Cmd020822 spec mtg
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
February 8, 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
Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., Cultural Arts & Human
Services Director
Susan McLaughlin, Dev. Serv. Director
Shannon Burley, Deputy Parks, Rec., Cultural
Arts & Human Services Director
Emily Wagener, Human Resources Analyst
Thom Sullivan, Facilities manager
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 8:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The
meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Chen read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: “We acknowledge the
original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes,
who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their
sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land
and water.”
3. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely.
4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 2
Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, speaking in regard to the tree ordinance, said in 2017 her husband went to
Edmonds City Planning to ask about a property they were looking at with her parents to build homes for
themselves to downsize. He was told it was possible to divide the property into four parcels; it is zoned R-
12. They paid a geotech to survey the property and ensure it was not in a critical area and he confirmed it
was all hardpan soil with no risk of slides. They purchased the property; they own 1.2 acres with 172 trees,
a 5 minute walk from 108 acres of dense forest called Meadowdale Beach Park. Next, they were told by
the planning department that only three lots would be allowed and it would be easier to divide without a
small critical area on the southwest corner. Confirming with the City and the map they provided, they
transferred that corner to their neighbor. Since then, they have been going through the division process,
paying the necessary professionals $125,000 so far. Just as their engineers were to submit their application,
the council placed a 6-month moratorium on applications. The council then voted for the tree ordinance,
requiring property owners to pay the City the value of their own trees needing removal, $3,000-$12,000 per
tree, $250,000 before they could remove trees to build their homes. Council later put a limit on the tree
extortion at $2/square foot which is over $107,000 for their land with an exemption of payment if 50% of
the trees are retained.
Ms. Ferkingstad continued, they have paid engineers and arborists twice to comply with the new
regulations. When they submitted their application a year later, retaining 50% of the trees, they received a
new request, a tree appraisal by an arborist for every tree even while retaining 50%, $300-$400 per tree
totaling $50,000-$60,000. The City map has now changed to show the only place there isn’t a critical area
in the southwest corner of their property, the parcel they gave to their neighbor. Edmonds Planning
Department is not working in good faith. On August 24th, when the council learned the tree ordinance
couldn’t immediately apply to all homeowners, Mr. Chave replied that a lengthy public outreach is critical
before bringing forward a tree code that addresses what happens on private property. She questioned why
the tree ordinance was enforced on private property owners applying to divide their properties. Extorting
hundreds of thousands from Edmonds land owners before they can use their property is an illegal
infringement. It can be looked up on Google if Mr. Taraday won’t tell the council. She suggested they also
look up what an acre of timber is worth, $1800. She urged the council not to apply this extortion to other
homeowners and to rescind the illegal ordinance.
Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, spoke regarding the budget amendments. With regard to the REDI program
manager, she was deeply frustrated by the council’s conversation last week, many members willing to say
that they did not understand what the REDI program manager would do and only one willing to phrase their
concerns in the form of a question to staff. She questioned why council did not have the REDI manager
position that was available months ago and why City staff doesn’t resend it to council every day if that is
needed. This is too an important to be a matter of miscommunication. Delaying the REDI program manager
even a year will have significant negative impacts. Planning for the comprehensive plan is happening now,
delaying the REDI program manager will lower the City’s ability to comprehensively incorporate equity
and consider all Edmonds communities in a document that will have lasting impacts for years to come. An
anti-displacement strategy needs to be developed and implemented now ahead of the comprehensive plan
and concurrent with revitalization plans if the City wants to maintain diversity in the SR 99 corridor. While
racism may be a matter of the heart, the solution is not. The solution is institutionalizing practices and
procedures that equitably invest in all communities. Focusing on individual training is not the same as
accountability of action and progress is not the same as equity. Removing the FTE position for the REDI
program manager in this budget is a big step backwards.
With regard to parks, Ms. Seitz said she has been listening to the PROS Plan planning for a while and each
group of supporters for the marsh, the waterfront, the walkway, the Creative District, the beautification
program, and the dive park always say how much these investments benefit the Edmonds economy. A more
accurate statement would be that it benefits downtown businesses. There are numerous commercial areas,
Westgate, Five Corners, Firdale, and the commercial center on SR 99 which she doubted would generate
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 3
any significant commercial activity from these investments that are often claimed to be central to the City’s
economy. There are over 108 acres of total park open space investments downtown, a total which does not
include the beautification program, Creative District or walkway. She questioned when it would be enough
and urged the council to let the PROS Plan weigh the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Plan against other
investments. She supported investments in a public information officer, the transition of a part-time contract
project manager to a project manager/planner FTE, any needed expense for the new satellite office on
Highway 99, study of the relocation of the police station and/or city hall to a location that is more central
to the City’s population and commercial center and improved lighting for the Lake Ballinger area.
Patrick Doherty commented on the public information officer (PIO), a proposal he made in the budget
that was approved last fall. In 2019 the half-time PIO position was created for the 2020 year as a pilot to
test the need for and viability of a PIO position for Edmonds. At the time, he advocated for a full-time PIO
as he came from a municipality that had a full-time PIO and saw that most cities Edmonds’ size had full-
time PIOs, but in the spirit of piloting new ideas, it was proposed as half-time to start. It was clear during
2020 that a half-time PIO was not sufficient to meet the expectations for the public, the press, other
departments, the mayor and the department director. He described why he felt a full-time PIO was
necessary. First, emerging and important business through the City arises daily and sometimes hourly and
a key staff person must be available during regular business hours and even after to address the public
information components of issues. Second, the press expects someone at city hall is available and accessible
at essentially all times to field inquiries, provide important information, etc.
Mr. Doherty continued, the City often receives inquiries after hours, on weekends, etc. It is not an
unreasonable expectation; this is what the press expects and receives from other municipal governments.
Public information including releases, media posts, blog posts, etc. can require review by multiple parties
before publication which can take a full day or more. If the PIO is off the clock by noon, the director (him
during the years this position existed) has to pick up the pieces and put on the PIO hat for the rest of the
day or even a full day, after hours or on weekends. He had to do that many times as the director, taking him
away from other important duties and sometimes creating problems associated with too many cooks in the
kitchen Lastly, a full-time PIO will be able to do more than simply react to emerging issues which is
essentially what half-time allows, but also allow comprehensive, strategic citywide communications
support and planning for a comprehensive, strategic communication engagement. He summarized he hoped
this explanation would provide some support for the continued approval of the full-time position.
Luke Distelhorst, Edmonds, commented on the unprecedented budget cuts and the harassment of City
staff by certain councilmembers. The 2022 budget was developed with over 6 months of deliberation,
consultation with residents and City staff, and three public hearings. Edmonds was the only city he was
aware of with councilmembers trying to defund an approved budget. This is not good governance and is
not normal. It is certain councilmembers intentionally defunding items that support lower income residents,
that address environmental justice and police accountability, and that favor the haves and not the have-nots.
Second, it is concerning that the City has lost a number of directors since the November election and it was
his understanding key staff have also been lost in public works as well as planning and development
services. Additionally, council did not renew the contract of the legislative aide and he hoped the council
president would address why. As someone who worked closely with the legislative aide for the last two
years and provided input into their performance review both years, he was concerned the City may be
opening itself to claims of workplace harassment and future legal action. If staff is not supported and
respected as professionals, it impacts their ability to provide service to the City’s 43,000 residents. He
sincerely hoped councilmembers would follow the council code of conduct and stay far away from staffing
issues which under state law are explicitly the responsibility of the City’s administration.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, spoke about the code of ethics, recalling at the council retreat in 2012, the city
council decided to make the code of ethics a priority. A critical element of a functional code of ethics is an
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 4
enforcement board; most cities put together an independent board to review ethics matters, they counsel,
mediate and help guide city government toward more ethical, better behavior. The city council worked on
a code of ethics for several years; it was discussed at many meetings in 2012, 2013, and 2014. In late 2014
it was suggested in a committee meeting that enforcement be adopted under a separate policy. At the start
of 2015, the task was assigned to two councilmembers and they worked hard on it and developed what
appeared to be a good code of ethics that came to city council on June 2, 2015. However, the item on the
agenda was not even discussed; a totally different code of ethics was voted on and the councilmember who
put it forth, the council president at that time, apparently had her votes lined up because the people that
voted with her didn’t even explain why they were voting for a smaller code of ethics than the one in the
agenda packet.
Mr. Reidy continued, on that very same night, city council violated the state law that requires public
hearings for interim zoning ordinances within 60 days of passage. That law was flat-out broken like it didn’t
matter. Laws do matter and the lack of respect for laws is a huge problem. The next morning he sent an
email saying the council broke a state law, the same night they adopted a code of ethics. The council
president forwarded it to the mayor at the time, stating this is why Storm and I put it together this way. She
was talking about Strom Peterson, but Strom Peterson did not have a role in it as he had been off council
for months. Mr. Reidy recommended the council take a good hard look at the code of ethics, figure out
what is missing from it, make sure it is a complete code of ethics and establish an independent board to
help enforce the code of ethics so all can pursue better government.
Deborah Arthur, Edmonds, said she did not like the idea of [the City partnering on a playground at]
Sherwood Elementary School. Although a really nice place, it is 2½ miles from Five Corners downhill. She
commented on other parks such as Yost, noting she was talking about a park with playground and shelters
where families could go and get sun. The idea of access after 4 p.m. when it is dark by 5 in the winter seems
ridiculous. There would be little time to use the playground by the time school was out, kids were picked
up and someone drove 2½ miles from Five Corners or other locations. She noted it was nice of Sherwood
to offer, but she suggested finding three tear downs close to Yost Park and building a playground. She
commented on trees that could remain on those sites.
(Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.)
6. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 2022 ADOPTED CITY BUDGET
Councilmember Buckshnis said the intent was to keep this simple and expedite it if possible. She suggested
asking if there were any comments on the proposed amendments and if there were no questions, she would
open it to the floor for a motion. She reminded according to Robert’s Rules, councilmembers should only
speak twice. She hoped to get through all the amendments tonight so this could be resolved quickly.
Councilmember L. Johnson said before this process begins, it is important to address claims regarding
Resolution 1433, the Fund Balance Reserve Policy. Some have continued to willfully misrepresent the
policy and she believed it was important to clarify it before moving on since decisions would be made based
on available funds.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, this item is about the 2022 budget amendment. If
Councilmember L. Johnson needed to have an explanation about the Fund Balance Policy, she could have
addressed it earlier in an email and shared it with council. Everyone is aware of what has been going on
and she would like to just handle the amendments. It is unknown how many will be approved so she
preferred to follow the order of agenda which was to discuss the budget amendments. Mayor Nelson said
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 5
Exhibit C on the agenda states 2022 budget amendments Fund Balance Reserve so it is actually on the
agenda so Councilmember L. Johnson’s comment is appropriate.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained at the request of a councilmember and a vote of 4-2-1, the entire
agenda memo was blanked out. When this is concluded, she will provide a substantiated one. She has not
changed the agenda packet because then she would be accused of removing items. The council is here to
address the budget amendments, not the Fund Balance or who has what opinion, what one person believes
or another person believes, it is only to address the amendments.
Councilmember L. Johnson raised a point of order, stating Councilmember Buckshnis was going on and on
and she should have an opportunity to rebut. Mayor Nelson said as the chair, he is ruling based on the
exhibits, the Fund Balance Reserve is an exhibit for the item under discussion so it does seem to fall within
the purview. He ruled that it was appropriate for Councilmember L. Johnson to proceed with her question.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she wanted that put to a vote of the council. City Clerk Scott Passey
explained the motion would be to appeal the ruling of the chair, the council would vote and a majority vote
would remove the ruling.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON,
TO APPEAL THE RULING OF THE CHAIR.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained the council did not need to discuss Fund Balance Policy as the council
is here to discuss the 2022 amendments which have nothing to do with the Fund Balance Policy at this time.
Councilmember L. Johnson said councilmembers are being asked to vote on amendments to the budget.
One of the things put forward in letters to the editor and was included as part of the amendments was
reference to the fund balance. She believed she had a full understanding of it, but would like clarification
from the director to ensure everyone is on the same page and that her understanding was correct before
moving on with voting on items related to the budget. Given that it is part of the agenda and directly relates
to the budget items, that clarification should be provided.
Councilmember Paine referred to page 3 of the agenda packet which states, we have local budgetary
pressures from changes in the South Fire Contract, impacts on wages and maybe benefits from the recent
compensation study. The topic is raised in the documents the council is reviewing and the council would
be remiss if they did not also address this because the fund balance and claims of budgetary pressure are
absolutely part of the whole discussion. She summarized it needed to be addressed foremost.
Council President Olson said the council needed to keep the discussion exclusively on whether to overturn
the mayor’s ruling. She was eager to get onto the business at hand, did not disagree with the mayor’s ruling,
and supported continuing the conversation about the fund balance.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT
AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember L. Johnson continued, in reviewing Resolution 1433, adoption of the Fund Balance Policy
Reserve, there are numerous parts that list the various portions of the fund balance such as non-spendable,
restricted, committed, assigned and unassigned. The fund balance has to do with reserves that must be kept
aside. It was her understanding the budget was not touching any emergency reserves. Given the
misinformation going around, she asked Administrative Service Director Dave Turley to speak to this. Mr.
Turley answered that is a big question and he was not sure how to approach it. Packet page 4 states the use
of $2.1 million in unrestricted reserves in this budget should be a council decision as to the amount and
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 6
purpose – per council approved Fund Balance Policy. He did not think the Fund Balance Policy was clearly
written but he did not agree with the comment on packet page 4 and did not think the budget used $2.1
million in unrestricted reserves. The December financial statements show the General Fund is $15,509,095
and of that, $7.5M is reserves. That is part of what goes into the 20% policy. Above the $7.5M, there is
$8,015,763 that represents unrestricted fund balance that can be used for pretty much anything. He
concluded that contradicts the statement on packet page 4 that the budget uses unrestricted reserves and
needs to be approved by council
Councilmember L. Johnson stated the overall objective of the Fund Policy Reserve Management Policy is
to define that portion of the fund balance that is unavailable to support the current budget. The unassigned
fund balance comprises the residual classification of the General Fund and includes amounts not contained
in other classifications. Unassigned amounts are available for any purpose and represents the residual
amount of the fund balance that has not been restricted, committed or assigned. The council has heard
before that the fund balance is quite a bit over what is required by law and a cushion beyond that. She
recalled Mr. Turley’s past comments about good policy concerning what is done with taxes, what these
funds actually represent and asked him to comment on that.
Mr. Turley explained a lot of the comments he receives imply the City should act like a for-profit business
and should always have more revenues than expenses, should underbudget revenues, and the fund balance
should continue to grow like the City is a profit center. In actuality, residents are taxed with the intent of
spending that money to provide goods and services to benefit them. To continue to build up fund balance
means the City is taxing people and not spending the money on things to better the community or citizens’
lives which is the purpose of local government.
Councilmember L. Johnson relayed her understanding by law the City was to have 16% and asked how
much the City had now. Mr. Turley answered per policy, the City needs to maintain 20% and is currently
at 37%. Councilmember L. Johnson relayed her understanding that the 20% was 16% in one fund and 4%
to another. Mr. Turley agreed. Councilmember L. Johnson summarized the City had almost double what
was required by policy.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed the December numbers presented tonight were very favorable. She
reiterated the council needs to move forward with considering these amendments because they deal with
issues related to economic instability and inflation.
Council President Olson referred to packet page 26, Limitations on Fund Use which when the City is over
the amount it needs to have, the funds should be used on one-time non-reoccurring expenditures and/or
capital projects. The discussion she has heard is concern with spending that on staff and other recurring
expenses. She was also in favor of moving on.
Councilmember Paine said, after listening in on the Finance Committee meeting tonight, she learned the
City is expecting to have the same level of REET funds in the coming year, which support the General
Fund. Sales tax revenues also continue to increase which go straight into the General Fund. It doesn’t appear
the City is expecting any decrease in REET funds. At end the of 2021 REET revenue was close to $1.5M
and there will also be additional funds collected this year. It is irresponsible to not properly assign these
funds to projects for the betterment of the City. She asked if REET was expected to be $1.5M in the coming
year.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, commenting this agenda item was not about forecasting
for the 2023 or 2022 budget. The intent was to review and discuss some of the 2022 budget amendments
that were not addressed by some councilmembers. She clarified her point of order was related to the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 7
comments about financial forecasting in 2022 and 2023 instead of amendments to the budget. Mayor Nelson
agreed discussion should be kept to the topic to the fund balance.
Councilmember Chen encouraged the council to keep their eyes on the ball and stop the filibuster. It is now
February and the departments are waiting for the council to finalize the budget so they can move on with
the business. Continued delay is not good for the City. He said the notion that if the City had money, it
needed to be spent was not the right logic. Of course the council wants to fund the City so the citizens can
benefit from the taxes they pay, but the council needs to focus and move on.
Councilmember K. Johnson agreed with Councilmember Chen and added clarification. In 2008 the City
had a financial crisis and could not pay its employees and furloughs and 10% across board cuts were
necessary. As a result, Mr. Turley, she and others were on a Long Range Financial planning group that
worked for years and years to develop a policy. She reiterated the 2022 budget included some very large
expenses, some were included and some were not such as the court reorganization, Fire District 1 costs and
police cameras. In addition, the City often gets unfunded mandates. She believed the council should be
fiscally conversative and not spend everything in the piggy bank and be good servants of the people to
protect the City’s finances.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained the format; she will ask if anyone has questions of the administration
and the mayor will moderate that. If there are no questions, she will open it to the floor for motions so she
is not always making the motions. Some of the motions may not be the suggested motion in the presentation.
Councilmember Paine requested instead of the amendments being anonymized, they be assigned to the
councilmember who made the request. If there is more than one, that should be identified. The amendments
should be presented by the councilmember who made the request. She did not think that was unreasonable
and it would not take any additional time.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, FOR
ALL THE BUDGET AMENDMENTS THAT THEY HAVE THE COUNCILMEMBER WHO
MADE THE REQUEST SPEAK TO THEIR MOTION.
Councilmember Buckshnis did not support the motion. She will read the item and whoever wants to make
the motion from the floor can make it. She was trying to expediate the process and she didn’t care who
provided the information and that was the easiest way to handle it.
Councilmember Paine referred to the November 17, 2021 approved city council minutes that identify some
of the people who made these requests. She was prepared to help by offering the names of people to speak
to the motion.
Councilmember L. Johnson said for transparency sake, the council should know who made each
amendment. That was done during budget season and this is an extension of the budget season.
Council President Olson commented it will be fully transparent when councilmembers vote for or against
the amendments. She did not make any of the amendments but would be happy to make a motion similar
to the proposed motion.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented this is another delaying tactic. She did not support it and wanted
to get on to the 2022 budget amendments.
Councilmember L. Johnson suggested at the very least when the amendments are read, the council should
be told who proposed it.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 8
Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, stating this was the third time Councilmember L.
Johnson spoke to the motion. Mayor Nelson disagreed, advising it was her second time.
Councilmember L. Johnson reiterated for transparency sake, councilmembers should know who made the
amendment. If the intent is not to have each person read their own budget amendments, then the person
reading them should inform the council who provided it.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT, PAINE AND L.
JOHNSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, AND BUCKSHNIS, AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember Buckshnis introduced the following amendment:
# 1 - REDI Manager
• There was not sufficient information to support an on-going FTE. With this issue comes at least
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.” With this motion, the
allocation will be reduced to $70K
2) Substitute Motion: Hire REDI Manager for budget year (part of an intended three year
contract). A job description should be written to ensure an assessment is done, what needs to
be done, workplan for training staff and to set systems in place to maintain the work internally
so as at the end of three years, only periodic reviews would occur as needed.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked who put forward this amendment.
Councilmember Paine requested Acting Director Emily Wagener speak to this budget amendment. There
are a lot of people who continue to say they have not had enough information and a refresher would be
helpful.
Council President Olson voiced an objection.
Ms. Wagener read from the job description, under the direction of the mayor, the City’s REDI program
manager provides citywide leadership to advance the City’s race, equity, diversity and inclusion goals. The
position will provide advice and consultation to City departments on equity and inclusion principles and
practices, provide strategic technical guidance and policy direction of the City’s diversity, equity and
inclusion efforts, help coordinate the implementation of the City’s equity roadmap and oversee the update
of the roadmap as needed and facilitate the City’s organizational equity team. This position is extremely
important for the City to meet its goals surrounding race, equity, diversity and inclusion and it is important
to have a dedicated person in order to satisfy all the job duties and to meet not only the mayor’s goals but
also assist all departments.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO HIRE A REDI MANAGER FOR THE BUDGET YEAR (PART OF AN INTENDED THREE
YEAR CONTRACT). A JOB DESCRIPTION SHOULD BE WRITTEN TO ENSURE AN
ASSESSMENT IS DONE, WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, WORKPLAN FOR TRAINING STAFF
AND TO SET SYSTEMS IN PLACE TO MAINTAIN THE WORK INTERNALLY SO AT THE END
OF THREE YEARS, ONLY PERIODIC REVIEWS WOULD OCCUR AS NEEDED.
Council President Olson commented that was an anticipated plan and could be revisited at any of the yearly
points. As she stated during the previous council meeting, she feels this is an upper management thing that
needs to be owned and managed by the mayor and that expediting the culture through a real concentration
on this for what she expected would take three years will get over the hurdle and the reins can then be
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 9
turned back over to the mayor. The plan to do this via contract is wise. There is always the option of going
to a full-time employee in the future if needed, but as she hoped and expected it would be a lens change for
personnel and elected, that everyone would own it individually.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked, given the current job market, how having this as a contract position
versus a full-time FTE will impact the City’s ability to hire the most qualified person for the position. Ms.
Wagener answered contract employees can be a little bit more difficult to hire in some ways because of
their limited term. Typically when the City hires a full-time employee for an indefinite period of time, it
can be easier to gather a large pool of candidates, it is less likely that they will leave early, and it is more
likely someone with a limited term will leave in the middle of the term because they find something else.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked if in Ms. Wagener’s opinion, there was justification for this being a full-
time permanent position and did she anticipate the need for the position would go away in three years. Ms.
Wagener answered she did do not, the City’s race, equity, diversity and inclusion goals are important and
are not going anywhere. While these issues have come more to light recently, it will continue to be a priority
and there will be more to focus on and if anything, the position will expand as time goes on.
Councilmember Paine said she was unsure who to address this to question to, possibly Ms. Wagener, but
she may not have this level of knowledge. She asked whether directors have asked for and found the gap
of information that would be provided by the REDI manager. She could see the need for it in the
comprehensive plan work to ensure the City is meeting all the target residents’ needs and to make sure it is
entirely inclusive and to have that analysis. She asked if directors had spoken about the need for a REDI
manager. Ms. Wagener said she was not comfortable answering that as she did not have the information
Councilmember Paine was looking for. Councilmember Paine asked Mayor Nelson if he could speak to it.
Mayor Nelson said as much as he supports the position, he was present to chair the meeting, not provide
testimony.
Councilmember Paine said in her work as a councilmember, she sees opportunities to for removing barriers,
adding diversity, and adding inclusion every day. When she find it, it means it slipped through the dragnet
and she recognized that happened during tonight’s Personnel Committee meeting. She summarized there
are always opportunities to do better and she found this work valuable for the entire community.
Councilmember K. Johnson directed her question to City Attorney Jeff Taraday, pointing out the motion
calls for a one year contract for the budget year but it is intended to be a three year contract. She did not see
how it could be both; it was either a three-year or a one-year contract. Mr. Taraday said he thought he heard
the motion as a three-year contract. Councilmember K. Johnson read the motion, it is intended for the
budget year (part of an intended three year contract) and that it would be assessed at the end of a year to
see what needs to be done, workplan, training, etc. She asked whether the council could have a motion for
one year along with the intent to extend it for three years; she found that contradictory. Mr. Taraday
answered it would depend on how the contract is set up. If the council has the ability to terminate the
contract, that could work. He was not sure what firms provide these services so it was hard to know who
the contracting entity would be. Councilmember K. Johnson asked the maker of the motion to explain their
intent.
Council President Olson clarified she was the maker of the motion tonight. She was thinking along the same
lines as the city attorney; as long as the contract could be terminated after the annual assessment, it could
be set up as a three-year contract. It was her understanding the expenditure needed to target that budget
year, but assumed it would be a three year project It would be a $100,000 allocation in the current budget
year with the expectation that the following two years would be the same.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 10
Councilmember K. Johnson asked whether extending the contract for future years would be under the
mayor’s or the council’s purview. Council President Olson said that had not been determined. She assumed
council would want to approve the annual assessments. She clarified this motion was contracting for the
position instead of adding a full-time employee. It was not deciding whether or not to have a REDI program
manager, it was the instrument used to do it.
Councilmember Chen said he wanted to ask a question from a different angle. On the surface when it comes
to a REDI manager, most people think the position will benefit minorities. He asked whether this position
would benefit the entire city, including the majority of the white population. Ms. Wagener answered of
course, this position is intended to positively benefit everyone, because it would require all employees,
processes and policies throughout the City go through an equity lens. The position will help everyone look
at things in a way that not only benefits the minority populations but also benefits everyone in how they
respond to issues and process in their daily work which in turn may be reflected in their personal lives.
Councilmember Chen asked for an example. Ms. Wagener said looking at recruitment through an equity
lens includes looking at how to bring a diverse group of candidates to apply for jobs and also looking at
how to make it more accessible for everyone, not just minorities and uncovering our own biases that
someone may not even be aware which opens doors in other areas of our work.
Mayor Nelson commented for the public’s benefit, Ms. Wagener is not the HR director; the City’s HR
director is unfortunately on leave. He cautioned the council is beginning to grill her a little more than her
regular expertise.
Councilmember L. Johnson expressed her understanding of what a REDI manager would do and what
diversity is. In looking it up to ensure she did not miss something, diversity includes knowing how we relate
to each other. It includes but isn’t limited to age, ethnicity, class, gender, physical abilities, quality, race,
sexual orientation, as well as religious status, gender expression, educational background, geographical
location, income, marital status, premarital status and work experience. This applies to everybody in one
way, shape or form. It applies age wise, we all started out young and hopefully will get old. A number of
things are covered by the REDI manager and diversity has a wide compass.
COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO
OFFER AN ALTERNATE MOTION FOR A FIVE YEAR LONG TERM TEMPORARY
EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY FOR THE REDI MANAGER POSITION.
Councilmember Paine commented this position is very important for the City and the community and will
have broad implications across south Snohomish County. Edmonds is one of the few cities that does not
have this position and it will help support all the departments’ functions and the community. The Diversity
Commission would benefit from position and would be in regular contact with this person. She referred to
a January 25th email from HR Director Neill Hoyson that stated key outcomes include serving the leadership
team for planning and implementation, a training component for all department directors, community
perspectives and community engagement that are essential for any robust equity plan, help to advise the
mayor and also council, and assist HR and all other departments. Councilmember Paine said this position
will be entirely relevant for the community. There have been incidents that the City hasn’t been able to
address quickly and forthrightly with equity leading the discussion. She hoped the council would support
this counter motion for a five-year full-time position.
Councilmember Chen recalled Ms. Wagener saying this position can easily be expanded and asked her to
explain. Ms. Wagener answered this position is new and more will be discovered and she expected it would
expand. She agreed with Mayor Nelson’s comment, explaining she hasn’t been directly involved in the
creation of this position and did not want to continue to not speak to something that she was not expert level
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 11
familiar with. From her knowledge of the City’s race, equity, diversity and inclusion goals and what she
knows of it, she did expect it to expand, but she was not prepared to give details about that.
Councilmember Chen repeated the comments he made last week, racial equity, diversity and inclusion is
something we as a community including all the top level staff, from the mayor to each department to
everyone, needs to take to heart; it is not one person’s job. With that said, he believed there was a need for
someone to take the lead to put a program together and then hand it over to the mayor, to the City to
implement. Therefore, he supported Councilmember Paine’s alternate motion.
Councilmember Buckshnis said Councilmember Paine first said temporary and then said full-time. She
asked if the intent was a five-year contract position. Councilmember Paine clarified she said a five year
long term temporary position, similar to the code writer. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that was a
contract position. Councilmember Paine reiterated it was a long term City employee temporary position
with a five year timeline.
Councilmember K. Johnson stated her belief that what Councilmember Paine offered was not an alternate
motion but a substitute motion. If so, the council should vote on the original motion before considering the
substitute. Mr. Passey explained the process is the council would discuss and debate motion #1, then discuss
and debate motion #2, and then vote whether to substitute motion #2 for motion #1 and then take an
immediate vote on the motion.
Mayor Nelson asked for discussion/debate on the original motion; there was none. He then asked for
discussion/debate on the substitute motion; there was none.
UPON ROLL CALL, SUBSTITUTE MOTION #2 FAILED (3-3-1), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN,
PAINE AND COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K.
JOHNSON AND TIBBOTT AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO; AND
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINING.
UPON ROLL CALL, ORIGINAL MOTION #1 CARRIED (5-2); COUNCILMEMBERS K.
JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING
YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Mr. Turley asked if the motion was to have a $70,000/year contract. Council President Olson answered it
was a $100,000/year contract for three years. Mr. Turley said he did not mean to throw a wrench into the
works, but there is an approved REDI position in the budget. If the council wanted to remove that REDI
manager position, there needed to be a motion to remove the REDI position because right now there was a
REDI position and a $100,000 contract.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON,
TO REMOVE THE INITIAL REDI MANAGER THAT WAS IN THE 2022 BUDGET THAT HAS
NOW BEEN REPLACED BY THE CONTRACT.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested these could all be substitute motions instead of removing and
replacing. Mr. Taraday said it depends; his understanding of the motion that just passed was to leave money
in the budget for a contract for services versus an employee that would be hired under a contract. He
described the distinction between those; for example, he serves the City under a contract for services; there
are other employees of the City who have contracts that establish their compensation. It was his
understanding that the motion was related to a contract for services. Council President Olson said that was
her intent.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 12
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed, but it was her understanding the amendments were substitute motions
for the approved budget. To save time, she suggested there be an understanding that the motions that pass
with a super majority are substitute motions. Mr. Taraday said in the case of #1, it was obvious that that
was the council’s intent so any ordinance prepared would remove the FTE because there would be no reason
to have an FTE if the City also has a contract for services. He was unsure it would be as obvious for other
amendments.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if it was Mr. Taraday’s opinion that this was a substitute motion for #1
or does the council have to vote to remove the FTE. Mr. Taraday said the phrase substitute motion is not
applicable. None of the amendments take effect until the council adopts an ordinance. He understood the
council’s intent with respect to #1 and did not need any further council direction. That may not be as clear
with the next amendment.
Councilmember Buckshnis introduced the following amendment:
#16 – Public Information Officer
• Not sufficient support for FTE provided.
• Motion: Remove this decision packet
Councilmember Buckshnis said this was discussed in detail last week and there was public comment from
Patrick Doherty. She asked if there were any other questions and if not, a motion would be entertained from
the floor.
Councilmember L. Johnson recalled the council heard from Acting Director Merriman last week.
Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, stating there needed to be a motion before
councilmembers spoke to the amendment. Mayor Nelson said it was confusing when Councilmember
Buckshnis introduced the amendment and then asked for questions.
Councilmember L. Johnson continued, the council heard from Acting Director Merriman last week that
since the full-time position was implemented, the number of press releases has increased dramatically as
well as the amount of outreach via social media. With that type of increase comes a more informed and
engaged constituency and that increased engagement takes time.
Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, stating Councilmember L. Johnson’s comment did not
sound like a question. Mayor Nelson agreed, asking if Councilmember L. Johnson had a question.
Councilmember L. Johnson said there would be at the end but she first needed to make her point. She
wished to speak to the motion. Mayor Nelson suggested she would have an opportunity to speak once the
motion was made.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
REMOVE DECISION PACKAGE #16.
Councilmember L. Johnson continued, the increased engagement takes time including follow-up media
requests, monitoring social media, coordination of multiple events including town halls, state of the city,
etc. The PIO serves all departments in the City. The PIO position is also critical for communication with
the public during emergencies. From the City’s website, the City’s emergency management says focusing
on people, plans and programs to promote a prepared and resilient City of Edmonds. To meet our mission,
the Edmonds Office of Emergency Management disseminates information and coordinates and supports
response and recovery from emergencies. In talking with the City’s Safety and Disaster Coordinator
Wallace, he stated as the safety and disaster coordinator for the City, “I am in full support of a full-time
public administration PIO. The PIO can help gain and develop trust and support of our emergency
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 13
management program by constructing and disseminating alert and warning messages along with
preparedness, response, prevention, mitigation and recovery information to citizens we serve.” In fact
FEMA incident command system values the role of PIOs so highly that it places the position in the
organizational structure as reporting directly to the incident commander. If you are not proactively and
consistently communicating, then your organization will always be reacting to the whims of media
coverage, social media misinformation and rumors focusing on your organization. Government is
responsible for protecting the community during an emergency. Providing critical information to the public
before, during and after. As elected officials, we have an obligation to the public to notify the community
on matters of public safety, so much so that failure to do so can and has resulted in civil liability for willful
and intentional neglect.
Councilmember L. Johnson continued, most cities Edmonds’ size have more than one FTE allotted to this
critical function. Lynnwood with a population of 40,000 has 2 full-time PIOs, Shoreline with a population
of 57,000 has 2 full-time PIOs, Marysville with a population of 71,000 has 3 full-time PIOs, Redmond with
a population of 80,000 has 7 full-time PIOs and Everett with a population of 112,000 has 4 full-time PIOs.
Edmonds’ population of 43,000 has only 1 PIO; the City is understaffed with 1 full-time PIO, yet some
councilmembers are actively attempting to further reduce the administration’s ability to inform the public.
With this motion, some councilmembers are choosing to put the safety of the entire community at risk and
reduce all departments’ ability to engage with the public. As a citizen commented via email, why would
the City want to communicate less with its citizens. She was opposed to the motion.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REMOVE ¾ OF THE DECISION PACKAGE. THE DECISION
PACKAGE WAS THE CHANGE FROM PART-TIME TO FULL TIME SO REMOVING ¾ OF THE
DECISION PACKAGES LEAVES IT FULL-TIME THROUGH THE END OF MARCH.
Council President Olson explained this would give the HR department an opportunity to modify the job
description. There is nothing in the job description that talks about the need for neutral, fact-based
communications by this position which is what she was looking for. The position could be handled via an
amendment process after the PSPP committee and the council approved a new job description.
Councilmember Paine said she was confused by amendment and questioned why the council would not
want to keep a full-time person for the full year. Having the position full-time for another month and a half
seems rather short-sighted because there are all sorts of things that need to be communicated. As the council
has heard from the people who put this position and program together, it was already understaff from the
beginning. She did not support the motion which has the position full-time until the end of March and then
cuts it off at the knees. It does not seem to make sense; if there is value to the position, then it needs to be
funded appropriately and fully so all can see the benefit throughout the entire City. The amendment seems
very short sighted and she did not support it.
Council President Olson offered a point of clarification as her motion was not understood. Her motion was
to fund it so a new job description could be approved through the budget amendment process to continue it
full-time once the job description was further detailed with regard to the need for neutral, fact-based
communication.
Councilmember Tibbott disagreed with the characterization that the City has only one PIO as the Police
Department has a full-time PIO. There are also contracts; for example, the PROS Plan had very robust
community engagement process that included reporting on what happened. The Transportation Plan has
always included consultants with very robust engagement programs. The characterization that the City does
not have enough information going out is not accurate. However, he supported Council President Olson's
amendment because he was willing to look at a PIO that serves the whole City especially the entire City
staff. Some City staff are burdened with the responsibility of handling public information and he was not
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 14
sure the PIO was shared with other departments. He wanted to be assured of that and he wanted to be
assured that information was fact-based and as Council President Olson said that it would be recognized as
a position that utilizes the best practices of a PIO. He did not believe that solely depending on social media
and sending emails was adequate. He referred to 97 emails that went out last year and asked whether the
goal was 200. He requested clarification with regard to best practices.
Councilmember L. Johnson raised a point of clarification, suggesting Councilmember Tibbott misspoke
and meant 97 media releases and not emails, noting there is a big difference. Councilmember Tibbott asked
how the press releases were made.
Mayor Nelson clarified there is not a full-time Police PIO. As an axillary duty, the assistant police chief
does some PIO work although that assistant chief is very busy.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she has been very concerned about the tone and temperament of some of
the PIO’s public statements. They need to be fact based and not used as a weapon against the city council
which she found very counterproductive and offensive. She will support the motion by Council President
Olson to fund the position through the end of March and look at a new job description to ensure these
mistakes are not made in the future.
Councilmember L. Johnson said she did not support the motion. It put people’s livelihoods at stake and
played with people’s income and it was not good government. In a time when it is difficult to hire and
retain, this is what the council is telling people how the City operates and how staff is treated. It was not
good governance and was embarrassing and she would not support it.
Councilmember Chen said a City of Edmonds’ size needs a full-time PIO. However, he also agreed with
Councilmember K. Johnson that some of the PIO announcements have been used by one branch of
government to attack another which is not a good use of the resource. He hoped everyone could work
together to make the City a more welcoming and open place for all.
Mayor Nelson provided clarification, anything the PIO has said been saying about council is from him.
When he issues a statement, it is clear that the mayor is issuing a statement and the PIO is following his
direction. It should be clear that the legislative branch is telling the executive branch what they should be
communicating to the public. Councilmember Chen said he was suggesting that all three branches of the
government should work together and not attack each other.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember L. Johnson said she thought a super majority was required for a motion to pass. Council
President Olson advised not for an amendment.
Council President Olson restated the motion:
REMOVE ¾ OF THIS DECISION PACKAGE WHICH FUNDS IT FULL-TIME THROUGH
MARCH, GIVING TIME TO GET THE NEW JOB DESCRIPTION.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that was the amendment. Council President Olson said it was, but now
the Council needed to vote on the motion to see if there were five votes. Mr. Passey advised the vote was
on the motion as amended.
Councilmember Chen recalled the main motion was to remove the PIO position. Mayor Nelson said the
motion was to replace the full-time PIO with the amended PIO position.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 15
Council President Olson clarified the motion was to fund it through March so a new job description can
come forward and to consider the full-time position through the budget amendment process with the new
job description.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT,
AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS
CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Council President Olson pointed out for the purposes of the budget ordinance, the motion did not pass
because a super majority was required. Mr. Taraday said the council is not voting on the ordinance today.
If the council’s direction to him is to only include in the ordinance motions with five votes, then this one
would be not included. Council President Olson said she did not want to give that direction. She suggested
including all the motions that pass and they can be addressed at the time of the ordinance. Mr. Taraday said
that is another option, but if the last motion were to be included in the ordinance and if the ordinance passed
4-3, most of the ordinance would not succeed.
Council President Olson suggested head nods from council. She was okay with only including the ones that
pass with a super majority. Councilmember Buckshnis said the intent stated in the PowerPoint was to
include the ones that passed with a super majority.
Councilmember K. Johnson recalled Councilmember Tibbott offered an original motion that Council
President Olson then amended. Mr. Taraday said council voted on the amended main motion.
Councilmember Buckshnis introduced the following amendment:
#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 does not appear realistic without support data. There are
many state solar programs that offer incentives and grants.
• Motion: Remove this decision packet and review through council committee to review alternatives
Councilmember Paine clarified this is not for low income families; in the original packet it was described
as providing a subsidy to eligible applicants for small scale solar, a one-time subsidy for moderate to lower
income applicants rather than higher income households. She requested the description be changed to
accurately describe it and no longer be called low income.
Councilmember K. Johnson reminded this was an opportunity for questions and councilmembers could
make comments after a motion is made.
Councilmember L. Johnson requested the department that spoke to this during the traditional budget season
speak to the justification for this budget item. Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin provided
three points of reference to substantiate why the decision package was proposed. The climate action plan
promoted as one of its key strategies the installation of renewable energy projects and specifically
recommended creating financial assistance program. A 2017 GHG inventory found 50% of buildings
constitute a majority of the GHG emissions, the residential building sector dominates as a source of building
emissions. In 2020, the city council adopted an aggressive target of a 1.5 degree Celsius which means
eliminating or offsetting all GHG emissions by 2050, a very aggressive target which will require moving
forward all strategies, actions and funding.
Ms. McLaughlin continued, at the time the decision package was proposed, staff was speculating what a
program may look like. Since that time more thought has been put into what makes sense; coupling a
program with Washington State programs would be effective. In fact Washington State programs prioritize
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 16
applications that have other grant matches. Having a local program that can collaborate with State programs
makes it even more effective. Staff is still calculating an average cost; the estimate in the decision package
of $18,000 on average to complete an installation was a ballpark figure as was the $5,000 per household.
Staff believes a program can be created that targets low to moderate income, but they are even looking at
multifamily to reduce the energy burden and maximizing the carbon reduction.
Council President Olson commented that was exciting new information. She asked if the Washington State
programs would bring the investment for homeowners into the $5,000 range rather $13,000 or was it still
over $10,000. Ms. McLaughlin answered there is no fixed limit regarding how much could be offered per
grant. The State program is focused on low income. The City’s goal in thinking about this program would
be to try to reduce the installation cost almost completely. Staff has talked about bundling the administrative
permit fees, which can be quite high, into the grant cost as well. The goal is to drive down the actual personal
contribution to get these installed, particularly if it targets low income.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented about 10 years ago the State legislature offered very attractive tax
rebates for solar installations. It was her understand that that program went away and there were no more
State grant resources available. She asked Ms. McLaughlin to speak to the current grant programs. Ms.
McLaughlin said she cannot speak to all the State programs but there is an existing and active low income
solar grant program. The preferred applicants are those with some matching grant funds. Staff is researching
to determine if any Edmonds households have applied.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked how much the State offered in grants. Even if a household was low to
moderate income, an $18,000 solar project may be beyond their financial capability. Ms. McLaughlin said
she could not answer that question, but unless the council established a per installation limit on the grants,
the City’s grant could cover the cost of the installation in its entirety. If the council was interested in
covering the cost it its entirety, the City could do $18,000 grants and just cover fewer households. She
summarized if the council’s interest was to drive down the per installation cost burden, that can be done
when the criteria is drafted.
Councilmember L. Johnson said she was one of the councilmembers who voted for those aggressive climate
goals so she was supportive of this decision package, noting it will all be incremental, everything that can
be done to help reach that goal. She asked whether the low income solar program would be prioritized based
on need, especially since those would be the households that would qualify for the State low income solar
program. If there were additional funds, they could be used for grants for moderate income households. Ms.
McLaughlin said if this decision package passes, staff can return with a proposal. Her thinking was if the
council’s interest was to cover installation as a whole, there are four affordable housing complexes in
Edmonds. Some of the calculations staff is doing include the roof size, how many units could be covered,
and whether that approach was appropriate. The thought is to drive down the cost burden to the most units
and reduce the energy cost burden for the low income in the community.
Councilmember Paine commented when there is an opportunity to install solar panels across the entire City,
the more the better. Reducing the cost burden was a good idea and she wondered about the rebate that
homeowners would receive from the PUD for producing energy. Ms. McLaughlin said she did not have
that information but could return with it. Councilmember Paine commented having additional money
coming in would be exciting especially for income constrained families.
Councilmember Buckshnis complimented Ms. McLaughlin for her explanation, recalling when this first
came to council it was still being researched and few specifics were provided. She supported providing
grants to low income versus moderate to low income because the State has good programs for low income
families. She pointed out the need for criteria to ensure everyone gets fair chance. Ms. McLaughlin said the
intent was to have this funding be the most effective toward the goal of reducing carbon emissions and draft
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 17
the criteria so that the most people and entities were eligible. She suggested staff continue their efforts and
return to council with a proposal.
Councilmember Tibbott said with those clarifications, he was excited about this program. It offers
incentives to low income homeowners who may want to add solar. He liked the idea of allow multifamily
to apply for grants, anticipating that would provide a bigger bank for the buck. He did not support removing
this decision package from the budget.
Councilmember Chen said it was exciting that staff was attempting to reach the entire low income
population. He suggested providing educational outreach in Korean, Chinese, and Spanish because those
are the low income people.
Councilmember K. Johnson relayed her concern that this was not a well thought out decision package
because it sounds like it’s pretty fluid and staff has a lot of ideas. She will support removing the decision
package and allowing staff to come back when these details have been worked out. There is no information
available about the State program, whether it is available for low income or moderate income, or whether
the cost is $5,000 or $18,000. She summarized the decision package is too broad and too loose. Although
she absolutely supported solar programs and said staff was going in the right direction, it was not a well
thought out decision package.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED TO REMOVE DECISION PACKAGE #20. MOTION
FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the funding was from the General Fund and others such as DP #71
came from bond proceeds. Mr. Turley commented it was his understanding the building maintenance
department would be installing the solar panels, but he was not involved with developing this decision
package. Councilmember Buckshnis said it would have been appropriate to fund this from bond proceeds
instead of the General Fund. Mayor Nelson clarified this is related to solar on private residences, not on
City buildings. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why it was funded from bond proceeds instead of the
General Fund. Mr. Turley said when decision packages were developed in July/August, the process of
issuing the bonds was just beginning. Mayor Nelson clarified the bond proceeds were for maintenance of
City buildings. Councilmember Buckshnis said there are other decision packages that have nothing to do
with building that are funded by bond proceeds.
Mayor Nelson observed the time allotted for this item was 120 minutes. He asked if a special meeting can
be extended. Mr. Taraday answered it could be extended with a super majority vote.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO EXTEND 10:30. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN,
TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND PAINE VOTING NO.
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess (9:59 – 10:04 p.m.)
Councilmember Chen raised a point of clarification. He observed the council was voting on individual items
and asked if the council would vote on an ordinance at the end. Mr. Taraday said unless he was directed
differently, he will take the motions that have the support of five or more councilmembers and put them in
an ordinance that will come back to council for final approval. Councilmember Chen observed the motions
that did not have a super majority would fall off the ordinance. Mr. Taraday agreed, the budget will not be
amended for anything that does not have five votes. He assumed most of the amendments would be
removing money from the General Fund or other funds which requires a super majority vote.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 18
Councilmember Buckshnis introduced the following amendment:
#21 – Last year, a $550K appropriation was approved for Human Services and $409,000 was left unspent
and has been carried into 2022. The City is distributing funds to households utilizing ARPA funds.
• Motion: Reduce decision packet by $200K represented by the new request.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
REDUCE THE DECISION PACKET BY $200K AND ALLOW THE $409,000 IN THE
CARRYFORWARD.
Councilmember Buckshnis said everyone supports human services. Snohomish County is looking at
Edmonds to assist in a coordinated effort, but the cost and extent is unknown. There have been discussions
about $300,000 but she has heard it may be more. She preferred that the community relief fund be
considered by the Finance Committee first and then brought to forward with a budget. Snohomish County
recently passed a sales tax and it is unknown exactly how those funds will be used. She summarized there
is not enough information to support this decision package.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented today the PIO released an exciting press release, Mayor Nelson
announces homelessness response actions, City identifies short and long term strategies to address
homelessness, which clearly ties into the human services division. She hoped either Director Feser or
Deputy Director Burley could speak to how the human services division will support these actions and what
it would mean if funding to the division were reduced. Ms. Burley answered in April 2022 the human
services division was moved into parks. The first thing parks staff did in May/June 2021 was meet with
council to establish council priorities for the human services division. In July staff was asked to propose a
budget for the human services division. The budget request is a direct reflection of the council priorities.
Ms. Burley continued, the council’s priorities were to hire a social worker, that contract is part of the budget;
to establish collaboration and support of partner organizations, establish programs to keep vulnerable
people in their homes, remove barriers that keep people unsheltered (move-in support, motel vouchers,
prepaid cards, other essentials), ensure there are operating extreme weather and emergency condition
shelters, provide hygiene opportunities for unsheltered residents (toiletries program, blanket exchange
programs, coat exchange programs), collaborate with faith-based organizations and non-profit
organizations to expand the resources they offer, establish a coordinated approach to providing services for
behavior health to include partnering with neighboring jurisdictions and Snohomish County, update the
Kone report to make data-drive decisions (update nearly complete), establish programs that qualify for
grants, and secure grant funding for the entire human services program.
Ms. Burley continued, this decision package was developed in July and a lot more has been learned.
Between Mindy Woods’ 20 hours and a portion of her job, movement has been made in a short amount of
time on every one of the priorities established by council. These programs are just getting started and this
funding was intended to those efforts. Since July there has been more movement and conversation on the
shelter situation as well as a significant amount of public input regarding how to address residents living
on public right-of-way and in public spaces. Due to the Martin v. Boise case that established constitutional
law, the City is prohibited from removing someone from a public space without providing adequate shelter
and property storage, both are very expensive and something that will need to be done in collaboration with
neighboring jurisdictions and Snohomish County.
In response to Councilmember Buckshnis’ comment about the cost, Ms. Burley anticipated it would be a
many million dollar endeavor by Snohomish County; the City’s contribution is yet to be determined and
the property has yet to be identified. Snohomish County is trying to determine if cities and municipalities
are in support of increasing shelter in south county and she has assured them that Edmonds is by showing
them the City’s budget. She assured a contract of that size would need to go through the Finance Committee
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 19
and council. In order to meet established council priorities and better enhance shelter opportunities, the City
needs to demonstrate a level of financial commitment which is what the budget was intended to do.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked what defunding the human services budget by 1/3 would say to the City’s
partners. Ms. Burley thanked the members of council who met with her and who have supported staff’s
efforts. This conversation has caused partners to reach out with concerns that the City will defund the
program. She thanked Council President Olson specifically with helping her assure the City’s partners that
the City remains committed to human services. Since this issue arose, she has spent most of her time
reassuring partners that the City remains committed. Snohomish County and others are watching tonight to
understand the City’s level of commitment to human services, program development and assisting
vulnerable residents. Some of the programs are small, some are large and some are rather opportunistic.
When a faith based organization or a non-profit comes to City with an idea, there need to be resources to
evaluate it. Councilmember L. Johnson congratulated staff on their progress, especially in today’s world
when there is so much news that is not positive. She hoped this could be adequately funded so staff could
continue their efforts.
Councilmember Paine expressed appreciation for Ms. Burley’s abundance of communication with the
council. She asked if a quarterly budget amendment would be adequate if the staff needed to move quickly
such as providing a match. She asked how nimble staff needed to be and what had staff seen and learned in
the past few months. Ms. Burley said it depends on the scale of the project. Smaller projects come together
and happen faster than larger projects; larger projects such as a potential shelter facility will take a lot of
time. Staff is getting close to hiring a social worker; the mental health worker applicant pool is not keeping
up with the available positions and especially in Snohomish County, the need far exceeds the available
workforce. It will be a tremendous benefit when a social worker is hired to discuss what programs are
necessary, what’s missing, etc.
Ms. Burley recalled council indicated grants were an important part of the human services division. To
secure grants requires building a program because funding sources want to know what they are funding. A
lot of the funds were intended to develop programs that could be used as collateral for a grant match. The
social worker is a good example; once there is a social worker in place, it would make sense to reach out to
Verdant and other partners to request funding to cover a portion of that position similar to what was done
in Lynnwood and South County Fire. She commented it is a bit of if you build it, they will come. Staff
would like to offer programs and sometimes the City needs to spend a little to be able to apply for it in
return.
Councilmember Paine asked if staff was seeing requests from the full range of services such as domestic
violence, senior services, etc. in terms of ensuring people have housing support and mental health services.
Ms. Burley said the City is blessed with ARPA funding to support homeless prevention efforts. When the
portal was reopened in 2022, the City received 100 applications the first week and that has doubled in two
weeks and she anticipated the City would quickly burn through the ARPA funds allocated for 2022. In the
winter months, the need is significant. The update of the Kone report is nearly complete and staff intends
to bring that to council in March. The Kone report is built on data and utilizes updated census data, data
from DSHS, point in time counts, and McKinney Vento numbers. She concluded no one will be too
surprised by the fact that the number of homeless individuals in Edmonds is increasing. Councilmember
Paine said she looked forward to that report.
Councilmember Tibbott said this this decision package reminded him of the previous one in that it was not
fully formed and council was being asked to take a leap of faith regarding how the funds would be used.
He liked the idea of having funds available for housing projects and suspected $200,000 was not enough.
He recalled the City had $500,000 available when a housing project was contemplated a few years ago. He
asked if the council could earmark $200,000 in the budget for the purpose of a housing match and if it is
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 20
not used for that purpose, it would roll over to the next year. Mr. Taraday said any additional housing match
would require council approval anyway. Just because it is in the budget does not mean that checks can be
written. Councilmember Tibbott said theoretically that $200,000 could be spent on toothpaste and
underwear and not be available for housing. Mr. Taraday said fundamentally the question is whether to
leave the money as an appropriation in the General Fund or not. The council could remove the $200,000
appropriation from the General Fund and reappropriate it later or just stick with the status quo.
Councilmember Tibbott asked Mr. Turley his opinion on earmarking funds such as putting a note on an
item. Mr. Turley agreed with Mr. Taraday’s opinion. The council can earmark funds by authorizing
$200,000 for a specific purpose. Legally the funds could probably be spent on something else but that would
cause a lot of problems and would just not be done. For example, when the council approves the purchase
of a Ford F150 pickup, that is what is purchased, not a Chevy Suburban for the same amount.
Councilmember K. Johnson recalled 3-4 years ago, she was one of 4 councilmembers who approved a
human services manager. One of reasons she voted to approve it was at that time was she was told it would
be done as a demonstration and after six months or a year, it would be fully self-funded by grants, but that
has not really happened. There was a modest amount, $75,000, estimated in grants for 2022. It is in the
human services manager’s job description but she has not seen that approach taken. Grants are important
to many councilmembers, the City is not in a position to self-fund human services and there are many
agencies throughout the state, county and region that can help fund this and that is the direction the City
needs to put efforts toward. Hiring a social worker may help, but there needs to be efforts toward grant
opportunities, filling out forms, answering questions, and doing everything humanly possible to acquire
grants. She was less interested in coordinating with other agencies on a multimillion dollar project for
Snohomish County and more interested in leveraging the City’s dollars to make them work stronger for
Edmonds citizens. She asked how much money the City received in grants in 2021.
Ms. Burley answered with 20 hours week from one person and a slice of her time, the need far outweighs
their ability. Staff looks at what are critical services. We have been living in a pandemic and providing a
critical service to people which means filling out grant applications is not as high a priority as helping
people secure food, medicine, and shelter. Staff did not apply for grants last year. She recently initiated her
first grant request, but there are simply not enough staff resources.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO
EXTEND TO 10:50.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4); COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND BUCKSHNIS,
AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
TIBBOTT, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
7. ADJOURN
The council meeting was adjourned at 10:31 p.m.
____ ____
MICHAEL NELSON, MAYOR SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 21
WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED BETWEEN 1/4/22 and 2/9/22
From: Jim Fairchild
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 5:41 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comment
Tomorrow you will be asked to alter city code? To adopt language from the state 7.94.120 my concern is
this language is set to expire I think 7-1-2022. Why would the city adopt language set to expire? Of
course the city can use this language but without knowing what the new language the state puts in place
it could create a conflict. Maybe no big deal but in my mind it would give the city the opportunity to
write its own language. To me this is concerning. The mayor/city has already at least once tried to make
criminals of legal gun owners. I would encourage council to wait and see what the new language from
the state is before adopting expiring language.
Thank you Jim Fairchild
From: Joan Bloom
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 4:58 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Public
Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Budget amendments, agenda for 2-8-22 Council meeting
Council,
My input on budget amendments on your agenda 2-8-22 is as follows:
#1 REDI manager
I support option 1, continuing with the REDI consultant, at this time. The following LTE by
Elizabeth Miakinin is excellent:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2021/11/letter-to-the-editor-proposed-redi-manager-not-the-
answer-for-achieving-citys-diversity-goals/
#16 Public Information Officer
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 22
I agree with Ken Reidy that the POI position should be removed entirely to ensure “the position
is used properly, in a non-biased, nonpartisan fashion.”
However, given that is not part of this discussion, I support the “Motion: Remove this decision
packet” A half-time PIO should be sufficient for Mayor Nelson to continue to promote his
personal agenda for Edmonds.
Since I don’t see my email comments to Council attached to the February 8 agenda, here is a
link to my LTE on all of the budget amendments that I support:
https://myedmondsnews.com/2022/01/letter-to-the-editor-mayors-statement-on-budget-
amendments-not-supported-by-facts/
Regards,
Joan Bloom
Former Edmonds City Councilmember
__
Joan Bloom
Edmonds is a gift. Let’s show our appreciation.
From: Jan Wohlers <janel.wohlers@live.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 6, 2022 6:25 PM
To: council@edomdswa.gov; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Request for Caspers Street Revision
Dear City Council,
There is a high number of cumulative issues with traffic and congestion on
Caspers Street between 2nd Ave and Sunset. These issues are ripe and long
overdue for change and need further investigating and resolution.
ISSUES
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 23
• Excessively high trafficked vehicle and pedestrian street. Excessive for a
residentially zoned area
• Cars drive the wrong way down Caspers onto Sunset’s one way street on
average 2-3 daily
• There are 25 streets signs beginning at 3rd Ave. It is very confusing in this 1
block section.
• 5 to 10 vehicles turn around in our driveway daily. Does not account for
turnarounds occurring in other driveways
• People walk ‘in the street’ Casper to Sunset 50+ on an average day.
Summer months/ sunny days this doubles/triples
• High number of speeding vehicles
• Many vehicles make a high acceleration ‘gun it’ around the corner Sunset
onto Casper
• Curbs are deteriorating (mostly due to high speeds and oversized vehicles
hitting them)
• Large RV’s and semi trucks cannot maneuver corner Sunset to Caspers and
become stuck. Especially when the truck goes down the wrong way.
Backing up causes major congestion’s and safety issues
• Many unfriendly and upset tourists direct profanities and hand gestures at
home owners
• High number of recurring vehicle accidents in the yards of three separate
homes. Majority are hit and run. Increases homeowners problems and
expenses
• Vehicles block access to driveways
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Remove all current street signage and replace with limited necessary
signage
• Remove parking on north side of Caspers. Special permit for local residents
and guests only
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 24
• Install speed bumps before and after the corner Sunset to Caspers
• Limit vehicle size and prohibit large semi trucks on Sunset and Caspers
• Make Caspers a one way street
• Change directions on Google Maps and Waze redirecting tourists, ferry and
beach access visitors
I feel very privileged and love living in Edmond’s, however the aforementioned
issues makes it very challenging at times. Thank you for looking into this matter.
Respectfully,
Richard Blacklow and Janel Wohlers
Edmonds WA
From: Michael Murdock
Sent: Saturday, February 5, 2022 1:34 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: PIO
> Good Afternoon,
>
> I don’t know why this position is even there and needs to be a paid position.
>
> If the article in MEN from the Mayor is an example of factual literature we expect to receive I don’t
want to pay for it. Who edited this piece for facts? I really did not understand the reason for writing such
a piece and then actually printing it.
>
> Perhaps, another option would be to enlist the services of the independent student representative on
council. It would be great experience with little cost.
>
> Thanks for listening.
>
> Mike Murdock
From: Joan Bloom
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 1:18 PM
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 25
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Public
Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to the 2022 Adopted City Budget
Council,
Mayor Nelson’s inflammatory statement in his myedmondsnews commentary, “These council
cuts will make Edmonds unsafe, polluted and make our residents uninformed” is
unsubstantiated by fact or by the proposed amendments. I’ll demonstrate with amendments
that I support.
Mayor Nelson’s statement:
“Additionally, they wish to cut funding to our new Human Services Department.”
Proposed amendment:
#21 – $200,000 for the Human Services Department. The Division has a carry forward of
$409,000 and there is no need to add additional money. An amendment can always occur
during the year if that money is needed.”
My comment:
Based on my five decades of work as a social worker, in and with non-profit agencies, I contend
that City government is ill-equipped to provide social services to the public. Many non-profit
agencies exist that have the supportive staff, training, expertise, agency structure, outreach, and
HIPPA compliance procedures (not to mention liability insurance) to better serve needy
populations. Adding an additional $200,000 to the Human Services Department is an unwise use
of taxpayer dollars.
Mayor Nelson’s statement:
“Removing green streets and rain garden programs will create more flooding of our roadways
and pollution of our streams.”
Proposed amendment:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 26
“#61 Green Street and Rain Gardens – excerpt- “There is not sufficient information to support
where green streets are or the definition and how the bio-retention and rain gardens should be
built to reduce flooding?”
My comment:
Without a definition of “Green Street”, how can the city proceed with allocation of the American
Rescue Program Act (ARPA) funds? Also, rain gardens must be carefully located and strategically
built in order to provide bio-retention and reduce flooding.
Mayor Nelson’s statement:
“They want to cut a new pedestrian safety barrier at the police parking lot designed to protect
our residents from being struck by police cars responding to emergency calls.”
Proposed amendment:
#38 – New Police perimeter fence - this should be vetted through a committee to determine less
expensive methods can be utilized.
My comment:
I support Council reviewing the expense of this perimeter fence.
Mayor Nelson’s statement:
“For the first time ever, this year our city has a full time public information officer (PIO).” And
“some councilmembers wish us to go backwards and cut the position from full-time to half-
time.”
Proposed amendment:
#16 – Public Information Officer – support for full time not provided.
My comment:
Mayor Nelson references “the recent tsunami advisory” as rationale for a full time PIO, despite
that a PIO has nothing to do with emergency management. Mayor Nelson’s misrepresentation
of the role of the PIO is just one reason I don’t support a full time PIO being at his disposal.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 27
Side note: An updated CEMP (Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan), and related
staffing, as Ken Reidy has been emailing Council about for many months, would assure residents
that the administration has a “comprehensive plan” in the event of a catastrophic event in
Edmonds.
Mayor Nelson’s statement:
“Their removal of the filtration system used to clean polluted water entering the Edmonds Marsh
will allow toxic chemicals to harm salmon and wildlife in our city and Puget Sound.”
Proposed amendment:
#55 – Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Improvements – excerpt: “there was no justification for the
water mitigation or the phases of this stormwater project. Suggest that the stormwater aspect
that was clarified in the CIP/CFP be brought forth for Council”
My comment:
Depending upon the methods used to reduce pollutants to improve the Edmonds Marsh water
quality, this could be extremely expensive and significantly increase our stormwater utility rates.
It is important for the details to be known BEFORE Council allocates funds.
Additional amendments I support:
#60 – Perrinville Creek Projects
• The COE received the $3.5 ARPA funds in 2021. The damaged watershed at the lower end
is caused by the upper watershed, which includes Lynnwood.
• Complete restoration of Perrinville Creek will cost significantly more than 3.5 million, so
ARPA funds should not be spent until a restoration plan for the entire watershed, including
Lynnwood, is presented to and approved by Council.
• This means partnering with Lynnwood so that both cities contribute to the restoration of
Perrinville Creek. This would, obviously, be fiscally prudent.
# 1 - REDI Manager
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 28
Adding a full-time REDI Manager, without justification, also adds significant ongoing costs
associated with a new position, and new department. I support a REDI consultant.
#22 – New FTE position to manage existing capital projects
Creating a new FTE, which creates an ongoing expense, without first answering the questions
posed in this amendment is a reckless allocation of funds.
Respectfully,
Joan Bloom
Former Edmonds City Councilmember
From: joe scordino
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 8:46 AM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com>
Subject: Public Hearing on 2022 Budget Amendments
Please include the following public comment in your public hearing and DISCUSS
PUBLIC INPUT in your deliberations on the amendments to the 2022 budget.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
I am pleased to see the “new” Council is reconsidering the 2022 budget. The “prior”
Council majority not only ignored and prevented public input, which should have been
the essence of the Councils’ budget deliberations, but they manipulated the budget
approval process to exclude Council members who intended to ‘insert’ public input into
the budget deliberations.
Any and all spending of taxpayer money should be well justified with public support.
When pre-planning is required, such plans must be made available and vetted with the
public well before budgets are proposed.
This is especially the case with the 2022 budget items for restoring Perrinville Creek. In
March of 2021, the Mayor issued a Press Release on developing a Perrinville Creek
Restoration Plan, with costs involved, for public review and Council approval. But
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 29
instead, the “prior” Council majority approved spending of 3.5 million dollars with no
detail on what the money would be spent on, how much a ‘fully successful’ restoration
would cost, nor how much money the City of Lynnwood taxpayers would be contributing
since, according to City staff, the majority of the stormwater impacting the watershed
comes from Lynnwood. This is extremely bad budget planning and very poor
environmental stewardship.
The 2022 budget items that lack detail and adequate justification, including why prior
year funds or staffing were insufficient, should be reconsidered and deleted from the
2022 budget, or delayed until adequate detail or justification is provided and approved
by the “new” Council. This would include so-called green infrastructure and stormwater
treatment budget items which “sound” environmentally responsible, but lack sufficient
detail for an informed person to agree that it is a wise investment in protecting our
environment.
The bottom-line is that the reconsideration of the 2022 budget represents a great start
for a “new” Council that hopefully is committed to actually listening to and considering
public input in all of its deliberations and decisions, and following accepted public
meeting and decision-making procedures (which is critical for good government).
I urge Council members to not only look at your agenda packet information, but on this
agenda item, please go back and look at all the written and oral public comments made
about the 2022 budget from October through December of 2021, which as I noted
before, were totally ignored by the "prior" Council majority in adopting the 2022 budget.
From: Pam Brisse
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2022 9:16 AM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comments on the proposed 2022 Budget Amendments
Dear Edmonds City Council,
I’m writing to you to express my displeasure with your attempts to dismantle the 2022 City Budget. This
budget was passed after many discussions and public comments, was passed legally, and in the normal
order of things. Just because some of you were not on the council during that time does not mean you
get to revise it - you can have your chance when it comes time for the 2023 budget. This is how politics
work. You know better.
I’m also disgusted to learn that you wish to eliminate the programs and services that help our most
vulnerable citizens, the ones we most see people in the neighborhood groups complaining about - the
homeless that wander our streets or park their families in their cars and huddle waiting for a new day.
These are not the only people in our town who benefit from the social programs you wish to cut, it’s
also our elderly neighbors on fixed incomes with a house repair crisis or someone with food insecurity -
you wish to dismantle the Human Services department that is here to help these people? Our
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 30
neighbors? Programs that keep people from desperation? Not only does this help them, it helps keep
our neighborhoods safe from desperate crimes and thefts which helps the rest of us.
And then you want to use the money for your pet art project in the bowl? Do you even hear yourself?
Do you see how that looks? I am an artist myself and of course support the arts - but over hungry
children and suffering residents? No. We have plenty of people in this city who support the arts and
contribute to projects, the arts will not suffer if your personal project isn’t funded this year by the city.
Not only are you trying to kill jobs - jobs held by our residents and friends, but you are also trying to
eliminate public safety, eliminate public communications and transparency, to “defund the police” as it
were. Really? Anti-jobs, anti-police? Come on. Do you see how that looks? We are watching.
And then you want to defund environmental protections for the Marsh, allow pollution into the Sound,
to harm our salmon and orca? Nice look. Have an Edmonds Kind of Day, right?
Leave the budget alone, we want progress and solutions, environmental and social. We want a satellite
police station in an area where police are needed. Where actual crime is UP. Why would you try to
remove that? These programs were installed to protect the city and it’s residents. Please do better.
Pam Brisse
Edmonds Resident
From: Natalie Seitz
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 5:32 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: 1/25 Public Comment
Hello,
Good Evening. I will be unable to virtually attend the council meeting tonight. Would you please accept
my written comments below?
Thank you,
Natalie Seitz
1/25 Public Comment to Council
• Good Evening. I would like to comment tonight about marina beach and the proposed budget
amendments.
o With regard to Marina Beach: I would like to thank the Council for the courage to pause the
Marina Beach project as pre-decisional to the Marsh and to support the equitable
distribution of park resources. I fully support and commend the Council for this tough
decision. I also want to thank the City staff who worked on the grant and project, getting a
project to 30% and grants for 20% of costs is a lot of effort. While I advocated against this
project, I want to express my appreciation of the staff effort to get grant funding.
o With regard to the proposed budget amendments:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 31
• #1 A REDI manager is needed: I want to point out the need for this position by
highlighting two decisions the Council made at the last meeting:
▪ Acceptance of the Francis Anderson Lease agreement which provides tax-payer
maintained space at below market value and at a lower tax burden to recreation
service providers including a daycare. In contrast there are no community
center facilities in the two most diverse and densely populated areas of the City
(north east of five corners and the east side of SR99) and none are proposed in
the Draft PROS plan. Private daycares in these areas have to pay fair market rate
for their facilities, applicable maintenance and taxes, which is passed on to
families in the form of tuition. I think the REDI program manager would help the
City better understand the relationship between these decisions and equity to
make sure that appropriate investments are made in all areas of the City, AND
▪ The Council has just paused the Marina Beach project to promote more
equitable investments, but only after a tremendous amount of City staff time
and cost. The REDI program manager is needed and would likely pay for itself if
you look at it through the lens of preventing the waste of staff resources and
project planning costs.
• #16 Public Information Officer is needed: I think I am as engaged a citizen as possible,
yet I am still amazed at the amount of opportunities I miss and that I have every
advantage in knowing (e.g. language). 83% of the City's population is not located in
the Downtown area. The City needs a better capability to inform all Edmonds
residents.
• #22 New FTE is needed: It is my understanding that the Director, in addition to that
role, is project managing Civic Center, the PROS plan, and other capital
investments. This is not a realistic workload, and will not allow for the Director to
focus on the provision of human services or on park-system wide initiatives (ADA,
equity, maintenance) and the potential to implement asset management that would
both save the City money and provide better service. Similar to the budget, there are
so many errors in the PROS plan that I have decided not to provide direct text related
comments - this is a matter of staff resources.
• Motion to reflect expense of the new satellite City Hall office on HWY 99 in the 2011
budget numbers - I support any needed expenses to provide this service.
• Motion to add $100K for the Creative District's Fourth Avenue Corridor project design
- This is planning for a special use park that exceeds the investment identified in the
Draft PROS plan for all three of the new neighborhood parks in underserved areas
combined. It is inconsistent with the intent of the proposed level of service for the
PROS plan and the planning board recommendation for the priority of this
project. Please note that for the resources counted by the PROS plan, Downtown
already has 38.62 acres of special use park, far more than all areas of the city
combined (8.22 acres).
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 32
• Motion to add $60K for study of a Police Station relocation and/or City Hall
relocation. Government should be accessible to the public. Moving City Hall and
Police Station to a location more central to the city population and commercial center
is needed (i.e. Five Corners or the SR99 corridor).
• Motion to add $150K for streetlights in the Lake Ballinger Area - this is a much needed
improvement for safety and to reduce crime in this area. It is far less than the $1.5M
identified in the 6-year CFP for street lights Downtown.
• Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments.
From: Joan Bloom
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 5:05 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Budget Amendments agenda item
Council,
First, thank you to Council President Olson, Council President pro-tem Buckshnis and Council
member Kristiana Johnson for persevering and getting these 93 budget amendments on the
Council agenda for this evening. I appreciate your diligence in paying careful attention to the
financial health of the City of Edmonds.
My prepared comments will be in order of their placement on your agenda:
# 1 - REDI Manager – there is not sufficient information to support a full-time FTE. Suggest data
being accumulated along with reasons as to why the current consultant that is used is not
sufficient.
• I support this budget amendment. A consultant should be sufficient. Adding a full-time
FTE, without justification, also adds the ongoing costs associated with a new position. This
is not the time to create MORE staff positions.
#16 – Public Information Officer – support for full time not provided.
• Same as above. Why increase to a full time position, at this time?
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 33
#21 – $200,000 for the Human Services Department. The Division has a carry forward of
$409,000 and there is no need to add additional money. An amendment can always occur
during the year if that money is needed.
• I agree. The COE is already negotiating a contract with Compass Health to provide a staff
person on site in Edmonds. I was opposed to expansion of the Human Services
department with such a position (although relieved that Council decided to contract with
Compass Health) because City government is ill-equipped to provide social services to the
public. State government oversees DSHS (Dept of Social and Health Services). Federal
government mandates Senior Services in all communities. Edmonds is served by Homage
Senior Services. In addition to Compass Health, many non-profit agencies exist to provide
support to the needy. These many agencies have the supportive staff, training, expertise,
agency structure, liability insurance, etc to better serve these populations.
#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. the Council Personnel
Committee should look at this to determine what exactly projects are part of this request and
why contractors cannot handle this process and the interaction with Public Works and their
capital projects.
• Creating a new FTE, which creates an ongoing expense, without first answering the
questions posed in this amendment is a reckless allocation of funds.
#38 – New Police perimeter fence - this should be vetted through a committee to determine less
expensive methods can be utilized.
• Agree. And I would add that, given the newly created police/court offices on Hwy 99, and
discussions re: moving city hall, any expenditures for the fence should take those planning
issues into account.
#48 – 3-year Rate Study Consultant – The CIP/CFP should be scrubbed before we allow any
review by a consulting firm.
• Agree
#55 – Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Improvements – there was no justification for the water
mitigation or the phases of this stormwater project. Suggest that the stormwater aspect that was
clarified in the CIP/CFP be brought forth for Council and what are the costs and plans for this
project as these restoration plans are not clear and this will impact stormwater utility rates.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 34
• What will the money be used to do? Depending upon the methods used to reduce
pollutants to improve the Edmonds Marsh water quality, this could be very expensive and
significantly increase our stormwater utility rates. It is important for the details to be
known BEFORE Council allocates funds.
#60 – Perrinville Creek Projects – The Administration promised an entire Perrinville Watershed
review in 2020 when the Creek was damaged by high water flow and City placed debris was
placed by the Administration to cause the creek to flow into two vaults. There is no support for
funding $3.5MM of ARPA money for this rehabilitation.
• The COE received the $3.5 ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) infrastructure funds in 2021,
to the best of my knowledge. So there is time to develop a plan for a complete restoration
of the Perrinville Creek.
• The damaged watershed at the lower end is caused by the upper watershed of Perrinville
Creek, which includes Lynnwood.
• Since complete restoration of Perrinville Creek will cost significantly more than the 3.5
million ARPA funds, it is critical that we not spend spend any of the ARPA funds until a
complete restoration plan of the entire watershed, including Lynnwood, is presented to
and approved by Council.
• This means partnering with Lynnwood so that both cities contribute to the restoration of
Perrinville Creek.
#61 Green Street and Rain Gardens – opposed to this ARPA funding and continue to be
opposed as there is not sufficient information in any City documents to support what a green
street is and Rain Gardens have granting opportunities through Snohomish County. There is not
sufficient information to support where green street are or the definition and how the bio-
retention and rain gardens should be built to reduce flooding? This should be done before
funds are programmed.
• Agree completely. The allocation of the ARPA funds should be carefully clarified. Without a
definition of what a Green Street is, how can the city proceed with allocation of the funds
for them?
• Rain gardens must be carefully located and strategically built in order to provide bio-
retention and reduce flooding. Careful planning is required.
#93. Elm Way Walkway – not enough information. If this project will be done by the city’s
sidewalk crew, then why is the cost $$859,600?
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 35
• The $ amount of the allocation certainly raises questions for me as well.
Thank you, Council members who have gotten this far for reading my comments. Again, I
applaud your serious deliberations on how you spend taxpayer dollars.
Regards,
Joan Bloom
Former Edmonds City Councilmember
From: LaFave, Carolyn
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 9:19 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: FW: Proposed 24-unit buildings on Main and Dayton Streets
From: Judith Leraas Cook
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 1:44 PM
To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Proposed 24-unit buildings on Main and Dayton Streets
The Honorable Mayor Nelson:
My husband and I, Edmonds residents for the past six years, would like to go on record in
opposition to approving the 24-unit apartment building scheduled to be constructed at 605/611
Main Street with only one parking stall per unit as well as one now wending its way through the
system that would appear on Dayton near the Frances Anderson Center.
These buildings in no way reflect the desires of Edmonds’ population or its comprehensive
plan. Their proposed locations do NOT enhance the downtown core of our small city. Our daughter
and her family have lived in Ballard for the past 18 years and my husband and I have seen the
desecration that the construction of similar units has wreaked on that formerly charming part of
Seattle. We do not want to see it happen here!
You are the decision maker on this issue. Make us proud.
Robert and Judith Cook
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 36
From: Will Magnuson
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 11:02 AM
To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public
Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov>;
Chave, Rob <Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Mayor's comments
Greetings,
I wholeheartedly agree with Mayor Nelson's final comments last night .
This new initiative will:
• identify locations that provide opportunities for social interaction
• create new public space that provide room on the street for social interactions
• prioritize an investment strategy that identifies public and private funding
“We are going to take more steps on making Edmonds livable for all, build community
connections to improve public safety, and evolve our streets to create new public
spaces for our neighbors to gather,” Nelson concluded. “Edmonds is and will continue to
be a caring and vibrant community because I know that regardless what the future may
hold, we will move forward together.”
This is exactly what is required at primary street developments including Main, Dayton and elsewhere.
These gateway development opportunities require residential, commercial, and public space to create a
healthy, vibrant and sustainable community.
Thank you,
Will Magnuson
From: Luke Distelhorst
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 1:40 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council)
<publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Item 8.7 - Jan. 18, 2022
Dear Councilmembers,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 37
Looking at tonight's agenda item 8.7, I felt like it was important to share some
information as a Councilmember who was present and participated in the 2022 budget
process.
The false and error-filled agenda memo unfortunately creates a narrative that is not
supported by the facts contained in the numerous public meetings, budget retreat,
public hearings, and documents listed on the City’s Administrative Services page, which
was updated weekly, at a minimum, during the Fall 2021 budget process
(https://edmondswa.gov/government/departments/administrative_services).
As a Councilmember in this process, which started in May 2021, staff were always
available to answer questions by email, phone, or during our public meetings. Similarly,
the majority of Councilmembers showed up and participated in this budget process and
were available for conversations with other councilmembers.
At this point I do not feel it is even worth going through many of the erroneous
statements linked to certain approved budget items. Answers to those “questions”, or
personal opinions, are publicly available from documents listed on the link above, or
from Council-approved minutes/videos of Council meetings.
City residents and city staff need certainty in their day-to-day lives and professional
status when Council approves policy and budgetary direction.
I sincerely hope Councilmembers will speak with city staff or other Councilmembers
who actually participated in the 6-month-long budgeting process. The 2022 budget is a
significant step forward for our city and residents, especially many who have been
excluded from city policy and budget considerations in years and decades past.
Please feel free to reach out should you have any questions.
Thank you,
Luke Distelhorst
From: Kathy Brewer
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 3:15 PM
To: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn
<Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Chave, Rob
<Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov>; Clugston, Michael <Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen
<Kernen.Lien@edmondswa.gov>; Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Code Rewrite!
To Mayor Nelson, Council Members and Planning Staff,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 38
It is past time for an overhaul of our City Code! We need to update, clarify and rewrite, especially our
development codes, so Council, staff, citizens and developers know, understand and work together
towards a clear vision for our city. Currently and for a long time developers have been exploiting
loopholes, errors and inconsistencies for their gain and citizens' loss. This must change ASAP!
I and many of my fellow citizens strongly request adequate funds be budgeted immediately to start this
process. Once started, we want ongoing status updates as to progress made. As concerned citizens we
want to be involved, to give input and help affect change so our city will evolve and develop as we wish.
Please put this at the top of your priority list, just as the citizens are at the top of the City's
Organizational Chart -- this should be #1 and so should we! It is crucial to our city and citizens. Please
do not delay any longer. Let's get this in motion.
Please confirm that you hear this and understand the urgency.
Sincerely,
Kathy Brewer
From: LaFave, Carolyn
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 8:22 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: FW: Letter to the Mayor: Proposed building at 6th and Main St.
From: Dawn Malkowski
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2022 2:37 PM
To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Letter to the Mayor: Proposed building at 6th and Main St.
January 15, 2022
Dear City Council Members and Mr. Mayor,
I implore you not to approve the proposed apartment building on 6th and Main St. as it appears now.
The building is positively hideous, there are no setbacks, thus little room for attractive landscaping, plus
it absolutely does not fit in with the flavor and style of this town. Slight changes to the elevation would
make a world of difference. As it stands now, it looks like it belongs in MIAMI BEACH, no different than
the awful building they built on 3rd Ave. several years ago. A different color, darker pacific NW colors,
i.e., greens, browns, golds would be better, along with wood trim accents. It would be much more
aesthetically pleasing. Developers seem to have a tendency to build and design whatever is cheapest,
with little regard to fitting in with the existing community. What they design, doesn’t mean it’s the best
for the community they are entering into.
I addition to that, there are not enough parking spaces. Why is it that the developers are
accommodated at the expense of the citizens? Each unit should have, at no cost to the tenants, two (2)
on-site parking spaces. I know of 3 people of all the 50+ friends that I have in town here, that have 1
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 39
car. All are widowed, and two (2) are in their 80’s. Other than that, the majority of people have 2 or
more vehicles. I realize after watching the recent planning meeting that our city code allows the 1
parking space per unit. It is an outdated and unrealistic code which should be addressed. This
developer is entering our town. Let’s request that he or she build what fits into this area and what will
realistically work for the betterment of our community. For example, he or she could add additional
underground parking via another level, or purchase another lot next to his proposed building.
I sincerely hope that you will have the courage to stand up these developers and hold them accountable
for keeping our town the lovely, livable place that it is. Allowing them to do what they want because
they meet code, doesn’t mean it’s right for our town. We do not want to be Kirkland or
Bellevue. Kirkland made a huge effort to become a walking town only, with large apartment buildings
with little parking available. It was a smashing failure. I lived there for ten (10) years and saw the
congested disaster the massive apartment buildings caused. The same thing occurred in
Bellevue. Please don’t do that to us.
Respectfully,
Dawn Malkowski
From: GARY PYFER
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 6:42 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Public Comment
You have done the city of Edmond a great disservice by making the restaurants remove their outdoor
seating or pay a Hugh fee. This will cause a loss of business and that will hurt Edmonds. This Covid is
serious and most people will not eat in. BAD IGNORANT MOVE.
From: Kathy Brewer
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2022 9:41 PM
To: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn
<Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Chave, Rob
<Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien@edmondswa.gov>; Clugston, Michael
<Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov>; Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Proposed apartment complex on Main Street and 6th Ave
To Architectural Board Members, Planning Staff, Council Members, and Mayor Nelson,
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 40
Please do not allow Safadago's proposed apartment complex as designed on Main Street! Sixth and
Main is the gateway to our quaint, historic, one-of-a-kind downtown. It has been the primary location
for citizens and visitors for over a century to enter our downtown and it should be protected from
inappropriate development. Yes, there have been changes and development over the years but for the
most part the scene that we are greeted with has remained relatively the same, and the buildings have
stayed small-scale and harmonious. This oversized building would drastically change that and set a
precedent for things to come!
As we walk or drive down Main Street and approach downtown, our eyes naturally gravitate towards
the beautiful, charming, special scene -- historic one to two floor buildings and homes, pretty gazebo
fountain roundabout in the center, leafy green trees and colorful gardens and flower baskets that line
the streets, the glow of the vintage-style street lamps, beautiful views of Puget Sound and Olympic
Mountains off in the distance, and the cheerful green and white ferries coming and going. If this
apartment complex gets built, this will no longer be the case. Our eyes will be assaulted by this large-
scale, out of place blight. No one will be able to ignore an oversized, ugly, square box with three story
straight up walls and flat roof, no style, detail, setbacks, open or green space, patios, balconies or
courtyard. It will abut the sidewalk and street so will be in every pedestrian and driver's line of
vision. What a loss this will be to the beauty, charm and historic nature of our city! Future generations
will ask why was this allowed to be built? What were the city planners and officials thinking? How could
Edmonds not stop a developer from marring our gateway?
People say we need more housing and that development is unavoidable and necessary. This may be true
but housing and development should not be allowed anywhere and everywhere and without regard to
aesthetics. It should be thoughtful and appropriate. Long-term ramifications must be considered. This
location is crucial to our downtown. This building is not worthy. A few blocks away may be acceptable,
other locations in the Bowl or elsewhere in Edmonds may be acceptable, but not at Edmonds' main
entryway on Main Street!
Please reject this development! Don't allow it just because it meets code (and it barely does!) That's
not good enough! Edmonds is better than that. It deserves buildings with attractive designs that
enhance our downtown, not detract from it. Our building codes need to be rewritten and updated to
require developers to build according to our vision for our city, to keep its small town look and feel, at
least in the downtown core. The developer with the assistance of city planners should be encouraged
and expected to build in consideration of the setting, environment, neighbors and community. He or
she should offer more than the bare minimum! Look at the condominium complex behind this site, just
north of it across the alley on 6th Avenue -- a beautiful building with setbacks, green and open spaces,
patios and decks, and attractive details and roof lines. It fits in very well. Why can't something like this
be built there instead? Once built, this cheap and ugly complex will set a precedent for more of the
same throughout our downtown. Don't let that happen!
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 41
Our special, historic downtown, our citizens and visitors and the future occupants of any building built
there deserve better. Don't allow this to be built and become a permanent, ruinous feature of Edmonds
-- one that we will all regret except for the developer!
Sincerely,
Kathy Brewer
From: Greg Brewer
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2022 4:23 PM
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson,
Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Clugston, Michael <Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov>;
Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov>; robchave@edmondswa.gov; Lien, Kernen
<Kernen.Lien@edmondswa.gov>
Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Proposed development 605/611 Main Street
Hello Architectural Board members, Building Department officials, Mayor Nelson and
Councilmembers,
I’m writing in response to the recent Architectural Board meeting on January 5th concerning the
application for construction on the 600 block of Main Street. I have grave concerns about the
look and function of this building and how it fits into the landscape. It was helpful for me to hear
Kernan Lien's explanation of the codes as related to the proposed design. Unfortunately, the
plan is to maximize dwellings while providing minimal parking, minimal amenities to the
occupants and minimal aesthetics.
Not only does the design go sidewalk to alley straight up to the max 30’ height creating a giant
and imposing box, the developer wants to reduce the buffer on the east side so a minimal
parking ramp and garage can be squeezed in. Adding insult to injury, the developer wants a
concession to add a 5' parapet wall to the front of the building to hide HVAC to the street side.
Further increasing the bulk, sun and view blocking of the adjacent properties.
One parking space per dwelling unit for a mixed use project is the code. The problem is this isn’t
mixed use. It more closely mimics the RM-1.5 buildings a few lots up the hill. It’s 100%
residential! We all know the parking needs of a true mixed use building can be less than 100%
residential. Thus the difference to parking code requirements. This seems to be a loophole in
the code. Moving forward if a proposed building is truly not mixed use and 100% residential the
parking requirements should be increased accordingly.
The project has other problems and design flaws. The garage doesn't have adequate size for
two spaces to turn inside the garage to head up the ramp. This looks insurmountable and likely
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 42
will require a two unit reduction. NO concessions should be given when a developer is providing
the absolute bare minimum for parking and other amenities.
There is no outdoor space for the tenants, and I mean zero. No balconies, no courtyard, or
anything close to 5% green space. Although Kernan has explained 5% green space is not
required it should be. Without space it resembles some communist bloc housing I’ve seen. The
developer has an opportunity to correct these mistakes. He should be encouraged to pull back
from the street and give his tenants and pedestrians a little bit of breathing room. If the
developer needs that one foot reduction in the buffer the entire length of the property to make
the parking ramp work then the city should get something in return. How about a lid over part of
the ramp thus providing some sorely needed open space at the ground level. A lid over the
southeast corner of the parking ramp could provide ample outdoor space for tenants and
eliminate the need for a fence around two sides of what would be a 9-10’ deep ramp pit right on
the sidewalk.
The site in question is in the BD2 zone which is also deemed a transition zone. Look at the
renderings. This building does not appear to be transitional at all. It's a massive apartment
building with no business or commercial space. In fact I’m hard pressed to find anything like it in
any of the BD2 zones. The scale and use are totally out of place. So it appears the developer is
trying to set a precedent. Is this really what we want our town to look like? Just because you can
doesn’t mean you should.
We need to revisit the comprehensive plan and get everyone on the same page or this is going
to get ugly real quick. Change is coming. Let's not fall into the trap of writing code one building
at a time with concessions and variances granted along the way. The time has come to rewrite
the comprehensive code. Who will lead us through the changes that are at our doorstep? How
can concerned citizens be a part of the process? How long will the process take? How much
irreversible damage will be sustained while we wait?
Sincerely,
Greg Brewer
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2022 11:43 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Regarding the GBH Holdings LLC redevelopment at 6th and Main Street in Edmonds
From: Will Magnuson
Date: January 16, 2022 at 11:05:49 AM PST
To: Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov>, Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>, "LaFave, Carolyn"
<Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Regarding the GBH Holdings LLC redevelopment at 6th and Main Street in Edmonds
Why is there never enough time to do it right, but always enough time to fix it later?
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 43
My wife and I moved here to Edmonds in 1989 inspired by a college class I was fortunate to attend. The
class was called Urbanalysis and it’s primary message was that cities compete just as businesses do to
remain viable, grow and prosper. Cities compete and remain viable based on their attributes inclusive of
commerce, transportation, recreation and livability. Edmonds was a city we had passed through while
traveling in the PNW during the decade prior to our move. Back in the late 1980’s, the Seattle area was
primed for growth and Edmonds checked all the boxes as a viable regional city for our future. We loved
this area in the PNW and chose beautiful Edmonds to establish our residence.
The 1990’s was a decade of substantial growth in the Puget Sound and the area grew in population and
opportunities. Edmonds was then a very sleepy community on the edge of Puget Sound and was slowly
evolving to adapt to the new growth opportunities and challenges. Often the most minor of changes to
our community were met with harsh citizen comments to curtail any alteration to the established way
things were in Edmonds. I recall the concerted effort to develop the Harbor Square complex being
rebuked over cries to restrain building heights and as result the Harbor Square redevelopment failed to
progress. Any effort by the public(city) or private(developer) to provide new development opportunities
was greeted by severe community backlash with criticism like “we don’t want to be like Kirkland” or the
extreme “don’t let Edmonds become like Manhattan”. Building heights became the battle cry for any
discussion regarding development in Edmonds, especially in the downtown and bowl neighborhoods.
There were some discussions about incentivizing any new development with building stepbacks and
providing public or open spaces, but those discussions were too often overwhelmed with cries to keep
building heights down. There was additional discussion regarding how much height does first floor
commercial space require to establish a downtown first floor level and establish criteria for overall
building heights in downtown. Eventually some standards were enacted for new development in
particular locations, but not an adequate comprehensive plan that would support responsible new
development, especially throughout our downtown core. Basically the building heights debate
overwhelmed the discussion thus leaving behind lost opportunities to properly discuss and evaluate
Edmonds design standards for new development regardless if it was downtown, highway 99 or
anywhere else in Edmonds.
As the Puget sound region continues to grow, pressure will continue to build in Edmonds to proceed
with new development to meet new opportunities and challenges. The city's population will require
more commercial and residential space to be built and the city will require more revenues to properly
function. This community has already witnessed a great deal of change in the last few decades. I
continue to be amused when someone states they “just want to keep Edmonds the way it is” even as
many of us can attest that the present 2022 Edmonds is significantly different from the 1989 Edmonds.
We have far more opportunities for lifestyle, employment, recreation and entertainment as Edmonds
remains a desirable location. Correspondingly affordability will continue to be a challenge. We must not
shut the door on growth for fear of change nor should we expect that we can. The city of Edmonds will
need to strive to continue to be competitive for sustained viability. Edmonds has a unique opportunity
to witness the recent growth and evolution of communities such as Bothell, Kenmore and elsewhere to
find the successes, failures and challenges to manage growth. We’re all in this together including the
developers, city and community of Edmonds. Growth is going to happen, the only question is do we
manage it or do we let it manage us?
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 44
Now we have a block style building of 24 apartment units proposed near 6th Ave on Main Street and
located on a major gateway with an opportunity to set the tone for Edmonds. Will that be a welcome
message to inclusivity, diversity and community? The city and community are in a difficult position to
challenge the overall design impact of this imposing redevelopment based on existing codes and
ordinances. It is true that a property owner is fully entitled to build on their property per development
standards and building codes to maximize it’s financial potential for the property. However, just because
something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. There is a moral and social long term benefit to
being a responsible member of the community. Development codes and ordinances should responsibly
balance opportunities and benefits for the developer and community alike. The city does indeed have
tools available to implement community oriented design standards and requirements for this and future
projects. It’s not too late, but community and city action needs to proceed quickly as no doubt the
Safadago’s GBH Holdings LLC is moving expeditiously to procure permits and proceed with work for this
project as well as other projects in the city. Implementing amended development standards will require
community support, political will, and a municipal commitment to make that happen. Much should be
done inclusive of reevaluating some governing departments and committees which at times appear to
have evolved as the permit expeditors for a developer. It’s important for a comprehensive review of the
options available now for reworking development guidelines as this proposed redevelopment will
establish a gateway for a very long time.
I personally have been active in residential and commercial development for nearly 40 years and have
witnessed a big difference between good development and bad development. This proposed project by
Safadago’s GBH Holdings LLC is indeed bad development. I feel the proposed project design is more
appropriate for a medical complex on Hwy 99 than a building located at a gateway to our downtown.
The project will be a vivid daily reminder to the resident and visitor alike of how we build projects wrong
or we build projects right in our beautiful city of Edmonds. It’s the future of the city and the choice of
how we proceed belongs to all of us.
Will Magnuson
Edmonds, WA
From: N MIddleton
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2022 5:00 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Trash, Recycling and Yard Waste
Hi,
Please address these questions in your Tuesday, 1/18 meeting:
1. Why does the City have 3 different service providers for waste pickup?
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 45
2. When does Republic Services contract come up for review?
3. Can Republic contract be re-evaluated earlier, given the lack of service?
4. Will homeowners who are not getting pickups get refunds?
5. What temporary solution can the city come up with?
Thank you.
Norma Middleton
From: LaFave, Carolyn
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 10:16 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: FW: Proposed development at 605 and 611 Main Street
From: jane simpson
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 10:15 AM
To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Proposed development at 605 and 611 Main Street
Dear Mayor Nelson,
I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed development at the above addresses. The
displacement of eight businesses will be a significant loss to the community. In addition, the
proposed design, as I understand it, will be yet another soulless box so prevelent in urban areas
recently. My husband and I are relative newcommers to Edmonds and one of the things that
drew us to the community was the character of the downtown business district. We appreciate
the variety of architecture and the repurposing of existing buildings for commercial use.
Please do not let Edmonds go the way of Greenwood, Ballard and Columbia City. Keep the
character of our downtown and support local businesses!
Sincerely,
Jane Simpson
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 46
From: LaFave, Carolyn
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 3:55 PM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: FW: Proposed 24-unit building to be located on Main Street
From: Judith Leraas Cook
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 3:38 PM
To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Proposed 24-unit building to be located on Main Street
The Honorable Mayor Nelson:
My husband and I, Edmonds residents for the past six years, would like to go on record in
opposition to approving the 240-unit apartment building scheduled to be constructed at 605/611
Main Street with only one parking stall per unit.
This building in no way reflects the desires of Edmonds’ population or its comprehensive plan. Its
proposed location does NOT enhance the downtown core of our small city. Our daughter and her
family have lived in Ballard for the past 18 years and we have seen the desecration the construction
of similar units has wreaked on that formerly charming part of Seattle. We do not want to see that
happen here!
You are the decision maker on this issue. Keep it away from us----and please entertain no more
similar proposals.
Robert and Judith Cook
From: Gayla Shoemake
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:28 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Parks and Recs Plan- Postpone Ratification
Dear Edmonds City Council,
I am concerned that the proposed plan for Edmonds Parks and Recs does
not include sufficient action regarding climate change and its impact on our
city environment, including the parks. While there is slight mention of
climate change on 3 pages (84,85,91), carbon is mentioned only once
and there is no mention of greenhouse gases, which includes methane, and
other serious gases. There is no plan for how they will reduce greenhouse
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 47
gas emissions within their own department (such as using only battery
powered leaf blowers, electric powered trucks, etc.). Such a reduction would
be easy to implement. Nor is there any mention of how they will prepare for
sea level rising and how they will adjust to increasing heavy storms in their
plans. Again, some of these adjustments can be fairly simple and easy to
add to the plan.
After discussion at the public meeting about trees, there was only a
reference to the Urban Forestry Management Plan, but no implementation
actually included for trees. How will the Parks and Recs Dept address the
serious reduction of our tree canopy? Will additional trees be planted in the
parks; if so, which parks, who will decide which kinds of trees, and when
they are planted. These trees can form excellent sequestration for the
carbon and other greenhouse gases emitted in the future, and a fairly simple
addition to the plan.
I hope you will postpone acceptance of this plan until more of the comments
(similar to mine above) from the public have been included in the plan.
Thank you,
Gayla Shoemake
From: LaFave, Carolyn
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:28 AM
To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: FW: Please Put Our Email on Record!
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Koser
Sent: Saturday, January 8, 2022 2:58 PM
To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Please Put Our Email on Record!
We are very opposed to approval of the application for the 24 unit apartment building at 605 and 611
Main Street, ESPECIALLY with only one parking stall per unit.
>
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
February 8, 2022
Page 48
> As life long citizens of Edmonds, it is a very high priority to maintain the charming, quaint, quiet
downtown area of Edmonds.
>
> Chris and Arnt Koser