined space. Our company like many others have >> spent extra money installing UV hvac sanitizing tech to keep up with >> the changing landscape. We just feel a 6mo extension will allow us >> to finish off the Streateries program at a positive and remove them >> at a safer time. _COVID is here to stay, much longer than the flu >> which is permenent. There is no end to COVID and there is no end for >> your continued requests to extend Streateries. >> 5) if the above four questions are answered in such a way that >> extending the Streatery ordinance is warranted and chosen by council, >> go on to look at Streatery utilization rates (days of week used, >> hours of each day used) and consider adding minimum usage to the >> ordinance such that under-utilized Streateries will be removed. >> _We restaurants would not be opposed to paying a higher premium for >> using the Streateries. Usage is more gray as it depends on business, >> which we all know the restaurant industry is still trying to survive. >> Edmonds is fortunate because we are benefiting from having plentiful >> outdoor dining spaces._ >> You all know well. There was a "Walkable Main Street" in 2019 and >> restaurants in that section of Main Street were allowed to put up >> chairs and tables in the middle of the street and serve their guests. >> Then 2020 came with COVID in tow. The Walkable Main shut down but >> Streateries were erected. >> A few main problems with both "Walkable Main" and Streateries: >> They cause unintended harm to a larger number of businesses and >> people. x a Packet Pg. 269 7.1.f >> 1. ADA: When a street is closed, a handicapped or mobility limited >> person cannot park in front of their intended store to shop, have to >> park several blocks away, and walk. They don't. As a result, Edmonds >> has violated ADA, the store has lost a sale, and the handicapped >> individual has to shop elsewhere. >> 2. Parking spaces: For every full Streaterie (about 4 tables) there >> are potentially 4 to 12 cars (when Ms. Melinda Grout and her friends, >> each in their own car, converge into a Streaterie) which have to park >> on side streets. Not only does the Streaterie takes up valuable >> street parking, they also push more cars onto the side streets. Some >> of these are residential streets and I'm not sure how happy the >> residents are about that. >> 3. Streateries take up valuable parking spaces and limit visibility >> to the retail stores. When I drive on Main, the last thing I look at >> is the storefront windows and retail stores. I have to watch out for >> the Streateries, their distractions (specially in the evenings) and >> watch for people emerging into the street from the front and behind >> them. >> 4. Restaurants that are not participating in the Streateries are >> seeing much -reduced guest counts. Every person dining at a >> streaterie at any time is one less in the patio of a restaurant that >> wished to save their parking spaces for their guests' parking. >> For every dollar that a restaurant with Streaterie is generating off >> the structure, a dollar is taken out of a restaurant without one. >> The math is simple. If your Q&A restauranteur is pushing to continue >> with Streateries for another 6 months, he is indeed causing another >> 6 months of losses for a restaurant with a perfectly equipped and >> must larger patio. >> The loss of income to my restaurant as a result of the Streateries is >> also reflected on my staff who rely on the volume of guests, extra >> hours worked, and extra tips made. These are folks with families and >> rent and health care needs. >> The Streateries program was initially set for 70 days in 2020. Every >> structure built was cost/benefit analyzed to pay for itself and >> generate sufficient positive income to build it for the 70 days. >> These structures have already paid for themselves over and over >> again, so don't be fooled that the investment in those has not been >> recouped. >> Let me ask one final question: Wouldn't this decision best be done by >> a poll of all the restaurants and retail businesses in the Bowl of >> Edmonds rather than one email from a citizen and a Q&A who obviously >> benefits from the Streateries? You already have everyone's email x a Packet Pg. 270 7.1.f >> through the licensing division. If you let the businesses decide what >> is a good environment to do business in, wouldn't Edmonds set an >> example for the other failed cities with failed policies around us on >> how to do this right by your businesses? >> I thank you for reading through my email. >> Fred Milani >> Girardi's Osteria >> This email has been BCC'd to several others > Links: > ------ > [1] > https://mvedmondsnews.com/2021/08/letter-to-the-editor-how-edmonds-str > eateries -and -street -closure -hurt -restaurants -not -on -main -street/ From: kyle@ x Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 7:50 PM To: Pedro; Doherty, Patrick<Patrick.Doherty@edmondswa.gov>; mclaughlin@edmondswa.gov; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Girardisosteria a Subject: Re: Fwd: Vote on Streateries x a Some additional information to consider perhaps. PPP monies each restaurant may have obtained is something you can check on as it is public information. If used correctly, it could have been forgiven of course. Additionally, the Restaurant Revitalization Fund (RRF) was authorized, which as I understand it does not have to be paid back. We like other restaurant owners applied for it day 1 it came out. The fund quickly was used as it was much smaller amount authorized than requests to obtain it. The government decided to prioritize women and minority requests first, and the fund was quickly used up, and due to legal challenges has been discontinued to date I am told as the process to diseminate it was discriminatory a judge ruled. The large restaurant owner in the chosen zone's catering business obtained over $300,000.00 in RRF monies that don't have to be paid back, in addition to PPP monies. All of this is public record of course, so feel free to check for yourself. Other minority and women owned restaurants in the downtown Edmonds chosen zone also benefited from this RRF fund. We did not receive any RRF monies as we happen to not be a women or minority owned business. Packet Pg. 271 7.1.f Yet the city continues to offer these same chosen zone restaurants public parking spaces. Certainly people that obtain over $300,000 alone in RRF money that they don't have to pay back, in addition to all the PPP monies they received, can afford to not use 8 or more public parking spaces on main street for basically free. Our Edmonds businesses did not receive a dime of RRF funds. FYI Perhaps you should consider this when you vote and look at the larger picture. Haven't some restaurants in the chosen zone and in Edmonds been helped enough? Enough is enough. Level the playing field some and represent the entire city, not just a chosen few. Thank you From: kyle@ Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 6:56 PM To: Pedro <pedro; Doherty, Patrick<Patrick.Doherty@edmondswa.gov>; mclaughlin@edmondswa.gov; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Girardisosteria Subject: Re: Fwd: Vote on Streateries All: I was forwarded this email below. We have been restaurant owners in Edmonds for over 25 years and do appreciate the city trying to help a restaurants in particular, although you have chosen to only help a very few of them specifically, at the = detriment of others, and non restaurant businesses in downtown Edmonds. a Many of us outside the "chosen zone", between 3rd and 6th streets on and along main street are not being helped, in fact hurt. As many of you might know, one restaurant owner has several restaurants in the chosen zone, and is unfairly helped by the city. He is hurting so badly, he keeps opening restaurants in the chosen zone during the pandemic. LOL Lease rates in downtown Edmonds are in the $40.00 PSF area currently. Yet you give these chosen restaurants 200 SF or more in PUBLIC PARKING spaces, for $100.00 a year I was told by one of you on this email list. At 40 PSF, market value would suggest an $8,000.00 fair market value for that prime space. Why is the public not being paid back for this cost? Why are those restaurants not paying to use PUBLIC property for exclusive use anywhere near a market value for square footage in downtown Edmonds? I would also like to rent for exclusive use 200 SF on Main street in downtown Edmonds for $100.00 a year. Certainly beats paying market rate PSF of $40.00. Clearly the public is being shorted here Packet Pg. 272 7.1.f Many of these 20 plus public parking spaces are not even being used 7 days a week by these chosen restaurants as they are closed a couple of days a week, and many are only used by the restaurants for 6 hours a day when the actual restaurant chooses to open. The public has not had use of their public parking spaces now for almost 18 months. Good city government should represent the best interests of all their constituents relatively equally and provide the same opportunities to all. Clearly this is not being done. Only allowing 10 plus restaurants these freebies and not others in the city, is a discrimatory practice. I would have hoped you were all against discrimination. I have also asked to see the list of ED members repeatedly. I have asked the city and the ED group for this list, and have asked to have a list of restaurants in the ED group that are delinquent on dues, or have not paid period. I have never been provided this list. I believe one of the current restaurants in the chosen zone that has Streeteries spots, has not paid Ed dues in years, if at all actually. If that remains the case and they are not paying ED dues, why are they being rewarded with Streeteries spaces at all? Please do provide me a list of restaurants in the ED group that are delinquent on their Ed payments Covid has been around for well over a year now. Restaurants have been negatively impacted for sure, like most businesses. New strains will likely appear in the future, so you could make the case it will never go away. Restaurants are not closed by government mandate anymore. If the restaurant is any good, they will survive without all the propping up by the city of Edmonds to only a select few of them in the city, at the detriment of the others. You are creating more seats for only a select few restaurants. As those new free seats to those restaurants are filled, it takes away that opportunity to fill a seat in another restaurants dining room. x Level the playing field please and stop using policies that are discriminatory in nature. a Offer the same opportunities to all, not just a select few in the city. I have already contacted attorneys to pursue legal actions against the city. Feel free to have any businesses or restaurants that would like to band together on legal action against the city for these practices contact me. Again, thank you for helping a select few when the pandemic started. Times and rules have changed, restaurants are open with basically no restrictive requirements now, and if they are any good, they will survive without special treatment given to them by the city. Give the PUBLIC their PUBLIC parking spaces back please. Stop using your discriminatory practices and rules and start representing all of your constituents, not only a select few restaurant owners. Fred: If you or any other businesses in Edmonds want to join on and pursue a lawsuit against the city for these practices if it is extended, please have them contact me and join the cause. Together we can make a difference. Thank you Kyle Huffman Packet Pg. 273 7.1.f From: Brian Taylor Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 5:58 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: louise favier Subject: Edmonds Streatery Program Edmonds City Council 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Edmonds City Council, We are writing to express our support for the extension of the Edmonds Streatery Program. The program has been invaluable for our business as the streatery has allowed us to remain open when indoor seating was completely banned or extremely limited. And based on the length of the closures and capacity limits imposed by the State of Washington due to COVID 19, we can honestly say that the Streatery Program alone is responsible for the survival of our small Edmonds business. For that, we are extremely grateful. And although no current limits exist on inside seating, the streatery has allowed us to serve patrons who are still not comfortable dining inside with the current health climate. While we are aware that a vocal group opposes the continuation of the Streatery Program, we firmly believe the majority of Edmonds residents, both Daphnes patrons and non -patrons alike, would prefer a that the program be continued to allow for expanded outdoor seating, especially as COVID cases are N currently rising despite all of the mitigation efforts. While we are not advocating for permanent strategies, we believe extending the program through Summer 2022 would be beneficial for both our business as well as the Edmonds Community at large Thank you for your consideration. Louise Favier Brian P. Taylor Daphnes Edmonds, WA 98020 From: jen lawson Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 5:52 PM To: Doherty, Patrick <Patrick.Doherty@edmondswa.gov>; Mike Nelson <mikejnelson@gmail.com>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Extending Streeteries Packet Pg. 274 7.1.f Good Evening Everyone, I know you must be inundated with input regarding this topic so i'll be brief. My name is Jen Lawson, i own Crow boutique on 4th Ave. N. and the President of DEMA. While i do not have a Streetery on my block, I do have many customers that have to contend with reduced parking on a daily basis. Obviously, having outdoor seating was integral in keeping most restaurants open for business when indoor dining wasn't an option. But as that is no longer an issue, I feel it's time for them to go. Of course, there are many residents that are all for it. It's fun to sit outside with your family, i get it! The impression I get from the majority of retail stores is that the loss of parking spots has hurt their businesses. So, from the retail business side of things, i do not think the benefits outweigh the negatives. I do feel the City has really worked with the restaurants during COVID, and I'm sure it saved a few from closing their doors. As a business owner, I no longer feel they add anything to our amazing downtown and was looking forward to getting our streets back to normal in 2022. Thanks for your time, Jen Lawson From: Fred Milani Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 9:49 AM To: Doherty, Patrick <Patrick.Doherty@edmondswa.gov>; McLaughlin, Susan <susan.mclaughlin@edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Vote on Streateries Greetings Patrick, Susan, Honorable City Council There is an uneasy feeling about town for the retail and restaurant businesses who have been negatively impacted by the Streateries knowing what is about to be voted on: another extension to the Streateries and another 6 months to a year of business losses for those who are already negatively impacted. How long must this be going on? Let me address exhibits 1 and 3 on council agenda items for the request to extend permitting of Streateris. Exhibit 1. 1 have already emailed Mr. Lane from WA Hospitality Assn and requested that he consider the larger picture. His numbers impact me as well. But allowing Streateries takes away my customers and negatively impacts my business, along with many more restaurants and retail stores who are negatively impacted one way or another. The City of Edmonds might be collecting more taxes as a result of more x a Packet Pg. 275 7.1.f business for the Streateries, but it is collecting fewer taxes on a much larger number of restaurants that are losing customers as a result of the Streateries. Mr. Lane's request is short-sighted at best. Exhibit 3. Letter from Ms. Melinda Grout to Patrick Doherty on November 71h is valid. People love eating outdoors. That is why Girardi's has a patio, all paid for as part of its rent and preserving street parking for their guests. That is why 190 Sunset, Harry's Hamburgers, Bucatini, and many more have outdoor patios as part of the lease and don't have to use the public street as an extension of their restaurants, rent-free. Ms. Melinda would be just as happy dining with her friends at one of the available restaurant patios in the Edmonds Bowl. The city doesn't have to allow certain eateries to erect monstrosities in the middle of their streets to accommodate their dining pleasure. There have been several "letters to the editor" and many responses. Please read through all and take the overall picture. https://mvedmondsnews.com/2021/08/letter-to-the-editor-how-edmonds-Streateries-and-street- closure-hurt-restaurants-not-on-main-street/ https://myedmondsnews.com/202l/O8/letter-to-the-editor-outdoor-eateries-take-up-parking-hurting- retailers I'm going to paste the entire short email Q&A exchange between a councilmember and a local restauranteur regarding Streateries. Please read my response in Red text inline. I have some wrap-up comments at the end and I hope you would read them and bring them up in the council meetings just like you do with the ones in the original Q&A and exhibit 3. x (L 1) do the restaurants need this government intervention to survive and/or thrive? Consider past grants, restaurant usage rates- current and forecasted -with and without the Streateries, takeout `1' parking spots, etc) N Restaurants definitely need these to provide a means of making up for lost time as the majority of restaurant in the country have not fully recovered from the last year and a half downturn. Currently restaurant are still seating outside because if hesitancy for inside dining. It will really help us get past this last hump of winter. Moving forward as long as more people keep getting vaccinated and the country recovers from supply chain and product pricing issues, it will help restaurants with one last recovery period into summer. This is valid but short-sighted. This request seems to repeat every time there is a need to renew, to extend by another 6 months. This "Edmonds" government intervention helps a few but hurts a larger number of restaurants and retail stores and the solution should be one that helps all or most, rather than a few. 2) are the retailers less likely to survive or thrive as a result of this government intervention for the restaurants? Retails overall have had a fairly good year according to Edmonds tax income, given all the traffic restaurants are driving into town. Customers may not buy right away, but they may buy the next time they're in town. I do not have access to the numbers and what this person Packet Pg. 276 7.1.f is saying is probably unfounded information. Customers may not buy at all and go to streets where they can park in front of the store they intend to shop at. I would! 3) are the restaurants who do not have the ability to have a Streatery less likely to survive or thrive as a result of the restaurants who do? (For example, Demand for their paid outdoor spaces less as a result of supply of quasi free outdoor spaces provided through Streateries?) Restaurants have always been one of the toughest industries for survival regardless of a pandemic. It's up to the restaurant owner to create their own Niche, regardless of Streateries. If your product is good, people will come. OH? I would love to compete on product and atmosphere, but when the deck is stacked and you are seating your guests on a public street with the blessing of the city, then that is not competing on product. It is called influence peddling and getting an unfair advantage. Quasi free is an incorrect term. We paid a small fee to enact this permit, and have spend thousands to provide a public service for safer dining. Don't fool yourself. That is not a public service. That is profiting from an unfair advantage the city gave you in the form of free of monthly rent and space on the public street, and your recouped your inventment in a month because as you seem to indicate, if not for the Streateries, you would not have survived. There are restaurants that have Streateries, that have still been busy though the year based on the product they serve. The person who provided the responses, who wants restaurants owners to create their own Niche, chose to rent a space with no outdoor facility or patio. This person pays a much lower rent because they have an enclosed space that can be used all year. Restaurants with a patio pay for their patio all year even though they typically get to use it for 3 months of summer. Fortunately those patios have come pretty handy during COVID, but the Streateries are pulling customers away from the paid patio spaces. 4) how does the value to the public of the ADDITIONAL outdoor dining (Streatery-provided; patios, decks and other outdoor dining included in restaurants' lease will exist for outdoor dining either way) compare to the negatives to the public of keeping it (less parking and less attractive downtown)? The goal is not to keep the Streateries forever. That was never the intent of this program. Yet you seem to continue advocating for extensions of the Streateries at every turn. We restaurants needed a period of time for outside dining to provide a safe dining atmosphere, vs a confined space. Our company like many others have spent extra money installing UV hvac sanitizing tech to keep up with the changing landscape. We just feel a 6mo extension will allow us to finish off the Streateries program at a positive and remove them at a safer time. COVID is here to stay, much longer than the flu which is permenent. There is no end to COVID and there is no end for your continued requests to extend Streateries. S) if the above four questions are answered in such a way that extending the Streatery ordinance is warranted and chosen by council, go on to look at Streatery utilization rates (days of week used, hours of each day used) and consider adding minimum usage to the ordinance such that under-utilized Streateries will be removed. We restaurants would not be opposed to paying a higher premium for using the Streateries. Usage is more gray as it depends on business, which we all know the restaurant industry is still trying to survive. Edmonds is fortunate because we are benefiting from having plentiful outdoor dining spaces. Packet Pg. 277 7.1.f You all know well. There was a "Walkable Main Street" in 2019 and restaurants in that section of Main Street were allowed to put up chairs and tables in the middle of the street and serve their guests. Then 2020 came with COVID in tow. The Walkable Main shut down but Streateries were erected. A few main problems with both "Walkable Main" and Streateries: They cause unintended harm to a larger number of businesses and people. 1. ADA: When a street is closed, a handicapped or mobility limited person cannot park in front of their intended store to shop, have to park several blocks away, and walk. They don't. As a result, Edmonds has violated ADA, the store has lost a sale, and the handicapped individual has to shop elsewhere. 2. Parking spaces: For every full Streaterie (about 4 tables) there are potentially 4 to 12 cars (when Ms. Melinda Grout and her friends, each in their own car, converge into a Streaterie) which have to park on side streets. Not only does the Streaterie takes up valuable street parking, they also push more cars onto the side streets. Some of these are residential streets and I'm not sure how happy the residents are about that. 3. Streateries take up valuable parking spaces and limit visibility to the retail stores. When I drive on Main, the last thing I look at is the storefront windows and retail stores. I have to watch out for the Streateries, their distractions (specially in the evenings) and watch for people emerging into the street from the front and behind them. 4. Restaurants that are not participating in the Streateries are seeing much -reduced guest counts. Every person dining at a streaterie at any time is one less in the patio of a restaurant that wished to save their a parking spaces for their guests' parking. For every dollar that a restaurant with Streaterie is generating off the structure, a dollar is taken out of a restaurant without one. The math is simple. If your Q&A a restauranteur is pushing to continue with Streateries for another 6 months, he is indeed causing another 6 months of losses for a restaurant with a perfectly equipped and must larger patio. '*- N The loss of income to my restaurant as a result of the Streateries is also reflected on my staff who rely `o on the volume of guests, extra hours worked, and extra tips made. These are folks with families and rent N m and health care needs. -W m The Streateries program was initially set for 70 days in 2020. Every structure built was cost/benefit r analyzed to pay for itself and generate sufficient positive income to build it for the 70 days. These N c structures have already paid for themselves over and over again, so don't be fooled that the investment N in those has not been recouped. E Let me ask one final question: Wouldn't this decision best be done by a poll of all the restaurants and E retail businesses in the Bowl of Edmonds rather than one email from a citizen and a Q&A who obviously c� benefits from the Streateries? You already have everyone's email through the licensing division. If you C let the businesses decide what is a good environment to do business in, wouldn't Edmonds set an E example for the other failed cities with failed policies around us on how to do this right by your businesses? a I thank you for reading through my email. Packet Pg. 278 7.1.f Fred Milani Girardi's Osteria From: Kimberly Koenig Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 8:24 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov> Subject: Input on Extending the Streateries Ordinance Dear Council Members, I am writing to you in reference to the upcoming vote to extend the streateries ordinance. Thank you for seeking input from the business community and community at large in helping make this decision. As a business owner in downtown Edmonds, I have heard mixed reviews on the ordinance and its effect on the foot traffic and flow of dining and shopping. I am fortunate in my location on 5th Avenue to not be affected by them directly, but my interest is that of economic vitality for the whole of downtown. Only a few years ago we had to go through a lengthy process to allow A boards for businesses who have locations not in high traffic areas - the streateries certainly don't conform to ANY of those same concerns about safety and sidewalk accessibility. It's my understanding that the Washington Hospitality Association has made a request for their L continuance, but I have not heard any vocal requests from the restaurant owners themselves? While 1 am in support of helping Edmonds businesses thrive and succeed, particularly in the ongoing strain of a the pandemic, I think it's important to look at the impact to downtown overall. _ a If an overwhelming amount of restaurant owners need the streateries to make their bottom line, I feel extending the ordinance should include a fee. Many of the streateries sit empty for good portions of the day and are not open all evenings of the week. Evaluating the level of their use as outlined in the council packet I think is an important piece if you do continue to allow them. With indoor dining now allowed at 100 capacity, this extra seating restaurants have been afforded should be fee based. It is not an option for ALL businesses to increase their square footage for no additional cost, yet most businesses have been impacted by the pandemic. We continue to have challenges with parking availability as well as crowding on sidewalks during popular downtown shopping and dining days and times. Monies collected could go towards communicating additional parking options to the public and working to streamline the sidewalk crowding issues on the South side of Main street between 5th and 6th and other pedestrian safety concerns. I ask that we take a wide lens view of what will help Downtown to be lively, prosperous and safe and doesn't just serve one sector of our business community. Respectfully, Kimberly Kimberly Koenig Packet Pg. 279 7.1.f ROGUE From: pamstuller Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 8:02 PM To: Doherty, Patrick <Patrick.Doherty@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: potential extential of the Streeteries program I am writing regarding the council agenda item to extend the streateries ordinance into summer 2022 I'm glad to hear that the city is evaluating the pros and cons of extending this program. While the program played such an important role while restaurant's indoor seating was either not allowed or severely limited, a lot has changed since the original ordinance was created. As indoor dining capacity was restored in July 2021, and as vaccines are now widely available, I'm hoping city staff and city council will look at the program through an updated lens - especially at how this program effects all downtown businesses. I drive and walk through town regularly and am often a bit alarmed at how empty the streateries are for much of the day. In reading the council packet, I was encouraged to read about the potential to add minimum usage requirements to avoid extending permits for underutilized streateries. I also appreciated that the restaurant owner who was interviewed mentioned a willingness to pay for the use of the parking spots. If the program is extended, I believe a fee based approach must be included. Charging "rent" for the = expanded seating capacity will help a business really look closely at whether it makes sense to keep their streatery. If they are a profitable addition to their business model - a fee is worth paying. If they aren't, a then taking up valuable parking is likely not the best use of that space. _ a As a business who could have built a streatery and decided not to - evaluating the trade off between customers' access to my business and providing customer seating (Walnut had no indoor dining at the time) was key to my decision. In the end taking up parking in front of my business just didn't end up penciling out. I obviously have a different business model and a strong take-out clientele, but I can't help but think of the effect of all the surrounding businesses on the loss of multiple parking spots near their business fronts. I also hope city staff and council will revisit whether to allow a streatery and sidewalk dining permit simultaneously to a restaurant. Our sidewalks are on the narrow side and areas that have both permitted uses have created numerous safety hazards throughout town. Thanks for your time, Pam Pam Stuller owner, Walnut Street Coffee From: D Talmadge Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2021 10:00 AM Packet Pg. 280 7.1.f To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Feedme Hospitality & Restaurant Group & Streateries Council, Please see the link to the Restaurant group which is currently begging for the streateries. https://www.feedmehospitality.com/ The letter in your packet is one very positive cherry picked letter. Why must taxpayers continue to gift our streets to the profits of one industry. It is an industry that runs on very thin margins in good year. Traditionally they pay terrible non living wages, workers depending on tips to get by. One of the problems in Edmonds is the cost of the leases which are high due to the scarcity of space. That was true before covid. The biggest beneficiary of the streateries has been the feedme group. With the very tiny footprint of The Market space it was nor designed to accommodate more than a handful of indoor diners to begin with. So who are we donating taxpayer funds to and why? One of the owners is a buddy of the mayor. Somehow, eateries outside the bowl seem to be recovering. But they pay for parking and floor space. It is difficult to see how any of those streeteries comply with fire codes, or safety regulations. Do they actually provide proof of insurance? Hard to feature that a commercial insurer would underwrite such risk. They have created problems for other businesses who also need the revenue. They are ugly, unsafe, and have no business using public right of way. Time for them to go. Unless you are persuaded by the restaurant association or like the mayors buddy ( who has, it appears expanded his business during this pandemic. Diane Talmadge From: Ken Reidy x Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2021 7:07 AM a N To: Johnson, Kristiana<kristiana.johnson@edmondswa.gov> r- Cc: Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Doherty, Patrick cm <Patrick.Doherty@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, `o Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Chave, Rob <Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov> N m Subject: Re: Streateries-VERY IMPORTANT -Gas Heaters Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Will you please follow up on this issue as you were the Councilmember who asked about the gas heaters? Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information. Thank you. To all City Officials: What is City Council's responsibility now that it knows it passed Ordinance 4209 (and Ordinance 4210) under a false understanding? Ordinance 4209 was passed after Council was told such was an "emergency", a Public Hearing would be held in 60 days and that in general gas heaters will not be used due to fire protection concerns with the flames and because few propane heaters are available. Packet Pg. 281 7.1.f Ordinance 4210 was passed after Council was told such was an "emergency" and that a Public Hearing would be held in 60 days. The public hearing for Ordinance 4210 was not held by the due date of February 13, 2021. Nothing was done about this until Ordinance 4232 was adopted by Council on August 24, 2021. Ordinance 4232 was not treated as an emergency ordinance, different than Ordinance 4210. If Ordinance 4210 was really such an emergency, why didn't City Officials make certain that the required public hearing was held within 60 days? If it was really an emergency on December 15, 2020, why was this allowed to sit in some undefined confusing status between February 14th and September 1, 2021 when Ordinance 4232 became effective? Do city officials think laws matter all the time or only when City Officials want laws to matter? Thank you for your help sorting this all out. Ken Reidy From: Ken Reidy Sent: Friday, November 12, 2021 10:20 AM To: Michael Nelson <michael.nelson@edmondswa.eov>; Rob Chave <chave@edmondswa.gov>; Jeff Taraday <leff@lighthouselawgroup.com> Cc: Council@edmondswa.gov <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; patrick.doherty@edmondswa.gov <patrick.doherty@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re: Streateries-VERY IMPORTANT - Gas Heaters Another problem with Ordinance 4209 is that Shane Hope represented the following to City Council right before its vote on December 15, 2020: "Councilmember K. Johnson said one issue that was discussed previously but was not addressed tonight was the use of gas heaters and their impact on the environment. She asked what staff had a. learned. Ms. Hope answered in general gas heaters will not be used due to fire protection concerns with the flames and because few propane heaters are available. The preferred option will be electric I' heaters." It appears that many gas heaters are being used. Gas heaters may be the primary source of heat. For those who would like to watch the video, please go to the 3:07:15 mark of the December 15, 2020. It is also found on Page 22 of the approved City Council Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2020. What is City Council's responsibility when it knows it passed an Ordinance under a false understanding? Ken Reidy From: Ken Reidy Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 7:09 AM Packet Pg. 282 7.1.f To: Michael Nelson <michael.nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Rob Chave <chave@edmondswa.gov>; Jeff Taraday <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com> Cc: Council@edmondswa.gov <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; patrick.doherty@edmondswa.gov <patrick.doherty@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re: Streateries-VERY IMPORTANT - BD ZONE Dear Mayor Nelson, Mr. Chave and Mr. Taraday (Council, others blind cc'd), I am amazed that you all think it appropriate to not respond to citizen emails and address issues brought to your attention. Is it your goal to destroy all trust in City Government? Another reason Ordinance 4209 is an interim zoning ordinance is because it specifically applies to the BD Zone, as follows: Number of Allowed Streateries. In the BD zone, after the first 20 streateries have been approved, no more streatery permits shall be accepted by the city unless the permit is to replace an existing streatery or this section is amended to allow additional streateries. A business is allowed to have no more than one streatery permit. Now please do the right thing and address your illegal conduct. The same goes for Ordinance 4210 as I informed you of back in June. Ken Reidy From: Ken Reidy Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2021 8:26 AM To: Michael Nelson <michael.nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Rob Chave <chave@edmondswa.gov>; Jeff Taraday <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com> Cc: Council@edmondswa.gov <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; patrick.doherty@edmondswa.gov <patrick.doherty@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re: Streateries-VERY IMPORTANT Dear Mayor Nelson, Mr. Chave and Mr. Taraday (Council, others blind cc'd), I am amazed that you all think it appropriate to not respond to citizen emails and address issues brought to your attention. Is it your goal to destroy all trust in City Government? Ordinance 4209 DECLARES the following: Section 2. Emergency Declaration. The city council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote x a Packet Pg. 283 7.1.f plus one of the whole membership of the council (RCW 35A.12.130), and that the same is not subject to a referendum. Without an immediate adoption of this interim zoning ordinance, streateries would need to continue to operate under a special event permit, but that permit was supposed to expire on December 31, 2020. Any uncertainty in the ability of the city's restaurants to continue offering streatery-dining could further jeopardize an already struggling restaurant industry. Therefore, this ordinance should be imposed as an emergency measure to protect the public health, safety and welfare by staving off restaurant failures and creating program so that Edmonds citizens will have safer places to dine for the remainder of the COVID-19 pandemic. This isn't some scrivener's error in a Whereas clause. This is a Declaration by the City Council of a Home Rule City government with Broad Powers. The Declaration is consistent with what was represented to City Council prior to its vote on December 15, 2020: Packet Page 417 of the December 15, 2020 City Council Agenda Packet did state: "Both ordinances are subject to having a public hearing and further consideration by the City Council within the time required under state law." "Both ordinances" refers to Emergency Ordinances to allow Streateries in ROW(4209) plus the Emergency Ordinance involving Outdoor Dining without CU permit(4210). My Edmonds News heard Shane Hope like we all did and reported on December 16, 2021 that: "A public hearing on the ordinance is planned for Feb. 2." Even if you want to try and act like Ordinance 4209 wasn't really an interim zoning ordinance, you can't a get away from the fact that Council voted after being told it was. Shane Hope even told City Council N that February 2, 2021 was a possible date for the public hearing. Would Council have passed Ordinance r- 4209 on December 15th if they knew city officials would later act as if no public hearing was required? We'll never know that because City Council never passed an Ordinance related to Streateries that didn't require a Public Hearing within 60 days. Now please do the right thing and address your illegal conduct. The same goes for Ordinance 4210 as I informed you of back in June. Ken Reidy From: Ken Reidy Sent: Sunday, October 3, 2021 2:44 PM To: Michael Nelson <michael.nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Rob Chave <chave@edmondswa.gov>; Jeff Taraday <leff@lighthouselawgroup.com> Cc: Council@edmondswa.gov <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; patrick.doherty@edmondswa.eov <patrick.doherty@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re: Streateries-VERY IMPORTANT Packet Pg. 284 7.1.f Please appreciate: -I'm not the Development Services Director who advised City Council prior to its December 15, 2020 vote on Ordinance 4209 about a Public Hearing requirement and proposed February 2, 2021 as a possible Public Hearing Date. -I'm not the City Attorney in attendance when Shane Hope made those representations. I'm not the City Attorney who approved Ordinance 4209 as to form, an Ordinance that states in Section 2 Emergency Declaration that it is an interim zoning ordinance. -I'm not a city councilmember, the Executive Assistant to Council, the City Clerk or others who could have marked on a calendar to have that Public Hearing within 60 days. I'm just a citizen providing you the service of pointing out your illegal conduct. Now please do the right thing and address your illegal conduct. The same goes for Ordinance 4210 as I informed you of back in June - see below. From: Ken Reidy Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 6:42 AM To: PUBLICCOMMENTS@EDMONDSWA.GOV <PUBLICCOMMENTS@EDMONDSWA.GOV>; _ publiccomment@edmondswa.gov <publiccomment@edmondswa.gov> 2 Cc: Shane Hope <shane.hope@edmondswa.gov>; Phil Williams <phil.williams@edmondswa.gov>; Jeff a Taraday <leff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Michael Nelson <michael.nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Council@edmondswa.gov <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen a <Maureen.Judee@edmondswa.eov> Subject: Public Comments for the June 22, 2021 Public Hearing related to Chapter 17.75 ECDC Ordinance 4210, passed by City Council on December 15, 2020 states that pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, this interim ordinance may be adopted on an emergency basis without first holding a public hearing. RCW 36.70A.390 requires the City Council to hold a public hearing on an emergency interim zoning ordinance within at least sixty (60) days of adoption. Therefore, a public hearing on interim zoning Ordinance 4210 was required by February 13, 2021. Please inform all those impacted by the City Council's failure to hold a public hearing on interim zoning Ordinance 4210 by February 13, 2021. Packet Page 417 of the December 15, 2020 City Council Agenda Packet did state: "Both ordinances are subject to having a public hearing and further consideration by the City Council within the time required under state law." "Both ordinances" refers to Emergency Ordinances to allow Streateries in ROW(4209) plus the Emergency Ordinance involving Outdoor Dining without CU permit(4210). I haven't had time to research Ordinance 4209 yet but there is reason to fear the required public hearing within at least sixty (60) days did not take place. Ordinance 4209 clearly states it is an "interim zoning ordinance". Packet Pg. 285 7.1.f What needs to happen now? How many zoning code violations have taken place and are taking place? What a mess. Why was the following included in Ordinance 3992 but not in Ordinance 4210?: "WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds may adopt an interim zoning ordinance for a period of up to six months pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, provided that the City Council holds a public hearing on the interim ordinance within sixty days of adoption;" Why is holding a public hearing on this interim regulation within sixty (60) days of its adoption mentioned in Ordinance 4217 but not mentioned in Ordinance 4210? What a mess. How does this type of thing happen and who is responsible? From: Ken Reidy Sent: Sunday, October 3, 2021 7:16 AM To: Michael Nelson <michael.nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Rob Chave <chave@edmondswa.gov>; Jeff Taraday <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com> Cc: Council@edmondswa.gov <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; patrick.doherty@edmondswa.gov <patrick.doherty@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re: Streateries-VERY IMPORTANT Reminder - Edmonds City Council failed to hold the required Public Hearing within 60 days of passing _2 Ordinance 4209. a Was Ordinance 4209 null and void once the City failed to hold the required Public Hearing within 60 = days? a N The following words are taken directly from Ordinance 4209: r- N Without an immediate adoption of this interim zoning ordinance, `o 0 streateries would need to continue to operate under a special event permit, but that permit was m L d supposed to expire on December 31, 2020. At Please inform all those impacted by the City Council's failure to hold a Public Hearing on interim zoning ordinance 4209 within at least sixty (60) days of adoption. What must happen now? How many zoning code violations have taken place and are taking place? How will the City make businesses whole who have been harmed by the streateries? Ken Reidy From: Ken Reidy Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 5:52 AM Packet Pg. 286 7.1.f To: Michael Nelson <michael.nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Rob Chave <chave@edmondswa.gov>; Jeff Taraday <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com> Cc: Council@edmondswa.gov <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; patrick.doherty@edmondswa.gov <patrick.doherty@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Streateries-VERY IMPORTANT Dear Mayor Nelson, Mr. Chave and Mr. Taraday (Council, others blind cc'd), Page 416 of the December 15, 2020 City Council Agenda Packet discussed two proposed Ordinances. One related to Streateries in rights -of -way (Ordinance 4209) and the other related to Outdoor Dining without a Conditional Use Permit (Ordinance 4210). The Staff Lead was Shane Hope Page 417 of the December 15, 2020 City Council Agenda Packet stated: "Both ordinances are subject to having a public hearing and further consideration by the City Council within the time required under state law." The related State Law is: RCW 35A.63.220 0 Moratoria, interim zoning controls —Public hearing —Limitation on length. A legislative body that adopts a moratorium or interim zoning ordinance, without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium or interim zoning ordinance, shall hold a public hearing on = the adopted moratorium or interim zoning ordinance within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether .2 or not the legislative body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning agency. If the a legislative body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the legislative body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium or interim zoning a ordinance adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be N effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing for such a longer r*- period. A moratorium of [or] interim zoning ordinance may be renewed for one or more six-month N periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal. `o [1992c207§3.] v Page 420 of the December 15, 2020 City Council Agenda Packet included minutes from the November 24, 2020 City Council Meeting, including: City Council Agenda Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Ms. Hope for answering her questions. With regard to legalities, she recalled interim ordinances were typically no longer than six months. She asked if this was technically vacating the right-of-way to the restaurateur and if so, could that result in a lawsuit. She felt it was a great concept but those were her issues. Ms. Hope answered other cities have done this and it seems to work. The concept is not to give up the spaces permanently, but to allow them for public use that favors the businesses. It is not a permanent donation to a private business and the business would also pay for a permit as well as the required equipment and be required to remove equipment at the City discretion. This is a pilot project proposed as an emergency ordinance that would sunset. Page 451 of the December 15, 2020 City Council Agenda Packet related to the Draft Ordinance for Streateries and mentioned: public hearing proposed for Feb. 2. Packet Pg. 287 7.1.f Ordinance 4209 clearly states the following within the body of the Ordinance: Without an immediate adoption of this interim zoning ordinance, streateries would need to continue to operate under a special event permit, but that permit was supposed to expire on December 31, 2020. All involved clearly knew that this interim zoning ordinance required a public hearing and that such could possibly be held on February 2, 2021. The related 60-day period to do so expired February 13, 2021. A reasonable person would expect that somebody at the City would have added this to a calendar and that it would have been added to City Council's Extended Agenda. Remember, citizens were told in 2015 that steps had been taken to prevent the City from missing this 60-day public hearing requirement ever again after the 60-day requirement was missed on Ordinance 3992. If one looks at City Council's Extended Agenda, one can find that public hearings are added to the Extended Agenda using a designation of PH. Why wouldn't this be done on a consistent basis? What kind of a City Government adopts interim zoning ordinances with full knowledge of State Law and then fails to hold the required Public Hearing within 60 days? I've searched for examples of other cities doing this and haven't found any. Edmonds City Government may be the only City in Washington that behaves in this fashion. For an example of how another City adopted a streatery type Ordinance properly, see City of Issaquah Ordinance 2909. This is the Mayor's duty to fix — not the citizen's duty. Our City Code states that the mayor shall see that a all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced and that law and order is maintained in the city. Our = Code does not say that citizens and/or business owners must take the City to Court to try to get all laws a and ordinances faithfully enforced. N What is the impact of the failure to have the required Public Hearing within 60 days on Ordinance 4209? 1 suspect that the failure to have the required Public Hearing is fatal and Ordinance 4209 never was effective as law in Edmonds. Was Ordinance 4209 null and void once the City failed to hold the required Public Hearing within 60 days? Please inform all those impacted by the City Council's failure to hold a Public Hearing on interim zoning ordinance 4209 within at least sixty (60) days of adoption. What must happen now? How many zoning code violations have taken place and are taking place? How will the City make businesses whole who have been harmed by the streateries?: https:Hmvedmondsnews.com/202l/O8/letter-to-the-ed itor-outdoor-eateries-take-up-parking-hurting- reta i l e rs/#co m m e n t-345410 What happens when insurance companies figure out Ordinance 4209 was not legally adopted? Packet Pg. 288 7.1.f How does this type of thing happen and who is responsible? Is there ever any accountability for anything at City Hall? Ken Reidy From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 9, 20214:36 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com> Subject: Fw: Parklets/Streateries Dear City Council (others blind cc'd), Page 416 of the December 15, 2020 City Council Agenda Packet discussed two proposed Ordinances. One related to Streateries in rights -of -way (Ordinance 4209) and the other related to Outdoor Dining without a Conditional Use Permit (Ordinance 4210). The Staff Lead was Shane Hope Page 417 of the December 15, 2020 City Council Agenda Packet stated: "Both ordinances are subject to having a public hearing and further consideration by the City Council within the time required under state law." All know the required public hearings were not held by February 13, 2021 and have never been held. As such, what is the City's liability exposure? Has WCIA been consulted? As the required Public Hearings were never held, doesn't the Mayor have a duty to enforce Ordinance 1571? Isn't it unlawful for any person who either owns or has the right to possession, or both, of a abutting real property to permit the erection or maintenance of any sign, device, structure or vegetation = a in the identified circumstances? Please read the following with an appreciation of the fact the required public hearings were never held, and that Ordinance 1571 has never been repealed. Thank you. Ken Reidy From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 10:58 AM To: Shane Hope <shane.hope@edmondswa.gov> Cc: mike.nelson@edmondswa.gov <mike.nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Jeff Taraday <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com> Subject: FW: Parklets/Streateries The following was sent in 2 full weeks before Jeff Taraday prepared his memo regarding Restaurant Parklets. In short, Jeff's opinion that city code does not expressly prohibit or authorize this program ignores much. For example, his discussion fails to address ECC 9.25 Street Obstruction. Furthermore, the Code does not need to expressly prohibit something that already has multiple issues, as discussed in more detail below. Packet Pg. 289 7.1.f As you read the following, please refer to the attached three photos which show how flimsy some of these structures are, that the wind can blow them over or into the street, and that some of them are constructed past the parking lines into the traveled portion of the street. The pictures were taken last Sunday morning. None of these items were removed from the right-of-way at close of business Saturday. Dear City Council (others blind cc'd), Please advise all citizens as to the following. For example, has adequate compensation for the exclusive use of the public right-of-way and applicant fees pursuant to ECDC 18.70.050 been paid? Are all barriers being removed each day from the right-of-way at the close of business?: Another part of this downtown restaurant use of parking spaces for outdoor seating is public health and safety. The City of Edmonds has argued Municipalities have a duty to remove obstructions in the public ways and liability if they fail to do so, referencing a 1928 case Lund v. City of Seattle, as well as a 1967 case Turner v. City of Tacoma. The 1967 case Turner v. City of Tacoma dealt with an injury caused by an obstruction into an opened right-of-way that the city had a duty to maintain. In the Lund v. Seattle, 99 Wash. 300, 169 Pac. 820 case, Seattle was required to answer in damages to Z one who had stumbled over a wire fence which the city had permitted to be constructed and to remain a in the street. While the court remarked that the fence, or netting, had been in place long enough to a constitute a nuisance, the case was decided on the theory that the city was guilty of negligence in the maintenance of the street. The City of Edmonds has also cited RCW 7.48.140(4) which states it is a public nuisance to obstruct or encroach upon public highway, private ways, streets, alleys, commons, landing places, and ways to burying places or to unlawfully obstruct or impede the flow of municipal transit vehicles as defined in RCW 46.04.355 or passenger traffic, access to municipal transit vehicles or stations as defined in *RCW 9.91.025(2)(a), or otherwise interfere with the provision or use of public transportation services, or obstruct or impede a municipal transit driver, operator, or supervisor in the performance of that individual's duties. Following are some of the City's own laws: 2. Exclusive Bistro and Outdoor Dining. In an effort to enhance street life of the city and serve both an economic development purpose as well as enhance the livability of the city's urban core, exclusive bistro and outdoor dining shall be allowed pursuant to ECDC 17.70.040. a. For purposes of this section the following terms are defined as: Packet Pg. 290 7.1.f i. "Exclusive bistro and outdoor dining" shall refer to a properly zoned and licensed food or beverage service establishment that uses the public right-of-way to serve only its customers at the exclusion of the general public. ii. "Barrier" shall refer to any temporary object or objects (e.g., stanchion, rope, fencing, planters) used m to establish an exclusive bistro and outdoor dining area. L b. All conditions and requirements set forth in this chapter have been met and adequate compensation for the exclusive use of the public right-of-way and applicant fees pursuant to ECDC 18.70.050 have C a been paid. :r r c. All barriers shall be removed each day from the right-of-way at the close of business. E d. The design and use shall comply with all requirements of state law, city ordinance and city policy a - including but not limited to: m i. Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) and Snohomish County health division (SCHD). When w applicable, the business shall provide a written approval from the WSLCB and/or SCHD for use of public 1 rights -of -way; ii. ECDC 17.70.040, Bistro and outdoor dining; and iii. All litter and nuisance regulations, including but not limited to RCW 70.93.060 and Chapter 6.40 ECC. co c 3. The design board has reviewed and approved any proposal which includes a request to construct, G a erect or maintain an awning, building, sign or any building or structure; •L 4. The proposal will not unreasonably interfere with the rights of the public; and x 5. The proposal (if for an encroachment permit) either benefits the public interest, safety or 2 convenience e. ( g., supports or protects the city street, reduces pedestrian hazards) or is an accessory � a structure such as a fence normally associated with residential use of the property and fully complies = with the requirements of subsections (13)(1) through (3) of this section. a Also, only public sidewalks can be used: N 17.70.040 Bistro and outdoor dining. N A properly zoned and licensed food or beverage service establishment may temporarily utilize public `o sidewalks in right-of-way areas immediately adjacent to its establishment. The area authorized for use N shall be that area of the immediately adjacent public right-of-way and/or outdoor areas under the lease or ownership of the applicant lying between the applicant's property and the public right-of-way. The area authorized for such use shall not extend beyond the street frontage of the business lessee or property owner. Any building or structure as such terms are defined pursuant to the building code adopted by Chapter 19.00 ECDC shall fully comply with all provisions of the community development o code, including, but not limited to, review and approval by the architectural design board. [Ord. 3742 § 1, 2009; Ord. 3293 § 1, 2000; Ord. 3265 § 1, 1999]. E Shane, I support helping our local businesses out. One reason the Mayor should engage with the City Council when doing so is because Council tends to do this type of stuff the right way. When the Mayor rolls things out in a hurry without involving Council, he can expose the City to liability such as the attached 3 pictures show. Imagine if one driver lost control and rolled through some of the flimsy barriers being used. People could be hurt or killed. The City would be liable as the Mayor created this situation and did so without even involving City Council. Packet Pg. 291 7.1.f Let me know if you want to discuss further. Ken From: Dave Teitzel Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 7:33 AM To: Distelhorst, Luke <Luke.Distelhorst@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re: Streateries Luke, thank you and my apologies. I misread the announcement in our local media about this item on Tuesday's agenda and now understand the issue doesn't concern "streateries" on public streets. In reading the Council packet about this item, I didn't see much discussion about the issue of downtown parking —which has been something Council has wrestled with for years. If outdoor dining structures are placed in commercial parking lots (such as to the east of Fire and Feast or to the north of Kelnero) and those parking spots are typically used by employees of the establishments and/or their patrons, won't those vehicles utilize public on -street parking (and potentially exacerbate the parking problem — especially during Walkable Main Street)? Again, helping bars/restaurants weather the pandemic is clearly a good thing. But we should be cautious not to create permanent code changes that may create other problems. Thanks again for serving our community. Dave Teitzel From: Distelhorst, Luke<Luke.Distelhorst@edmondswa.gov> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 7:05:30 AM To: Dave Teitzel Subject: Re: Streateries Hi Dave, This is not streatery dining (Chapter 18.70) but rather "regular" outdoor dining (in Chapter 17). Starts on packet page 205. Cheers, Luke From: Dave Teitzel Date: August 23, 2021 at 6:56:48 AM PDT To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Packet Pg. 292 7.1.f Cc: "Passey, Scott" <Scott.Passey@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Streateries Please make the following comments part of the record of the 8/24/21 City Council meeting. Folks, The temporary "streatery" structures have been helpful to our local restaurant/bar industry during the pandemic and have enabled our citizens who may still be uneasy about gathering indoors to enjoy restaurant dining during this difficult time. I applaud you for approving temporary measures to allow the structures to be placed in our streets. I understand you will consider at Tuesday's Council meeting making permanent the ordinance allowing streateries to remain in place. Rather than making the ordinance permanent now, I urge you to extend the temporary provisions for one year. During that time, we can monitor the status of the pandemic and you can solicit additional public input about the benefits and drawbacks of streateries. There are many important issues to consider about streateries, such as the risk they may represent to pedestrian/traffic safety, ADA challenges, loss of downtown parking, aesthetics, etc. Please defer a decision about allowing streateries permanently until the pandemic is behind us and until you have had an opportunity to fully vet all pro/con issues around streateries. Thanks, Dave Teitzel Edmonds From: John Severinghaus Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 1:21 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Outdoor dining I want to thank you for your vision and support for the many outdoor dining kiosks that are available in Edmonds. I travel to Edmonds about once every month for up to 3 nights at a time. It has been nice to have so many choices for dining outside. I hope you continue to support this effort and these businesses until we can all safely eat inside again. Also, I commend you on the beautification of your city with the wonderful flowers, plants, and landscaping. Edmonds is one of my favorite places! Rebecca Severinghaus From: Ken Reidy Sent: Thursday, August 5, 2021 11:56 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Chave, Rob <Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov> x a Packet Pg. 293 7.1.f Cc: Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com> Subject: Re: Streatery-VERY IMPORTANT Also, RCW 36.70A.390 states: A moratorium, interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing for such a longer period. Even if the required Public Hearing for Ordinance 4209 had taken place on or before February 13th, wouldn't it have expired by now? From: Ken Reidy <kenreidv@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 5, 2021 11:51 AM To: Council@edmondswa.gov <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Michael Nelson <michael.nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Rob Chave <chave@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Jeff Taraday <leff@lighthouselawgroup.com> Subject: Re: Streatery-VERY IMPORTANT I posted following on my Edmonds News Today: August 5, 2021 at 10:16 am The December 15, 2020 City Council Agenda makes it very clear that if the Streateries Ordinance 4209 was adopted as an Emergency Ordinance, a Public Hearing was required within 60 days. Council voted 7- a 0 to adopt as an Emergency Ordinance. Then, our City Government failed to have the required Public N Hearing. (The same failure is true for Emergency Ordinance 4210.) r- Whether you support Streateries or oppose them, I fear the City Council failed to do what was necessary to make Ordinance 4209 effective as law in Edmonds. As such, I fear all permits issued under Ordinance 4209 are invalid. I've been emailing related questions to the City. So far, the City has chosen to not respond. If I am wrong, hopefully the City will tell all what law or Ordinance has allowed the streateries to be legal in Edmonds throughout all of 2021. From: Ken Reidy <kenreidv@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 2:10 PM To: Council@edmondswa.gov <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Michael Nelson <michael.nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Rob Chave <chave@edmondswa.gov> Packet Pg. 294 7.1.f Cc: Jeff Taraday <ieff@lighthouselawgroup.com> Subject: Re: Streatery-VERY IMPORTANT Issaquah example from their Ordinance 2909 effective June 22, 2020, highlighting added: ORDINANCE NO. 2909 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTION, ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING REGULATION ALLOWING THE TEMPORARY USE OF PARKING LOTS, SIDEWALKS, AND PUBLIC RIGHTS-OFWAY, TO SUPPORT BUSINESSES DURING THE SAFE START WASHINGTON PHASED REOPENING; SUSPENDING THE OPERATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ISSAQUAH MUNICIPAL CODE DURING THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE INTERIM ZONING REGULATION; ESTABLISHING A PERMIT PROCESS FOR SUCH TEMPORARY USES, SETTING THE DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING; DECLARING AN EMERGENCY AND = a ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. N WHEREAS, the City of Issaquah's zoning and permitting requirements for the use of parking lots, sidewalks and rights -of -way has been identified as an obstacle to the timely use of these spaces; and WHEREAS, a clear and expeditious permitting path has been identified as necessary to support Issaquah's struggling small businesses; and WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220 authorize the City to adopt interim regulations as long as a public hearing on the interim regulations is held within sixty days of adoption and as long as such regulations are effective for no more than six months unless further extended; and Packet Pg. 295 7.1.f Section 5. Public Hearing. The Issaquah City Council shall hold a public hearing on the interim regulations adopted by Sections 2 above on July 20, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Issaquah City Council Chambers, provided, that in the event an in -person meeting is prohibited by proclamation of the Governor, the Mayor, or other appropriate legal authority, the hearing may be held virtually using the then -current protocols for conducting remote Issaquah City Council meetings and hearings. Notice of the hearing shall be published in the City's official newspaper or such other newspaper as the City may be using temporarily in the manner provided for Level 6 Land Use Code Amendment hearings by the City Council. ISSAQUAH CONDUCTED THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING ON JULY 20, 2020 How about Edmonds? Did Edmonds City Council have the required public hearing within at least sixty days of its adoption? Please answer this reasonable question. Ken Reidy From: Ken Reidy <kenreidv@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 12:07 PM To: Council@edmondswa.gov <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Michael Nelson <michael.nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Rob Chave <chave@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Jeff Taraday <leff@lighthouselawgroup.com> Subject: Streatery-VERY IMPORTANT Ordinance 4209 includes the words "interim zoning ordinance". Did Edmonds City Council have the required public hearing within at least sixty days of its adoption? Please answer this reasonable question. x a Packet Pg. 296 7.1.f RCW 35A.63.220 Moratoria, interim zoning controls —Public hearing —Limitation on length. A legislative body that adopts a moratorium or interim zoning ordinance, without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium or interim zoning ordinance, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium or interim zoning ordinance within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the legislative body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning agency. If the legislative body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the legislative body shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium or interim zoning ordinance adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing for such a longer period. A moratorium of [or] interim zoning ordinance may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal. [ 1992 c 207 § 3.] From: Ken Reidy Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 8:53 AM To: Council@edmondswa.gov <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Michael Nelson <michael.nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Rob Chave = <chave@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Jeff Taraday <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com> a Subject: Public Hearing for Ordinance 4209-Streateries = a Please respond. Was the required Public Hearing for Ordinance 4209 held with 60 days? If so, please provide me the date of that Public Hearing. I've looked for such and can't find evidence of the required public hearing. If the City failed to have the required Public Hearing, was Ordinance 4209 null and void? If the City failed to have the required Public Hearing, how long have the Streateries in our Rights -of -way been illegal? Thanks. Ken Reidy From: Ken Reidy Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 7:39 AM To: Council@edmondswa.gov <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov>; Michael Nelson <michael.nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Rob Chave <chave@edmondswa.gov> Packet Pg. 297 7.1.f Cc: Jeff Taraday <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com> Subject: Re: Public Comments for the June 22, 2021 Public Hearing related to Chapter 17.75 ECDC Please see Comments below that include some discussion about Ordinance 4209. Was the required Public Hearing for Ordinance 4209 held with 60 days? If so, please provide me the date of that Public Hearing. Thanks. Ken Reidy From Ordinance 4209: Section 2. Emergency Declaration. The city council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this ordinance take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the council (RCW 35A.12.130), and that the same is not subject to a referendum. Without an immediate adoption of this interim zoning ordinance, streateries would need to continue to operate under a special event permit, but that permit was supposed to expire on December 31, 2020. From: Ken Reidy Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 10:26 AM To: Council@edmondswa.gov <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov> 72 Cc: Shane Hope <shane.hope@edmondswa.gov>; Jeff Taraday <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; a Michael Nelson <michael.nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Rob Chave <chave@edmondswa.gov> x a Subject: Fw: Public Comments for the June 22, 2021 Public Hearing related to Chapter 17.75 ECDC From November 24, 2020 Council Packet (packet Page 158): Ms. Hope explained restaurants are allowed to have outdoor dining onsite. The current code requires a CUP for a canopy which is costly and time consuming. During COVID, the requirement for a CUP has been waived, but the intent is to change the code to not require a CUP but still require building and fire review. Some businesses have space on site and some are using a portion of their parking lot; reduced parking is acceptable up to a certain limit. The proposal will be to adopt the code amendment via an interim ordinance which would be effective for a limited period of time, take effect immediately and requires a public hearing. An interim ordinance would immediately legalize these the onsite dining opportunities and go back to the Planning Board for a fuller review and then come back to City Council in 2021. Discussion followed regarding requirements that vary based on the location such as jersey barriers, colors, etc. From November 24, 2020 Council Packet (packet Page 159): Packet Pg. 298 7.1.f These concepts are proposed to be part of an interim ordinance that the City Council would consider within a month. Preferably, it would be effective upon adoption for up to 6 months. Adoption would also trigger the need for a public hearing to occur within 30 days. Subsequently, concepts for this topic would go through the regular Planning Board process and the Board's recommendations to the Council on any longer -term ordinance. (Actually, Public Hearing is required with 60 days, not 30 days) STREATERIES - TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM ORDINANCE 4209: Without an immediate adoption of this interim zoning ordinance, streateries would need to continue to operate under a special event permit, but that permit was supposed to expire on December 31, 2020. Nobody can argue that Ordinance 4209 was not ALSO an interim zoning ordinance subject to RCW 36.70A.390 - just like Ordinance 4210. Public Hearings were required within 60 days. From: Ken Reidy Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 6:42 AM To: PUBLICCOMMENTS@EDMONDSWA.GOV <PUBLICCOMMENTS@EDMONDSWA.GOV>; publiccomment@edmondswa.gov <publiccomment@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Shane Hope <shane.hope@edmondswa.gov>; Phil Williams <phil.williams@edmondswa.gov>; Jeff Taraday <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Michael Nelson <michael.nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Council@edmondswa.gov <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comments for the June 22, 2021 Public Hearing related to Chapter 17.75 ECDC Ordinance 4210, passed by City Council on December 15, 2020 states that pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, this interim ordinance may be adopted on an emergency basis without first holding a public hearing. RCW 36.70A.390 requires the City Council to hold a public hearing on an emergency interim zoning ordinance within at least sixty (60) days of adoption. Therefore, a public hearing on interim zoning Ordinance 4210 was required by February 13, 2021. x a Packet Pg. 299 7.1.f Please inform all those impacted by the City Council's failure to hold a public hearing on interim zoning Ordinance 4210 by February 13, 2021. Packet Page 417 of the December 15, 2020 City Council Agenda Packet did state: "Both ordinances are subject to having a public hearing and further consideration by the City Council within the time required under state law." "Both ordinances" refers to Emergency Ordinances to allow Streateries in ROW(4209) plus the Emergency Ordinance involving Outdoor Dining without CU permit(4210). I haven't had time to research Ordinance 4209 yet but there is reason to fear the required public hearing within at least sixty (60) days did not take place. Ordinance 4209 clearly states it is an "interim zoning ordinance". What needs to happen now? How many zoning code violations have taken place and are taking place? What a mess. Why was the following included in Ordinance 3992 but not in Ordinance 4210?: "WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds may adopt an interim zoning ordinance for a period of up to six months pursuant to RCW 36.70A.390, provided that the City Council holds a public hearing on the interim ordinance within sixty days of adoption;" Why is holding a public hearing on this interim regulation within sixty (60) days of its adoption mentioned in Ordinance 4217 but not mentioned in Ordinance 4210? What a mess. How does this type of thing happen and who is responsible? From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com> _ Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2021 6:58 AM 2 To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov> a Cc: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff x <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Doherty, Patrick <Patrick.Doherty@edmondswa.gov> a Subject: Re: Parklets/Streateries N Dear City Council (Others blind cc'd including candidates for office), Having just read Councilmember Vivian Olson's Letter to the Editor on My Edmonds News - I submit the following: As a reminder, policies around street closures and events are not solely administrative functions. It is much more complicated than that!! Sometimes these topics involve City Council. If City Council did not possess some power in this area, why would City Attorney Taraday have written the attached memorandum to City Council? Mr Taraday's memo includes: The mayor's powers are set forth in RCW 35A.12.100. Among other powers, he "shall see that all laws and ordinances are faithfully enforced and that law and order is maintained in the city, and shall have Packet Pg. 300 7.1.f general supervision of the administration of city government and all city interests." RCW 35A.12.100. This language is necessarily broad for it would be impossible to recite with specificity every single act that a mayor is authorized to perform. (Interesting take by Mr. Taraday. I see RCW 35A.12.100 setting forth the duties of a Mayor, not the Mayor's "powers".) If a Mayor is not doing his duties, shouldn't City Council step up, represent your constituents, and demand a Mayor do his duties? See related discussion below. Ken Reidy From: Ken Reidy <kenreidy@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2020 6:56 AM To: Council@edmondswa.gov <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Judge, Maureen <Maureen.Judge@edmondswa.gov> Cc: mike.nelson@edmondswa.gov <mike.nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Jeff Taraday <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>; Shane Hope <shane.hope@edmondswa.gov>; Patrick.doherty@edmondswa.gov <patrick.doherty@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re: Parklets/Streateries Dear City Council (Others blind cc'd), Please see attached Application -Special Event. Special Event Permits are governed by ECDC 4.24.020.E. The attached Application was approved with conditions on August 17, 2020. Per Code, the maximum duration of a Special Event Permit is 5 days. "Such permits shall be issued for a period not to exceed five days and in accordance with such fees as the council shall establish as a part of the granting of a contract or street use permit. " The attached Application should have been denied immediately as it was for far longer than 5 days. Next, there is nothing in the Code that allows for extension of a Special Event Permit. The attached Application form indicates a renewal application is possible. Let's pretend extensions of a Special Event Permit were allowed. Consider the extension that expired on November 8th. It wasn't until the afternoon of November 12th that an email was sent out to City Staff x a Packet Pg. 301 7.1.f asking if any department had a concern or comment about a possible extension through 12/31/2020. Again, Code does not allow extensions. There are fees involved, insurance issues, etc. If you have not done so already, please read my email below and view the attached pictures. In reviewing related correspondence, I see the police voiced concern about the barriers and engineering required as a condition that the travel lane and parking area shall have adequate boundary delineation and separation from customer seating. All three pictures attached show encroachments into the travel lane. The Special Event Permit application insurance section claims this is a City Sponsored event. I imagine this means if anything happened, it would be subject to the City's insurance policy only. There is more, but I'll stop here for now. As I told Ms. Hope, I support helping our local businesses out. One reason the Mayor should engage with the City Council when doing so is because Council tends to do this type of stuff the right way. When the Mayor rolls things out in a hurry without involving Council, he can expose the City to liability such as the attached 3 pictures show. Imagine if one driver lost control and rolled through some of the flimsy barriers being used. People could be hurt or killed. The City would be liable as the Mayor created this situation and did so without even involving City Council. The Special Event permit application indicates that the City made no provision for anybody to name the City as an additional insured. Let me know if you want to discuss further. Ken From: Ken Reidy Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 10:58 AM To: Shane Hope <shane.hope@edmondswa.gov> Cc: mike.nelson@edmondswa.gov <mike.nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Jeff Taraday <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com> Subject: FW: Parklets/Streateries The following was sent in 2 full weeks before Jeff Taraday prepared his memo regarding Restaurant Parklets. In short, Jeff's opinion that city code does not expressly prohibit or authorize this program ignores much. For example, his discussion fails to address ECC 9.25 Street Obstruction. Furthermore, the Code does not need to expressly prohibit something that already has multiple issues, as discussed in more detail below. As you read the following, please refer to the attached three photos which show how flimsy some of these structures are, that the wind can blow them over or into the street, and that some of them are constructed past the parking lines into the traveled portion of the street. The pictures were taken last x a Packet Pg. 302 7.1.f Sunday morning. None of these items were removed from the right-of-way at close of business Saturday. Dear City Council (others blind cc'd), Please advise all citizens as to the following. For example, has adequate compensation for the exclusive use of the public right-of-way and applicant fees pursuant to ECDC 18.70.050 been paid? Are all barriers being removed each day from the right-of-way at the close of business?: Another part of this downtown restaurant use of parking spaces for outdoor seating is public health and safety. The City of Edmonds has argued Municipalities have a duty to remove obstructions in the public ways and liability if they fail to do so, referencing a 1928 case Lund v. City of Seattle, as well as a 1967 case Turner v. City of Tacoma. The 1967 case Turner v. City of Tacoma dealt with an injury caused by an obstruction into an opened right-of-way that the city had a duty to maintain. In the Lund v. Seattle, 99 Wash. 300, 169 Pac. 820 case, Seattle was required to answer in damages to one who had stumbled over a wire fence which the city had permitted to be constructed and to remain in the street. While the court remarked that the fence, or netting, had been in place long enough to constitute a nuisance, the case was decided on the theory that the city was guilty of negligence in the maintenance of the street. The City of Edmonds has also cited RCW 7.48.140(4) which states it is a public nuisance to obstruct or encroach upon public highway, private ways, streets, alleys, commons, landing places, and ways to burying places or to unlawfully obstruct or impede the flow of municipal transit vehicles as defined in RCW 46.04.355 or passenger traffic, access to municipal transit vehicles or stations as defined in *RCW 9.91.025(2)(a), or otherwise interfere with the provision or use of public transportation services, or obstruct or impede a municipal transit driver, operator, or supervisor in the performance of that individual's duties. Following are some of the City's own laws: 2. Exclusive Bistro and Outdoor Dining. In an effort to enhance street life of the city and serve both an economic development purpose as well as enhance the livability of the city's urban core, exclusive bistro and outdoor dining shall be allowed pursuant to ECDC 17.70.040. a. For purposes of this section the following terms are defined as: i. "Exclusive bistro and outdoor dining" shall refer to a properly zoned and licensed food or beverage service establishment that uses the public right-of-way to serve only its customers at the exclusion of the general public. x a Packet Pg. 303 7.1.f ii. "Barrier" shall refer to any temporary object or objects (e.g., stanchion, rope, fencing, planters) used to establish an exclusive bistro and outdoor dining area. b. All conditions and requirements set forth in this chapter have been met and adequate compensation y for the exclusive use of the public right-of-way and applicant fees pursuant to ECDC 18.70.050 have m been paid. L c. All barriers shall be removed each day from the right-of-way at the close of business. co d. The design and use shall comply with all requirements of state law, city ordinance and city policy C a including but not limited to: :r r i. Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) and Snohomish County health division (SCHD). When E applicable, the business shall provide a written approval from the WSLCB and/or SCHD for use of public a rights -of -way; m ii. ECDC 17.70.040, Bistro and outdoor dining; and W iii. All litter and nuisance regulations, including but not limited to RCW 70.93.060 and Chapter 6.40 ECC. 41 3. The design board has reviewed and approved any proposal which includes a request to construct, erect or maintain an awning, building, sign or any building or structure; 4. The proposal will not unreasonably interfere with the rights of the public; and co c 5. The proposal (if for an encroachment permit) either benefits the public interest, safety or G a convenience (e.g., supports or protects the city street, reduces pedestrian hazards) or is an accessory •L structure such as a fence normally associated with residential use of the property and fully complies x with the requirements of subsections (13)(1) through (3) of this section. 2 Also, only public sidewalks can be used: a 17.70.040 Bistro and outdoor dining. _ A properly zoned and licensed food or beverage service establishment may temporarily utilize public a sidewalks in right-of-way areas immediately adjacent to its establishment. The area authorized for use N shall be that area of the immediately adjacent public right-of-way and/or outdoor areas under the lease '- cm or ownership of the applicant lying between the applicant's property and the public right-of-way. The area authorized for such use shall not extend beyond the street frontage of the business lessee or ,o property owner. Any building or structure as such terms are defined pursuant to the building code adopted by Chapter 19.00 ECDC shall fully comply with all provisions of the community development code, including, but not limited to, review and approval by the architectural design board. [Ord. 3742 § 1, 2009; Ord. 3293 § 1, 2000; Ord. 3265 § 1, 1999]. Shane, I support helping our local businesses out. One reason the Mayor should engage with the City Council when doing so is because Council tends to do this type of stuff the right way. When the Mayor rolls things out in a hurry without involving Council, he can expose the City to liability such as the attached 3 pictures show. Imagine if one driver lost control and rolled through some of the flimsy barriers being used. People could be hurt or killed. The City would be liable as the Mayor created this situation and did so without even involving City Council. Let me know if you want to discuss further. Ken Packet Pg. 304 7.1.f From: Kclarke5 Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 10:07 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Outdoor Dining Dear City Council, I strongly opposed restaurants and bars using public parking spaces for outdoor dining permanently. By allowing this will only take away valuable parking downtown from the retail businesses who, like the restaurants, are also struggling to get back on their feet. How are the retail businesses suppose to survive if you continue to take away the parking and make it permanent. There are many of us who still like to "shop local" and patronize the retail businesses. But cannot because of the limited parking and these unsightly structures in their place. Recently, the Seattle Times wrote a glowing article about our downtown. Interesting enough, they use an "old" photo of the downtown before the outdoor dining. Not what it looks like today. These wooden structures and tents for outdoor dining have away the appeal and charm of our city. Visitors who have come to visit have commented on how you can no longer see the beauty and uniqueness, it has to offer, I recently had lunch with a friend in downtown Edmonds on a Friday morning. It was appalling to see the lack of parking even during the week. You either had to navigate around the wooden structures or the parking spot was marked as "curbside pickup only." One restaurant has now hung tablecloths on the end of their structure to block the sun in the west. A walkup wine bar has taken over parking spaces, who, 2 never had indoor dining in the first place. Another bar keeps adding more space to their outdoor dining. 3 A tea house, even though they already have indoor and outdoor dining have taken over the parking a space in front of their establishment, as well. This will only escalate if these structures are allow to a remain indefinitely. As one local citizen put it, it does look like a "shanty town". No longer can you see down to the waterfront and flowers that adorn the storefronts and line the streets. And watch your step, or you may trip over a 4x4 as the sidewalks have limited space to walk. Our family has lived here for more than 65 years. We have always loved being able share our city with visitors. Edmonds does have it's own unique charm and is a beautiful place to visit and live. Allowing these unsightly structures to remain permanent takes away from the beauty it has to offer. I would hate to see the various retail businesses close up shop because the mayor and city council cannot see the harm this would do to our city by allowing the structures to stay. I encourage the City Council and Mayor to vote no. Respectfully submitted by, Cheryl Clarke Edmonds resident Packet Pg. 305 8.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/7/2021 Presentation of Non -Represented Employees Compensation Study Staff Lead: Jessica Neill Hoyson Department: Human Resources Preparer: Jessica Neill Neill Hoyson Background/History Per Policy, Non -Represented positions for the City will have a compensation survey completed every three years. The last survey was completed in 2018 for implementation in 2019. Human Resources has retained a consultant, Compensation Connections, to conduct the 2021 compensation survey which will be implemented in 2022. It should be noted that for this study both represented and non -represented positions were surveyed. This was undertaken as there were serious issues with internal equity of positions within the organization. Reviewing all positions together, and not just the non -represented, will allow the City to address the internal equity issues. The represented employees' compensation changes will be addressed as part of the bargaining process. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative In early 2021 the City Council approved updates to the compensation policy. The updated policy is attached for reference. The consultant has worked with Human Resources and established the process for the compensation survey within the parameters of the compensation policy as established by Council. In this meeting the consultant will go over the following: Compensation goals, Market definition, Market study methodology, and Findings & Recommendations. This will be a high-level overview. Council discussion and action is scheduled for the following meeting on 12/14/21. Attachments: Compensation Policy(clean) Packet Pg. 306 8.1.a CHAPTER V COMPENSATION 5.1 PURPOSE The City is committed to maintaining a compensation program that ensures fairness, pay equity, and external competitiveness for the purposes of attracting and retaining talented, engaged, and diverse employees. The purpose of this policy is to provide guidance regarding City compensation goals, subject to collective bargaining and fiscal constraints. All compensation decisions will be made without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other protected class 5.2 COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY The City's compensation program should be designed to attract and retain dedicated, hardworking, diverse, and talented employees who effectively support the mission of the City. Therefore, the City's compensation philosophy shall be competitive in the relative market considering all appropriate factors. Those factors include, but are not limited to, compensation provided by comparable cities, pay equity and internal equity, and fiscal resources available to the City. The total compensation program is made up of both pay and benefits. The guiding principles set forth in this policy are expressed as general goals, with a full understanding that wages and benefits are mandatory subjects of bargaining for represented employees. This policy applies to non -represented City employees. It may also serve as a guideline for the City Council in its decision making with regard to labor negotiations. Compensation adjustment for non -represented employees are subject to City Council approval; compensation adjustments for represented employees are subject to collective bargaining, and ratification by the union(s) and City Council. 5.3 DEFINITIONS A. Benchmark — A job or classification that is commonly found and defined, used to make pay comparisons, either within the organization or to comparable jobs outside the organization. B. Compensation — Salary or hourly wages and City -paid benefits such as contributions toward health coverage and other group insurance benefits, retirement, paid time off, continuing education allowances, and any other fringe benefit received by employees. C. Compensation Philosophy — A set of guiding principles that are based on values that drive compensation decision making. D. Pay Equity —The practice of compensating employees in a consistent and fairway for the same or essentially similar work, regardless of race, gender, disability, sex, sexual orientation or other status. Packet Pg. 307 8.1.a E. Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) — A periodic adjustment in wages or salaries to compensate for loss in purchasing power of money due to inflation. F. General Wage Increase —A wage or salary increase where either a flat rate or a common percentage of salary is used. G. Internal Equity — The pay relationships among jobs internal to the organization. H. Labor Market —the market in which workers compete for jobs and employers compete for workers. Market Adjustment — An adjustment to bring the salary range for a job classification to approximate market values, or to bring City benefits to approximate market values. J. Salary Schedule — The levels or hierarchy of job classifications and pay ranges. Salary schedules are generally constructed with consistent percentage changes between each salary range and between the steps assigned to each salary range. Edmonds has established as a standard a 5% increase between ranges and between steps within each range. K. Salary Range —A series of consecutive salary steps in the range comprising the pay rates for a job classification. L. Salary Compression — A condition in which jobs requiring significantly different levels of responsibility or professional expertise have a pay differential that is too small to be considered equitable. 5.4 COMPENSATION GOALS The City's compensation philosophy is to be competitive in the relevant labor market considering all appropriate factors. To carry out that philosophy, the City's compensation goals are: A. To attract and retain, dedicated, hardworking, diverse, talented employees who are well qualified to perform their duties in an ever evolving municipal government environment; B. To pay employees fairly and to ensure pay equity and internal equity; C. To be externally competitive by providing compensation commensurate with the labor market; D. To be fiscally responsible and legally defensible. Packet Pg. 308 8.1.a 5.5 MARKET DEFINITION The comparable labor market will be defined as Cities in Washington State based on population, assessed valuation, and assessed valuation per capita with a bandwidth of 50% up and 50% down. When establishing comparable cities, those located in Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Thurston County will be given first priority. Cities outside these counties may be considered if a statistically reasonable group of comparators is not established. Other local government agencies and private employers may be taken into consideration when they are determined to be a relevant factor in the labor market. Because of the diversity and complexity of some positions at the City, the market for dept head or management positions, or highly -specialized positions, may be a mix of public sector and private sector employers. The relevant labor market will be defined in a manner that reflects the primary industries or organizations where labor talent is found, recruited from, or lost to. 5.6 MARKET COMPETITIVENESS To maintain pay and benefits that are competitive within the compensation of employers offering similar employment and competing in the same labor market, the City sets compensation in relation to the comparable labor market. However, the City recognized that there are conditions where exceptions and flexibility may be necessary in situations which include but are not limited to: • 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. 5.7 SALARY CLASSIFICATION AND GRADES Each regular position within the City is classified into a classification title for salary purposes. Each classification title is designated a particular pay grade as shown on the City's salary schedule, which is approved in labor agreements or annually by the City Council. All City employees are assigned to a classification title and provided a job description. This job description shall be reviewed annually with the employee and the supervisor during the employee's performance evaluation, and any changes to the classification shall be referred to the Human Resources Office for review. Any change in a job classification, which would subsequently require a change in salary grade assignment, must have prior approval by the Mayor and City Council, and the appropriate Union as needed prior to the implementation of any classification changes. Packet Pg. 309 8.1.a 5.8 PAY RATES Employees shall be paid within the limits of the wage range to which their positions are assigned. Usually, new employees will start their employment at the first step on the salary range for their classification. However, a new employee may be employed at a higher rate than the minimum when the employee's experience, training or proven capability warrant, or when prevailing market conditions require a starting rate greater than the minimum. Any placement above a step 3 at hire is subject to the Mayor's approval. Requests for placement above a step 3 should first be submitted to Human Resources for review who will then forward to the Mayor for approval. All pay rates for new employees will be reviewed for pay equity to ensure that the City continues to compensate employees consistently and fairly. 5.9 SALARY RANGE PROGRESSION New employees are advanced to the next salary step increment after satisfactorily completing the first six months of probation. After this, employees advance to the next step in the salary range on the January following their anniversary date and each succeeding January after a concurrent satisfactory overall performance evaluation has been completed by their supervisor, until reaching the maximum step. An employee is considered not to have achieved a satisfactory overall performance rating if two or more performance category areas in the evaluation receive less than a "meets standards" rating. An employee who fails to achieve at least a satisfactory overall performance rating on their annual performance evaluation shall not be eligible for a step increase until their next performance evaluation rating period. Employees who do not achieve a satisfactory overall performance rating will be immediately placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP). The PIP will provide clear expectations to the employee for the work performance items that must improve in order for the employee to achieve a satisfactory overall performance rating by the next evaluation period (usually 3 and/or 6 months) as determined under the PIP. A PIP also serves as a work plan for the employee that will likely include individualized, supervisor -provided feedback and counseling on improving work performance, as well as outlining any necessary areas of training or retraining in order for the employee to succeed on the PIP. 5.10 NON -REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES' ANNUAL SALARY ADJUSTMENTS The Mayor will recommend the adjustment of salary schedule for non -represented employees to the City Council for approval as part of the budget process. In addition, the City will attempt to mitigate compression issues as they arise. The Mayor will make appropriate and timely recommendations to City Council to maintain internal equity and prevent compression issues. 5.11 NON -REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES MARKET ANALYSIS The Human Resources Department will conduct compensation surveys for non -represented positions no later than September 1, every three years. Packet Pg. 310 8.1.a Salary ranges for positions will be determined by using the prevailing rates in the identified comparator cities. The City will be competitive within the defined market, but normally will not assume the position of a lead pay policy compared to the market; therefore, the median or 50th percentile of the mid -range of salary data collected will be used to determine competitiveness. Deviations from this may be considered by Council where such deviations are consistent with the established compensation philosophy. Every three years, based upon the survey data, the Mayor will recommend salary range market adjustments for non -represented positions to City Council. The Mayor will consider the following goals in developing the recommendation: 1. Maintain the mid -point of each salary range between 5% high/low of the mid -point of the comparator city median. a. Positions requiring adjustment will be assigned to the new salary range within the salary schedule that places the position closest to the comparator cities' median. 2. Ensure that positions which are essentially similar are internally equitable 3. Address any issues of compression between non -represented supervisory positions and their direct reports. 4. Any employee whose actual salary falls below the newly adopted pay range minimum, shall be adjusted up to the new minimum upon adoption of the new pay ranges. 5. Any employee whose actual salary exceeds the top of the approved salary range, will have their salary frozen until such time as the salary range for that position catches up to the compensation of the employee. 5.12 PROMOTION An employee promoted to a position in a higher classification and salary range shall receive a promotional pay increase to either 1) the entry step or salary of the new salary range, 2) the next highest available pay step in the new range which provides at least a 5% increase in pay, or 3) to start at the bottom of the pay grade of the higher classification, whichever is greater. Changes in salary due to a Reclassification of a position will be treated the same as a Promotion. Promotions change an employee's pay anniversary date and subsequent merit pay reviews. Promotions for positions covered by a collective bargaining agreement will be handled per the provisions of that agreement. An employee transferring from one position to another which are in the same pay range will not be considered a promotion. 5.13 PAYDAYS City employees are paid semi-monthly on the 5th and the 20th of each month. If a regularly scheduled payday falls on the weekend or a holiday, the paychecks will be distributed on the last preceding regularly scheduled working day. Automatic deposit is available upon request. Pay increases, other than those occurring upon the 1 st or the 16th of the month, become effective at the beginning of the next pay period. Packet Pg. 311 8.1.a 5.14 ERRORS IN PAY Every effort is made to avoid errors in paychecks. However, any employee who believes that an error has been made should contact the Finance Department immediately. The Finance Department will take the necessary steps to research the problem and to assure that any necessary correction is made properly and promptly. An employee reporting an error will be notified in writing within 15 business days of the outcome. An employee who believes further discrepancies exist should submit a written complaint to Human Resources immediately. If an employee has been overpaid in error, the City will ask that the amount be repaid by payroll deductions or by agreement, consistent with applicable laws. 5.15 DEDUCTIONS Some regular deductions from the employee's earnings are required by law; all other deductions must be approved by the City and specifically authorized in writing by the employee. The City will withhold from the employee's paycheck those deductions required by law and any voluntary deductions approved by the City and authorized by the employee, by applicable union contract, or by statute or regulation. 5.16 ACTING PAY When an employee is temporarily assigned to work in a position with a higher pay rate in order to fill a vacancy or act on behalf of an absent employee, the employee shall be paid Acting Pay in the amount of either the minimum of the salary rate of the acting position or a 5% increase in base pay, whichever is greater. To qualify, the employee must be assigned to the acting position for a period of ten (10) or more consecutive workdays. Acting Pay is limited to a six month period as noted in the City Ordinance. Any extenuating circumstances requiring Acting pay for a period beyond six months are subject to the Mayor and City Council's approval, or subject to applicable Civil Service Rules. 5.17 SPECIAL DUTY PAY The Mayor is authorized to pay any manager or director level employee special duty pay in addition to that person's regular compensation when the Mayor has temporarily assigned special duties to that person. No employee may receive special duty pay for longer than one year without city council approval. "Special duties" are defined as those duties not included as essential functions in the employee's official job classification and not otherwise associated with the employee's position. Special duty pay shall consist of up to ten percent of the employee's salary at the time the special duties are assigned. The Mayor is authorized to grant to each such employee up to five percent (5%) for special duty pay at the Mayor's discretion, and shall be based upon the scope of the additional responsibilities identified by the Mayor. If the Mayor determines that special duty pay above five percent (5%) is warranted for a particular employee, the Mayor will be authorized to grant up to ten percent (10%) for special duty pay upon prior approval by the City Council. Packet Pg. 312 8.1.a 5.18 COMPENSATION UPON TERMINATION When an employee's employment with the City is terminated, the employee will receive the following compensation on the next regularly scheduled payday including: 1) regular wages for all hours worked up to the time of termination which have not already been paid; 2) any overtime or holiday pay due; 3) A lump sum payment of any accrued but unused vacation and compensatory time and; 4) any employee -paid health insurance premiums paid in advance for health insurance coverage. Accrued sick leave will be paid in accordance with City Ordinance and Personnel Policies for Non -Represented employees, or the applicable collective bargaining agreement for Union Employees. 5.19 RECLASSIFICATION It is the supervisor's responsibility to maintain the employee's primary job assignments within the scope of the existing job classification, until a revised job classification is approved. Requests for revised job classifications can be made by the Department Director to the Human Resources department. In the event that an employee is eligible for a reclassification as determined by his/her supervisor, a reclassification form and a revised job description, along with the recommended pay grade should be submitted to Human Resources for review. All revised job descriptions and reclassification requests are subject to the Mayor's approval, before submittal to the City Council for their approval and/or the respective Union as required. Packet Pg. 313 8.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/7/2021 Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish Health District Staff Lead: Patrick Doherty Department: Community Services Preparer: Patrick Doherty Background/History Founded in 1959, the Snohomish Health District provides public health -related services throughout Snohomish County. From 1967 until the early 1990s local municipalities provided per -capita contributions to help fund the Health District, after which time the County assumed financial responsibility for the Health District, relying on a portion of Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) revenues. In 2000 the Washington State Legislature repealed the MVET and backfilled only 90% of the lost public health funds. As a result, together with population growth, inflationary costs for services, etc., the Health District has experienced a 22% decrease in funding since 2005 while the county population has increased by 14% since then. Staff Recommendation Mayor and staff recommend approval of this time or forwarding this item to the 12/14/21 Consent Agenda for approval of the Inter -Local Agreement and authorization for Mayor Nelson to execute the Agreement. Narrative In order to continue to provide vital public health -related services to communities throughout the County, including Edmonds, in 2016 the Health District approached the County and each of the cities with a request for a per -capita financial contributions for 2017. As a result of deliberations during the budget process, the Council -approved 2021 Budget allows for an appropriation of $21,450 (equaling $0.50 per capita of the Edmonds population per the April 2021 OFM population estimate of 42,900) to the Snohomish Health District. The attached Inter -Local Agreement between the Snohomish Health District and the City of Edmonds formalizes the City's contribution to the Health District for 2021, with no additional future commitment at this time. Attachments: ILA SHD_Edmonds Per Capita_2021 - final Packet Pg. 314 8.2.a INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS PER CAPITA CONTRIBUTION FOR HEALTH DISTRICT SERVICES This Interlocal Agreement for Per Capita Contribution for Health District Services is entered into by and between the SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT, a Washington Municipal Corporation (the Health District) and CITY OF EDMONDS a municipal corporation of the State of Washington (the City) — collectively (the Parties), for the purpose of providing for a per capita contribution by the City for Health District Services. RECITALS WHEREAS, this Agreement is made pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Chapter 39.34 RCW; and WHEREAS, to promote the public health in Snohomish County, Washington, the Board of County Commissioners of Snohomish County, Washington, established a Health District on January 1, 1959, embracing all of the territory within Snohomish County, Washington, and all cities and towns therein; and WHEREAS, in 1966 the Snohomish Health District became the first local health jurisdiction in the state to organize a city -county cooperative health program with cities indicating a willingness to participate financially in support of Health District programs; and WHEREAS, on January 1, 1967, eleven of 18 cities and towns agreed to voluntarily contribute $0.50 per capita to the Health District in return for public health services; and WHEREAS, per capita contributions from towns and cities continued, with such contributions ranging from $1.60 to $2.70 per capita until the early 1990s; and WHEREAS, in 1993, counties assumed exclusive financial responsibility for public health relying on Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) revenues; and WHEREAS, in 2000, the Washington State Legislature repealed MVET and backfilled only 90% of lost public health funds; and WHEREAS, the Health District's ability to perform its most essential functions have been severely compromised since the great recession; and WHEREAS, the Health District serves an essential public safety function whether ensuring safe food, schools, and septic systems, responding to disasters, or preventing and responding to disease outbreaks; and WHEREAS, threats to the public's health in the form of foodborne illness such as E. coli and salmonella, communicable diseases such as COVID-19, pertussis, tuberculosis, measles, Zika, and Ebola and natural disasters such as the Oso/SR530 mud slide respect no municipal boundaries; and WHEREAS, public health is a shared responsibility and regional public health threats require regional responses and close partnerships with every city and town in Snohomish County; and WHEREAS, consistent with RCW 70.05, the Snohomish County Council is responsible for establishing the Snohomish Health District Board of Health, with jurisdiction coextensive with the boundaries of the county, to supervise all matters pertaining to the preservation of life and health of the people within its jurisdiction; and ILA SHD_2021 EDMONDS PER CAPITA 1 of 4 Packet Pg. 315 8.2.a WHEREAS, an effective, regional public health response to the threats to public health in Snohomish County requires the cooperation, participation and support of Snohomish County and all of the cities and towns in Snohomish County; and WHEREAS, Snohomish County and the cities and towns therein seek to improve and sustain healthy years of life of their residents by engaging in an enhanced partnership with the Health District. This partnership will provide stable funding for public health priorities that would be established to meet the unique needs of each community. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements set forth below and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the City and the Health District agree as follows: Purpose. A. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein by this reference. B. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish and define the terms and conditions for the cooperative efforts to be undertaken by the City and the Health District to promote, facilitate, and undertake various programs and activities. 2. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021. The term may be extended by mutual written agreement of the parties. 3. Scope of Services. A. Responsibilities of the City. The City shall contribute $0.50 per capita of City population based on the Office of Financial Management Official Population Estimate of 42,900 for an amount not to exceed Twenty -One Thousand Four Hundred Fifty and No/00 Dollars ($21,450) to the District commencing January 1, 2021. Payment may be made in one lump sum on or before December 31 of that year. B. Responsibilities of the Health District. The Health District shall provide basic essential public health services and functions such as ensuring safe food, and inspecting septic systems, responding to disasters, or preventing and responding to disease outbreaks. The Health District will provide reports to the City identifying services provided to Edmonds residents and businesses. Additional specific services provided by the Health District to the City may be developed jointly by the parties. 4. Legal Requirements. Both parties shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws in performing this Agreement. 5. Public Disclosure Laws. The City and the Health District each acknowledge, agree and understand that the other party is a public agency subject to certain disclosure laws, including, but not limited to Washington's Public Records Act, chapter 42.56 RCW. Each party understands that records related to this Agreement and the District's performance of services under this Agreement may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act or other similar law. ILA SHD_2021 EDMONDS PER CAPITA 2 of 4 Packet Pg. 316 8.2.a 6. Insurance. Each party shall maintain its own insurance and/or self-insurance for its liabilities from damage to property and /or injuries to persons arising out of its activities associated with this Agreement as it deems reasonably appropriate and prudent. The maintenance of, or lack thereof of insurance and/or self-insurance shall not limit the liability of the indemnifying part to the indemnified party(s). Each party shall provide the other with a certificate of insurance or letter of self-insurance as the case may be upon request. 7. Indemnification. The District shall protect, save harmless, indemnify and defend the City its elected officials, officers, employees and agents, from and against any loss or claim for damages of any nature whatsoever, including claims by third parties or District employees against which it would otherwise be immune under Title 51 RCW or other law, arising out of any act or omission of the District in performance of this Agreement, its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees or agents, except to the extent the loss or claim is attributable to the negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its elected officials, officers, employees or agents. The City shall protect, save harmless, indemnify and defend the District, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents from and against any loss or claim for damages of any nature whatsoever, including claims by third parties or City employees against which it would otherwise be immune under Title 51 RCW or other law, arising out of any act or omission of the City in performance of this Agreement, its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees or agents, except to the extent the loss or claim is attributable to the negligence or willful misconduct of the County, its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees or agents. 8. Notices. Any notice/payment to be given to the Health District under this Agreement shall be either mailed or personally delivered to: Snohomish Health District 3020 Rucker Avenue, Ste 306 Everett, WA 98201 Any notice/invoice to the City shall be mailed or hand delivered to: City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three (3) days after deposit of written notice in the U.S. mail with proper postage and address. 9. Venue. The laws of the State of Washington shall apply to the construction and enforcement of this Agreement. Any action at law, suit in equity, or judicial proceedings for the enforcement of this agreement or any provision hereto shall be in the Superior Court of Snohomish County, Everett, Washington. 10. Disputes. The parties agree that, following reasonable attempts at negotiation and compromise, any unresolved dispute arising under this Agreement may be resolved by a mutually agreed -upon alternative dispute resolution of arbitration or mediation. 11. No third party beneficiaries; no joint venture. This Agreement is for the sole benefit of the City and Health District and shall not confer third - party beneficiary status on any non-party to this Agreement. Nothing contained in this Agreement ILA SHD_2021 EDMONDS PER CAPITA 3 of 4 Packet Pg. 317 8.2.a shall be construed as creating any type or manner of partnership, joint venture or other joint enterprise between the parties. County employees who provide services under this Agreement shall at all times be acting in their official capacities as employees of Snohomish County. 12. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties regarding the subject matter hereof, and supersedes any and all prior oral or written agreements between the parties regarding the subject matter contained herein. This Agreement may not be modified or amended in any manner except by written agreement executed by both parties. Both parties recognize that time is of the essence in the performance and the provisions of this Agreement. 13. Severability. A. If a court of competent jurisdiction holds any part, term or provision of this Agreement to be illegal or invalid, in whole or in part, the validity of the remaining provisions shall not be affected, and the parties' rights and obligations shall be construed and enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the particular provision held to be invalid. B. If any provision of this Agreement is in direct conflict with any statutory provision of the State of Washington, that provision which may conflict shall be deemed inoperative and null and void insofar as it may conflict, and shall be deemed modified to conform to such statutory provision. 14. Filing. As provided by RCW 39.34.040, this Agreement shall be filed with the Snohomish County Auditor, or, alternatively, posted on the website of each party. 15. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same agreement. 16. Effective Date. January 1, 2021 City of Edmonds Snohomish Health District Mike Nelson, Mayor Shawn Frederick, Administrative Officer ATTEST: ATTEST: Scott Passey, City Clerk Clerk of the Board Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Grant Weed, Health District Attorney ILA SHD_2021 EDMONDS PER CAPITA 4 of 4 Packet Pg. 318 8.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/7/2021 2022 Legislative Agenda Staff Lead: Patrick Doherty Department: Community Services Preparer: Patrick Doherty Background/History Every year the City Council reviews and approves the City's Legislative Agenda for the upcoming Legislative Session in the new year. This Agenda serves as guidance to our Lobbyist in Olympia, as well as a hand-out to share with Legislators and their staff. Staff Recommendation Forward the 2022 Edmonds Legislative Agenda to the Consent Agenda of the 12/14/21 regular Council meeting for approval. Narrative The attached Final Draft of the 2022 Edmonds Legislative Agenda has been compiled over the last couple of months with direct input from Mayor Nelson, our Olympia lobbyist, Debora Munguia, Directors of every City Department, and those Councilmembers who have already shared their issues or suggestions about agenda items. The agenda was also informed by the legislative agendas of AWC, the Economic Alliance of Snohomish County, Snohomish County Health District, WRIAB, WRPA, and Snohomish County Cities. Also attached here is a Memo from the Diversity Commission related to ranked -choice voting, which was raised in the last Legislative Session as SHB 1156 but was not acted upon. SHB 1156 will likely be resuscitated for further consideration in the 2022 Legislative Session. City Council may consider whether to include this issue in the City's final 2022 Legislative Agenda. Attachments: 2022 legislative agenda Diversity Commission Memo to Council -Mayor re Ranked Choice Voting Packet Pg. 319 8.3.a °C. 199v l CITY OF EDMONDS 2022 STATE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA CAPITAL REQUEST Highway 99 Community Renewal Plan — Transportation Improvements Request: Secure $22.5 million in the state's future transportation package for the next phase of the SR 99 Revitalization Project. The City of Edmonds places a high priority on both safety and social and environmental justice throughout our community. The Highway 99 Corridor and its surrounding neighborhoods have historically been under -served, with lower levels of parks and public spaces, community gathering facilities, and safe, multimodal transportation improvements. In furtherance of the City Council -adopted Highway 99 Corridor Subarea Plan, the City of Edmonds is pursuing a Community Renewal Plan in 2022 within the Corridor to kickstart desired redevelopment and community -building along this roughly two-mile linear neighborhood in order to address inequities that have left this lower -income, multi -ethnic Corridor with fewer amenities and quality of life factors most of Edmonds has enjoyed: parks/trails, community gathering spaces, local jobs, a range of housing options — in sum, a sense of community. In tandem with this Community Renewal Plan, the City will pursue multiphase transportation improvements along the Corridor, costing upwards of $184 million, including accompanying Packet Pg. 320 8.3.a 2022 Edmonds Legislative Agenda Page 2 of 7 utility improvements. This significant public investment will also promote private investment along the corridor, and bring needed jobs, affordable housing and services to an underserved community of Edmonds. The first phase of these improvements is a landscaped, raised center median along the entire length of the Corridor. This will greatly enhance vehicle and pedestrian safety and the aesthetic environment. This improvement is possible due to the $10 million approved in the Connecting Washington package and is underway. Continuing the momentum started by the center median project, the next phase is to focus continued transportation improvements in our Highway 99 Community Renewal Area. This project consists of intersection and pedestrian safety improvements in the stretch from the southern city limits at 2441" Street SW to 2341h Street SW. These improvements include: c • Capacity improvements at 2381" St SW intersection (D, a • Sidewalk widening for safer pedestrian travel and access to transit along the entire r length —��, 0 • Street lighting enhancements for safer pedestrian travel and to deter crime along the � N entire length c N • ADA compliant curb ramps throughout • Utility (water, stormwater, sewer) upgrades throughout These improvements will improve traffic flow, enhance pedestrian safety and encourage transit usage. They will also enhance the environment for investment and redevelopment, thereby bringing needed affordable housing, jobs, commercial goods and services to an under - served neighborhood, and help reduce crime. In the 2021 Legislative Session, both the House and Senate proposed separate "New Law Spending Plans" for transportation projects that would be funded by new revenues. The Senate "Forward Washington" proposal includes $22.5 million for the SR 99 Revitalization Project. The House "Miles Ahead" did not include funding for the SR 99 project. The Legislature has not yet passed a new revenue package. The City needs both the House and Senate to include the $22.5 million for the next phase of this project as they work toward agreement on a future transportation package. Packet Pg. 321 8.3.a 2022 Edmonds Legislative Agenda Page 3 of 7 PRIORITIES Edmonds Marsh No new request for 2022 Session. The Legislature in the 2021 Session approved a proviso for the duration of the 2021-2023 biennium that would provide Edmonds first right of purchase of the former UNOCAL site when it transfers to WSDOT. In addition, the Legislature earmarked $258,000 to help fund that potential purchase. Since these provisions are in effect until 6/30/23, the City will re -assess any further needs for support or assistance from the Legislature in the 2023 Session. c a� Parks, Recreation and Conservation a as r Support Washington Recreation & Park Association's (WRPA) legislative priorities to include: A a� • Provide local parks and recreation agencies with new funding options to address vital N N maintenance and operation and preservation needs which have become even more N challenging under COVID-19. • Actively partner with the Recreation and Conservation Office to ensure a sound plan be in place for the use of a one-time $42-million allocation from the Stadium & Exhibition Center Account. • Actively participate in efforts to replace and recover lost revenue for parks and recreation agencies — while protecting existing resources. • Protect against any diversions or reallocations of Capital Budget grant programs that significantly benefit parks and recreation and the Great Outdoors. • Advocate for key Healthy & Active Communities funding within the State Budget process. • Support legislation to enhance funding for the Derelict Vessel Removal Program and make the program's funding more sustainable. Invest in Housing Stabilitv and Affordabil The city of Edmonds supports equity and racial justice in providing housing stability and affordability. The city established a Edmonds Housing Commission and we support additional state resources to provide affordable housing, housing stability, shelter and services for individuals and families experiencing homelessness, and associated services, especially in light of the tremendous economic and housing -related impacts of COVID-19, including: Packet Pg. 322 8.3.a 2022 Edmonds Legislative Agenda Page 4 of 7 • Increased funding for the Housing Trust Fund • Greater flexibility for cities to provide housing for low-income households • Providing rental assistance to support tenants and landlords, and services to prevent foreclosures to homeowners. Gun Violence Reduction Support continued efforts for legislation addressing the reduction of gun violence, especially related to semiautomatic weapons and use of high -capacity magazines. Law Enforcement Laws Support efforts to provide clarifying amendments to law enforcement -related legislation passed a in the 2021 Session, particularly related to probable cause vs. reasonable suspicion, domestic violence standards, and other issues that may be considered in the Session. a as Puget Sound Health and Salmon/Orca N • Support passage of the "Governor's Salmon Package" which will be centered on the J following four main categories: N 0 1. Invest in clean water infrastructure `= 2. Protect and restore vital salmon habitat 3. Correct fish passage barriers and restore salmon access to historical habitat 4. Build climate resiliency • Support state agency budget requests for monitoring salmon populations, and for studies and management of predation, disease, and other issues that affect WRIA 8 salmon populations. • Support legislation that seeks to improve regulatory protections for areas that are important for salmon habitat. This could include proposals to define and implement "net ecological gain," and regulatory improvements that enhance protection of riparian areas and lake and marine shorelines. • Support efforts to improve existing funding authorities to support salmon recovery and Puget Sound restoration priorities and efforts to develop new watershed -based and/or regional funding mechanisms to support multiple -benefit projects that address salmon recovery and Puget Sound restoration priorities. • Support legislation and funding requests that promote stormwater management planning, coordination, and implementation at a watershed scale, address critical data/information needs, and that seek innovative solutions to achieve multiple benefits Packet Pg. 323 8.3.a 2022 Edmonds Legislative Agenda Page 5 of 7 from integrating stormwater management and habitat protection and restoration. Champion legislation that prioritizes implementation of natural drainage systems, such as low impact development and green stormwater infrastructure, at the watershed scale. • Support efforts to address effects of climate change on salmon and salmon habitat. Bolster Resources for Infrastructure Investment Support efforts to establish dedicated funding mechanisms for critical public works (vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian transportation, utilities, stormwater, parks, etc.) infrastructure programs that help cities grow and prosper. In particular, we support the following AWC priorities: • Adopt a comprehensive transportation package that provides new resources and options for municipal transportation investment; a as • Authorize new ways to leverage public and private funding for major projects. N • Fully fund the Public Works Trust Fund N N Continue investment in the Public Works Assistance Account (PWAA), the Community Economic N Revitalization Board (CERB), and the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) M Local and State Public Health Fundine & Proerammin • COVID-19. Support federal and state efforts to fund a sustained coronavirus response including community testing, contact tracing, epidemiology, vaccine distribution, and communications. Support the Snohomish Health District's requests that the Legislature make urgent appropriations from ARPA funding at the beginning of session to allow local public health agencies to cover ongoing response expenses. • Foundational Public Health Services. Support federal and state efforts toward fully funding FPHS, with continued investments at the local level to fund additional important services. • Marijuana Tax Revenue. Support a more equitable portion of marijuana tax revenues going to local public health, counties, and cities to support substance use disorder prevention, treatment and recovery services. • Quarantine or Isolation Employment Protection. Support legislation providing the extension of employment protections for impacted individuals and caregivers in compliance with health officer quarantine and isolation orders as well as funding to Packet Pg. 324 8.3.a 2022 Edmonds Legislative Agenda Page 6of7 defray childcare expenses for parents/guardians when children must isolate or quarantine. • Housing and Health. Support legislation improving the stability, safety, quality, and affordability of housing as a means to achieving improved population health outcomes Public Defense Costs Support efforts to continue to provide a state revenue stream for therapeutic courts in courts of limited jurisdiction, interpreter reimbursement, and for funding of enhanced courthouse security. c Land Use Issues (Growth Management Act, SEPA, annexation laws, et. al.) a The City supports efforts by the Legislature related to the following land-use/environmental r issues: N • Addressing homelessness and equitable access to affordable housing through incentives and support for local efforts, without use of mandates; N CD • Placing a priority on salmon and orca recovery in land use legislation, comprehensive plan -related legislation, and environmental regulations; a • Consideration of longer comprehensive plan update cycles to account for challenges associated with the pandemic, small jurisdictions' capacity, etc.; • Related to the Growth Management Act (GMA), engage in GMA-reform discussions while seeking to secure dedicated planning funding in recognition of potential new responsibilities in areas that Edmonds and other cities can support. • Monitor and participate in discussions related to land -use regulatory reform issues in order to balance needs for reform with safeguarding our interests of encouraging appropriate development in urbanized areas and along transit corridors, while protecting agricultural, rural and open space lands. Environmental and Climate -Related Issues Monitor and support potential environmental -protection measures, including those that would enhance the Puget Sound ecosystem, including the impacts of coal and oil trains, drought management, toxics control and clean-up, as well as measures associated with climate change, crumb rubber athletic field infill, remediation of culverts under state highways, banning plastic bags, etc. Packet Pg. 325 8.3.a 2022 Edmonds Legislative Agenda Page 7 of 7 Fiscal Impacts of Legislation and Rulemaking Follow the lead of AWC and municipalities in sending a clear message to the Legislature to consider the fiscal impacts of legislation and rulemaking on local municipalities, including a check on "unfunded mandates" and "do no harm" analysis of proposed new rules or legislation. Likewise, fiscal notes accompanying legislation should include both the financial costs and benefits (currently only costs are analyzed). Fiscal Sustainability for Local Governments Continue to support efforts to ensure sufficient, stable and flexible revenue for essential city services, including equitable distribution from shared revenue sources, such as liquor and marijuana taxes, as well as tying property tax revenue growth to inflation and population to allow municipalities the local option of continuing to provide core governmental services. a� Follow/Support Other Cities', Agencies', Partners' Agendas a m r Monitor and provide support to our partner cities, agencies and other entities in their top N agenda items, where they align with our interests. 0 J N N O N Packet Pg. 326 8.3.b MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR NELSON AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIVERSITY COMMISSION VIA: ARDETH WEED, CHAIR SUBJECT: RANKED -CHOICE VOTING SUPPORT REQUEST DATE: OCTOBER 11, 2021 Background: State law currently requires that city elections be non -partisan, and whenever three or more candidates file for an office, a primary election is held on the first Tuesday in August. The top two candidates in the primary election go on to the November general election. Voter turnout in primary elections historically has been much lower than for general elections. Concerns over equitable geographic and demographic representation remain. Cities that adopted ranked -choice voting saw increases in the number of candidates of color and other minorities running for office and increased likelihood of their winning elections and representing sectors of the city whose issues have been under -represented. One alternative to our "top two" primary system is ranked -choice voting, whereby instead of choosing just one candidate to support in a given race, voters rank the candidates running in the order of their preference (e.g., 1 st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice, etc.). Using ranked - choice voting means that a separate primary is no longer necessary. More than twenty U.S. jurisdictions have adopted some version of single -winner, ranked - choice voting, including New York City (NY), Santa Fe (NM). Minneapolis (MN), Memphis (TN), Oakland (CA), Payson (UT), Takoma Park (MD), Benton County (OR), and the State of Maine. Many jurisdictions including Cambridge (MA), Eastpointe (MI), and New York City (NY) either currently or in the past used ranked -choice voting to elect their entire city council. Packet Pg. 327 8.3.b Diversity Commission Policy Recommendations Page 2of2 October 2021 Potential benefits of rank -choice voting include less contentious political campaigns. Sup- porters believe that candidates are more likely to get a high ranking on voters' ballots by playing nice with other candidates. When used for multi -member bodies, the results can lead to more diverse city councils. A single voting faction is less likely to dominate or elect all councilmembers. Election of a mem- ber using ranked -choice voting should lead to an increased voice by communities who have a traditionally had less representation, such as residents along our Highway 99 Corridor. Current Washington law does not permit ranked -choice voting. Instead it mandates the top- Mn two primary and the use of numbered positions when multiple elected officials represent the J same geography. N 0 N There was a bill in the 2021 Session of the State Legislature, which would allow local jurisdic- tions to adopt ranked -choice voting. The bill is permissive - it would allow but would not re- quire local jurisdictions to adopt ranked -choice voting. The bill is being promoted by FairVote Washington, a statewide nonpartisan organization. Although this bill did not pass in the last Legislative Session, it is expected to be taken up again in the next Legislative Ses- sion. Request: The Diversity Commission requests that the City Council review and include support for SHB 1156 in its Legislative Agenda for the 2022 Legislative Session and consider a briefing from Lisa Ayrault, Director of FairVote Washington. Packet Pg. 328 8.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/7/2021 Complaint against Council President Susan Paine for City of Edmonds Code of Ethics violation Staff Lead: Diane Buckshnis and Kristiana Johnson Department: City Council Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History Historically, the Edmonds City Council has finalized the budget between December 5th and December 16th. There is a legal mandate to finalize by year end. This complaint is against Council President Susan Paine for violating the first standard of the Code of Ethics while scheduling and managing the 2022 budget process. The very first standard is: "Be dedicated to the concepts of effective and democratic government." Council President Paine summed up her reasoning to move up the 2022 budget process in the 11/23/21 minutes as follows: "...Councilmember Distelhorst has been involved in projects with a level of diligence and appreciation for the finetuned needs that the budget deserves. Councilmember Chen is certainly a very bright man and there is no doubt he would be a strong performer for the Council, but moving the timeline a bit was the right thing to do because the right people were in place and understood the projects". This statement implies that newly elected Mr. Chen had not followed Council meetings and that his experience as a CPA, former internal and external auditor and as a minority would have no added value. She also implied that two veteran Councilmembers were not needed to be part of the final vote. Recommendation Request that the attorney to prepare a resolution sanction Council President Susan Paine for this Ethics violation. Narrative 1) The Council President scheduled a budget hearing during the time of the Council's code - required monthly Finance Committee meeting. Section 1.04.040 "Cancellation of regularly scheduled meeting" allows the Council President to cancel a meeting for certain reasons. There was no public notification or reasons given as required by code. More importantly, no content for that code -required meeting such as the September quarterly was put into the system. Packet Pg. 329 8.4 2) The Council President introduced a "new public hearing rule" on the night of the continuance. This "rule" denied any citizen the ability to comment a second time even if it was on a different aspect of the budget. This "rule" did not honor the fact that official minutes from three budget meetings were newly available to the public. As a result, citizens expecting to weigh in on the new material were then denied. 3) It is apparent that the Council President put more weight on the vote of an appointed Councilmember rather than two elected veteran Councilmembers. She suggested and scheduled a no - notice adjournment of the budget deliberation to the next day in spite of three Councilmembers having conflicts. Two Councilmembers were unable to attend and still had unvetted budget amendments and questions. 4) The Council President should not decide who is part of the budget process: that decision sits with the electorate. By moving the final budget vote from 11/23/21 to 11/16/21, the legislative participants changed from the incoming elected Councilmember to the outgoing appointed Councilmember. The parts that the other members of the simple majority played during this budgetary process may not rise to a level of a sanction; but the Council President was only able to perform these acts because of the overt support and votes from all three. The voices of the public were denied and changing the extended agenda and the adjourned meeting were not the will of the electorate. This record should reflect that Councilmembers Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Laura Johnson and former Councilmember Luke Distelhorst were complicit in this process. Packet Pg. 330