Loading...
Cmd021722 adjourned mtg Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2022 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING APPROVED MINUTES February 15, 2022 Adjourned until February 17, 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 STAFF PRESENT Michelle Bennett, 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 Thom Sullivan, Facilities Manager Sharon Cates, City Attorney’s Office Scott Passey, City Clerk 1. CALL TO ORDER The Edmonds City Council virtual online adjourned meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely. 3. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 2022 ADOPTED CITY BUDGET (CONTINUED) Councilmember Buckshnis introduced the following proposed 2022 budget amendments: #38 – $270,180 - New Police Perimeter Fence • The cost and design of the fence has not been brought forth to a council committee. Securing the police area is important but should be vetted through a committee to determine if there are less expensive alternatives. • Motion: Delete decision packet and process alternatives through council committee and handle through quarterly amendment process. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO DELETE THE DECISION PACKET. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2022 Page 2 Council President Olson said this was one from the beginning that she thought could have been eliminated, particularly since it had not been communicated to public that they should not walk through the parking lot. However, after looking into it further, it seems to be a morale issue due to officers’ personal vehicles and police vehicles being vandalized. [inaudible] She supported this as it was something that will make them happy. She also wanted to avoid the delay caused by having it go through a committee even though she did not object to that process. Councilmember L. Johnson commented the council has received a number of emails from the police department describing why this important to them. The council also heard from Police Chief Bennett during the October/November vetting of the budget. She acknowledged morale is part of it, but asked Chief Bennett to speak to the safety component. Chief Bennett commented many of the council received the video she sent about a guy involved in a pursuit who was angry with the police and bum-rushed the back door. It is a safety issue for officers; there have been a number of assaults and assassinations in parking lots where police officers are coming in and out of their vehicles or buildings. One of staff’s main concerns is that over 70 vehicles have been damaged including having tires slashed, paint thrown on vehicles, windshields broken, etc. There is also an issue with pedestrians crossing the parking lot and with Civic Park going in across the street, that is expected to get worse. In the past, there have been kids darting in and out between cars, kids on skateboards, and vehicles unintentionally blocking police cars leaving for in-progress calls. The biggest concern is it is just a matter of time before someone gets hit in the parking lot. The rationale includes all those reasons as well as this has apparently been requested for almost 20 years. Councilmember L. Johnson relayed her understanding the perimeter fence was not just to protect cars, but also to protect the area where people are detained. Chief Bennett said the sally port, where prisoners, property and evidence come in and out of the building, is not a secure area whatsoever and there is no protection or perimeter for officers coming in or out. Additionally, when prisoners or evidence are not using the sally port, that area is used for training such defensive tactics and people are walking through those training scenarios. For example, she recently conducted pepper spray training in that area. In addition, officers come in and out of their vehicles armed with AR-15 rifles, a part of their equipment, can be alarming for citizens to see. Councilmember L. Johnson said securing vehicles was very important, but the perimeter fence securing the sally port really emphasized the importance to her, as well as hearing about near misses in the parking lot which hopefully the perimeter fence would prevent. Councilmember Paine commented the perimeter fencing is essential, especially securing the sally port. The 60 incidents in the past and Chief Bennett’s experience last week really drives home the importance of this. She was unsure why this was even a discussion issue when these can be seen as morale issues. She recognized this was a very high risk area for accidents which needed to be prevented as it would be a terrible thing if there was an inadvertent vehicle-vehicle or vehicle-pedestrian accident. It also highlights the importance of people not walking through parking lots. She did not support removing this decision package. Councilmember Tibbott said he did not support removing this decision packet. He looked at the fence design and that answered all his questions. He was ready to vote. Councilmember Chen thanked Chief Bennett for providing him and Councilmember Tibbott an in-person tour. He agreed with everything that had been said and saw the need for the fence although the cost was initially a deterrent for him. The council needs to support this to protect the police force, police property and personal property and to avoid potential liabilities. He did not support removing this decision package. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was aware of the previous history and why the fence was not installed in the past. She asked how the estimated cost was determined, whether it was something the administration came up with and was increased to reflect inflation. Chief Bennett answered vendors provided bids several Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2022 Page 3 times in the past and it got to the point where because that had been done so many times, some vendors refused to come out because the project never happened. Staff took the latest bid from All City Fence and added inflation to develop the best estimate at the time. Councilmember K. Johnson said one of her questions was how the fence would integrate with the public parking in that lot, with traffic flow, with the art, and people accessing the parking. She agreed 100% with securing the police but was concerned about how it would integrate with public parking and the size of the fence. The cost was quite high and she wondered how large the fence would be. Chief Bennett answered the design prepared in the past by a couple different potential vendors still includes public parking and handicapped parking. The fence will be designed to naturally usher people into the Veterans Memorial Plaza and the walkway and will not prevent people from accessing the parking lot. She offered to send the schematic design to council again. It is a decorative wrought iron fence so it will not look like a fortress or chain link. Councilmember K. Johnson said she would like to see the design. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (0-7), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. #40 – $36K – 2022 Commute Trip Reduction • With pandemic these ORCA cards seem to be an unneeded expense since many employees are working from home. An amendment can always come through after proper vetting in council committee. • Motion: Delete decision packet. No motion was made. #41 – $30K - Purchase Message Board • The civic organizations that want to use them can rent them from a sign company. This is not a city function. • Motion: Delete decision packet and bring forth to council committee to justify need. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO DELETE THE DECISION PACKET AND BRING FORTH TO COUNCIL COMMITTEE. Councilmember L. Johnson said during staff’s presentation in the fall, she learned it is more than just civic groups that use these. She asked if staff could speak to how these were used. Acting Public Works Director Rob English explained message boards are also used for capital construction. The City has two existing variable message boards that were purchased a few years ago. During public events in the past 1-2 years, at times signs have had to be pulled from a capital project. This additional sign is needed to meet the demand for construction projects and public events. Councilmember L. Johnson observed the message boards are yet another way to engage with the public and inform them what is happening in the community. Mr. English answered agreed they are great tools to engage with the public and notify of upcoming projects. They were used very effectively to notify the public of the meetings regarding the bike lane project. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if they have a safety component. Mr. English answered they can, there were discussions at the time of the potential tsunami that the signs would be useful in a disaster event to send out notifications. Councilmember L. Johnson summarized it was a one-time $30,000 cost with a great benefit; it increases the City’s ability to engage with the public, something citizens want and something the council has said they are interested in. She did not support removing this decision package. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2022 Page 4 Councilmember Paine said she loves coming across these message boards; they are helpful to residents and visitors because they provide a lot of information such as notifying of tricky traffic. She did not support removing this decision package, noting the funding comes from ending fund balance and one of the reasons for having an ending fund balance is to support purchases like this. The message board signs are helpful across the City and probably more signs would be useful as more projects are developed. Councilmember K. Johnson recalled Mr. English saying there was more demand in the last 1-2 years for community events and asked if he was referring to Walkable Main. Mr. English yes, noting the signs were also used for the Uptown Market and a few others events that were listed on the slide that Mr. Williams presented last fall. Councilmember K. Johnson asked if community groups could use them such as the Rotary Club for Oktoberfest. Mr. English answered he was not aware that they have been put out for that type of community group, but he would need to verify that; they are typically used for City-sponsored events. Councilmember K. Johnson commented the Uptown Market and Main Street events were new and perhaps needed these message boards. It was not clear in the justification how they were going to be used. She acknowledged they were intended to be used to support ongoing capital projects which she felt was very useful. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the City already has two message signs. Mr. English answered yes. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the $30,000 would be used to purchase one or two more message boards. Mr. English advised it was to purchase one. MOTION FAILED UNANIMOUSLY. #47 – $440K - Yost and Seaview Reservoir Assessment and Rehabilitation • This entire project has yet to be brought forth to council and an amendment can occur in 2022. The numbers don’t match the description and the Seaview reservoir is not included. • This needs to be sorted out in the council committee. • Motion: Delete decision packet; bring to council committee and sort out numbers through CIP/CFP process. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO DELETE THE DECISION PACKET; BRING TO COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND SORT OUT NUMBERS THROUGH CIP/CFP PROCESS. Councilmember Chen commented there is no doubt due to the age of these two facilities that an assessment needs to be done. He asked if those were time sensitive or urgent and if not, the proposal to remove the decision package and go through the process was appropriate. Mr. English explained it is urgent from an age perspective; the Yost reservoir was built in 1973 and the Seaview reservoir was built 1976. The two reservoirs at Five Corners were refurbished recently and both ended up having more extensive repairs than originally thought. At the conclusion, staff agreed these two reservoirs needed to be assessed due to their age. An assessment that started last year on Yost reservoir found the roof is not structurally attached to the walls which presents a potential hazard in a seismic event, the reservoir is leaking, the floor has critical problems that need repair, it needs to be retrofitted to current structural codes, and the walls are not designed to account for surrounding groundwater levels. That assessment was done in 2021 and the intent is to move forward with design. It will be a sizeable repair project; ballpark estimates are $3 million to make those repairs. Mr. English explained the Seaview reservoir assessment is underway following a delay related to another issue so details regarding the repairs are not yet available. In response to Councilmember Chen’s question, he strongly recommended this project continue to move forward. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2022 Page 5 Councilmember L. Johnson asked Mr. English to explain what would happen in the event of failure. Mr. English answered in a complete failure, the structure could potentially collapse or crack to a degree that would render it non-operable which would eliminate use of that reservoir during a critical event. Councilmember L. Johnson observed moving forward now helps ensure that doesn’t happen and gives the City time to start budgeting for the significant costs as well as determine how significant the damage is and possibly reprioritize the repairs. Mr. English agreed. Councilmember L. Johnson said given all that, the condition of the reservoirs, and that the City needs the reservoirs, she will not support removing this decision package. Councilmember K. Johnson said this decision package has a lot of contradictory information. She determined the $130,000 assessment of the Yost reservoir needs to be done and once that is done, the City will know the design costs. They are currently estimated to be $450,000 with future construction at $3-$3.5 million just for the Yost reservoir and apparently there is some analysis being done for the Seaview reservoir but that cost will not be determined until the assessment is finished in 2022. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO AMEND TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ASSESSMENT FOR THE YOST RESERVOIR IN THE AMOUNT OF $130,000 AND FIGURE OUT WHAT ELSE NEEDS TO BE DONE WHEN WE HAVE THE INFORMATION. Councilmember K. Johnson said this decision package is for a total expenditure of $505,000, but the estimate for the design is $450,000 and the estimate for the assessment is $130,000 which totals $580,000 so the numbers do not quite add up. She moving forward with $130,000 for the assessment and figure out the numbers for both the Yost and Seaview reservoirs. She was in support of the project but felt it needed to be thoroughly understood before funds were allocated. Mr. English suggested keeping in mind that this decision package was written seven months ago in July 2021 so the information is old and the assessment on Yost reservoir is now complete as indicated by the information he shared about the roof not being structurally attached, the reservoir leaking, etc. The Seaview reservoir is in the process of being assessed. The $440,000 for design and $65,000 for staff time totals $505,000 which is budgeted to begin the design process in 2022. Councilmember K. Johnson commented that was very interesting information, that the assessment on the Yost reservoir is done and the assessment of the Seaview reservoir is underway. She asked if funds were necessary for the assessment or was that already paid for. Mr. English answered the assessment was paid with 2021 funds and this work would be to start design in 2022. Councilmember K. Johnson observed the design is only for the Yost reservoir and asked how much the design for Seaview would cost. Mr. English answered that is not known at this point because the assessment of Seaview has not been completed. Councilmember K. Johnson observed this is really not the Yost and Seaview assessment and rehab, it is the Yost reservoir design project. Mr. English said the goal is to do them in tandem, but the focus of the design now is on the Yost reservoir. Once the assessment is completed on Seaview, the scope and fee to move forward will need to be determined. Councilmember K. Johnson said this decision package does not lay that out; she appreciated Mr. English’s explanation and update. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Councilmember Paine said Mr. English covered all the numbers she was going to ask for an update on. She observed the intent would be to finish the assessment on Seaview and try to do them in tandem. Mr. English agreed. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2022 Page 6 Based on the fact the assessment on Yost has been completed and there are issues that need to be worked through, Councilmember Buckshnis asked if this was part of the December CIP/CFP process or was this information provided since then. Mr. English advised page 65 of the CIP/CFP listed the Yost Seaview reservoir project. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if $440,000 was sufficient to begin design with this assessment of Yost. Mr. English answered a lot will depend on the Seaview assessment, how good or bad that is will determine how much potential additional budget is needed for design fees in 2022. MOTION FAILED UNANIMOUSLY. #48 – $120K - 3-year Utility Rate Study Consultant • Every three years the City conducts a rate study utilizing projects in the CIP/CFP; the last rate study was in 2019 • The CIP/CFP should be scrubbed before we allow review by a consulting firm as this process is not brought forth to council committee. Numbers in this budget have shown inconsistencies. This can be handled through amendment process once CIP/CFP is reviewed. • Motion: Delete decision packet and bring forth through Council Committee. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to Councilmember Buckshnis’ comment about the maker of the motion and asked who that was. Mayor Nelson advised no motion had been made. Councilmember Buckshnis commented on November 17th, there were two individual councilmember and an elected official who would be seated on November 23rd who were not part of the process. She is just the person who was provided the data since the council does not have a legislative assistant. This item came from Councilmember K. Johnson. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO DELETE THE DECISION PACKET AND BRING FORTH THROUGH COUNCIL COMMITTEE. Councilmember K. Johnson said she believed the stormwater fees should not be included in the $16M stormwater project for the Edmonds Marsh as it will impact the rate study. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of clarification, pointing out the council voted to remove $16M from stormwater during the CIP/CFP process so it would not impact the rates. Councilmember K. Johnson said at the time this was put together, it was included which was her main objection at that time. As has been noted, the council needs to take a closer look at the CIP/CFP because that information is part of the rate study. She suggested waiting a year to sort this out and doing the rate study next year. Councilmember L. Johnson commented this was part of the original discussion. Looking at the decision package, one can read that this has been done every three years, reviewing utility rates charged customers and recommending any needed changes for council approval and mayor sign-off. This task needs to be done so that the City can ensure there is adequate funding for staff to, 1) manage and run our aging water, sewer and storm utility and infrastructure, 2) continue to provide safe drinking water, and sewer and storm service to Edmonds residents, 3) address immediate maintenance needs, and 4) address long term maintenance replacement and upgrade needs. In addition, a review of the City’s general facilities charges will be done and any recommended changes will be brought to council and mayor for approval. Councilmember L. Johnson asked Mr. English if he had anything to add to. To her this was about safe water, assessing and ensuring there was adequate funding, and this is done every three years. She had not heard justification for not ensuring this could be done. Mr. English said Councilmember L. Johnson hit a lot of key points. The previous discussion about the reservoir that needs $3M in improvements is one of the things that needs to be considered in the next 3-year rate study, ensuring those costs are programmed so the rates provide revenue to fund those improvements. If the rate study is put off a year, the challenge is the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2022 Page 7 incremental jump the following three years could be much larger. The longer the study is delayed, the more the increase is potentially compounded in the following 3 years. Councilmember L. Johnson said everyone has heard news stories across the country of what happens when adequate efforts are not made to ensure safe drinking water and she preferred not to be one of those. She supported continuing this study to ensure the City has safe drinking water as it is necessary for life and the cost of not doing it could be enormous. She did not support the motion. Councilmember Tibbott asked the last time the CIP/CFP was evaluated and whether the reservoirs that were just discussed were in the current CIP/CFP and if not, they would not be part of the proposed rate study. Mr. English explained the council approved the CIP/CFP in December which is done every year. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of clarification, agreeing the council reviews the CIP/CFP every year but it was reviewed in detail in 2014. Mr. English answered that $3M cost for the reservoir is not programed in the CIP/CFP that was approved in December. Councilmember Tibbott observed if the City undertook a rate study before the end of the year, the reservoir costs could theoretically be included. Mr. English answered it takes a while to the develop the rate study; it usually starts in the spring and information is presented in early fall so timing is critical. If the intent is to do a 3-year package of rate increases that start in 2023; the last year of the current 3-year rate increase is 2022. If the City wants the next package to start in 2023, the rate study needs to start sooner rather than later. Councilmember Paine did not support removing this decision package, noting rate studies are a normal feature of all municipalities, regularly occurring and something that needs to be done to maintain funding for water, sewer and stormwater utilities. These are protected funds used for nothing other than utilities. If the council wants to review the CIP/CFP, that can be added to the council agenda planning. Council President Olson said with the pandemic, many things that always happen on a regular schedule did not happen for a year or so. If there was a good reason and it was not legally required to do the study every three years, she agreed the council could consider waiting until the CIP/CFP is scrubbed so the inputs are better for the rate study. This is not a decision about clean water, it is just about the rates that are charged, not what the City is taking care of/not taking care of, although the funding for those things is related and makes it easier not to look for funds from the General Fund. She stressed regardless of the decision on this decision package, it was not making a choice for unsafe drinking water. Council President Olson understood the jump in rates was a concern and something the City would want to mitigate and asked if there was any upside/value in waiting until there had been a close look at the CIP/CFP which will occur during this calendar year. Mr. English said he struggled with the characterization of scrubbing the CIP/CFP because the council has the opportunity for that review when it is presented every year. Other than delaying the rate adjustment and the impact that delaying the study a year could have, he did not have a lot of other argument other than continuing to fund operations and the capital program; a delay increases the adjustment in following years. Council President Olson agreed that was a negative. She asked if there were any positives in waiting. Mr. English answered no, the positives of doing the rate study this year outweigh the negatives. Councilmember Buckshnis said the practice of conducting rate studies began 6-9 years ago. Before that, council set the rates based on what other cities had done and things of that nature. As Councilmember K. Johnson mentioned, in 2019 the Edmonds Marsh was moved into stormwater and the stormwater rates were contingent on that project being in stormwater which was her concern. She saw issues with watershed areas such as Perrinville that are included in the CIP/CFP which is another reason she thinks the CIP/CFP should be methodically reviewed. The council looks at the CIP/CFP very quickly every year because it is done during the budget process although it was slightly different in 2021 and the CIP/CFP presentation was moved to December. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2022 Page 8 Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the rate study consultant recommended an 8.5% increase last year and the council changed it to 5%. The council has total control over the rates. If this study needs to be done, fine, but her preference is to go through the CIP/CFP carefully and include the reservoir information. She did not see an issue with waiting until September or next year to start the rate study. She reiterated rates used to be set by council and when Noel Miller was the public works director, rates were not increased which is why there were such large increases in the last few years. She summarized it was important go through things methodically, take our time and ensure everything is shored up especially with our watersheds. Councilmember L. Johnson asked how inflation would affect a decision not to do a rate study at this time. Administrative Services Director Dave Turley answered as has been pointed out several times and part of the reason these amendments are being discussed, inflation is currently higher than it has been in a decade. Utility rates increase every year, much of that is due to inflation. For example, if the regular rate increase was 5%, and the rate increase was skipped this year, the increase could be significantly higher due to the effects of inflation. He would not want to see a 5% increase this year turn into a 12-13% increase the following year. Skipping a rate study and taking a shot in dark by council seemed dangerous in his experience. Councilmember L. Johnson said she could see how, especially for people on tighter budget, an incremental increase versus a large increase due to not doing the studies would not be the best way to proceed. Councilmember Paine asked the risk of veering away from a rate study; if the last increase was 5%, what increase was recommended by the last study. Councilmember Buckshnis answered the recommendation was 8.5% and council approved 5%. Mr. Turley said he would need to do the math. Councilmember Paine said she was curious about the level of risk without having the correct amount assessed. In addition, as Councilmember L. Johnson mentioned, having a big increase was disruptive to people’s budget planning. Not having enough collected also could put the City in a dicey spot. Councilmember Paine concluded she did not want to miss a year for the rate study. Councilmember Buckshnis said the financial statements footnotes the increase at 5%; Mr. Turley would need to go back to the prior year and watch the PowerPoint to see what rates were initially proposed. Mr. Turley agreed it was 5% for last three years, when inflation was 1%. Councilmember K. Johnson said another consideration is during these difficult pandemic times, many people are strapped for resources and maintaining a level period in utility rates would be welcomed by the public. There may be some risk of a higher rate the next year, but the rate study does not determine the rate; the council determines the rate. For example, if the rate study recommends an 8.5% increase, the council does not have to approve that increase. The council needs to balance the needs with what they feel the public can tolerate. If there has been a 5% increase for the past three years, that could be maintained this year and a detailed rate study done when the utilities’ needs are better understood. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. #51 – $20K – Overtime • The City’s pilot projects are not a sufficient reason to add overtime on an on-going need. Increasing the overtime appropriation should be addressed with council committee to look at consistency in overtime over the years. • Motion: Delete decision packet and bring through council committee. No motion was made. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2022 Page 9 #53 – $550K Perrinville Creek Lower Restoration • Total project cost estimated at $3.5M with another $2M for Talbot Road culverts. • See #60 There is not sufficient information to support this expense and/or restoration aspect. • Motion: Delete and move through CIP/CFP process when restoration plan is provided by administration. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO DELETE THIS $550,000 REQUEST. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the council has heard from many citizens regarding the Perrinville Creek Watershed restoration. It has been almost a year and no restoration plan has been provided by the administration to support the $3.5M. The railroad trestle for the Meadowdale Beach was $3.5M so she was unsure where the $3.5M estimate came from. She preferred to have this go through the CIP/CFP process to get the numbers to support this need. Councilmember Paine asked Mr. English to describe the status of the work on Perrinville Creek. Mr. English answered the project is on the lower segment of Perrinville Creek. Discussions have begun with three of the property owners on that segment to establish a new alignment for the outfall of the lower section. There is an existing streambed channel that meanders across 3-4 properties at the outfall and that channel is filled with sediment from the creek and is not taking water. There is a diversion structure upstream from that lower reach that takes the water out to Puget Sound. The discussions with property owners are intended to reach agreement on establishing a new channel that would run between City’s diversion pipe and the current meandering channel in more straight alignment and take it out through a fish passable culvert underneath the railroad. That is the project that this decision package would move forward. Councilmember Paine asked if these fund would be for the design process. Mr. English answered yes. Councilmember Paine observed funds are needed to develop a design and it takes money to develop complicated designs like this. She recalled from last year, this is an active emergency. Perrinville is a very fragile watershed and the outflow to Puget Sound is an actual emergency. She was glad to hear that’s what the project looks like, that works needs to be done and the plan for the engineered design needs to be funded. Councilmember L. Johnson said in the introduction to this and speaking to the motion, she heard acknowledgement that this is an emergency, a huge problem and that the exact cost is unknown. There are some estimates such as $3.5M and another $2M for the Talbot road replacement. She was also hearing that because the exact cost is unknown, planning should not begin. She was not following why if it was acknowledged as an emergency, the City should not move forward with how to address the emergency. Doing that requires funding and will reveal the cost. If it is an emergency and everyone acknowledges that, then the City needs to move forward with a plan to address it. She supported keeping the funding in the budget and did not support removing it. Councilmember K. Johnson said Perrinville Creek was very important to her; it has the potential for fish passage and the lower restoration project cannot be done without looking at what causing is the sedimentation that continues year after year. The entire Perrinville Creek basin needs to be considered holistically including engaging the City of Lynnwood as a partner. The City cannot just put a bypass pipe in the lower session to get rid of the water because that will still cause sedimentation and fish cannot be restored in the creek if the heavy sedimentation continues. The City has been working on the lower part of the creek but has been unable to solve the problem. Before moving ahead with part of the solution, the City should look at the entire problem. For that reason, she supports removing this decision package at this time and maybe redesigning the ask. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2022 Page 10 Councilmember Chen commented councilmembers all know the urgency of this project. He recognized Councilmember Buckshnis for taking him to visit the mouth of the creek where the problems occurs; but like Councilmember K. Johnson said, the problem is not just at the mouth, it starts upstream. With that said, this study doesn’t just look at the mouth, it will incorporate what Councilmember K. Johnson said, look at the whole picture and determine how to address problem. If that is the case, he would support funding the study because the City has to start somewhere. This is an emergency, property owners have been flooded when water doesn’t get channeled to Puget Sound properly. He asked Mr. English to describe what this funding would do. Mr. English said everyone is raising good points regarding Perrinville Creek. Tetra Tech did a study on the Perrinville system; one of the things they evaluated was reducing the amount of water going into the system in an effort to reduce peak flows events. During high flow rain events, which have occurred more frequently in the past couple years, a lot of sediment is taken out of the banks. The Tetra Tech study identified several up-basin projects that could be done to reduce the impacts. Some of those have been implemented including the first phase of the Seaview infiltration galley that was installed a couple years ago and the second phase that is planned to be completed this year. Several rain gardens were also built in the upper part of the watershed, all in an effort to reduce the input into the system. Mr. English agreed Lynnwood needs to be a partner because they are part of the basin and have drainage into the creek. These funds are focused on solving the current, immediate problem on the lower segment, from the diversion structure to the outfall. There are concepts on paper, but nothing has been designed. That process needs to be started because the effort to permit whatever will be built in the lower reach will take time. That is the immediate need and that is what this money is for. The council will approve the design contract so they will see the scope of work for that section. Councilmember Chen commented this project has had a lot of stakeholder involvement including the railroad, private property owners, and Lynnwood so the consultant will have that information and not just focus on one area due to the broader implications. He supported funding for this project because the City needs to get started. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the City was involved in litigation and could not do any design. As Councilmember K. Johnson said, the City needs to look at this from a global perspective. If something is designed for the lower aspect and then finds there is something further up that causes problem such as under the Perrinville post office where large amounts of land is moving down the steam into that lower restoration area, that could be problematic. She questioned how design could begin when it was kind of in limbo. Mr. English said he wanted to be cautious about providing a response and did not comfortable speaking to Councilmember Buckshnis’ question from a legal standpoint. Councilmember Buckshnis said the City needs get all its ducks in a row which is one of the biggest issues about the lower section, not to mention the section further up. Mr. English said in any case there still needs to be a design for the lower part. He agreed there were parts of the upper watershed that could be studied but the lower stretch still needs to be designed regardless. Sharon Cates, City Attorney’s Office, said she did not have much to add about what should/should not be discussed because she was not familiar with any litigation currently underway and Mr. English was right to be cautious about saying too much at this point. Councilmember Buckshnis summarized she did not think any design should begin until “we figure out where we can design it.” UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. #55 – $190K - Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Improvements Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2022 Page 11 • No justification for water mitigation or the phases of this stormwater project. Suggest that the stormwater aspect be clarified in the CIP/CFP process. • Motion: Delete decision packet and move through CIP/CFP process when restoration plan outlined. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO DELETE THE DECISION PACKET AND MOVE IT THROUGH THE CIP/CFP PROCESS WHEN RESTORATION PLAN IS OUTLINED. Councilmember Buckshnis commented this project was recently removed from stormwater. Six designs provided by a hydrology firm were used to develop the $16M estimate. It was not funded via a marsh restoration plan, but as mitigation for the connector project. Once the connector went away, design 6 of the Shannon Wilson report became moot in her opinion and this information is premature and she preferred to look at the entire project holistically. Water quality improvements were made by citizen volunteers removing the fences and there are plan to remove the fences on the Shellabarger side of the marsh utilizing Edmonds College interns. She recommended putting a pause on this until there is resolution of the Unocal property. Councilmember L. Johnson said feasibility documents for the Willow Creek Daylighting project identified some areas of concern with the water quality of stormwater entering the marsh. Additionally, new research has identified a chemical in tire production causing pre -spawn mortality in salmon, further cementing the linkage between vehicle traffic and poor water quality for fish habitat. She pointed out that chemical is the 6PPD-quinone which University of Washington and Washington State University were finally able to definitively show is causing mortality in salmon. After a storm event, they saw up to 90% death. In 2004 in Edmonds at the hatchery, there was a huge die off of 9,500 young salmon due to a stormwater event. This provides the opportunity to look at SR-104, an area of high traffic with a lot of tire dust and to consider how this impacts salmon. At the WRIA-8 meetings, there were videos and in-depth discussion about that chemical in tires causing mortality in spawning salmon. Councilmember L. Johnson said this is an opportunity to see how SR-104 and the area around Harbor Square impact the health of salmon and what can be done to prevent tire dust from entering the marsh. This project includes a grant. For all the emphasis that has been put on ensuring healthy habitat for salmon, she questioned why the City wouldn’t want to treat the runoff from SR-104 and reduce a known toxic chemical entering the marsh. She supported retaining the decision package and did not support motion. Councilmember Paine concurred with Councilmember L. Johnson’s comments. She asked if there was anything more that needed to be said about this project. It was her understanding the project was along SR- 104 and would mitigate tire dust on SR-104 which acts like a giant sluice. There is another project to reconfigure the ferry traffic holding lanes which will concentrate more cars in that area. She asked if there was other justification for this project. Mr. English offered to summarize what the project will do. There are catch basins on SR-104 that collect runoff from the street and discharge it directly into the marsh. The first phase of this project, for which the City received a Department of Ecology grant, will retrofit those catch basins and provide water quality treatment to treat runoff before it enters the marsh. Phase 1 will take care of the catch basins on the west side. When ARPA funds became available, the project was expanded and added Phase 2 and 3; Phase 2 would do the same thing to the catch basins on the east side of SR-104 and Phase 3 would do the same thing to the catch basins in Harbor Square. Phases 2 and 3 will be funded with ARPA money and Phase 1 is funded 75% with a Department of Ecology grant and a 25% local match from stormwater. Council President Olson said she was not able to have conversations with Councilmember Buckshnis about this because too many other councilmembers had had budget conversations with her. As someone who has been super involved in the marsh and WRIA 8 and has been a lead proponent for the community in terms of environmental things, this seems like a positive thing that could be done now to move things forward. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2022 Page 12 She asked Councilmember Buckshnis to express what her reservations with doing that. Councilmember Buckshnis said Students Saving Salmon do water quality reports. The City is not dealing with spawning salmon yet because no design has been done for the Edmonds Marsh restoration due to the Unocal property. She was unaware there was a grant and she was unsure when the grant obtained. There have been some efforts with water quality such as taking the fences out. She preferred to wait a year to see how to do the entire project. She acknowledged the runoff from SR-104 flows directly into the marsh but did not think it made it to Puget Sound. If she could be convinced it does flow all the way to Puget Sound, “then maybe we should do it.” She summarized she is listening to local scientists who support a holistic approach. Council President Olson asked Councilmember Buckshnis if she supported retrofitting the catch basins to improve water quality, noting that will eventually need to be done so it would be better to do it sooner rather than later. Councilmember Chen commented SR-104 has existed for many years and he questioned why this study had not been done earlier. Mr. English explained this is not a study, it is to design and retrofit the catch basins. SR-104 is a State route in the State’s right-of-way. There has been a lot of focus on the marsh and this was identified as an improvement that could be made. The grant which was secured in 2020 was written to implement this project. Councilmember Tibbott said this decision package was not clear. He did not understand from reading it that it included installing catch basins to filter water. Hearing that explanation and knowing there are grant funds to install the catch basins, he did not support removing this decision package from the budget. He expressed appreciation for the additional information provided tonight. Councilmember L. Johnson commented as someone who has actually studied this quite a bit for various reasons, it was only a few years ago that the connection was made that tire dust is responsible for the spawning salmon die off. It was suspected for quite a while, but that connection was only definitely made a couple years ago. While this project would be beneficial to prevent pollution entering the marsh, the determination that it would improve the health of salmon likely impacted the City’s ability to obtain the grant. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was well aware of the tire dust issue and how it can cause pollution that directly affects fish. However, her problem with this decision package is she cannot figure out what’s going on. The decision package states the City previously secured a 75% grant and she heard that that was applied for in 2020. She was unsure if that was part of this decision package or if it was for Phase 1. The explanation provided by staff was that Phase 2 will be on the west side and Phase 3 will be at Harbor Square but the numbers don’t add up. The decision package states initial Phase 1 elements were estimated at $418,000 with another $750,000 estimated for the expanded phase for a total of $1.16 million, but the total expenditures proposed are only $190,000 which includes interfund services and the proposed funding source is the Coronavirus Relief Fund. She summarized her concern was the decision package is not clear and although the intent is not good, it needs to be sorted out in order to move forward. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. #60 – $121,542 - Perrinville Creek Projects • No information provided from the Administration for the restructure project. • Motion: Delete decision packet and bring forth through CIP/CFP process and budget amendments. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2022 Page 13 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO DELETE DECISION PACKET AND BRING FORTH THROUGH CIP/CFP PROCESS TO GAIN MORE INFORMATION. Councilmember Paine asked staff to confirm they are in discussions with the City of Lynnwood about how to better handle stormwater issues in the Perrinville watershed. Mr. English said staff has made the initial outreach and those discussions need to continue, they haven’t gone very far at this point. The decision package has ties back to the Tetra Tech study that he mentioned for the upper part of the watershed. That study identified the need to reduce inputs into Perrinville Creek to bring down peak runoff events. This funding has been in the budget for several years to fund those projects. In the early years it was used to help the Seaview Phase 1 project, rain gardens were built on 81st last year, and there are plans this year to work with the Snohomish County Conservation District to add rain gardens in an area off 83rd. The focus and purpose of these funds are to help solve the Perrinville issue, to reduce flows entering the system. Councilmember Paine said she was glad to see the funding in the budget. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to the justification in the decision package that was passed as part of the 2022 budget which states, reducing scouring flows, in order to reduce sediments load, in Perrinville Creek was identified in a previous basin report completed in 2015 as a critical element of restoring this creek which has been significantly impacted by urban development. She recall a councilmember mentioning earlier that sediment is a major part of the problem. She did not understand the statement in the PowerPoint about no information provided because the information is provided in the decision package in the budget book. The council knows there is an issue with Perrinville Creek and that sediment is an issue; this decision package spells that out. She hoped councilmembers would take the opportunity to ask questions to understand the need for retaining this decision package and the need to address this. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the decision package which states, the approved CIP accounts for this being a $100,000 annual amount. She asked if this was $100,000 annual amount or $121,542 or was it something separate. She was confused as she believed the entire basin should be looked at instead of piecemealing it. She referred to Mr. English’s explanation that the funds would be used for rain gardens, pointing out Snohomish County Conservation District gives out grants for rain gardens. Mr. English explained several rain gardens have been identified on 83rd for construction in 2022 to reduce the inputs. He reminded that decision packages are written in July and it takes time to develop projects. Between July and now, more is known and the project on 83rd is the target for building rain gardens. This program has been funded for the last several years. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how many rain gardens could be constructed for $121,000. Mr. English said he did not have that information with him tonight. Councilmember Paine recalled this was looked at closely in the CIP review. It is on page 71 of the CIP, $121,000 this year and $100,000 for the following six years. This is an ongoing project; there have been infiltration projects in Seaview and that is now in Phase 2. This is programmed as part of the CIP and she was surprised to see this being identified as something new when it was talked about during the CIP/CFP. Rain gardens have been discussed as effective measures to reduce environmental harm. She was struggling to understand why councilmembers did not understand this was part of the effort to reduce runoff in that neighborhood since everyone knows how fragile the environment in that area is. She referred to projects on Olympic View Drive where the land is subsiding because it is all sand. Speaking in opposition to removing this decision package, Councilmember L. Johnson said we all know the benefits of retaining water on site and reducing flows and the benefits of filtering water onsite. This decision package states the funding will allow staff flexibility to respond to opportunities such as rain gardens cluster projects or ensure matching funds are available for grant applications for flow reduction projects. The funds provide the ability to partner, to take advantage of opportunity as they present themselves, and shows the City is dedicated to do this. If the funds are removed from the budget, groups will be less likely to partner with the City. These funds show the City’s dedication to working to reduce Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2022 Page 14 flooding and working on things that are overall good for climate protection. She did not support the motion to remove the funding from the budget. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (0-7), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. #61 - $400K - Green Streets and Rain Gardens • Not sufficient information or green street definition in supporting City documents to support costs. • Rain garden grants available through Snohomish County. • More information needed to determine how the bio-retention and rain gardens are to be built to reduce flooding. • Motion: Delete decision packet. Bring forth through council committee and the CIP/CFP process. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO DELETE DECISION PACKET AND BRING FORTH THROUGH COUNCIL COMMITTEE SO IT CAN BE REVIEWED MORE CLOSELY. Council President Olson commented this is premature. The State of the City was the first she had ever heard of green streets and certainly the community hasn’t been consulted regarding whether that is something they want the City to move forward with. In addition, it is not in the comprehensive plan or something that has been talked about as a community. She agreed with the need for further vetting of this appropriation. Mayor Nelson commented this was included in the budget which was long before his State of City. Councilmember L. Johnson suggested staff describe the benefits of green infrastructure and green streets. Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin commented the previous items have emphasized the importance of reducing flooding, bioretention, improving stormwater management, and keeping water as well managed as possible as it moves into Puget Sound. This decision package was written by her predecessor but she also has great experience with green streets. Green streets is a generalized term and the City does not have a definition. They are so broadly defined that it could literally mean an abundance of landscape that is intentional on a particular street, whether it is to improve the pedestrian experience or an actual engineered bioretention facility. Ms. McLaughlin continued, as part of the PROS Plan, residents expressed interest in improving walkability throughout the City particularly around parks. Mapping is being done of areas in the City that are suitable for bioretention and creating a green street network. An intentional effort toward capital investments on these streets makes sense from an engineered bioretention standpoint. That is on the higher, engineered scale; green streets can literally mean planting trees, de-paving and getting rid of as much [im]permeable surface as possible on streets that tend to have excessive width in some areas. The opportunities are endless and having capital dollars available and mapping a green street network will benefit residents who are interested in greening the streets and improving walkability. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if green streets and this effort fit into the comprehensive plan. Ms. McLaughlin answered absolutely. Everything that has been talked about such as improving the environment, managing stormwater, and improving walkability are all policy statements that could be found in some form or fashion in the comprehensive plan. Mapping capital investments will be important moving into the future, but there are endless opportunity to plant trees, de-pave, add landscape, etc. and having capital dollars to do that will be important. Having capital dollars available for public/private partnerships, opportunities where the City could partner with other organizations to install rain gardens or improve landscaping will also be helpful. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2022 Page 15 Councilmember K. Johnson said she certainly hoped efforts toward green streets did not include de-paving; that was a concept she had never heard of before. She had heard of defunding the police but not de-paving the streets. She felt streets were insufficient in many areas and if the desire was to improve walkability, the number one thing would be to build sidewalks. Anytime sidewalks are constructed, it can include planting trees and landscaping along the right-of-way. Sidewalks are her priority in terms of walkability and use of the right-of-way. She found it alarming to be doing things that are contrary to what the City has been working on. Councilmember Paine said her notes from the budget review indicate the focus was in the Perrinville area. There are some parts of Edmonds that have extraordinarily wide rights-of-way where a large rain garden could easily be installed to help slow water. She asked if her notes were correct, that the focus was on the Perrinville area. Mr. English answered it was more of a citywide focus. He noted Ms. McLaughlin brings an enormous expertise to the City including new perspective in implementing this program and she did a great job of describing the scope. Ms. McLaughlin said being new and not understanding the history of some projects, she can appreciate the need in the Perrinville area. When appropriate locations for green streets or rain gardens improvements are prioritized, Perrinville may rise to the top. She wanted to ensure there was nimble funding available for partnerships, grants and capital projects that may make sense in other areas that could be combined with walkability improvements. Councilmember Paine said her old neighborhood in Broadview included alternative street edge designs, an amazing street design that removed some of the concrete but improved walkability, slowed water and offered tremendous water quality improvements for Carkeek Creek. She was totally in support of the decision package and would love to see alternate edge designs in Edmonds. Councilmember Tibbott said one of the things he appreciated about this budget amendment process was the opportunity to hear details. It was his understanding that the $400,000 would be for initial design work and also to identify county or state grant funding sources that could be used to improve the hardscape throughout the City to control stormwater. Ms. McLaughlin admitted she was new to the City and did not write this decision package, but that is consistent with her understanding and the direction she would recommend going. If the decision package is retained, creating a spending plan will be important and would include grants, partnerships and capital projects. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the proposed use of ARPA funds and asked if that was an acceptable use of ARPA funds. Ms. McLaughlin said her previous experience was working for a Department of Transportation and a lot of capital projects were proposed using ARPA funds so she viewed this as completely consistent with how ARPA funds have been used by capital departments. During the pandemic, a lot of people began to appreciate their neighborhoods and communities and began walking in their neighborhoods more than they had before, so putting money toward walkability, landscaping, trees, adequate bioretention, and stormwater management makes a lot of sense. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding that ARPA funds could be used for this purpose and it would help improve walkability throughout the entire City as well as improve stormwater retention. Ms. McLaughlin said she did not want to over-promise; $400,000 won’t improve walkability throughout the entire City. Councilmember Buckshnis commented the council just approved $126,000 for rain gardens in Perrinville and she hoped that was sufficient for that area. She did not think the council had sufficient oversight to understand the design and planning process for spending this $400,000. It would be very advantageous to run this though a committee and then utilize the budget amendment process. A lot of citizens do not understand what green streets means. This is still at the beginning stage and she was concerned about providing funds to be nimble when the council doesn’t know what is going on. She wanted to have the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2022 Page 16 council involved in the planning process, which streets or neighborhoods are being considered versus just making funds available to be nimble. Councilmember Chen thanked Councilmember K. Johnson for her earlier comment that hopeful this project was not about removing sidewalks; the City need more sidewalks. He liked the concept of green streets and rain gardens; it is a new concept to a lot of people but it is a good direction to head. Based on what he learned so far, it is a little premature and $400,000 could just be the tip of the iceberg as it could only construct a couple sections. He supported removing this decision package for now, doing more study and education of council and citizens, and perhaps doing a bigger project. He saw the value of this decision package but preferred to do further study before throwing money at it. Councilmember K. Johnson commented this discussion has been a learning exercise, but there is not enough information in the decision package. This is under the legislative oversight; the council needs to know more about what this is and what is proposed before authorizing money for it. According to the decision package, up to $1M in ARPA funds can be spent. She agree it should go through committee first and funding could be considered as part of the quarterly budget amendment process. The decision package does not seem very well understood and it is not in the comprehensive plan. She preferred to take this more slowly. Council President Olson reinforced what she heard from councilmembers, recalling a slide displayed during the State of the City that showed green streets with people walking in the street instead of on the sidewalks. The community has weighed in that walkability is a huge priority, but it was not clear to her that that meant walking in the streets versus on the sidewalks. There is a limit to how much nimbleness she wanted and how much lack of oversight she wanted the council to have until there was community engagement and clarity on which direction to go. She supported the idea of bringing this back through committee with more tangible specifics on how the money would be spent. Councilmember L. Johnson pushed back against the statement that this does not support the comprehensive plan when staff stated it supports a number of elements in the comprehensive plan. This is clearly an opportunity for more education; she was taken aback at the lack of understanding of green infrastructure and green streets. Some understand how important it is but say the project is probably bigger so the City shouldn’t start somewhere. The City needs to start somewhere; if we do not start chipping away at climate change, we will never get anywhere. She questioned saying we need to start with bigger projects, pointing out some people need to catch up with what it means to address climate change and what is within our capability to address. Councilmember L. Johnson continued, there are experts in the City saying these things that can be done, but some councilmembers are saying they’ve never heard of it or don’t understand it. Councilmembers need to do their own research and understand what is being done. The City will never get anywhere addressing climate change if councilmember keep coming to the table ignorant like this. She was scared for her children’s future when leaders think like this and are not willing to ack when they have an opportunity to do so. To say that the project needs to be bigger, or I don’t understand or heaven forbid, take away asphalt which warms the environment, and instead add greenscape that cools the environment and makes areas more walkable. She found this astounding and said there needs to be education and it needs to start with the council. 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. #70 – $485K – Purchase New vehicles • There are already a number of vehicles in the police and public works departments. Vehicle purchases should move through a Council committee for a better understanding of all cars needed Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2022 Page 17 which might also include the police department restructure. Current economic indicators identify cost of vehicles are up significantly because of supply chain shortages. • Motion: Delete decision packet and move through Council Committee. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO DELETE THE DECISION PACKET AND MOVE THROUGH COUNCIL COMMITTEE Councilmember L. Johnson asked Chief Bennett to speak to why this is a need rather than a want. Chief Bennett said she would prefer the fleet manager speak to this but he is on vacation out of the country. It was her understanding that these are replacements in the normal course of business. There are some aging vehicles in the fleet; one officer drives a Ford Crown Victoria, a vehicle that is no longer manufactured. To provide context, Mr. Turley said the City has 118 on-road vehicles (cars and pickups); Fleet pays close attention to maintenance and the replacement schedule, about 10 are replaced every year. The 2011 Crown Victoria is a patrol car; patrol cars have extremely high miles. The vehicles being replaced include a 1997 step van and a 2002 pickup. He emphasized the replacements are done on a regular schedule; if these vehicle are not replaced this year, twice as many will need to be replaced next year. Council President Olson recalled some councilmembers in the past thought the commitment to that rotation schedule was something that could be looked at as a City policy to stretch it another year in general. This year when it has been so hard to get cars or cars are going for a premium, it seems like if there was an opportunity to replace fewer, that might be advantageous. Councilmember Paine asked how much money had been collected in the B Fund for these planned purchases. Mr. Turley said he did not have the balance in front of him. It is an internal service fund, departments that use vehicles pay into the fund in advance so in a way all the vehicles have already been funded by the departments. The money is already in the 511 Fund so the expenditure does not affect this year’s General Fund at all. Councilmember Paine recalled Facilities Manager Thom Sullivan saying vehicles could be purchased through a state contract and asked if these vehicle were purchased through that same state contract. Mr. English answered these vehicle would be purchased form the state contract. He asked the Fleet Manager to compare cars purchased in previous years versus 2022 because those prices were already established. Two vehicles were compared, the Police Explorer Hybrid which had an increase 2.1% from 2021 to 2022 which is not as much of an increase as other new vehicles are experiencing. The resale value of used vehicles at auction is also higher which offsets the cost of purchasing new vehicles. Councilmember Paine commented it was great that there were five electric vehicles and three hybrids which is much better for the environment. Councilmember Buckshnis said she did not have a problem with buying new vehicles, recalling in the old days vehicles were purchased through the third quarter amendment process so vehicles were in place before the budget. She felt it would be advantageous for the purchases to go through committee and consider whether all eight vehicle purchases were necessary. She agreed with getting rid of the Crown Victoria patrol car, but questioned replacing a 2015 Ford F-250 with an F-150. Councilmember Tibbott said it appeared this was replacing vehicles that were very old and ready to be replaced. He did not want to get into a discussion about which ones needed to be replaced the most, but asked if all eight of the vehicle were on the replacement list for this year. Mr. English answered it was his understanding that they are on replacement list. Councilmember Tibbott asked about the 2017 and 2015 vehicles. Mr. English said the 2017 Police Ford Explorer has 111,000 miles at the time the decision package was drafted so it has reached a point where it was ready for replacement. Chief Bennett commented police vehicles are driven during 12 hour shifts so they are driven a lot. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2022 Page 18 Councilmember L. Johnson said given that this does not come out of the General Fund and paid for with funds in the B Fund, it doesn’t make sense that councilmembers are saying they need to further understand why a vehicle is being replaced when there are staff in charge of the replacement recommending they be replaced. She pointed out replacing a Ford F-250 with an electric F-150 makes sense, it is a smaller vehicle, overall a better thing and it is electric. Those who are driving these vehicles and those that oversee the vehicles have prepared this replacement schedule. The purchases have no impact on the General Fund but they do impact the City’s ability to perform services and not spend more time than necessary on maintenance of vehicles that are out of date. She did not support the motion. Councilmember Chen did not support removing funds for these vehicles. Even though some of the cars could go on for a couple more years, public safety is a high priority for the City. Properly funding the police force’s salaries, a perimeter fence, and these vehicles are reasonable asks. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. #71- $260K Vehicle Charging Network • Further review to entail creating a charging network system and data on current use of our charging stations and locations for them other than downtown area. (2021 bonds utilized and is this an aging infrastructure?) • Motion: Delete decision packet and review through Council Committee COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO DELETE DECISION PACKET AND REVIEW THROUGH COUNCIL COMMITTEE Councilmember Tibbott said deleting this decision package was his proposal. He understands there are a lot of incentive programs for people to install their own charging stations and he learned from the Planning Board about incentives for builders to include them in new homes which led him to ask how many charging stations were needed in the City. He questioned how long a vehicle charging network would be needed, it was not clear to him whether it was a 2, 5, or 20 year solution. He recalled when charging stations were installed in the past, citizens said they did not like to use the ones provided by the City because they were too expensive. Councilmember Tibbott continued, in his opinion there was missing data; he would like to see if the data supports installation of a charging network, whether people are using the existing stations and where the charging stations would be located. He did not anticipate that locating them in the 3-hour parking zones would be a good use of City funds. He asked how this sequenced with newer vehicles that have longer lasting batteries and people charging their vehicles at home. He summarized it was not clear that the data supported a need for a network and he would like to have it reviewed by council before moving forward. Councilmember Paine supported keeping this decision package in the budget as was decided last year. She commented people driving electric vehicles want to charge their vehicles while visiting Edmonds whether that is in the downtown core or along Highway 99. Developing infrastructure like this will be important as the number of electric vehicles increase. She recalled from staff’s presentation on Tuesday, there are almost 1,000 electric vehicles in Edmonds and that will continue to grow. People want electric vehicles, it is good for the environment, and when people purchase a new vehicle, they may not choose a gas vehicle but instead choose a hybrid or electric vehicle. The need includes visitors having access to charging stations. The benefits of building out a charging network downtown, uptown or other places where people can park, have dinner and return to a well-charged car will be a huge and attractive benefit for Edmonds. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2022 Page 19 Council President Olson appreciated the data issues Councilmember Tibbott raised. Philosophically, she is on-board with this project but more information could be provided to ensure the City is making a good decision and putting the chargers in the right place. The thing that bothered her most was that bond proceeds were being used for this. The council was very clear that the bond proceeds were for capital maintenance, stuff that is so unsexy that it has not been done year after year. There may be support for spending fund balance for a capital project like this. The funding source is the greatest issue for her, but additionally the idea of having more information, ensuring it is a good decision, and implementing the right plan are also important. She summarized further vetting through a committee is appropriate. Councilmember L. Johnson asked Mr. Turley to speak to the funding source and the appropriateness. Mr. Turley explained the 016 Fund was brought back at the same time the bond funds came in. The idea behind the 016 Fund is that is where major projects such as this would be funded. The idea would be when projects are funded every year, instead of funding the Building Maintenance Fund, the 016 Fund would be funded and some money would go into both, small amounts into the General Fund building maintenance and big dollars into 016. The bond funds are supposed to be used for the items on the McKinstry report that represent backlogged maintenance; this would not be one of those projects. When this decision package was prepared, the bonds had not been sold. It was identified as a major capital construction project, not intending that it would be funded by bond funds. Every year when these projects are done, a transfer from the General Fund will need to be budgeted, similar to the funds budgeted for streets. The 016 fund has not existed for the past few years which is the reason it is different than in the past. Councilmember L. Johnson said the need has been shown and that need will only grow. She appreciated Councilmember Paine synthesizing the information that was received earlier, especially identifying the environmental component. She noted there is also an economic component through tourism. There are a lot of places the vehicle chargers can be located. She is not an expert at determining where they need to go but she knew there was a need and that they will be used. She felt the council was micromanaging by admitting they were needed but having it go through committee first when this has benefits on a number of levels and it fits with a number of the council’s climate change goals. She was comfortable keeping this decision package in the budget. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for Councilmember Tibbott’s comments, the council needs to pragmatically look at some of these programs. She agreed the charging stations were needed but budget amendments are done quarterly or it could be handled as an emergency amendment. Many citizens are asking about having electric vehicle charges in their homes or about having chargers on Highway 99, Firdale or Westgate. This is a lot of money. She asked whether this was funded with bond funds; she did not believe it should come from the bond funds. Mr. Turley said as large projects are paid from the 016 Fund, there will need to be a transfer in to fund them. That transfer has not yet been made. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the bonds were supposed to pay for aging infrastructure and major projects. This is a new project and could be funded by the bond funds but that was not the original intent for those funds. She supported Councilmember Tibbott’s proposal, moving this quickly through committee and get things more focus and more mapped out. Facilities Manager Thom Sullivan said when this proposal was first looked at last summer, former Director Phil Williams and he looked at the utilization via a company the City uses, SemaConnect, to administer the public EV charging stations. SemaConnect and other companies approached the City to inquire about expanding the network due to dark spots in the City. Mr. Sullivan explained there is a consortium of EV charging networks that use cell apps for people to find a charger. The larger networks want to be around large transit hubs; SemaConnect considers themselves an urban charging network so they are better utilized in small downtown spaces, near shopping centers, etc. and Snohomish County in general is not well served outside the transit hubs except for public EV stations. There hasn’t been a large private commitment to EV stations. There has been a large increase in all-electric vehicles during the last two years and he anticipated that would grow immensely in the next five years. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2022 Page 20 When the chargers were first installed in 2013, the average charge time was 7-13 minutes; now there are 4- 6 hour charges on certain days of the week. The trend seems to be that people are charging 1-2 times/week while at work and the industry trend is longer charging duration instead of transient charging. The proposal to add 10 charging stations would expand the network to serve the Uptown neighborhood, Five Corners, Firdale, the library and Frances Anderson Center, near the hospital, etc. Council President Olson said she was still not clear whether the bond funds would be used for this project. She asked where Fund 016 came into play and how that related to whether the bond funds would be used. Mr. Turley explained right now the only money in the 016 Fund is bond money. As projects are funded out of the 016 Fund, General Fund money, grant funds or other funding will need to be transferred into Fund 016. Council President Olson asked if this decision package remains in the budget, would bond funds be used for it. Mr. Turley said it was kind of like borrowing from the bond funds and it will be paid back later due to the timing. Council President Olson asked how the council would know that that happened in the future. Mr. Turley said it was perfectly reasonable for it to go through a committee to keep track of how the bond funds are spent, discussing and approving projects on a quarterly basis before they are funded. There are no bond-funded projects in the budget yet. Councilmember Chen asked if installing charges would eliminate parking spaces downtown and on Highway 99. Mr. Sullivan said at this point they use a public parking space and they are typically time constrained parking spaces except while charging. The City’s network currently charge $1.50/hour for charging. The chargers indicate whether a vehicle is charging, is plugged in but not paying for charging, or is full and done charging. When the new chargers will installed, COVID happened so people camping in EV hasn’t really been a problem although there had been some complaints before. Councilmember Chen asked if the charging station itself takes up a parking space. Mr. Sullivan answered the charging station typically sits on the sidewalk and the parking space can be used by non-EV at a time duration. Councilmember Chen commented electric vehicles are like an iPhone, it’s new technology and then it’s all over the place. He anticipated electric vehicles were coming and the City needed to get started installing chargers. He summarized getting started was the right thing to do so he supported funding this decision package. Councilmember K. Johnson commented the City has six charging stations now, two on Main Street, two in the public safety parking lot and two in the City Park parking lot. She referred to the proposal for a charging station near the new scrubber in City Park and asked if that was a separate program or part of the proposed ten new EV charging locations. She was unclear whether it was for City vehicles or would be one of the ten proposed EV chargers. Mr. Sullivan said the electric vehicle charging station associated with the odor scrubber project is taking power from the new transformer and used charge Facilities electric vehicles and someday electric Park vehicles. Councilmember K. Johnson said she was confused with $250,000 for repairs and maintenance. Mr. Sullivan said typically repairs and maintenance are contracted vendor expenditures and not done in-house. Councilmember K. Johnson shared the concern about not knowing where these will be located. She said it would be interesting to see usage, recalling at first it was just a few minutes and now is typically 4-6 hours which she felt was excessive within the 3-hour parking limits. She expressed interest in looking at the data and to understand where the proposed units would be located. Councilmember Tibbott referred to Mr. Sullivan’s comments about usage and location, he was making the point that the Planning Board heard, that 80% of people who purchase electric vehicle charge them either at home or at work. He did not anticipate that locating them in 3-hour parking spaces downtown would be advisable. It would be up to the property owner to install a charging station in a private parking lot. He was Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 17, 2022 Page 21 curious where the City thinks charging stations could be located where people would use them in conjunction with their work or an extended charge while at home. He was also curious about the cost, recalling there were complaints about how much the City charged, and the fact that batteries last much longer than they did 8-10 years ago when electric vehicles first came out. He was unsure this would be a viable resource for people with an EV in the future. Councilmember Tibbott continued, he was looking for data points regarding where they would be located, how much they would cost, would people use them. He expressed concern with using bond funds for these charging stations as the intent was to dedicate that to deferred maintenance. He supported the motion to remove the decision package for now until information could be provided to justify installing ten charging stations around the City. Councilmember Paine commented the other group that would use this technology were people who live in apartments and condominiums built without EV chargers. A resident could drive to the charger, charge their car and bring it home. She recalled when selling her condo, someone looking at it asked if it was possible to install a charging station; her condo did not have a charger as it was built in 1979. There are people living in Edmonds who need these facilities and if that prevented someone from buying an electric vehicle, it was a lost opportunity. 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. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO ADJOURN. Councilmember Paine said she would like to have an opportunity for council and mayor comments as there has not been time for them in the last few weeks due to time management. Councilmember L. Johnson pointed out there were only a few amendments. Today is February 17th and it would be nice to have the budget completed so staff knows what they are working with. Given that this meeting was specifically scheduled for budget amendments it behooves the council to stick around and get this done so the next council meeting can be used to address other pressing City business. Council President Olson commented realistically the remaining amendments could take close to an hour and another potential amendment was suggested today via email. The council has done a lot of work this week and it would be nice to end on time. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS 10. ADJOURN The council meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.