Loading...
Cmd021522 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING APPROVED MINUTES February 15, 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 Shane Hawley, Acting Asst. Police Chief Dave Turley, Administrative Services Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., Cultural Arts & Human Services Director Susan McLaughlin, Dev. Serv. Director Rob English, Acting Public Works Director Doug Merriman, Interim Comm. Serv. & Econ. Dev. Dir. Eric Engmann, Senior Planner Frances Chapin, Arts & Culture Program Mgr. Thom Sullivan, Facilities Manager Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Paine 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 PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 2 COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO AMEND TO ADD AN IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM REGARDING BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS IN THE BD2 ZONE. Councilmember Paine said her request was to add this as Agenda Item 7.1 and renumber the remaining agenda items. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO AMEND TO ADD 2022 COUNCIL CONTINGENCY REQUEST FOR $10,000 AS AGENDA ITEM 7.6. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, AND PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, commenting on the tree ordinance, asked whether the mayor, councilmembers and the planning department would restore the property rights of vacant, single family zoned properties. The current inventory of homes for purchase in Edmonds is eight; the remainder are pending or sold. Single family homes are greatly needed, yet the City has made it economically infeasible to build them by delaying permits and charging property owners for their own property, their trees, before allowing division, and held land use hostage until the City is paid, a pay-to-play scheme. She suspected all were living in homes for which it was necessary to remove trees so they could be built. She suggested they imagine paying the City for those trees now, pointing out that has to happen for the tree ordinance to be equitable. It is illegal to require vacant landowners to pay for past transgressions now that the City has what it needs. Forcing a small number of property owners to pay for the damage others’ homes have had on the climate is a violation of the U.S. Constitution 5th and 14th amendments’ takings clause. It is outrageous to require $300-$400 arborist assessments and then $3000-$12,000 be paid to the City for each tree needing removal before homes can be built on their property. The only exemption is to retain 50% of their trees which limits the use of their land. Ms. Ferkingstad asked who else was exempt from the tree ordinance; the City can cut down as many trees as they like without penalty. Builders of multifamily buildings are not charged for their trees and are only required to provide 5% open space. Homeowners aren’t penalized for cutting down trees, although that is a goal the City hopes to achieve in the next few months. Halting new housing within city limits harms the environment and violates the Growth Management Act and Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. It's actions like these that have made Washington State legislators feel it was necessary to pass extreme bills that turn quiet cities like Edmonds into places like Ballard; stacked and unrecognizable from 20 years ago. Bills 1137, 5670 and 5818 push for massive increases in density and remove land use decisions from cities who obstruct owners from building. The bills allow for more homes on single family zoned properties including triplexes, duplexes, and accessory dwelling units, as many as six homes on a single lot, to slow urban sprawl and pushing homes into agricultural and forested lands, a huge contributor to climate change. The council’s actions have harmed property owners, the environment and the City. She urged the council to show legislators that these bills are not necessary to force them to obey the laws of the city, state and country by restoring property rights back to property owners and allowing division and building of single family homes without encumbrances. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 3 Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, speaking to the location of current parks, reported according to the areas counted by the draft PROS Plan there are roughly 82 acres of community, neighborhood, and special use and waterfront parks downtown, equating to 11.47 acres per 1,000 population based on the 2020 census. There are roughly 46 acres in Five Corners or 3.53 acres per 1,000; roughly 25 acres in north Edmonds or 2.85 acres per 1,000, and roughly 12 acres in SR-99 and south Edmonds or 0.94 acres per 1,000 population. Someone living in north Edmonds or Five Corners has per capita roughly 3-4 times the parks in their area as SR-99 and south Edmonds and someone living downtown has roughly 12 times the parks per capital when compared to SR-99 and south Edmonds. Regarding the Growth Management Act, she said a major feature of the act’s framework is that public facilities and services needed to support development should occur concurrently and planning and plan implementation actions should address physical issues that have resisted resolution in the past such as providing adequate urban services for concentrated growth in those areas and the siting of essential public facilities. Ms. Seitz continued, what should be evident to everyone listening is that the City has not historically provided the resources where growth has occurred in conflict with the purpose of the GMA. The current PROS Plan identifies three neighborhood parks in south Edmonds and SR-99. The proposed acquisition by the City would be lucky to secure five acres, so best case scenario with no growth, SR-99 and south Edmonds would increase from 0.94 to 1.35 acres per 1,000, still less than half the acres per capita of north Edmonds or Five Corners and less than 1/8th provided per capita downtown. There will of course be growth, based on the already approved 191 unit GRE apartments and pending land use applications including 3 additional large projects in the SR-99 area, a total of another 536 units. There is every indication that the per capita provision of parks will actually decrease over the next six years for the SR-99 area based on current land use applications and what is proposed in the PROS Plan. She urged the council to prevent displacement and prioritize parks in underserved areas and to support the study of relocating the police station and city hall to an area more central to the City’s population and economic center SR-99. Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, hoped all could agree that the #1 responsibility of city government was public safety. He questioned whether Edmonds was safe and what metrics showed the direction the City was heading. To put it in perspective, he explained in December he was ambushed by a knife-wielding individual who, unprovoked, blindsided him, shoved him to the ground face-first not far from his home in Edmonds. He was apprehended by Edmonds Police Department and is now facing trial. Mr. Ogonowski said he was lucky and escaped serious physical injury. Since that time, he has been trying to have a conversation with Mayor Nelson to share thoughts and ideas to enhance public safety, but Mayor Nelson has repeatedly ignored him or now, rather than having a private conversation with Mayor Nelson, there will be a very public one over the next few weeks or months on public safety. He suggested during Mayor’s Comment at the end of tonight’s meeting, Mayor Nelson address whether Edmonds is a safe place to live and work. He asked councilmember to assure there was enough time for Mayor Nelson to answer his question and suggested anyone who did not vote to extend the meeting to allow the time would themselves show contempt for the community. After all, public safety is the council’s number one responsibility. He referred to the agenda item regarding adoption of the extreme risk protection order statute into Edmonds municipal code and suggested if any councilmembers were inclined to vote against it to ask the police chief or her representative to provide a full detailed account of the incident at the supermarket that led to tonight’s request, noting it was chilling what officers found on the suspect. He reiterated his question whether Edmonds was safe. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said the powers of a mayor in a broad-power code city are limited to those powers that are delegated by law. He questioned whether a mayor should establish a taskforce that makes legislative recommendations or should city council establish such a taskforce. He questioned whether a mayor should be able to direct the city attorney to draft an ordinance or is it the city council that has the authority to direct the city attorney to draft an ordinance. The council all knows who the city attorney’s client is. Ordinance Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 4 3724 provides evidence that the 2009 city council believed that taskforces are established via ordinance. Should the taskforce to study homelessness have been established via ordinance and if not, why not? What governs the formation and use of taskforces by Edmonds city government? He urged the council and mayor to stop refusing to answer reasonable, basic questions. City officials may want to review Ordinance 3724; he was unable to find evidence that it had ever been repealed. Ordinance 3724 may require review and update; it contains reference to ESCA, an entity that disbanded in 2015. Two new references to ESCA were added to city code in 2020 and ESCA is still mentioned in city code in 2022. He questioned how this happened and why it wasn’t immediately fixed. Mr. Reidy continued, Ordinance 3724 states the Disaster Recovery Plan is closely linked to the City’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan, requiring coordination of activities and resources as the response phase of disaster operations begins to subside and recovery activities begin. Will Edmonds citizens ever be informed if there is a functional CEMP? Will they ever be told when the CEMP will be reviewed and updated? The approved meeting minutes for the January 4, 2022 regular meeting contain a blank line indicating who was present at the executive session; he requested the City disclose whose name should be disclosed on that blank line. When the regular city council meeting was reconvened on January 4th, no action was taken as a result of meeting in executive session. On January 20, 2022, during the Mayor’s state of the city address, Mayor Nelson mentioned acquisition discussions and negotiations with landowners for several parcels including Perrinville Woods and a 3-acre undeveloped parcel along Highway 99. He questioned whether the mayor had the authority to disclose acquisition discussions and negotiations with landowners and requested citizens be informed how that worked. Deborah Arthur, Edmonds, agreed it was dangerous in Edmonds particularly where she is. She reads the police reports and watches the neighborhood; there is a big problem near Stevens and the hospital does not have adequate security. She has heard about older women being hit in the head and the assailant running away. She said 76th was a disaster, she hears it and sees it. She suggested not trying to pack everything into Stevens Hospital. As a former outreach worker, she understands the problems with drugs, but there needs to be care for those people. She suggested Verdant be moved and questioned who they served. She did not support moving the fire station near the hospital. She objected to being awoken by garbage trucks at 6:40 a.m. this morning and at 6:55 every day by hundreds of white cars coming down 80th Street. She agreed it was dangerous, the other night she saw people moving in near at the Royal Terrace; they were gone two days later, leaving a great deal of garbage. 6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 22, 2022 2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1, 2022 3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1, 2022 4. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2022 5. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT 6. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 7. POSITION DESCRIPTION REVISIONS - DAY CAMP Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 5 8. SHERWOOD ELEMENTARY PLAYGROUND RENOVATION PROJECT 9. PRELIMINARY DECEMBER 2021 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REPORT 10. ORDINANCE AMENDING ECC 1.02 PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS 11. APPROVAL OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT, DISPOSAL, AND TRANSPORT CONTRACT EXTENSION 12. PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN AND WATER METER VAULT EASEMENTS AT 21200 72ND AVE W 13. APPROVAL OF RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION DOCUMENTS FOR 22921 HIGHWAY 99 14. PUBLIC DEFENSE CONTRACT RENEWAL 15. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING EMPLOYEE PREMIUM PAYMENTS AND VACATION DAYS FOR ESSENTIAL WORKERS 16. NEIGHBORHOOD CITY OFFICE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT JOB DESCRIPTION 7. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY MORATORIUM REGARDING BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS IN THE BD2 ZONE COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ACCEPT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING AN IMMEDIATE MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR THE BD2 ZONED LOTS THAT DO NOT FRONT ON A DESIGNATED STREET FRONT TO BE IN EFFECT UNTIL THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTS INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR SUCH BD2 ZONED LOTS, SETTING TWO MONTHS AS THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE MORATORIUM AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Councilmember K. Johnson asked about setting a date for the public hearing. Councilmember Paine advised the date of the public hearing was April 5, 2022. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE CODE AMENDMENT Senior Planner Eric Engmann advised the next topic of code amendments is EV charging infrastructure. He reviewed: • Tonight’s agenda: an introductory discussion 1. The need for EVs and EV charging infrastructure 2. Highlights of proposed code amendments • Topic One: EV as part of a sustainable solution o EV Ties to Major Sustainability Goals Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Policy 6.22 Encourage and promote the use of EV charging stations…including standards for new developments that provide parking facilities Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 6 Transportation Element Policy 6.23 Position Edmonds to respond to technical innovation, such as EVs Community Sustainability Element Policy B.3 Explore and support the use of alternative fuels and transportation options that reduce GHG emissions Climate Action Plan Goal Carbon Neutral by 2050 TR-5 Promote Electric Vehicles and other low-carbon vehicles Policy Initiative Action 3C Electrification of the Transportation System. Shifting the transportation fuel source from fossil to clean electricity (including) charging stations…for multifamily construction o Sources of Edmonds’ GHG emissions ▪ Local Sector Based Emissions - Buildings (residential) 35% - Buildings (commercial) 15% - Refrigerant Loss 6% - Waste 2% - Transportation 40%  Passenger travel 80%  Truck Freight 9%  Port 6%  Commercial Services 3%  Rail 1%  Transit 1%  Off Road <1% o Washington Annual GHG Emissions by Vehicle Type Vehicle Type Annual Pounds Per Vehicle Gasoline 11,500 Hybrid 6,000 Plug-in Hybrid 4000 All electric 500 o Growth in EV Demand ▪ Electric Vehicle Registered in Edmonds - 2017: 367 - 2021: 838 - As of yesterday: 980 o Growth in EV Options ▪ Number of options and models are increasing ▪ Battery technology continues to improve ▪ Many auto companies moving to all-electric vehicles Company Pledge Year Jaguar All Electric 2025 Toyota All Electric or Hybrid 2025 Volvo All Electric 2030 GM All Electric 2035 Honda All Electric 2040 Ford Carbon Neutral 2050 o Remaining Barriers ▪ Largest concern for people considering buying EV is: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 7 - Finding locations to charge vehicles  80% of EVs are charged at home or at work  Also require convenient locations to “top off”  Need charging stations at new development to help meet current and future demand o Costs of Retrofitting ▪ Bottom Line: It is much cheaper and cost effective to include EV charging infrastructure during new construction or major renovation ▪ Cost Estimates for EV Parking Spaces in Denver EV Infrastructure Requirement During New Construction During Retrofit Savings w/ New Construction Electrical Panel & Wiring $300/space $2,500/space $2,200/space Full Circuit $1,300/space $6,300/space $5,000/space • Topic Two: Identified solutions through Development Code (ECDC) o Three Main Components of Code ▪ Which staging levels should be required by use type? (capable, ready, installed) ▪ Which charging level is appropriate (Levels I, II or III) ▪ Identifying an appropriate ratio of EV charging stations, by use type (single family, multifamily, non-residential, etc.) o Staging or “Types” of EV Charging Infrastructure ▪ EV Capable - Electrical Panel capacity and conduit for future use ▪ EV Ready - Electrical Panel capacity conduit and circuit for charging ▪ EV Installed - Electrical Panel capacity, conduit, circuit and specialized equipment for charging o Charging Levels - The infrastructure is categorized by the “Charging Levels” or voltage produced ▪ Level I - 120-volt circuit (like a household outlet) - 8-20 hours to fully charge ▪ Level II (code proposal) - 240-volt circuit (like an oven or dryer) - 4-8 hours to fully charge - Most common level for residential uses ▪ Level III (Rapid Charging) - 480+ volt circuit (too much for home usage - Less than one hour to fully charge - At commercial sites or near highways • Who we’ve spoken with o Master Builders Association (MBA) o Built Green (MBA) o Goodman Real Estate (GRE) o Snohomish County Public Utility District o City of Issaquah o King County o Regional Code Collaboration o Southwest Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP) o Also Held 5 Meeting Sessions with Planning Board …. • Applicability Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 8 o EV Charging Infrastructure would be required when… ▪ A new development or new off-street parking facility; ▪ Existing development – substantial damage or substantial improvement (50% rule) occurs within a one-year period, as determined by the Building Official; or ▪ 50% increase in parking capacity (based on total parking spaces) • Proposed Edmonds Standards Type of Use Number of EV Capable Parking Spaces Number of EV Ready Parking Spaces Number of EV Installed Parking Spaces Single family dwelling units1 N/A 1/dwelling unit N/A Multiple dwelling units1 40% of parking spaces 40% of parking spaces 10% of parking spaces Non-residential uses 40% of parking spaces N/A 10% of parking spaces Footnote 1: Multiple dwelling units with individual garages shall follow the requirements for single family dwelling units • Draft Code Review o Code draft, Planning Board minutes, SEPA information are included in Council agenda packet • Code update page o The code updates page is now available ▪ Sign up for notification list for all code updates or just this topic: www.edmondswa.gov/codeupdates ▪ Take a picture of the QR code to visit the EV Charging specific page Councilmember Tibbott referred to the Proposed Edmonds Standards and asked the difference in cost between EV Capable and EV ready for most single family dwellings. Mr. Engmann recalled it was $300 for EV capable in new construction and slightly over $1,000 for EV ready. Councilmember Tibbott asked if that would be a disincentive for new home buyers, adding $700 on top of other costs. Mr. Engmann answered it is possible but if EV capable or ready is not required for new construction, it is a lot more expensive to install compared to including it when a home is built. Councilmember Tibbott asked what builders were saying. Mr. Engmann answered for single family it has become kind of the norm; many codes including Seattle require one EV ready space so it is not a concern for single family. Councilmember Paine expressed appreciation for the work the Planning Board has done on this, noting a lot of wonderful questions were asked particularly regarding how development would include these new code standards. The proposal is simple to understand and flexible enough as more information becomes available. She noted the Planning Board minutes cover virtually everything. She was appreciative of this coming to the council and said it was a good time for it. Councilmember Tibbott said in reading the Planning Board minutes, there was an indication that some neighborhoods may not have the capacity to handle additional EV charging stations. He asked if solar could help offset the lack of capacity. Mr. Engmann answered as the proposed amendment was going through the Planning Board, staff was contacted by Snohomish County PUD who offered to look over the City’s code. The only change they proposed was a possible exception in a unique situation where the power capacity or capability wasn’t there, to allow the proposed Edmonds standards to be lowered. He clarified it was not related to a specific area, this is a common request from the electricity provider in other cities, basically a preventative measure that is included in all codes. Staff and PUD discussed some scenarios where it could happen, but it was more of a situational thing that could possibly occur. If the proposed standards are adopted as proposed, PUD could reduce the requirement from EV installed to EV capable or from Level II Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 9 charger to Level I. He reiterated it was more of a hypothetical that could happen rather than a defined, specific case. Councilmember Tibbott asked whether solar could be a capacity booster. Mr. Engmann answered he was sure it could be; any clean energy options could be beneficial. One of the things added to the code was load management technology which allows for the diverting of power sources to supply these and other uses; he assumed solar would be a good option for that. Councilmember L. Johnson said her questions had been answered and this was definitely thought provoking. Councilmember Chen thanked staff for their hard work and the wonderful information they gathered. He was glad to see this moving forward. Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin acknowledged Mr. Engmann for his hard work, relaying this is his last presentation to council as tomorrow is his last day. 3. PRESENTATION OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ENERGY RETROFIT GRANT FOR PUBLIC SAFETY SOLAR PLANT Facilities Manager Thom Sullivan explained the goal of the project is to align public works and facilities projects with state, county and city environmental goals and clean energy commitments. In 2019, Snohomish County passed Joint Resolution 19006 committing to 100% clean electricity by 2030 and 100% clean energy by 2045. In 2020 then-Public Works Director Williams and he commissioned a draft solar PV panel assessment of the four largest City buildings for future consideration. MLA Engineering prepared a draft evaluation of City Hall, Frances Anderson Center, Public Works, and Public Safety Complex for future solar project consideration. Mr. Sullivan continued, in 2021, the state energy strategy commits to step standards for 100% clean electricity grid by 2030. The measures include the doubled output of clean electricity by 2050 which removes the state’s reliance on fossil fuel consumption. This strategy urges state and local agencies to lead by example with clean energy investments for public buildings to increase municipal resilience and energy security. The state recognizes the high cost of initial investment in equipment and infrastructure for aggressive climate action and had generously created the energy retrofits for public buildings grant program to assist. Solar grants, like the aforementioned, provide competitive funds for new solar power installations and other energy updates for public buildings and facilities. The public works department and facilities PV panel assessment determined the Public Safety Building was the best candidate for the state solar grant program application in 2021. The application was prepared in partnership with McKinstry with the State Department of Commerce’s ESCO program being the preferred procurement method to execute the solar installation. Shelby Sawyers, McKinstry, reviewed: • Project Description o Drawing of the proposed array o Scope ▪ Install a 133kW DC Solar PV system with 324 modules (panels) on the roof segments of the Public Safety Building ▪ System will be interconnected and set up for Net Metering with the local utility (Snohomish PUD) ▪ The generated power to offset about 18% of the building’s annual consumption. o Funding ▪ Project costs estimate: $469,645 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 10 ▪ Awarded Commerce Grant funding of $119,645 - 25% of total project cost ▪ City of Edmonds matching need is $350,000 • Project Financials o Project Payback ▪ Simply payback of 20.2 years including grants, utility savings and carbon savings o Cost of Carbon ▪ The social cost of carbon dioxide per metric ton of CO2e: $76 in 2020 (WA UTC) ▪ This equates to $7,430/year cost of carbon savings (for 2020) o Energy & Green House Gas reductions ▪ Electric energy savings of $135,976 kWh/year ▪ Utility costs savings of $9,888/year ▪ Carbon reduction of 215,546 lbs CO2e/year ▪ Equivalent to 365,322 miles not driven/year or 27 acres of trees planted • Project Benefits Lowest Cost o Approved Commerce Grant matching Carbon Neutral o City Climate Action Plan outlines goal to be carbon neutral by 2050 Community o Leading by example o Opportunity for solar project at lowest cost o Resiliency o Educational opportunity for community Acting Public Works Director Rob English reviewed: • Budget o 2022 Budget ▪ $230,000 programmed in DP 72 ▪ Funding Source 2021 bond proceeds o Project cost & local match ▪ $469,645 = Project Cost (Public Safety & Anderson Center) ▪ $119,645 = commerce grant ▪ $350,000 = local match from 2021 bond proceeds o Future budget actions ▪ 1st quarter budget amendment to program portion of grant revenue ▪ Remaining $120,000 in local match to be included in 2023 budget • Next Steps o Confirm matching funds of $350,000 o Accept Commerce Grant Award (need confirmation by end of month o Staff recommendation to accept grant Council President Olson commented she knew the history for the administration goes further back, but the legislative branch has only known about this since February. At the same time this was being considered, consideration was being given to a study that would contemplate moving some City functions. She was struggling with the choice of the Public Safety Building knowing it was a perfect central location for maybe some parking that serves downtown and Civic Field. This grant opportunity was exciting and the Public Safety Building was the best candidate out of the four largest buildings, partially due to its high visibility which normally she would be completely on board with. If this was her own residence and she was about to explore whether she would be demolishing it in 8-10 years (she recognized the decision may be not to do that), consideration of that study would cause her concern. The Public Works Building, although it lacks visibility, was one of four larger buildings that were considered. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 11 Council President Olson referred to the letter from Department of Commerce regarding the contingent award of the grant (packet page 412) which states any changes must be reviewed and approved by Commerce. She liked the idea of moving forward, but not with a building where there may be a potential change and not until the City has explored changing the location of some functions. That was her reservation and she looked forward to the rest of the conversation and more input from staff on that. She added a caveat that she lived in a house growing up where a historic building in town was reroofed with fabulous roofing tiles and within 5 years of installation, the building was condemned and taken down. To this day, 20-30 years later, her dad still talks about that waste of money. She worried about having a hand in a decision that might go that way. Ms. Sawyers observed the first part of Council President Olson’s question was how the decision was reached and offered to give a quick synopsis of the history. Council President Olson interrupted, saying it was not how they got to the decision but knowing there was a possible proposal to look at relocation, her question was whether a different site could be considered. Ms. Sawyers answered a big factor was the footprint of the building; other options that were considered did not have that same footprint. There is also the age of the infrastructure and the visibility. She offered to check with the account lead, Andrew Williamson. Heramb Amonkar, McKinstry, said in terms of the Commerce grant, there was a long list of criteria that the project needed to meet as well as scoring criteria, and that was one of the factors used in evaluating the buildings. As Ms. Sawyers mentioned, criteria included the footprint of the project, size of the project, how much it generated and the offset it produces; this location suited those metrics. Changing the building is a significant change due to cost generation capacity and impact on the scoring; it will be completely up to the Department of Commerce to entertain that request. Mr. Sullivan said Public Works was an attractive site for solar due to the amount of roof space. Unfortunately, it was the first building ruled out during the structural assessment because it was a pre- engineered kit building that was built on site. It was built with such marginal engineering parameters for roof load especially, that it was not an option without a full seismic retrofit of the building which would be a significant cost of actually replacing the building because it was not engineered for that. City Hall and the Frances Anderson Center both have viability but would require a seismic and structural analysis because solar panels on flat roofs need to be ballasted with brick. The Public Safety Building’s standing seam metal sloped roof offers ease of installation as panels can be clipped to the roof rather than ballasted. Councilmember Tibbott recalled the simple payback was 20 years; he assumed that was based on the $350,000 amount. He assumed there would be a net positive return after 20 years and asked about the expected lifespan of the solar panels and how long they would generate electricity. Ms. Sawyers agreed it was based on $350,000 amount for the payback. Mr. Amonkar answered typically the modules have a 25- year manufacturer warranty on the level of production and the lifespan is typically much more than 30 years. Councilmember Paine said she loves this proposal, it is a great way to get started and she appreciated all the information that has been provided. The police station is a good place to install solar because it is very visible and there are good opportunities on the Frances Anderson Center as well. This is right time to start putting this together and after council questions, she will make a motion. Councilmember Buckshnis complimented staff on the complete packet and for answering her questions today. Councilmember L. Johnson said this supports the climate action goals in Resolution 1389. She was struck by comments of foregoing adding solar to the Public Safety Complex, which was identified as the most Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 12 viable option, and moving forward those climate action goals because some may want to demolish the structure to provide more parking downtown. Those two things did not line up for her. The Public Safety Complex has been identified as the most viable option and there is a partial matching grant. She was prepared to support the project. Councilmembers say they support the climate action goals in Resolution 1389 and this is a step toward those. Councilmember Chen said no one is saying they want to demolish the building, they just want to study the possibilities. He asked if the Department of Commerce would allow the City to delay acceptance of the grant or move it to Frances Anderson Center as a second choice. Mr. Sullivan answered the Frances Anderson Center and City Hall are options for future installations and grant opportunities, but the structural and seismic analysis necessary to propose a project would put it outside the availability of this grant cycle. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO ACCEPT THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ENERGY RETROFIT GRANT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION OF THE PROPOSED 100 KW PLANT ON THE WEST ROOF OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX. Councilmember K. Johnson said she and Councilmember Tibbott received this presentation at the Parks & Public Works Committee meeting and recommended it come to full Council for review. She was completely in support of this project, and allocating funds from the General Fund to support this grant as the grant only pays for 25% of the project. Council President Olson said she was pushing back on the political narrative that is being spun on what it would mean if she abstained or voted no on this. She is at odds; she has been completely supportive of all the City’s environmental initiatives and extremely supportive of solar projects. She has concerns about the timing when consideration is being given to a study and setting ourselves up for having more reasons not to go forward. She understood why people were supportive of the project; she would be if there wasn’t the possibility of looking at moving things around. Parking is a priority; among the cars that will be parked in the future will be electric vehicles. She resented everything being turned into a political narrative instead of the council trying to do its due diligence to protect the City and taxpayers’ money. Councilmember Buckshnis said this also came to the Finance Committee. She asked if the Public Safety Building was one of the City’s newest building. Mr. Sullivan answered it is the second newest building after the Waterfront Center. Councilmember Buckshnis said she had no problem with discussing the move of different aspects of city administration to different areas of town. However, due to its connection to the fire station, she envisioned the Public Safety Complex would be there for at least the next 40 years. She expressed support for the motion. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-0-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER CHEN AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON ABSTAINING. 4. ORDINANCE ADOPTING EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER STATUTE INTO EDMONDS MUNICIPAL CODE Acting Assistant Chief Shane Hawley explained this is a request to change ECC and adopt by reference the extreme risk protection order statute, an existing RCW in State law. The law establishing these orders went into effect in 2016. When this was presented to committee last week, a slight glitch was noticed in that the RCW would sunset in July 2022. The current request would adopt two different RCWs into the city code so the order violations can be charged in municipal court where misdemeanors are heard. The first part would adopt the current RCW for an extreme risk protection order until July and when that RCW transfers Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 13 to a different RCW, which was included in a very large, 320 page House bill, and no further action would be required to amend the ECC. Councilmember L. Johnson recalled this came through committee and she understood how staff recognized it was not adopted into city code. She asked if the ordinance could go into effect immediately if it received unanimous support tonight. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered the ordinance was not drafted with an emergency clause, but the city council could amend the ordinance to add an emergency clause that would allow it to take immediate effect. He would need a few minutes to draft that. Councilmember L. Johnson said ERPOs are an important tool to have and she would like Edmonds to make full use of it. It was already discovered that that was not possible and she wanted it in place as soon as possible. She encourage councilmembers to support this so it was available to offer to the community. Councilmember Paine recalled the presentation made to committee and supported having an emergency clause added. She worked with the domestic violence community for over seven years in the past. An ERPO violation includes a charging enhancement; the first two violations are misdemeanors and a third violation is charged as felony. Assistant Chief Hawley agreed, explaining if the police department is unable to charge the violation as an ERPO violation, the only option is to charge as a generic order violation which does not carry the enhanced penalties. Councilmember Paine said she was glad this was discovered; this is something that families, law enforcement and community needs because it is an essential piece and is part of gun safety, something that Washington State has been effective at and a leader in nationally. She appreciated this coming to the council. Council President Olson expressed support for adding the emergency language so the ordinance would take immediate effect. Mr. Taraday commented emergency ordinances include rationale; he asked councilmembers to articulate the reasons for having the ordinance take immediate effect. Councilmember L. Johnson commented guns are a major source of domestic violence against women and that has already occurred in Edmonds. What has happened across the nation as well as in Edmonds justifies adding an emergency clause to the ordinance. COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO ACCEPT AND MODIFY EDMONDS MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 5.34.040 TO INCLUDE ADOPTION OF THE EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER PENALTY SECTION BY REFERENCE AND AMEND THAT TO ADD AN EMERGENCY CLAUSE THAT MR. TARADAY WILL DRAFT. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Mr. Ogonowski having a knife pulled on him and suggested the ordinance could include a whereas clause referencing the increased instances of violence. Mr. Taraday asked for an opportunity to work on the clause for ten minutes and the council can amend his draft if necessary. Council discussed whether to take a recess to allow Mr. Taraday to draft the clause or continue with the agenda and come back to this item. It was agreed to take a brief recess. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess (8:25 – 8:40 p.m.) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 14 Mr. Taraday explained it was taking slightly longer because he needed to determine if it was subject to referendum. Council President Olson asked if Acting Assistant Chief Hawley would be interested in sharing the situation that brought this issue up if he felt it was appropriate, commenting that may be of value to public,. Acting Assistant Chief Hawley said it was discovered that this was not chargeable and was not adopted by reference in city code during an unusual arrest situation. Not unusual in that it was a shoplifting complaint which the police department responds to frequently, but the individual who was arrested had an ERPO in place against him and was also armed with a firearm which created a violation of the ERPO. It was then the police discovered there was no mechanism to charge that crime in municipal court and other options had to be considered. ERPOs are not that common, but they are put in place at the highest level by superior court judges and are designed to keep people known to be violent or who have documented history of committing violent acts from possessing firearms or dangerous weapons. Mr. Taraday displayed the proposed changes to the ordinance: • Revise ordnance title to include “declaring an emergency” • Add “WHEREAS, the city council would like this ordinance to take immediate effect so that the deterrent effect provided by its protections critical area be available immediately should someone need them” • Replace Section 3 with, “Declaration of Emergency. This ordinance, being an administrative function of the city council, is not subject to referendum. Because it is not subject to referendum, RCW 35A.12.130 applies. Pursuant to RCW 35A.12.130, this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the city council. The city council hereby declares that an emergency exists necessitating that this ordinance take immediate effect. Without an immediate effective date of this ordinance, the deterrent effect of these extreme risk protection order penalties would be delayed by approximately ten days and would not be available during that ten day period if someone needed those penalties in places to have protection from an extreme risk.” • Add Section 4: “Publication. This ordinance shall be published by an approved summary consisting of the title.” • Replace Section 5 with. “Effective Date. This ordinance is not subject to referendum and shall take effect and be in full force and effect immediately upon passage, as set forth herein, as long as it is approved by a majority plus one of the entire membership of the Council, as required by RCW 35A.12.130. If it is only approved by a majority of the Council, it will take effective five days after passage and publication.” COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO MOVE THESE CHANGES FORWARD. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (7-0), COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, COUNCILMEMBER PAINE AND COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES. Mr. Taraday noted for the record that even though he did not believe this ordinance would be subject to referendum, with a 7-0 vote it did not matter either way. He was glad a roll call vote was done because he did not have time to do an in-depth analysis regarding whether it was subject to referendum. He did not think it was because it was administrative and did not adopt a new policy. Councilmember L. Johnson thanked Acting Assistant Chief Hawley for bringing this forward. 5. HYBRID MEETINGS UPDATE Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 15 Administrative Services Director Dave Turley explained the council began talking about this in December, how meetings would proceed after the pandemic. A lot changed since then and even he is more optimistic that we are reaching the end of the tunnel but we are not out of it yet. He reviewed: • Council chambers will be open to the public • Meetings will be held using the Zoom format • The chamber will be set up for elected officials to attend in person, but they can attend remotely (as before) • IT Support will be available only for elected officials attending in person • The public has several options. They can watch the meeting in council chambers, or via live stream, or on cable television, and may also listen via a telephone connection or via Zoom. Participation via Zoom will only be for the time needed to make public comments (including Public Hearings) • Holding hybrid meetings using the Zoom platform carries risks. "Zoom Bombs" can happen. It is important to understand that if this occurs, it may cause an immediate end to the meeting for that evening • Additional IT support and some additional hardware will be needed, including a $7,000 piece of equipment related to microphones. Both should be in place by the middle of March • Before returning to in-person meetings, there are at least four decisions that need to be made by council: 1. Will meeting attendees be required to wear a mask? 2. Will meeting attendees be required to show proof of vaccination? 3. Will there be a smaller limit placed on room capacity in order to allow for social distancing? 4. What type of Security will be present in chambers during the meeting? • Staff recommendation: 1. Council meetings to remain virtual through March 15, only 3 more meetings. On that date staff can provide another update, and Council can discuss a date to begin using the new hybrid format. 2. Meetings to be physically located in Council Chambers only, as before. 3. Public may provide comment on Zoom, on the telephone or in person, but those commenting on Zoom cannot remain in the "Zoom Room" for the entire meeting. 4. Public comments taken via Zoom will be voice-only. No video to avoid possibility of Zoom bombs. Councilmember Chen liked the recommendation about March 15th but asked if the technology would be ready by March 15th. Mr. Turley said the hardware, which is an upgrade of the existing hardware, has been ordered. There has not been an opportunity to test the room; there hasn’t been a live meeting held for nearly a year and a test run is needed to check for loose cables, etc. He anticipated the hardware and software would be ready to go by March 22nd. Most of the equipment is the same as was used in the past; it just needs to be tested and some upgrades done. Councilmember Chen requested staff advise if they needed council to participate in the testing. Councilmember K. Johnson said the public has requested that their faces be visible during Zoom, but the recommendation is not to do that due to the potential for Zoom bombs. She asked if technology would be available so the public could be visible during public comments. Mr. Turley said the technology is available now, but anyone could display pornography, spout racist things, etc. which cannot be prevented which is the reason staff recommends voice-only. If council wants to have the public visible on Zoom, that is up to the council. If a person wants to be visible during public comments, he recommended they speak in council chambers. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if there was a delay so that if someone displayed pornography, it could be delayed. Mr. Turley answered there was no seven second delay like on radio. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 16 Councilmember K. Johnson asked if there have been Zoom bombs during council meetings in the past. Mr. Turley answered he knew of a couple that occurred during other city meetings such as interviews and board and commission meetings. Councilmember K. Johnson said it was a question of risk versus reward. She preferred to err on the side of the public and until it became a problem for the council, she was willing to take that risk. Most people who call in are respectful and just want to be seen and heard. Councilmember Paine recalled when this was discussed in late 2021, there was a need for additional technology support staff particularly on Tuesdays due to the number of moving parts and it couldn’t be done by the camera operator, mayor or clerk. She asked if that issue had been resolved. Mr. Turley answered a job has been posted that includes the expectation that the person will provide IT support on Tuesday nights at council meetings. He anticipated like other jobs, it will take six months to fill that position. In the meantime, Dave Rohde has done some research and found a person able to do it on a contract basis in the interim until a permanent person is hired for a more reasonable price than what the City was quoted in December, $1000/night. Councilmember Paine said she preferred to have the camera off. Although she trusted Edmonds residents, not everyone speaking is a resident and she did not want to see body parts on camera. Council President Olson said although waiting 3 more meetings did not seem like a long time, taken in the context of it already being 1-2 years longer than people wished, she and citizens were anxious to return to council chambers. If things could be done sooner and the hardware is available sooner, she requested staff bring this back to council at the first opportunity. With regard to the decisions that need to be made, she suggested, 1) following state guidelines on mask wearing in indoor spaces unless Snohomish County guidelines were more restrictive, 2) not requiring proof of vaccination and if others felt strongly that that should be required, allowing a negative test as an option, 3) following state and county guidelines regarding room capacity, and 4) having the same security as prior to the pandemic. Councilmember Buckshnis concurred with Council President Olson. She noted the Tree Board was Zoom boomed and it was very unfortunate and the Tree Board did not know how to turn it off. Although she hated to be a pessimist, she believed people had stop calling in because they did not think they were being heard because they cannot be seen. She agreed with not having video for public comments on Zoom, noting the Zoom boom at the Tree Board was very wild and not a pretty thing. Councilmember L. Johnson concurred with Council President Olson’s suggestions and keeping Zoom public comments voice only. She understood the desire of some to be seen, but the risk and damage it could do to the City and individuals’ reputation was not worth it. She had been in a few meetings where that has happened, noting it was hard enough with vocal interruptions, but visual interruptions can be devastating. 6. 2022 COUNCIL CONTINGENCY REQUEST FOR $10,000 Councilmember Buckshnis read the request: “2022 Council Contingency request. The City was recognized as the State’s first Creative District in 2019 and has been working toward the five year goals made as part of the application. The 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor has been part of the City’s planning documents for more than 10 years.” Councilmember Buckshnis explained the request is $10,000 of the $25,000 in Council Contingency to be used as a match for the state grant request. The Edmonds Public Facilities District (EPFD) Board approved $20,000 to assist with the match to the public/private partnership. The deadline to submit the grant is today. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO MOVE $10,000 OF THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY TOWARD THIS GRANT REQUEST. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 17 Councilmember Chen asked why use the Council Contingency Fund for the $34,000 match instead of the General Fund. Councilmember Buckshnis answered the $34,000 is part of the budget amendment process, but the council is unlikely to get to that tonight. The EPFD has provided $20,000. The council rarely uses the Council Contingency Fund; it has been used in the past for the historic calendar which is now part of the budget, and funding for Students Saving Salmon. The proposal to use the Council Contingency is for immediacy. Councilmember Chen said since the deadline is today, he proposed moving the $34,000 budget amendment up and making a decision right away. He preferred not to tap into the Council Contingency. Councilmember Paine recognized that the EPFD will contribute $20,000; she was at the meeting where they discussed and approved it. She had trouble intellectually and programmatically with how the Creative District was structured and put together. She thanked Council President Olson for sending out the document that described the parameters for the Creative District. The Creative District creates a distinct district within a city that is very inclusionary, where money is funneled into one area and the boundaries cannot be expanded. She was proud that Edmonds was the State’s first Creative District, but she was troubled by the fact that it created a zone that has a concentration of funds and other resources. The cultural corridor is one way to look at it but there are cultures throughout the City. She acknowledged Edmonds did not create the format for the Creative District but found it troubling because other neighborhoods have just as many good things. She summarized the Creative District was an exclusionary zone that kept other neighborhoods from accessing those funds. Councilmember Tibbott said he was part of the panel that put the Creative District together and a much larger public engagement process that determined the borders. The intent of the Creative District was not to be exclusionary but to be a focus for grants and creative activities. It was not to minimalize the possibility of creativity in other parts of the City, but to support businesses, artists and creative people located within the borders. He thanked Councilmember Chen for setting up a meeting regarding grant funding using tax incentives. There are grants that can only be provided to the Creative District. That does not mean there will not be grants available for other parts of the City but some grants are only available to the Creative District. That was one of the reasons it was formed. It is a destination for people and he supported the use of the Council Contingency as it was a great way for the council to be involved in moving this forward. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to information regarding the Creative District that she found on the City’s website, a Creative District is a designated geographical area where a community nurtures artistic, cultural, social and economic growth. The Edmonds Creative District comprises the heart of Edmonds, a traditional walkable small city downtown featuring a rich mix of arts, cultural, creative sector businesses, public gathering spaces and historic structures, all on the shores of Puget Sound with panoramic views of the Olympics. The original idea for the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor emerged in 2003/2004 and a key purpose of this project is to make this important pedestrian connection between downtown Edmonds premiere arts culture venue to restaurants, shops and services of Main Street and make the heart of downtown Edmonds a safer, more welcoming, more inviting and more interesting pedestrian experience. Councilmember L. Johnson d displayed a map of the Creative District, pointing out the literal red line drawn around it and the amount of green open space inside the red line. She recalled a comment during public comments tonight that there is 12 times the concentration of green space in the downtown area as there is in the SR-99 area. She suggested instead of the decades-long focus on projects that enhance all things downtown such as the waterfront connector, Civic Park, Waterfront Center, Marina Beach, the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor project and more, the City put equal focus into making the Highway 99, Lake Ballinger, Uptown Area into a safer, more welcoming, more inviting and more interesting pedestrian experience. She suggested imagining what could have been accomplished by now if there had been different priorities and values. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 18 Councilmember L. Johnson continued, she was also complicit in this when she encouraged this project in early 2020, but she now knows better and aims to do better and councilmember should also know better. Instead of continuing to focus on the downtown area, she recommended enhancing and promoting arts and cultural in the traditionally and historically under-represented neighborhoods. The Uptown market is a good first step, but the City needs to stop using the arts and the Creative District designation as justification for upholding long term systemic inequities and start to reverse the inequitable focus and spending that has always existing in Edmonds. The council needs to put words into action. Moving forward even with $10,000 is moving forward with not doing the same thing in other areas. It is continuing to enhance the downtown area so that people like her who live nearby can walk to it and enjoy it and their property values can go up. However, that is not an equitable representation of the council’s constituents and there is a great deal of data that shows there has not been an equitable distribution in the past. She understood the passion that people who have put a lot of time into this have, but that does not justify moving forward with something that is still inequitable. She implored the council to think carefully and think about what statement they were making by choosing to move forward with this. Council President Olson thanked Councilmember L. Johnson for saying a lot of the things that have been on her mind as she struggled with this issue. She shared some of things she included in an email she sent out, a synthesis of so many conversations she has had with people who were in favor of this as she was pushing back on it and ultimately where she came to on this issue. The Creative District designation was not an easy accomplishment; many things are required including a contiguous areas. Many cities could not meet that criteria and Edmonds could not at this time in any other area than the area that was designated and it would be a decades-long priority to create another district, something the council may want to discuss. An art walk in the international district, even though there should be one there and it is a passion of hers that she will not let go of until it occurs, does not count toward keeping this Creative District designation. She had asked whether Civic Park could stand in as the capital project for the Creative District as it is also rich in art and was told it could not and that keeping the designation rests on this project Council President Olson continued, things that went into qualifying for the Creative District include the performing arts center, galleries, art museums, murals, art installations, jazz and arts festivals, art classes, and art supply stores, thing that not every town has. Some of the documents she reviewed referred to the economic aspects, even bringing people off the highway. The City can get signage from the Department of Transportation to bring people to Edmonds from the highway, something she was eager to pursue, due to arts and culture in Edmonds. All of the things Councilmember L. Johnson said are things she had also thought about and struggled with, but in the end the identity and economic driver in Edmonds is arts, cultural and positive environmental initiatives such as green spaces and being on the leading edge of environmental issues. She summarized the Creative District designation is a huge crown for the entire City to wear and something that can direct people to all areas for arts reasons. Council President Olson relayed something Councilmember Tibbott said when she was talking to him about design, some of the design elements that go into the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor are things use that could be used in art corridors elsewhere in Edmonds. The investment in the design is not only for 4th Avenue but something that can be used in other places. She wanted to move as slowly as possible on this project but did want to move forward. A lot of the expense of the project is related to overdue infrastructure for the corridor between Main and the ECA for the many local and regional patrons who come to enjoy it. Councilmember K. Johnson said she has been involved in this project almost from its inception and it has been very slow to come to fruition. The City has been working with the community, adjacent land owners and the ECA for nearly two decades. The Creative District process came along after that process began and Edmonds was the first Creative District due to all the homework that had been done and because the cultural corridor on 4th Avenue had already been visualized. The City was able to quickly develop and present a work program and became the first Creative District in the State. The next phase of funding would be to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 19 complete the design concept for the corridor. With the State grant of $34,000 and the commitment from the ECA, only $14,000 is needed. She agreed with Councilmember Chen’s suggestion to move that funding up in the amendment process, but that process has been very slow and the application is due today. She supported the proposed funding and if the $34,000 amendment was approved, it could come from the General Fund and the Council contingency could be replenished. Councilmember K. Johnson continued, since time is of the essence she will support the motion and encouraged other councilmember to support it in the interest of the City. It is not a question of spending the money elsewhere but completing a project that is adopted in the Comprehensive Plan and was supported by the community and adjacent property owners. When/if other Creative Districts can be created in other parts of town, applications can be submitted, but she anticipated that would be a difficult process due to the number of required elements. The existing Creative District includes the ECA, creative businesses, bars, restaurants, art galleries, art studios, and art supplies. Edmonds has a wonderful history of being an arts community and these resources are centered in downtown Edmonds. She requested the council’s support of the motion. Councilmember Chen said he lives along Highway 99 and his business is located on Highway 99 and he is very interested in equity in investments on Highway 99. With that said, he did not want to throw away something that was good for the City. The City is making more investments along Highway 99. Tonight there are two amendments for consideration, $60,000 to study the relocation of the Public Safety Building and $150,0000 for lighting in the Lake Ballinger area and he urged the Council to support those items. The council can focus on Highway 99 but should not throw away something that is good for the City, the first Creative District designated by the State, and all that is needed is $34,000 for the grant match. He made the following substitute motion: COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO MOVE THAT ITEM UP SO WE DON’T HAVE TO TAP INTO THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND AND NOT USE ECA’S FUNDING BECAUSE THEY ARE SHORT ON FUNDING AS WELL. Councilmember Chen was grateful the EPFD/ECA provided funds for the match, but the City is in a strong financial position and can fund the $34,000. Council President Olson referred to the comment about grants that are only available to the Creative District, commenting it was a big deal; the State is funding affordable housing for creatives. Most artists are probably not able to afford to live in the Creative District, another reason she was unwilling to give up the grant. She expressed support for the substitute motion to move up the budget amendment and was hopeful the council would support it. Administrative Services Director Dave Turley wanted to ensure this was being done correctly. He explained the amount in the Council Contingency Fund is already appropriated which means the funds are available tonight. All the other budget amendments will not take effect until the council passes a future ordinance. Until the council passes the ordinance, there is a risk that the individual amendments may not make it into the final ordinance. City Attorney Jeff Taraday agreed. Council President Olson asked if the substitute motion were withdrawn and the original motion passed, and the $34,000 budget amendment was later approved, could the Council Contingency Fund and the ECA be reimbursed. Mr. Turley answered yes. Council President Olson suggested Councilmember Chen withdraw the substitute motion. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 20 Council President Olson asked for clarification regarding the amount that would be provided by the Council Contingency Fund. Councilmember Buckshnis answered $10,000. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. 7. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 2022 ADOPTED CITY BUDGET For the audience, Council President Olson explained the council reviewed proposed amendments at a special session earlier today; the next item for consideration is DP #35. Councilmember Buckshnis introduced the proposed 2022 budget amendments: #35 – $145K - Vehicle purchase for Maintenance and Custodial. • Unclear as to how many vehicles (DP 70 has average cost of $60,625 per vehicle using July budget data and may be outdated). • Council should review all vehicles and determine needs over wants as costs of vehicles are an economic indicator showing huge price increases. • Motion: Delete the decision packet. Bring to Council Committee and handle through quarterly amendment process (historical examples). Councilmember Buckshnis said information was received today from Acting Public Works Director Rob English that there were two vehicles for custodial staff and an electric transit van for the new facilities maintenance position, a total of three vehicles. Council President Olson advised one vehicle is electric and two are hybrid. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was not the councilmember who submitted this amendment, but she received plenty of information today to support the $145,000. The Escape hybrid is $33,800 and the police hybrid is $50,424. She was concerned about the record prices in Seattle, but Mr. English indicated these vehicles are purchased through a State pool. Mr. English clarified there are three vehicles, a hybrid Ford Escape and a Ford Maverick truck for custodial staff and an electric transit van. The pricing examples he provided with the same specifications as 2021 were a Ford Escape and a police Ford Explorer. One had a 2% increase in cost between 2021 and 2022 and the Escape had a 12% increase. He noted the auction values for cars were also higher because the used vehicle market was also higher. No motion was made on this proposed amendment. #37 - $100k - Funding for ongoing aging infrastructure • 2021 bonds were to address backlog of infrastructure capital maintenance projects and this request should be brought to council committee as bond funds were not completely utilized. • Motion: Delete decision packet. Bring forth to council committee to determine need. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO DELETE THE DECISION PACKAGE OF $100,000. Council President Olson explained council was told the amount of bond proceeds for this purpose was more than staff has the management bandwidth to spend in the current year. While she was fully onboard for this ongoing commitment to address aging infrastructure, it was not needed this year and in fact there was no reason to appropriate it when the bond funds could not be spent in the current year. She urged councilmembers to support removing the appropriation and deleting the decision package. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 21 Councilmember Paine asked councilmembers not to support this. It appears this also includes a lot of park facilities which were not included in the bond ask for facilities maintenance, it was only public works facilities and there were park restrooms that needed to be maintained. She asked if that was a correct assessment. Mr. English commented this is a fund that facilities uses for repairs that arise throughout the year. Facilities Manager Thom Sullivan explained this money is typically used for reactionary repairs and maintenance, examples include broken lighting fixtures in a restroom, a pump housing that failed and needed to be replaced. These items are not necessarily on the deferred list, but just things that happen as part of operating aging facilities. He was uncertain that fairly insignificant items, from a few hundred to a couple thousand dollars, met the intent of deferred maintenance use of bond money. According to the McKinstry report, the City should have $800,000/year in available funds for operational maintenance, unforeseen damages or repair, reactionary items that are necessary to stay operational. Councilmember Paine asked if this would include the restroom at the underwater park. Mr. Sullivan said that is a little bit different situation. Facilities will support restoration of that as best they can, but it is not as reactionary as these other items. Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts & Human Services Director Feser said most restrooms in parks are maintained by the parks department. The current Brackett Landing North restroom repair project is funded from the parks budget and parks is managing that project. The restrooms in the City’s parks are managed by the parks department. Other facilities like the Frances Anderson Center are managed by facilities. Most City building are managed by facilities but the restrooms in parks are managed by the parks maintenance division. Councilmember K. Johnson said it was her understanding that $800,000 was authorized last year for maintenance and the same was authorized this year for ongoing maintenance. Mr. Sullivan said he would defer to Mr. Turley. Councilmember K. Johnson asked the amount allocated for maintenance last year and this year. Mr. Turley said it gets spread into different accounts. He clarified the money under discussion is not bond money; this is regular maintenance such as a broken water pipe. Last year there was $750,000 allocated to repairs and maintenance, this year there is $150,000, $270,000 in construction projects, $100,000 in professional services; building maintenance dollars are down this year compared to last year. Councilmember K. Johnson said it was her understanding that a minimal amount needed to be budged every year, but apparently that was only done last year. Mr. Turley said there was about $700,000 budgeted this year. One of the problems is staff has to ask for that every year so the amount changes from year to year. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the council approves this $100,000, does that bring the funding to $800,000. Mr. Turley said this money is already approved; the proposed amendment is to reduce it by $100,000. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was trying to understand what the total amount is and asked if the total amount including this $100,000 was $700,000. Mr. Turley answered it was about $750,000. Councilmember K. Johnson observed that was the same amount as last year. Council President Olson asked if staff was saying the deferred maintenance money could not be used for this purpose. Was there anything that made it hard to get to or not appropriate. It sounds like this is more than the City would use in a year and there is money sitting there. Mr. Turley said the idea of having two different funds is, 1) General Fund money, which is being discussed now, is used to fund ongoing maintenance to keep up with things that break, adding a door to and office, etc., and 2) Fund 016 is for bigger, longer term projects, not small things like repair and maintenance. He acknowledged it was confusing because Fund 016 was brought back and there were bond proceeds at the same time. Bond funds are technically supposed to be used for things on the McKinstry report or bigger new projects, not ongoing maintenance. Council President Olson recalled an assertion made earlier that parks were not on the list for capital maintenance backlog. After talking with different staff members on that topic, it was her understanding that Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 22 parks would not necessarily be excluded. She asked if that was correct, that some of the parks capital maintenance project would show up on the ultimate prioritized list of capital improvements. Mr. Turley said he was not aware of the conversations Council President Olson was referring to. Council President Olson said she spoke with Mr. Williams and Ms. Feser; it was her understanding that the maintenance bonding included some money for parks backlog. Mr. Sullivan said that was also his assumption. With the Brackett’s Landing North restroom, facilities will assume the envelope responsibilities such as the roof. The fuzzy area that Ms. Feser mentioned is real and something that public works and parks struggle with in regard to whose responsibility is whose. It mostly falls into a job description differentiation of who is responsible for what work. Facilities will support larger projects that need deferred maintenance whether it is parks or facilities, parks are still facilities. Ms. Feser said there has not been an opportunity to discuss the project list with public works to say for example the Brackett North restroom will cost more than $50,000 so can parks use some of the money for that work. If public works was willing to share, she was willing to have that conversation, otherwise the funds come from the parks maintenance budget. Councilmember Tibbott said he was confused why the $100,000 was not part of parks budget already. It seems like an ad hoc request and should either be in the parks budget or the public works budget. He understood the need to have operational monies for small things that break, but he did not understand why it was a separate line item. He also completely understood why it was not part of the amount that was bonded. He asked why it was so ad hoc. Mr. Sullivan responded there was no ending fund balance in the General Fund for facilities maintenance. Without a dedicated project for a decision package to allocate money out of the General Fund into facilities, there was no ability to do any reactionary maintenance without doing a budget amendment every time. At Mr. Williams’ request, staff began requesting $100,000/year for unanticipated repair/maintenance; approximately 15-16 small projects were done last year using this $100,000 that would have required a budget amendment for each one rather than budgeting $100,000 for unanticipated repairs/maintenance. Councilmember Tibbott said in other words, it was not ad hoc, it was something that is typically budgeted every year to cover those items. Mr. Sullivan advised it has been budgeted for the past three years. In response to Councilmember Tibbott’s comment that it seemed ad hoc and where does the money come from, Mr. Turley said he heard from Mr. Williams that the City had budgeted $56,000/year for these types of repairs and in the past 3-5 years staff began asking for more money each year. Instead of asking for $400,000/year for ongoing maintenance, council wanted staff to justify why the money was needed. He said it did not need to be budgeted that way; it could be called an ongoing expense, but that may be why it seemed ad hoc and why it was not tied to something specific. Councilmember Tibbott said he understood why it would not be tied to something specific in order to cover maintenance items that arise throughout the year. However, he did not understand why this was a tagalong when it could be included in the parks or public works budget. There is a massive amount of bond funding that will be used for building improvements, yet the council is looking at $100,000. Mr. Turley pointed out when these decision packages were prepared, selling bonds to fund large building repair or construction projects had not been discussed yet. Council President Olson said that was exactly the point of bringing this up now, now that that money is there, it seems like in this particular year, the bond proceeds should be used. She suggested there probably wasn’t any more discussion and the council just needed to vote on whether to use the bond proceeds or to have a separate appropriation. Councilmember Buckshnis said the motion did include using bond funds, the motion was to bring it to a council committee to determine exactly how much is needed. In 2020 there was $671,000 for repairs and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 23 maintenance, $748,000 in 2021 and then it dropped to $148,000. She noted it is scattered throughout the entire cost center 518.30. She said there needs to be a policy so the council understands what is needed. She agreed with Mr. Sullivan that staff shouldn’t come to council for a budget amendment for something like replacing a broken door. She agreed it appeared ad hoc and recalled including $800,000 in the budget. The motion is to delete the decision package and bring it to committee for review; there is nothing about using bond proceeds. Council President Olson suggested extending the meeting to finish this budget amendment and then a motion to adjourn to Thursday night. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO EXTEND TO 10:10. Councilmember Paine pointed out the council has been at this since 4 p.m. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-1-1), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER PAINE VOTING NO, AND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON ABSTAINING. Councilmember Tibbott did not support the motion to remove this decision package. However, in the future he would like maintenance funded in a more holistic way in parks and public works. When he read the original decision package, it sound like more than ad hoc maintenance, and more like a full-on maintenance project so he originally favored removing it. However, in light of tonight’s discussion, he did not support the motion to remove it. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING TO 7 P.M. ON THURSDAY TO CONTINUE BUDGET AMENDMENTS. Since this was an adjournment which she still thought was special meeting because she did not understand the adjournment aspect, Councilmember Buckshnis suggested starting the meeting at 6 p.m. in hopes of getting done sooner. Council President Olson said she would normally be in favor of that, but she has another commitment and can be at the meeting at 7 p.m. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2-1), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO; COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON ABSTAINING. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS 10. ADJOURN In accordance with ECC 1.04.020 and RCW 42.30.90, as the Council had not completed its business by 10 p.m. (extended to 10:10 p.m.) by Order of Adjournment, the Council meeting was recessed and adjourned until 7 p.m. on Thursday, February 17, 2022. The meeting will resume at the point in which the February 15th meeting was adjourned. The meeting was recessed and adjourned at 10:03 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 15, 2022 Page 24