The URL can be used to link to this page

Cmd012522 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING APPROVED MINUTES January 25, 2022 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Vivian Olson, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Brook Roberts, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Dave Turley, Administrative Services Director Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director Susan McLaughlin, Dev. Serv. Director Rob English, Acting Public Works Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Pamela Randolph, WWTP Manager Megan Menkveld, Deputy Admin. Services Dir. Eric Engmann, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember L. Johnson read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: “We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.” 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely. 4. PRESENTATIONS 1. LUNAR NEW EDMONDS PROCLAMATION Mayor Nelson read a proclamation proclaiming January 29, 2022, Edmonds’ First Annual Lunar New Year celebration. 2. PROJECT UPDATE ON THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CARBON RECOVERY PROJECT Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 2 WWTP Manager Pamela Randolph reviewed: • Pathway to Sustainability, developed 2014 o High efficiency blower (phase 3) ▪ Project saves: $33,909/year and 345 tons CO2, equivalent to: - 36.5 homes’ energy use for one year - 799 barrels of oil consumed o Aeration & Blower (phase 4) ▪ Project saves $34,062/year and 264 tons CO2, equivalent to: - 27.9 homes’ energy use for one year - 611 barrels of oil consumed o Dewatering (phase 5) ▪ Project saves: $133,211/year and 537 tons CO2, equivalent to: - 56.7 homes’ energy use for one year - 1,243 barrels of oil consumed o Carbon Recovery ▪ This phase will focus on the sewage sludge incinerator efficiency. We are evaluating options to reduce operational costs and the environmental footprint. Opportunities include clean gasification and drying the biosolids to create a high-nutrient soil amendment product. • Edmonds WWTP Process Flow Diagram identifying location of Phase 3, 4, 5 and 6 • Photographs of: o Before and midpoint o Demolition o Current status of the 600 BLG o Biotower – first piece of new equipment online o Odor control and traffic on 2nd Avenue • Construction Impacts – Supply Chain and Staffing Challenges o Due to Covid 19 and supply chain impacts we have experienced significant cost overruns. ▪ Increased price of steel ▪ Long production lead times ▪ People unavailable – working remotely ▪ Increased shipping cost and timeframes ▪ Staffing for both WWTP and construction impacts ▪ Covid 19 has limited our ability to meet with our contractors face to face and build the sense of team. Successful design build projects rely on this type of synergy. • Asbestos Violation – Appeal in the Works o On December 3, 2021, the WWTP had an impromptu inspection from PSCA. o A Notice of Violation was issued due to the inspector noting that renovations had begun without an updated AHERA report. o Work was stopped until the report was obtained. o Our belief is that we followed the regulations as written. On December 29, 2021, our appeal was lodged with the Pollution Control Hearings Board. o We will continue to the work this issue in hope of having a resolution by March 2022. • Negotiation with Ameresco and DES – Potential Added Scope o Alternative 1 ▪ (Headworks Screenings Side stream) - Install a washer compactor, modify the screenings handling area and replace the man-door with a rollup door to accommodate a larger screenings roll-away dumpster. (Note – this alternate does not include the new screw conveyor for the screenings, which is addressed in Alt. #9) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 3 o Alternative 2 ▪ Add a "Packed Tower" to the emission train for the Ecoremedy package to enhance activated charcoal life expectancy. - This requires placing the activated carbon filter (ACF) outside the building. Ecoremedy will “furnish” the packed tower as a third emissions control equipment, at no additional cost to their package. - Includes GM furnishing emissions ductwork package (blue ductwork) associated with Alt.2 Packed Tower and outdoor carbon filter. o Alternative 3 ▪ (Temporary sludge loadout) Modifications and provisions for sludge loadout operations associated with temporary hauling of dewatered sludge and screenings. - Includes purchasing the necessary hoses to connect the DS pump to the wye and the hoses necessary at the loading dock for loadout, to be used for construction phase and for future outage situations. o Alternative 5 ▪ (Biochar Conveyance) Modifications and revisions necessary to retain the existing vacuum filter, vacuum filter pump and ash thickener to enhance the biochar product by extracting more moisture, thus making it a dryer and more marketable product. - Make piping provisions for bypassing the ash thickener and for bypassing the vacuum filter; these provisions will allow use of these apparatus by manual and deliberate change-over of valves by plant operators o Alternative 9 ▪ Headworks Screenings Conveyor - Upgrade screenings belt conveyor to screw conveyor in the Headworks building o Alternative 10 ▪ Architectural screen added on top of façade wall adjacent to parking lot to obscure new EcoFilter unit o Alternative 11 ▪ (Caustic tank for Nuvoda) Relocate caustic storage tank from parking lot to a new elevated space created inside the wall next to the new BioAir EcoFilter o Alternative 12 ▪ Replace the swinging gate with a sliding gate at parking lot entrance o Alternative 17 ▪ BioAir – EcoFilter Upgrade - Upgrade package for dual technology as a result of odor study • Potential Funding Sources for cost overruns, energy incentives, grants, tax savings o 2010 Plant staff began working with SNO PUD and entered into an Energy Challenge – since then we have received approximately $304,000 in PUD revenue to complete energy efficiency projects. We anticipate the Carbon Recovery project is estimated to be $20,000 - $30,000 and should have this information within the next month. o The project did receive a $255,000 grant from the Department of Commerce. We will be requesting the funds within the next month. o We are working with Lighthouse Law to determine what equipment will be deemed tax exempt due to the fact that we will soon be selling carbon rich biochar. We estimated this amount to be between $750,000 and $1 million; however the Department of Revenue will make the final assessment. • What About the Future – Nutrient Removal o The State of Washington Department of Ecology just issued the General Permit for Nutrient Removal. ▪ Increases electrical demand ▪ Increases cost of treatment, pumping and recycle flows Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 4 ▪ Reduces plant capacity ▪ Will require one more large capital project to retrofit plant for future processes o Long term discussions prior to the issuance o Current Status – On January 4, 2022, a Stipulation for partial stay of PSNGP was granted. • The work at the WWTP had to be completed to ensure a fully functional plan for the next 30 years Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Ms. Randolph for the thorough explanation. She asked if the $750,000-$1 million related to biochar would be a yearly amount or a one-time tax exemption. Ms. Randolph answered the City will not pay sales tax on equipment purchased so the $750,000-$1 million is a one time. Anything used in production of the biochar would be tax exempt such as the polymer purchased on a routine basis, equipment replacement, etc. It will depend on how the Department of Revenue (DOR) classifies it; they may say all the equipment is 100% tax exempt or only pieces of it are. The City still have to pay taxes on the BioAir, the tax exempt status is only on equipment associated with producing biochar. Councilmember Paine recalled discussions about the ability for the biochar to be sold as nutrients and fertilizer for forestry uses. She asked if that was still a potential revenue source. Ms. Randolph answered the City will be able to sell the biochar. A marketing study has been done and there are 2-3 groups in the northwest seriously considering purchasing biochar. As long as the City is selling a product, then the tax exempt status works. If the product cannot be sold and it has to be hauled somewhere, there is no tax exemption. She has also contacted people in eastern Washington interested in purchasing the biochar. She did not anticipate there would be a problem selling the biochar, but the amount of profit and the market for it is not clear because there is not a lot of biochar developed from biosolids. Councilmember Paine asked when the project is expected to be 90% complete and whether there were still impacts from shipping and supply delays. Ms. Randolph answered the last piece of equipment was delivered last week so all the equipment is on site. The plan is to have the project to the point of making biochar late March/early April. It will take a while to dial in the process so trucks may have to be partially there into April/May; she hoped not and that biochar could be produced right away, but because she did not have any experience with it, she did not want to promise they would be producing biochar by April 1st. Councilmember Paine said she would be happy to have it up and running by March or so; it is an amazing system replacement in a short period of time. Council President Olson said all her questions were related to nutrient removal and the impacts of that change. She referred to the increase in electrical demand, and asked although solar panels were not part of the original project, could they or should they be considered to meet that new electrical demand. Ms. Randolph answered solar panels are not the solution. They have looked at solar panel projects three different times in the past 5-6 years; they considered installing solar panels on the primary decks, the aeration decks to try to generate enough energy. The most they were able to generate was enough for a charging station at the pagoda for laptops. There is not enough space and if solar panels are placed on primary or secondary decks, the reflection will impact the plant’s neighbors. She summarized they have not been able to move forward with any solar projects. They looked at potential energy saving projects in the outfall, but it does not make sense due to the cost of the generator. The wastewater treatment plant’s monthly electrical requirements are pretty high. Council President Olson appreciated that that had been considered. Council President Olson referred to the 1/3 volume impact to the plant capacity over the nutrient removal, finding that highly concerning. The plant was well situated, even with the community partners, to absorb a lot of density growth and the impact to the wastewater treatment plant. She asked the length of the interlocal agreements with the plant’s partners. Ms. Randolph answered the partnership agreement is up Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 5 for renewal. Another item will be coming to council next week, a request for an extension and an amendment so that the City can discuss the impacts of the nutrients general permit with the partners. The 30 year contract has been amended, but expired in 2018. The long term agreement with King County on the Ballinger pump station expires in 2055. Council President Olson asked if there was anything regarding this investment in the amendment, recalling the partners were also investors in the infrastructure and she assumed there was some value return for them. Ms. Randolph explained the way the partnership agreement reads is that the City of Edmonds owns 51.787% of the treatment plant and the partners own the rest. The partners pay capital bills based on that percentage. When the nutrient permit comes into play, the partners are as affected as Edmonds. If Edmonds loses 50% of its capacity, they also lose 50% of their capacity. One of reason for extending the contract is have those discussions. Some partners have utilized more of their capacity than other partners so each partners’ utilization of the plant has to be considered. Edmonds owns 51% but only utilizes 48%. Ms. Randolph commented it was difficult to explain how the partnership agreement works and she offered to discuss it with councilmembers individually. Staff needs time to work with the partners and evaluate how this will affect them. If the City were to do another project for nutrient removal, the partners would be responsible for 48% of that project. Worst case is losing one-third of the capacity; the City currently only uses about 50% of the plant so there is still some room for growth but not as much as previously thought. Council President Olson commented that was the point she wanted to make, that that may need to be considered on a shorter timeline than before. The whole reason for these improvements was sustainability and although she did not have a problem with nutrient removal and its impacts, it will need to be managed in the shorter term than had been previously thought. Councilmember K. Johnson referred to comments in the presentation about increased cost of steel, supply chain problems, etc., which she assumed would result in higher costs and staff was in negotiations with Ameresco. She asked if staff would return to the council to inform whether the project can be completed within the original guaranteed amount or if additional funding would be required. Ms. Randolph answered if there is any change to the guaranteed maximum (g-max) price, they will have to come back to talk with council and explain why there is an increase and why it was not covered in the g-max price. Discussions started in August due to cost overruns and some things Ameresco does not believe were in the base scope but the City believes were. Department of Enterprise Services (DES) has gotten involved because the City is using a DES program to deliver the project. Ms. Randolph continued, in discussions with Ameresco and DES, staff has been very clear they cannot authorize any additional funds for the project; if staff is convinced additional funds are necessary, they will need to explain and try to get buy-in from the city council. There is a g-max price, and from the City’s perspective, Ameresco should deliver a turnkey project for the g-max price. There are some things that are included in original design that would result in savings for the City if they were done now versus in the future such as architectural screening for the biotower, moving the caustic tank, adding swing gates, etc. Ameresco believes there are things for which they should be able to ask for more money; staff is working through those with them and will present council with a resolution to all the issues. Councilmember K. Johnson said that is the other shoe that’s going to drop; how much is it going to cost? Ms. Randolph said they have been in discussion with the project team over the past few months and doing their best to express that a g-max price should mean a g-max price. Councilmember K. Johnson said it was good to see that progress is being made and that it is close to coming online. She expressed her appreciation for the attention to odor control. 5. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 6 COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. Marlin Phelps said on October 11, 2001, one month after the 9-11 attacks, Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Wells was shot four times while sitting in his Queen Anne home. The first person to arrive to the crime scene happened to be an off-duty police officer sitting nearby listening to a scanner. When the Seattle Police Department arrived 3½ minutes after Tom Wells’ neighbor called 911 because she heard gunshots, that man showed up at her doorstep and asked what she had seen. She told him she heard gunshots. He offered a hypothesis, that man was the lookout and was also an Edmonds cop and his partner and confidant was the shooter. Tom Wells’ murder and Edmonds have a lot in common. If he had the name of the cop that showed up first, he could tie it together. Before leaving on a recent vacation to Brazil, he did a public records request to Seattle Police Department asking for the name and department that officer worked for. Seattle Police Department’s response was that was an ongoing investigation, and they were not obliged to provide that information. Mr. Phelps said it was an Edmonds cop, now an FBI agent, who killed Tom Wells and he deserved to ask that question. Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, said no City agenda is virtuous that takes property rights, values and freedoms from its citizens. Vacant property owners have to pay Edmonds $3,000-$12,000 for every tree they need to remove before the City will allow removal. No U.S. city is entitled to take the worth of private property from citizens without just compensation. The Edmonds tree ordinance was written to save trees, not by using incentives but by taking money for trees from all property owners. Because it violates private property rights, it is not applicable to everyone yet, only to owners of vacant properties, a minority who cannot make an impactful protest without acquiring attorneys. During the pandemic, Edmonds destroyed any economically feasible use or sale of vacant properties by placing more financial strain on owners. Edmonds levies huge fines on owners for using their property and withholds permits from those complying with zoning and building codes until the City has been paid for the owners’ trees. Her family is not an unintended consequence as stated; every owner has been targeted and harmed by the tree ordinance. Ms. Ferkingstad cited a few who have spoken with her: couples who invested in and live on double lots who can no longer afford to divide and realize their retirement income, others have sold their properties at a loss, some have spent more than $200,000 to comply before ultimately paying the fines and many have just given up building in Edmonds. The arbitrary cap on tree fines is $2/square foot of land, $107,250 for their land, more than 25% of what they paid for it. To escape extortion, 50% tree retention is required. Large trees must remain 10 feet from their three smaller homes. Zero percent retention is required for multifamily developments. She asked whether Edmonds had devalued vacant properties by the worth of their trees so the City can purchase the land at a steep discount. This is wrong; Edmonds land prices are down while the cost of single family homes has skyrocketed. Low home inventory is the result of permit delays, huge fines and expensive code requirements on vacant land. Edmonds’ tree ordinance has slowed building of greatly needed single family developments. Fewer housing options means less economy and economic growth for Edmonds. The council is harming the environment by pushing out urban sprawl and consuming forests and agricultural land. She requested the council to not set the precedent of facilitating governmental takings in Edmonds and to restore to all property owners the property rights and freedoms protected by the constitution. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said utility franchises are distinct from easements. Easements are a form of property right; franchises involve franchise fees, insurance requirements and many other things. He asked Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 7 why the City of Edmonds would condition a street vacation on the provision of easements to entities that have franchises when easements are different than franchises. The minutes of the June 7, 2019 Olympic View Water and Sewer District (OVWSD) meeting document that district staff informed him that they did not have a franchise agreement with the City of Edmonds at that time. He questioned how that type of thing happened. When Edmonds City Council passed Ordinance 3506 on June 22, 2004, whose responsibility was it to keep track that the related franchise with OVWSD would expire ten years later? He has asked the City to disclose whether the 2016 city council knew that the OVWSD franchise expired over two years before the council voted to require the grant of an easement to OVWSD; that request has not been honored. When the City of Edmonds requires a utility easement be granted to the City when a street is vacated, property owners are not also required to provide compensation. Per the City code, it is either or; the City cannot require both a utility easement plus compensation. Mr. Reidy continued, the city council was told the following in 2016, while OVWSD has requested easements for their utilities within 92nd Avenue West, the City of Edmonds is not requiring any easement, thus the City should be monetarily compensated for the vacation. The City was the only entity with the authority to require an easement. The either or law is simple and easy to understand. It says the City can require compensation or the following: a grant of an easement to the City in exchange for the easement vacated. The words “to the City” are pure and clean, the words “either or” are easy to understand. As the City required over $90,000 plus the grant of an easement to a third party rather than to the City, he requested city council establish a citizen taskforce to investigate this entire matter and prepare a report for city council that includes recommended next steps. This investigation can also research how expiration of important items like franchises, the CEMP, and hearing examiner contracts can go unnoticed. He will contact Council President Olson to add formation of a citizen taskforce to a future city council agenda. Marjie Fields, Edmonds, referred to funding for Perrinville Creek included in tonight’s budget discussions, commenting while there is certainly a desperate need to fix damage done to that watershed, she was concerned about spending money on lower Perrinville Creek, dealing with the symptoms of the watershed problem which won’t help until the cause of the problem is also fixed. She acknowledged the City needed to negotiate with Lynnwood about that, but also needed to look at what could be done in Edmonds to protect the watershed. One major thing that can be done is protect Perrinville Woods from being clearcut and bulldozed for development as those trees collect massive amounts of stormwater runoff, keeping it out of Perrinville Creek. Development on the steep slopes of the property would not only greatly increase runoff but obviously send huge quantities of sediment into the creek, making the situation worse. If the City cannot figure out how to protect those woods from development, it will be very expensive in the form of increased damage to Perrinville Creek for decades to come. Once those trees are gone, they are gone. Recognizing the council has many things to consider, she requested they also pay attention to this issue. Deborah Arthur, Edmonds, said good job to the council and nice to see everyone. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. Councilmember K. Johnson requested Item 3, Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of January 18, 2022, be removed from the Consent Agenda. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 8 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 4, 2022 2. APPROVAL OF 5:45 PM COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 18, 2022 4. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 5. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT. 6. AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISEMENT OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR JOB ORDER CONTRACTING 7. APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE BLUELINE GROUP FOR THE DESIGN OF THE PHASE 13 WATERLINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT 8. AMENDMENT TO CITY’S INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH SOUTH COUNTY FIRE ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT 3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 18, 2022 Councilmember K. Johnson said the appointment of Boards and Commission states incorrectly that Laura Johnson was the Community Transit alternate when she is actually the alternate. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO CORRECT THE JANUARY 18 2022 MINUTES AS STATED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENTS TO THE JANUARY 18, 2022 MINUTES ON PAGE 42 THAT WERE DOCUMENTED IN THE EMAIL AT 6:24 P.M. FROM CITY CLERK SCOTT PASSEY. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION STUDY HR Director Neill Hoyson advised the council has reviewed the Non-Represented Employee Compensation Study and it has also been reviewed by committee and everyone has a good understanding of the information. She recalled Council President Olson had an outstanding question related to comparison. Shannon Drohman, Compensation Connections, explained the question from the last meeting was related to job matching for the Development Services Director. They looked at the job matching again; one of the matches in the Milliman Public Employees survey required professional engineer designation so that match was removed from the data collection for that job. The other matches did not have that requirement which was more reflective of the work performed and the qualifications needed for the City of Edmonds position. Removing that match decreased the overall market data for that position by about $1,000, but did not affect the salary grade placement for the job. Council President Olson thanked Ms. Drohman for reviewing the data again. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 9 Councilmember K. Johnson raised a theoretical question; it seemed the consultant evaluated each of the non-represented positions from 1-22 and as a result looked at variances between the current grade, midpoint and the market 50th percentile and came up with an average of 6.7%. However, within each pay grade, there was a high degree of variation, ranging from 4.7% over to 18.3% under. She wondered why they did not make those adjustments on the pay range rather than an overall average. Ms. Drohman said they are suggesting that both occur. The first piece is a 6% increase to the non-represented salary ranges overall, and then looking at individual job placement to see where they best fit in the salary ranges based on the market data. The second document that Councilmember K. Johnson referenced compares the pay range midpoints they are proposing to the former pay range midpoint. Councilmember K. Johnson said those are not based on job title but rather on the current grade which in her mind are two different things. Ms. Neill Hoyson explained the variances that are identified in each grade are based on the jobs that are current in those grades and the data that came back to support that change. The positions themselves in those grades are driving the recommended change and that is what is identified as the variance. She summarized it is based on the data that came back on the positions that currently sit in those ranges. Councilmember K. Johnson commented a variety of references were used to determine comparable jobs but she did not understand why there were comparator cities if they were not used. Ms. Drohman answered they are using the comparator cities’ information and supplementing it with published survey sources for some jobs. Councilmember K. Johnson said it looked like they relied on the published survey sources rather than comparator cities. Ms. Drohman said the market data that informs their recommendations includes the comparator city data. Councilmember K. Johnson said she did not see that in the presentation; they referenced all the other sources, but she did not see many comparator cities except AWC. She asked if AWC was the source for comparator cities. Ms. Drohman answered yes, explaining in the detail where it says AWC-city name, that is the comparator city data. Councilmember K. Johnson commented there are a lot of other references and it was hard for her to understand why they needed those other references when comparator cities must have equivalent jobs. Ms. Drohman answered some of the comparator cities do not have comparable job matches for some of City of Edmonds’ positions. One reasons for using published survey data is to round that out so there is comparable data for all of Edmonds’ positions. The City’s compensation policy also states additional sources of data can be considered to provide more context and information related to the larger labor market and what is happening with the City’s job. They used a mix of comparable city information and the published survey sources in alignment with the policy. Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed the policy states where it is a relevant factor, other published sources will be reviewed regionally as well as private market. At this point the City competes for labor beyond the comparator cities and are in competition for labor across the entire region with both public and private sector so it was very relevant in this study to look at those sources as well. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to wages versus benefits, noting the cost to implement the recommendation for the non-rep employees would be about $250,000. To help citizens understand, she asked for an explanation of why wages are separated from benefits and the impact on benefits if the recommendation is approved, making it more than $250,000. Ms. Neill Hoyson said wage data is used to set wages; benefit data is used to set benefit levels. In order to right-align wages to be competitive in the marketplace and continue to do the work the City needs to do for the citizens, council may make budgetary or financial decisions to potentially hold benefits stable for a while to offset some of that cost. They are both components of total compensation costs, but they must be set separately. Particularly in this case when there is a big change in wages, the council may look at benefits and decide how to maintain or adjust those to account for costs related to wage. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 10 Kathy Marek, Compensation Connections, was also present to answer questions COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ADOPT THE 2021 NON-REP COMP STUDY WITH A 6% ADJUSTMENT TO THE NON-REP SCHEDULE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RANGE CHANGES FOR THE 29 POSITIONS IDENTIFIED AS NEEDED ADJUSTMENT EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 1, 2022. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (7-0), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES. At Councilmember L. Johnson’s request, Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess (8:26-8:36 p.m.) 2. 2022 BUDGET AMENDMENTS Councilmember Buckshnis reviewed: • 2022 Budget Comments o Council knew that we would revisit the budget in 2022. o Timeliness is imperative since 2022 Budget was approved in November and now almost February o Items were left out of the budget such as the reorganization of the Municipal Court, a new uptown Satellite Office and a potential Police Department restructure which could have significant impact on the 2022 budget. o We are still in a pandemic and have economic pressures from a spike in inflation, supply shortages, three projected interest rate hikes and other concerning economic indicators. o We have local budgetary pressures from changes in the South Fire Contract and the impact on both wages and benefits from the recent compensation study. o It might be advantageous to postpone some appropriations until Council and the public can be provided more details as amendments happen quarterly. o The use of $2.1 million in unrestricted reserves in this budget should be a Council decision as to the amount and purpose and per our approved Fund Balance Policy. o These amendments came from four Council Members and this presentation is a compilation of their items. o The first section identifies decision packets that are in question of removal and the second section suggest addition to the budget. o To save time, each item will be motioned by the presenter (and after a second) any member of Council can provide reason for motion. After vetting, a vote will occur and five vote items or super majority will be highlighted. o A budget hearing is scheduled for February 1st. o A super-majority vote (five votes) is needed in order for any amendment to be moved to the budget ordinance. Councilmember L. Johnson raised a point of order, stating she has questions about the entire process. Councilmember Paine referred to the agenda memo, explaining it was put out last week and it was substantially unchanged this week. The agenda memo either needs to be substantiated or retracted as it is very personalized and violates several aspects of the code of conduct. She talked with Council President Olson last week about changing the agenda memo and either she was unable to revise it or was told it had been changed. However, no changes were made to the agenda memo other than adding approximately 20 words at the end. Her name is mentioned five times in the agenda memo and she questioned how that had anything to do with the effort to make budget amendments. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 11 Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, stating she did not understand Councilmember Paine’s point of order. Councilmember Paine said this was her complaint, the agenda memo needs to either be substantiated or retracted. The agenda memo is highly personalized, she is mentioned five times and there are wildly inappropriate mentions of other current and past councilmembers. The fourth paragraph states there wasn’t adequate time which is not true; the budget was first introduced on October 4th and it is now January 25th, there has been more than ample time for people to get their questions answered. There were over seven weeks of review and a vote taken the last week of November which was plenty of time for all the participants to participate and they did participate in abundance. She summarized this has not been an unvetted budget. Councilmember Buckshnis asked what Councilmember Paine’s point of order was. Mayor Nelson said she did not make a point of order, he called on her to speak. Councilmember Paine said the agenda memo brings up information from the prior decade. The next paragraph in the agenda memo states there is an OPMA violation which is not accurate and that she put a new hearing policy in place which is not accurate or truthful. She said having this information in an agenda memo is entirely wrong. The second to last paragraph states a simple majority passed the budget on December 17, 2021; Councilmember Paine questioned the date of December 17, 2021 as that was not a budget date. She said all budgets that go through the normal process require a simple majority to pass. The statement about a simple majority is a giant red herring. She reiterated that unless the agenda memo can be substantiated, it needed to be retracted because it violates the code of conduct which states, councilmembers have a public stage and privileged platform to show how individuals with contrasting views can have common ground, demonstrate problem-solving approaches and achieve solutions. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, THAT UNLESS THE AGENDA MEMO COULD BE SUBSTANTIATED, IT NEEDED TO BE RETRACTED BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE CODE OF CONDUCT. Councilmember Paine continued reading from the code of conduct, councilmembers shall focus discussions and debates on visions, policies and their implementation, noting the agenda memo does not do that. She continued reading from the code of conduct, no councilmembers shall dominate proceedings during council or other public meetings. This memo is not neutral and does not offer a balanced, neutral approach. The two authors of the agenda memo clearly were not thinking about the code of conduct when they wrote it. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, pointing out this was brought up at the December Finance Committee meeting and she questioned why it was being raised now when the background and history is well documented. She has yet to hear from Councilmember Paine about the December 17th meeting which she put on the agenda. Mayor Nelson asked Councilmember Buckshnis to state her point of order. Councilmember Buckshnis said this is out of order for what is happening with the agenda item which deals with amendments. Mayor Nelson said Councilmember Paine is raising an issue with the agenda item which is relevant and he ruled point not taken. Councilmember Paine continued reading from the code of conduct, that conduct should not be personalized. Mentioning councilmembers’ name eight times in the agenda memo shows it is absolutely personal and does not focus on the business of the city. She requested the agenda memo be retracted if it cannot be substantiated. There is evidence at prior council meetings that the city attorney said the OPMA rules were not violated. Councilmember L. Johnson agreed with Councilmember Paine’s statements. She expressed concerns with a number of false and misleading statements in the agenda memo. She referenced the statement, the authors of this memo have significant questions that were left unvetted which represented many citizens’ Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 12 concerns, which purposely creates a narrative that staff was not available to council which could not be further from the truth. If questions were left unvetted, it was due to choices made by councilmember, not a lack of opportunity to vet. The administrative services department kept a running list of questions and answers that were posted online and updated numerous times throughout the process, weekly and sometimes daily. In addition, staff was available to answer questions by phone, email and during council meetings which the majority of councilmembers participated in. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to another statement in the agenda memo, another noteworthy item that caused the need to reopen this 2022 budget process was that citizens felt their voices were not heard at the 11/16/21 budget continuation meeting and some contended it was not compliant with the OPMA. She pointed out the council code of conduct begins with, the city council finds that councilmembers should seek to continually improve the quality of public service and ensure public confidence and the integrity of local government and its effective, transparent, and equitable operation. The code of ethics states, we are dedicated to the highest ideals of honor and integrity in all public and personal relationships and will conduct the business of the city in a manner that is not only fair in fact, but in appearance. She was concerned with the repetitive and unsubstantiated claims of OPMA violations in two agenda memo, claims that were already addressed by the city attorney last week and this week, is purposely misleading and does not ensure public confidence in the integrity of local government and is neither fair in fact or appearance. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to the statement in the agenda memo, the use of unrestricted reserves without council notification or review is contrary to the fund balance of the city, stating the claim of without council notification is false. The council was notified in October when the administration presented the draft budget; there were no surprises and there was plenty of time to address concerns and to ask questions through email, phone or at meetings if one prioritized attendance. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to the statement in the agenda memo, no one from the administration had notified or contacted Councilmember Buckshnis of this new process of no notice adjournment. Both councilmembers were excluded from final deliberations or vetting process. Those statement are false; it has been verified that all councilmembers were notified by email, the usual council notification method, and no councilmembers were excluded although some did choose not to prioritize their attendance. She expressed concern that tonight’s discussions were based on an agenda memo full of falsehoods and by doing so, puts a stamp of approval on it and she did not approve of the agenda memo. Councilmember L. Johnson continued, a public hearing was set and one would think a public hearing would happen prior to council making decisions on amendments, but that does not appear to be the way that is being steamrolled through tonight. She fully objected to the agenda memo, requesting it be substantiated and retracted because she was not comfortable moving forward with it. Councilmember Buckshnis said when the agenda memo was proposed, then Council President corrected an error and it has been before council three times. She expressed willingness to retract the background/history, explaining the intent was to move through the amendments which everyone was aware of. Citizens have contacted councilmembers with different issues, including a probable OPMA violation and the SAO has been contacted. If councilmembers are worried about the agenda memo, she offered to take it out. There are amendments that need to be addressed and that is what this agenda item and the PowerPoint presentation is about. She will gladly rewrite the agenda memo, noting any objections could have been raised last week, but no one contacted her with any concerns which is unfortunate because she utilized information from the council minutes. Councilmember Buckshnis continued, it is true that she was not contacted prior to the no-notice adjournment meeting, the email came out at 10 p.m. that night. She suggested proceeding with the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 13 amendments; the agenda memo was only providing background/history. The narrative and recommendation are the crux of the agenda item. She has seen many agenda memos over the years that personalize and bring people’s names into the discussion. She offered to take the names out. Her intent was to provide background/history and move forward in an easy a fashion as possible. Council President Olson said she did not find the background/history section of the agenda memo factually incorrect. She preferred not to focus on the background and history and instead move forward with the amendments. This is the same exact agenda memo that was included in last week’s packet. The amendments Councilmember Buckshnis proposed, deleting the background/history from the memo and proceeding with action, would be acceptable to her if someone wanted to make that amendment. She recommended proceeding with this agenda item. Councilmember Paine agreed with Councilmember L. Johnson’s comments. She was troubled that this will be on the record, not retracted and not addressed by Council President Olson. She spoke to Council President Olson last week about the nature of the agenda memo and no changes were made. The next day, there was a letter to the editor about the need for an environment of collaboration and respect, leaving her to believe that two senior councilmembers who have been council presidents in the past, decided to put this forward without discussing it with the council president which she found troubling. She was the one who requested a public hearing and Council President Olson put that on the agenda, but now councilmembers are trying to bulldoze ahead without hearing from the public. That is not correct or in keeping with the council’s established practice. She referred to comments councilmembers have made requesting no decisions be made without hearing from the public. These are substantial changes to an established budget and she was concerned with having that discussion in advance of a public hearing. Councilmember L. Johnson said the agenda memo was published and is part of tonight’s discussion, it cannot simply be deleted. This needs to be brought forward again with an agenda memo written in good faith which this one was not. To say that is simply background/history is stating that it is accurate and she did not think it was. She suggested the city attorney weight in, pointing out the claims in the agenda memo of probable OPMA violation was huge. To simply say get on with it and not dwell on it, the agenda memo is the introduction to the subject and should provide a factual history, but in this case it is somebody’s own spin on it and it is not fact based. As a legislative body, the council should work off facts; she was offended the council was being asked to move forward with it and accept its falsehoods. She requested the city attorney weigh in on the claims of OPMA violations. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered as it pertains to the budget, he was not aware of facts that in his opinion constituted an OPMA violation. Councilmember L. Johnson recalled this question has been previously raised and addressed by Mr. Taraday. Mr. Taraday answered that is entirely possible; he did not have perfect recall of everything he has said at various council meetings in the past. He reiterated he was not aware of a OPMA violation that occurred in conjunction with the budget. Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated this same agenda memo was in the December Finance Committee packet and former Council President Paine made one correction. The information was introduced in 2021 and has been part of the public record for a long time. She was willing to retract it if councilmembers were that offended by it. No one has heard from the SAO yet about the OPMA issue related to the public hearing where a rule was created that citizens could not speak a second time. The city attorney has provided his opinion, but the SAO has not. The intent was for councilmembers to discuss and refine the proposed amendments in order for the public to weigh in at the public hearing. She was concerned objections were voiced to avoid proceeding with the agenda item. She preferred to move forward and she will include only the recommendation in next week’s agenda memo. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 14 Councilmember Chen proposed to have a public hearing next week and then vote the following week. Mayor Nelson advised there is already public hearing next week. Councilmember K. Johnson said the public hearing is scheduled two weeks from today. Councilmember Chen said it makes sense to have the public hearing first and then vote. Councilmember Buckshnis advised the public hearing is next week, February 1st. Councilmember Paine restated the motion: TO HAVE THE AGENDA MEMO STRUCK THROUGH FROM THIS WEEK’S AGENDA PACKET BECAUSE IT COULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED. Council President Olson asked if the intent was to proceed with the business associated with the agenda item if this motion was approved or were those separate and unrelated. Mr. Taraday said they are separate and unrelated; passage of the motion would not prevent the council from moving forward with considering the proposed amendments. Council President Olson recalled Councilmember Buckshnis suggested deleting the background/history. Mr. Taraday said he considered those to be similar proposals. Councilmember Paine said she did not consider them the same. Councilmember L. Johnson asked the purpose of an agenda memo. City Clerk Scott Passey said it is to introduce business before the body; it typically includes background and history if that is relevant, recommendation, narrative and any attachments that support the proposal/question. Councilmember L. Johnson asked what parts of the memo would be struck through. Councilmember Paine answered all of it. Councilmember Buckshnis said even though she quoted some parts from the minutes, she will delete the entire background/history. She suggested the council move forward with introducing the amendments tonight so citizens understand them. The council does not need to vote on the amendments tonight. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-1-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO; AND COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINING. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, FOR COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS TO INTRODUCE THE AMENDMENTS, BUT HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING NEXT WEEK AND THEN VOTE THE FOLLOWING WEEK. Council President Olson pointed out February 8th is committee night so unless a special meeting was held, it would not be possible to vote on February 8th. She expressed support for a special meeting on February 8th if other councilmembers agreed. Councilmember Paine suggested a quick reading of the amendments tonight, although she did not understand why it was necessary to go through all this again. She suggested a time limit of 25 minutes. Councilmember L. Johnson offered a friendly amendment, instead of the week following the public hearing, vote at the February 15th meeting. Councilmember K. Johnson commented this item was scheduled for one hour and the Council has not even begun yet. She suggested moving forward with the agenda item, holding the public hearing next week, and continue discussion after the public hearing. The amendments are of utmost importance and the discussion should not be delayed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 15 Council President Olson agreed, suggesting if the maker/seconder of the motion were interested in withdrawing the motion, the council could get on with reviewing the proposed amendments. There is a plan for a public hearing and voting can occur once the work on the amendments is concluded. She did not think the motion accomplished anything other than locking the council into a timeline that may/may not work. Tonight is an opportunity to introduce the amendments prior to next week’s public hearing. Councilmember Chen said the intent of his motion was not to vote tonight. The amendments could be introduced as scheduled and then have the public hearing followed by a vote with public inputs in mind which is a better procedure. Council President Olson supported the idea of not voting tonight. Councilmember Paine supported having the vote after the public hearing and expected that to happen on February 8th. The council has been on this topic for nearly 45 minutes, leaving a few more minutes of the one hour that was scheduled for this item and then the council can proceed with the agenda. Councilmember Tibbott said as the seconder of the motion, he was in favor of Councilmember Buckshnis reading the amendments tonight in preparation for a public hearing next week. He was also in favor of a special meeting following committee meetings especially if the committee meeting agendas could be adjusted and the only business item in the special meeting would be these budget amendments. He was unclear on the logistics of creating a special meeting following committee meetings as those meetings last until 9:00 p.m. Councilmember L. Johnson said in supporting the motion, it was with the understanding the council would not vote on the amendments tonight, Councilmember Buckshnis quickly reading the proposed amendments tonight, holding the public hearing as scheduled and then waiting until the next regular meeting to vote. It is extremely important and as Councilmember Tibbott said, committee nights are already full, staff will need to be present, making it a very long day for everyone and council needs to make these decisions when well rested. She requested the vote occur at the council’s next regular meeting. Councilmember Paine said she said February 8th, but she meant February 15th. Mayor Nelson restated the motion VOTE ON THE BUDGET AMENDMENTS ON FEBRUARY 8TH. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if Councilmember Chen would accept an amendment to the next regularly scheduled meeting, February 15th, versus committee night. Councilmember Chen said the departments are waiting for the council to finalize the budget so they can proceed with advertising, hiring, etc. so he did no want to delay it further. He supported scheduling a special meeting if necessary. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON; COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Buckshnis reviewed the proposed 2022 budget amendments: # 1 - REDI Manager • There was not sufficient information to support an on-going FTE. With this issue comes two motions: 1) Hire consultant to evaluate City on REDI metrics (what has already been done and what needs to be done) and propose three alternatives to accomplishing that work” and with that the allocation reduced to 70K Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 16 2) Substitute Motion: Hire REDI Manager for year one of a intended three year position to assess what is done, what needs to be done, to do the work, to train staff, and to set systems in place to carry on the work internally and with an occasional professional services contract after the three year period. #11 – One Commander FTE • Proposed organizational restructure of the Police Department should be brought forth to a council committee. Appropriation is premature. • Motion: Remove this decision packet. #13 – Body Cameras • This one will be removed as Police Chief advised it is a requirement #14 – Police Scuba Team • In the past, we had a three member dive team. While a five member team may be optimal, suggests looking for community partners to fund the service level between minimum and optimal in future years. • Motion: Decrease scuba team to three. #16 – Public Information Officer • Not sufficient support for FTE provided. • Motion: Remove this decision packet #20 – Solar Program • This is a pilot project geared towards low-income families; yet it takes approximately $13K to be part of the $5K grant program and this is not a realistic expectation. There are many state solar program that offers incentives and grants. • Motion: Remove this decision packet. #21 – Last year, a $550K appropriation was approved and $409,000 was left unspent and is now a carry forward. The City is distributing funds in household grants from ARPA as well. • Motion: Remove decision packet. #22 – New FTE position to manage existing capital projects • There is not sufficient information to support a full time FTE or how this position will manage what projects. Council committee should review to determine what exactly projects are part of this request. • Motion: Remove decision packet. #33 – FCA Assessment • Recent bonds were approved based on the previous conditions assessment report and most projects will be completed in three years. A discussion about the timing of the re-assessment should be brought forth to a Council Committee. • Motion: Remove decision packet. #34 – Carpet Cleaning • Could the City buy the carpet cleaning equipment and have our fully staffed custodial team do the twice annual carpet cleaning. There is not sufficient information to support this new expense especially when a new custodian is in the budget. • Motion: Remove the decision packet. Process can be handled via a budget amendment and Council Committee review. #35 – Vehicle purchase for Maintenance and Custodial. • Unclear as to the number of vehicles? DP 70 purchased a variety of 8 vehicles for an average of $60,625 per vehicle and no annual maintenance cost. Council should review all vehicles included in the 2022 budget to determine needs over want. • Motion: Delete the decision packet. Schedule car purchase decision be brought forth to a Council Committee. #37 – $100,000 ongoing for aging infrastructure Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 17 • The City bonded in order to address the backlog of infrastructure capital maintenance project and are unable to spend all the bonded amount this year. • Motion: Delete the decision packet. #38 – New Police perimeter fence • The cost of providing a fence or other means of securing the police area should be vetted through a committee to determine if less expensive alternatives. • Motion: Delete the decision packet. #40 – 2022 Commute Trip Reduction • During the pandemic, this seems to be an unneeded expense since many employees are working from home. An amendment can always come through after proper vetting of the PPW committee. What was the data for the 2021 program? • Motion: Delete decision packet. #41 – Purchase Message Board • Is this necessary for city work? The civic organizations that want to use them can rent them from a sign company. This is not a city function. • Motion: Delete decision packet. #47 – Yost and Seaview Assessment and Rehabilitation • This entire project has yet to be brought forth to Council and an amendment can occur in 2022 or is this part of the City Infrastructure? The numbers in the description do not match the project status. • The numbers in the description do not match the project status as Yost cost of $440K with interfund of $65K and then no cost for Seaview. But an assessment of $130K is listed with the entire project listed to be between $3.0M to $3.5M. • Motion: Delete decision packet and bring forth to Council Committee and handle through amendment process. #48 – 3-year Rate Study Consultant • The CIP/CFP should be scrubbed before we allow any review by a consulting firm since number inconsistencies have been noted. • Motion: Delete Decision Packet. #51 – Overtime • Potential estimates for pilot projects is not a sufficient reason to add overtime. Increasing the overtime appropriation should be addressed with Council Committee to look at consistency in overtime over the years. • Motion: Delete decision packet. #55 – Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Improvements • No justification for water mitigation or the phases of this stormwater project. Suggest that the stormwater aspect be clarified in the CIP/CFP process. Council review to determine costs and plans for all project as these funds potentially impact utility rates. • Motion: Delete decision packet. #60 – Perrinville Creek Projects • No information provided from the Administration (promised in 2020) when the Creek was damaged by high water flow and City blocked portions of the creek to force flow into two vaults. • Motion: Delete decision packet and bring forth budget amendment when plan is established. #61 - Green Streets and Rain Gardens • No information to support the green streets and the definition does not exist in City documents. Rain garden grants available through Snohomish County and how would the bio-retention and rain gardens should be built to reduce flooding? • Motion: Delete decision packet. #70 – New vehicles Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 18 • There are already a number of vehicles in the police and public works departments. These vehicles purchases can wait a year when Council has a better understanding of all cars needed from the B-Fund and supply shortages decrease. • Motion: Delete decision packet. #71- Vehicle charging network • Further review of this to entail creating a charging network system and data on current use of our charging stations. • Motion: Delete decision packet. #72 - Strategic Planning for optimizing the solar panel upgrade on Frances Anderson Building. • There is not sufficient information in place to understand this request. Should be vetted more fully by Council Committee to determine cost or impact of aged infrastructure. • Motion: Delete decision packet. Councilmember Buckshnis reviewed 2022 budget amendments to increase appropriations • Motion to add Municipal Court restructure to reflect impact on 2022 budget numbers (currently represented only as attachments to the budget via DP 230-22001,02, and 03) • Motion to reflect the expense of the new satellite City Hall office on HWY 99 in the 2022 budget numbers. • Motion to add $100K for the Creative District’s Fourth Avenue Corridor project design. Councilmember Buckshnis reviewed 2022 budget amendments to increase appropriations • Motion to add $60K for study of a Police Station relocation and/or City Hall relocation. • Motion to add $150K for Streetlights in the Lake Ballinger Area (CIP/CFP impact) • Motion to add the South County Fire adjustment to the budget. 3. INTRODUCTION REGARDING CODE AMENDMENT TO ECDC ENTITLED BICYCLE PARKING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Planning Manager Rob Chave introduced Senior Planner Eric Engmann, a temporary employee hired to work on code amendments. There are several amendments in the pipeline, this is the first one and there will be more in succession. Mr. Engmann previously worked in Bellevue and Seattle and is originally from Florida. Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin explained tonight’s agenda is an introduction to potential bicycle parking regulations including, 1) connection to the Comprehensive Plan goals, 2) highlights of draft amendment, and 3) a special goodbye. She reviewed: • Bike Parking Ties to Major Sustainability Goals o Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element ▪ Policy 4.1: Encourage active transportation by providing safe facilities for bicycle and pedestrians ▪ Policy 4.13: Place highest priority for improvements to bicycle facilities and installation of bike racks and lockers near schools, commercial districts, multifamily residents, recreation areas, and transit facilities o Community Sustainability Element ▪ Policy B.3: Explore and support the use of…transportation options that reduce Greenhouse gas emissions o Climate Action Plan ▪ Goal: Carbon Neutral by 2050 ▪ TR-3: Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by promoting active transportation Mr. Engmann reviewed: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 19 • Proposing new chapter in Title 17 for bicycle parking and storage o Four main components 1. Creates bike parking standards for multifamily and non-residential development 2. Separated into short term and long term parking requirements 3. Includes locational, installation and maintenance requirements (how to operate) 4. Provides definitions, calculations, and applicability standards to support new chapter • Difference between short-term and long term bicycle parking o Short term parking ▪ Less than 4 hour parking ▪ Bike rack near primary entrance ▪ Higher need with non-residential use o Long term parking ▪ More than 4 hour parking (overnight) ▪ Parked in secure on-premise space ▪ Higher need with multifamily residential use • Proposed short term bicycle parking requirement Type of use Minimum Number of Spaces Required Multiple dwelling unit 1 per 10 dwelling units Non-residential 1 per 12 vehicle parking spaces; not less than 2 spaces • Proposed long term bicycle parking requirement Type of use Minimum Number of Spaces Required Multiple dwelling units1 0.75 per unit Non-residential 1 per 25,000 square feet of floor area; not less than 2 spaces Footnote 1: multiple dwelling units with individual garages or those with ground floor units with direct outdoor access are exempt from this requirement o Edmonds bicycle advocacy group proposed increasing the non-residential to 2 per 25,000 square feet and not less than three • Standards – Multifamily examples Development Type Short Term Spaces Long Term Spaces 10 multifamily units 2 8 50 multifamily units 5 38 100 multifamily units 10 75 • Standard – Non-residential examples Development Type Short Term Spaces Long Term Spaces Smaller building 2 2-3 Medium building (25,000-50,000 square feet) ~5 2-4 Larger building (over 50,000 square feet) 13-15 3-5 • Locational and installation requirements o Visibility and illumination o Proximity to entrances o Accessibility o Minimum area requirements (18” by 60”) o Secure structures o Electrical outlets (long-term) o Accommodations for wall mountings (long-term) • Draft code review o Code draft, planning board minutes, and Edmonds bicycle advocacy group letter are included in council agenda packet Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 20 o Code update page ▪ The code updates webpage is now outline ▪ Sign up for notification list for all code updates or just this topic ▪ www.edmondswa.gov/codeupdates ▪ QR code to visit the bike parking specific page Councilmember L. Johnson referred to the statement in the agenda memo, substantially damaged or improved or if a parking lot is expanded by 50% or more and asked how the 50% or more was determined, how often parking lots were substantially damaged, improved or expanded by 50% or more, and why wouldn’t the requirement bicycle parking be required for any expansion. She referred to his comment that townhomes may be able to store onsite and asked whether the code could be written so it was not specific to townhomes but the exemption would only apply if there was an ability to store onsite case-by-case. Mr. Engmann responded 50% is seen as a major expansion. For example, an older building may add 1-2 parking spaces, should that trigger compliance with the code? Typically the standard is higher than that and addresses a major improvement. He acknowledged 50% may be too high, but the goal is not to have it be any expansion because the addition of 1-2 parking spaces may not be enough to trigger those improvements. Councilmember L. Johnson observed the intent is to meet goals and combat climate change; if there is any increase in parking spaces which increases auto usage, she felt there should be some expansion of bike parking. She summarized any expansion to accommodate more cars should trigger a requirement to also accommodate bikes. Mr. Engmann said that could be looked at that. With regard to substantial expansion, Mr. Engmann said that was discussed with the Planning Board, what method should be used. For example, when improvements are made to an existing multifamily building, the question arises at what point do they have to meet these standards. A bathroom or kitchen remodel might not require compliance. In the code, the requirement to come into compliance with the code is typically 75% improvement. The Planning Board is proposing to use the lower threshold of 50%. They looked at several examples of 50% improvement and it is a major renovation and it was felt that that would be the appropriate point to require these improvements versus smaller improvements. The building official also agreed. With regard to townhomes, Mr. Engmann agreed there could be a better way to phrase that so it is not an automatic opt out, acknowledging there may smaller townhomes that do not have space to store bikes. Councilmember Paine said this was very exciting to see this, code changes that encourage non-polluting aspects and she was glad bike parking was being proposed. She asked when it would be appropriate to have bike storage lockers, recalling the letter from bicycle advocacy group included a suggested change related to storage lockers. She noted if someone is working for 7-9 hours, they are not checking on their bike during the day unless they feel the parking is not secure. She encouraged him to take the issue of bike security seriously, noting someone losing their bike is akin to losing their car stolen if that is their sole mode of transportation. She also encouraged him to consider the numbers offered by the bicycle advocacy group as the group is comprised of regular bike riders who know their stuff. She referred to the picture of the wave pattern bike rack, noting that is the advocacy group’s least favorite bike rack design and they prefer the C-shaped rack. Councilmember Tibbott found this very interesting and looked forward to seeing its application. He referred to the City current incentives related to development of multifamily and asked if those incentives would be replaced a requirements for bicycle storage. Mr. Engmann said he was not familiar with incentives other than in one district. Councilmember Tibbott vaguely remembered while on the Planning Board including incentives for bike storage in exchange for some other feature. Mr. Chave recalled it was Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 21 part of the incentives in the Westgate zone. Councilmember Tibbott said he would hate to see the incentive go away, yet he saw the value of requiring bike storage. Councilmember Tibbott pointed out the impact of bike racks on walkways. The proposal refers to installation on private property and he asked whether bike racks downtown or in front of other commercial space that might take up public walkway space were addressed in the code. Mr. Engmann answered this affects development on private property; there are different standards on public property. Councilmember K. Johnson challenged some of standards, relaying there are standards for multifamily dwelling units in areas where there is not safe bicycle access. For example, the presentation mentioned 75 long term and 10 short term spaces for a 100 unit multifamily building on Highway 99, but there isn’t access to the Swift Line or north-south access on Highway 99. There is the interurban trail and east-west bicycle routes, but if long and short term spaces are required, the building needs to connect to a usable bicycle network. It doesn’t make sense to encourage bicycle use in areas where people cannot safely ride a bike. Mr. Engmann suggested that was a philosophical question. Councilmember K. Johnson agreed it was philosophical, but was related to the redevelopment of Highway 99, space allocated in the right-of-way and the standards the City is encouraging. It takes the theoretical and attaches it to reality and she saw a disconnect. Ms. McLaughlin said one of challenges, chicken before the egg, is building out an entire city network with protected, all ages and abilities bicycle facilities. That is a goal to become carbon neutral, but the City does not have the capital funding to do that. There are all sorts of riders, some are very comfortable riding in traffic and do not need a protected facility. Best practice facilities for all ages and abilities are protected; but to preclude the ability to store a bike for people who are comfortable on a standard roadway would go against progress toward climate goals. Councilmember K. Johnson challenged that, commenting in the development of networks, bicycles have to be considered as a mode of transportation. There is nothing that prohibits bicycles on those highways, but they are not safe unless they are planned for. She saw a disconnect and felt the City should do both; if there is a requirement for long and short term spaces, there should also be safe access to Swift, the Park & Ride and north-south travel. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if there were statistics to support the requirements, anticipating there would be concern from builders, people who do not need bikes and want parking instead. She asked if a public hearing will be held. Mr. Engmann said there will be a public hearing. In developing code amendments, consideration is given to what other cities including surrounding cities have done, best practices, etc. The Master Builders Association and other builder groups are also consulted for feedback. The proposed standards are used in a lot of surrounding cities. Typical best practice is between ½ - ¾ space per unit which is common in the Puget Sound region. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if it was appropriate to have that requirement for every unit and was that saying that bikes were equivalent to cars, noting the requirement for vehicle parking was one space/unit. Builders are required to provide one parking space per unit and additional space for bike storage. Mr. Engmann answered bike storage is usually much smaller spaces, long term storage is usually in a secure room with bicycle mounts on the walls, etc. and is not equivalent to a parking space. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO EXTEND TO 10:40 P.M. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Chen asked if ADA access was considered. Mr. Engmann answered ADA is required for any new construction, walkways and entrances and safe passage to the space. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 22 Council President Olson commented she was thrilled to see the QR code and anticipated citizens were as well. Having a code update page and being on the notification list for updates will excite many citizens. In the interest of time, she will submit her comments via email. Ms. McLaughlin displayed the following: Thank you to Rob Chave for 30 years of service to Edmonds Last day January 31 His wit, experience and leadership will be missed by all Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Rob Chave for the time he has given to the City and all his work over the years. She had many stories and was very happy for him. Mr. Chave said it has been pleasure to work for Edmonds. One of the nice things about a small city is getting o do a lot of things which has Edmonds allowed him to do. Thirty years is a long time and now feels like the right time. A number of people have left the City over the past 1-2 years, and he was thinking they must know something he doesn’t. After looking into it, he decided he would be stupid if he didn’t follow them so he is retiring. He wished everyone well in continuing to serve and support Edmonds as it evolves and prospers in the future. The City is in good hands between the mayor, council and dedicated staff who work hard for the City and deserve all the gratitude they can get. 4. ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SYSTEM (ERP) REPLACEMENT Deputy Administrative Services Director Megan Menkveld introduced herself to council. She reviewed: • Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System o General Ledger (GL) ▪ Financial statements ▪ Capital ▪ Accounts payable/receivable ▪ Budget o Payroll & HRIS ▪ Position control ▪ “Hire to Retire” ▪ Timekeeping (pay codes) ▪ Benefits ▪ Employee self-service o Utility Billing o Other (outside scope) ▪ Permitting (TrackIt) ▪ Procurement (N/A for Edmonds) • The existing ERP solution, Eden went live in 2001 (20 years old). It is now being phased out by Tyler Technologies. o Tyler Technologies no longer sells Eden to new customers. o Tyler no longer invests in improvements to the software. Minimally they still provide security updates, software patches, and changes due to new regulatory requirements. o Tyler has indicated they will continue to support the product, but it will eventually become technologically obsolete due to the operating system it runs on, the hardware it uses, or changes to the language (code) used to program the software. o Tyler has a new product that customers can opt for called Munis. • Traditional Option (One Service Agreement) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 23 • OpenGov Budget Suite Option (Potentially Two Service Agreements) • ERP System Options 1. Only OpenGov (12 to 15 months) 2. Only Munis (24 to 8 months) o Or other ERP 3. OpenGov Budget plus Munis ERP o Budget Suite (5 months) o ERP (x months) • Examples of OpenGov Budget and Reporting Suite • Considerations: Level of Importance Budget Suite ERP 1. Operational Risk Management o Eden will become non-operational Low High 2. State of Emergency o ARPA Funding o Remote Working o Availability of Information High High 3. Market Conditions o Eden customers all need to replace system at the same time o “Great Resignation” N/A High 4. City Staff Resources o Leanly staffed in Finance and IT o Requires other departments’ key staff time o Competing projects and priorities within and between departments High High 5. ERP Customer References and Feedback High High • Considerations: ARPA (Jeff Taraday opinion forthcoming) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 24 o ARPA: American Rescue Plan Act – Coronavirus State and Fiscal Recovery Funds: A subset of ARPA o 2 CFR Part 35 | II. Eligible Uses | A. Public Health and Economic Impacts ▪ Purpose is to “Authorize the use of payments from the Fiscal Recovery Funds to respond to the public health emergency with respect to COVID-19... ▪ Must be in response to the disease itself... o Mt. Vernon, WA (12/08/2021) City council agenda memo – entire ERP ▪ Staff proposes utilizing American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding to replace our current financial software to use this electronic software that will also allow transparency. This expense meets the criteria of using these funds since the purchase and integration of OpenGov Cloud ERP software mitigates employee exposure to events like COVID-19 by providing a software solution that establishes a telework infrastructure, council access, and provides a tool for better communication and public access to the final budget. It allows staff to input, review and approve financial data remotely and minimizes physical contact o Puyallup, WA (08/24/2021) City council agenda memo – Budget Suite only ▪ Proposed use of ARPA funding was presented to Council on July 13, 2021. ▪ Subject: ▪ Approve a five-year contract with OpenGov for budgeting and transparency software. ▪ Fiscal Impacts: ▪ Utilize ARPA funding (revenue losses) for the initial five-year contract, then transition ▪ to the regular IT operating budget for ongoing annual subscription fees. • Considerations: RFP Waiver (Jeff Taraday opinion forthcoming) o Would need to hire project manager/consultant to write and execute a product RFP o Both the preparation of the proposal and response are technical and detailed, a lengthy process. OpenGov typically does not respond to RFPs for those reasons. o OpenGov is on the WA State list of National Association of State Procurement Officials (NASPO) vendors o There are realistically only three products on the market that make sense for o Edmonds. ▪ Tyler Munis ▪ Springbrook (no response) ▪ OpenGov o Other cities have followed scientific methods in their product comparison. o RCW Exception ▪ Uniform exemptions to competitive bidding requirements (39.04.280 RCW) 1. Purchases that are clearly and legitimately limited to a single source of supply (Sole Source Vendor): 2. Purchases involving special facilities or market conditions (auction) 3. Surplus Property (surplus property from another government 4. Purchases in the event of an emergency 5. Interlocal Agreements (State standard contracts) 6. Competitive Negotiations Competitive negotiation can be used as an alternative to the competitive 7. bidding procedures for the acquisition of electronic data processing and telecommunications systems; 8. energy saving or energy related equipment or services; or when it is determined in writing that the use 9. of competitive bidding is neither practical nor advantageous to the City. o Menlo Park, CA (City Council 09/22/2020) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 25 ▪ The rapid switch to remote work due to the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the limitations of the current system and necessitated a more rapid adoption schedule. Further complicating matters, the workload requirements of the annual independent audit, preparation of financial statements, and preparation of the annual budget creates a relatively narrow window of potential “go-live” times. ▪ Staff recommends that the City Council waive formal bid requirements and authorize the city manager to enter into a five-year agreement with OpenGov for financial accounting software-as-a- service (SaaS) • OpenGov Budget & Reporting Suite o Accessible to Limitless Users o The only Modern Cloud ERP for local government o Future-proof your government’s most important software investment by choosing the only modern cloud ERP designed to unify and automate the many mission-critical process of local government o Example of City Manager Dashboard on OpenGov versus Eden • OpenGov Budget & Reporting Suite Public Feedback o Ashland, OR ▪ Both an Online Budget Book and pdf version of the book were put online for the public. After several months, the pdf received about 5 downloads and the Online Budget Book had over 1,000 users. ▪ The Finance Director said that residents have used information from the Online Budget Book and Transparency Portal during council meetings. In one example, a resident was making claims about how funds were being mismanaged and giving wrong numbers to support his claim. Another resident went to the City website and found the correct numbers in the meeting. o Minneapolis, MN ▪ Budget-watchers routinely expressed appreciation for the level of financial transparency on the website. There was also a notable increase in the level of public debate around the budget. ▪ Video instructions and on-screen navigation help available so they can do as much or as little as they can. • Recommendation: 1. Phased Implementation Starting Now 2. Waiver of RFP’s 3. Do not need RFP for OpenGov budget suite 4. Meanwhile, vet entire ERP o Budget Suite Now o ERP Later ▪ Remote Work ▪ Select Project Manager ▪ Accessibility ▪ Evaluate Products ▪ ARPA ▪ Plan for human resources Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 26 ▪ Transparency ▪ Plan for change management ▪ No change to Eden process for staff (besides budget) ▪ Can attach to any ERP • Cost and Budget Impacts o Billing Frequency: Annual o Payment Terms: Net 30 SOFTWARE SERVICES Product/Services Start Date End Date Annual Fee Budgeting & Planning Dashboards, Financial Integration, Open Town Hall, Operating & Capital Budgeting, Reporting & Analytics, Stories, Transparency, Workforce Planning 02/02/2022 01/31/2027 $67,822.00 Software Annual Total $67,822.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Product/Services Start Date Professional Services Deployment – Prepaid 02/02/2022 $55,500.00 Services Total Amount $55,000.00 • Billing/Service Periods Period 1 February 1, 2022 $123,322 Period 2 February 1, 2023 $67,822 Period 3 February 1, 2024 $67,822 Period 4 February 1, 2025 $67,822 Period 5 February 1, 2026 $67,822 Total for 5 year contract $394,610 • Comparison to NASPO • City of Edmonds ARPA Funds Appropriation Schedule o Most than adequate to cover the cost • Next Steps o January 25, 2022 ▪ Full Council Presentation ▪ Waiver of RFP’s ▪ OpenGov Budget Suite w/ Agreement o February 1, 2022 ▪ Approve Waiver of RFP’s ▪ Mayor signature for OpenGov Budget Suite Agreement Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 27 o March 8, 2022Finance Committee ▪ ERP evaluation status ▪ Project manager search status ▪ Recommendation for product selection & project manager ▪ Next steps with full council Councilmember Buckshnis advised Ms. Menkveld presented to the Finance Committee in December and January. She suggested the council also approve the use of ARPA Funds. She was ready to vote tonight, but will wait until next week. She commended Ms. Menkveld for all her hard work. Councilmember Paine asked if a decision was made to waive the RFP requirement, what time delays were anticipated if that were challenged. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said as mentioned in the presentation, they are still looking at those issues and he was not ready to provide an opinion yet. 9. REPORTS ON BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS 1. COUNCIL COMMITTEE MINUTES 10. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson encouraged everyone to check out the first ever Edmonds Lunar New Year celebration on Saturday. There will be activities all day on Highway 99, a movie, etc. Further information is available at www.lunarnewyearedmonds.com. Mayor Nelson recognized Rob Chave’s long and dedicated service. He has been the go-to for decades, is a class act and someone who does not rattle easily. He first met Mr. Chave when he was on the Planning Board and found him to be a bottomless pit of knowledge and institutional history of anything and everything related to planning. He will be greatly missed, he greatly appreciated his service to the City and wished him all the best. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Chen said he was very excited about the Chinese New Year celebration. He plans to attend the activities including the lion dance and Kung Fu demonstration by Master Leon’s NW Kung Fu and Martial Arts Team. Those are not only entertaining, but a good demonstration about culture, and discipline and other great qualities. He relayed he had heard that the activities originally scheduled for 10:30 a.m. on Highway 99 had been canceled because the church had a few COVID cases and the church elders felt it best to cancel those activities. Councilmember Chen thanked Rob Chave for his service to the City. His interactions with him included his presentation tonight and the Historic Preservation Commission’s calendar that he has learned a lot from. He wished him happy retirement. Councilmember Paine extended her best wishes to Rob Chave, commenting he has been a great source of information for her. She anticipated he will enjoy retirement, commenting it can be a lot of fun. She hoped people had an opportunity to enjoy Lunar New Year celebration in Edmonds. She encouraged people to use the COVID tests that were sent out as COVID numbers are still elevated and the hospitals are still pretty full. She encouraged voters to check out the resources and vote on the school levy. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the time she, Mr. Chave and Lora Petso went to Engel’s for a beer. She wished him a great retirement, commenting she was looking forward to retiring soon herself. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes January 25, 2022 Page 28 Councilmember Buckshnis announced the passing of long time Rotarian Sharalyn Ramm on Sunday. Ms. Ramm got her involved with the CASA gift giving program that she now oversees and will be missed. Councilmember Tibbott wished Rob Chave the best in his retirement. He recall the Planning Board would get deep into the weeds during their discussion and would look to Mr. Chave to help dig them out. He appreciated the countless ways he has participated in the look and design of the City and assured he would be remembered and missed. Councilmember Tibbott looked forward to Chinese New Year, especially the food. Council President Olson relayed Student Representative Brooks’ good night as he had to leave the meeting early. She wished Sharalyn Ramm rest in peace, noting that was sad news to hear. She thanked Rob Chave for his service to the City and extended her best wishes to him on his retirement. Councilmember L. Johnson relayed her excitement at the City’s first official recognition of Lunar New Year, the Year of the Tiger. She looked forward to watching one of the two lion dances and seeing Caitlin Chung’s artwork on the perimeter fence at the Frances Anderson Center. She extended her thanks and appreciation to Rob Chave for his 30 years of dedicated service, stating she enjoyed working with him and getting to know him when she served on the Historic Preservation Commission. She wished him the best in his new adventure. Councilmember K. Johnson wished Rob Chave happy trails, anticipating he will enjoy retirement. She thanked him for his service to the City for the past three decades, commenting she had enjoyed working with him on the Historic Preservation Commission, her favorite council assignment. She was sorry to hear about the passing of Sharalyn Ramm. She wished everyone a Happy Lunar New Year, the Year of the Tiger. 12. ADJOURN With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 10:36 p.m. ____ ____ MICHAEL NELSON, MAYOR SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK