Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2022-02-15 City Council - Full Agenda-3090
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. o Agenda Edmonds City Council V,j Hv REGULAR MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE, HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA 98020 FEBRUARY 15, 2022, 7:00 PM THIS MEETING IS HELD VIRTUALLY USING THE ZOOM MEETING PLATFORM. TO JOIN, COMMENT, VIEW, OR LISTEN TO THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING IN ITS ENTIRETY, PASTE THE FOLLOWING INTO A WEB BROWSER USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE: HTTPS://ZOOM. US/J/95798484261 OR JOIN BY PHONE: US: +1 253 215 8782 WEBINAR ID: 957 9848 4261 PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE AUDIENCE COMMENTS USING A COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO RAISE A VIRTUAL HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED. PERSONS WISHING TO PROVIDE AUDIENCE COMMENTS BY DIAL -UP PHONE ARE INSTRUCTED TO PRESS *9 TO RAISE A HAND. WHEN PROMPTED, PRESS *6 TO UNMUTE. IN ADDITION TO ZOOM, REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS BEGINNING AT 7:00 PM ARE STREAMED LIVE ON THE COUNCIL MEETING WEBPAGE, COMCAST CHANNEL 21, AND ZIPLY CHANNEL 39. "WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS OF THIS PLACE, THE SDOHOBSH (SNOHOMISH) PEOPLE AND THEIR SUCCESSORS THE TULALIP TRIBES, WHO SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL HAVE HUNTED, FISHED, GATHERED, AND TAKEN CARE OF THESE LANDS. WE RESPECT THEIR SOVEREIGNTY, THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION, AND WE HONOR THEIR SACRED SPIRITUAL CONNECTION WITH THE LAND AND WATER. - CITY COUNCIL LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AUDIENCE COMMENTS APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of Council 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 Edmonds City Council Agenda February 15, 2022 Page 1 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 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. Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure Code Amendment (20 min) 2. Presentation of Washington Department of Commerce Energy Retrofit Grant for Public Safety Solar Plant (10 min) 3. Ordinance Adopting Extreme Risk Protection Order Statute into Edmonds Municipal Code (10 min) 4. Hybrid Meetings Update (15 min) 5. Proposed Amendments to the 2022 Adopted City Budget (120 min) 8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURN Edmonds City Council Agenda February 15, 2022 Page 2 6.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/15/2022 Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of January 22, 2022 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 01-22-2022 Draft Council Special Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 3 6.1.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING DRAFT MINUTES January 22, 2022 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Vivian Olson, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember (joined at 9:18 a.m.) Will Chen, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Susan Paine, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk The Edmonds City Council special virtual online meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m. by Council President Olson. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey announced the elected officials who were present, participating remotely. Council President Olson explained the only reason this was a public meeting was because not more than three councilmember can meet without it being a public meeting. The council will not conduct any City business today. She thanked everyone who was present, especially staff members. The goal is a very informal format. 3. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. COUNCIL CONVERSATION: "GETTING TO YES, NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT WITHOUT GIVING IN" Council President Olson said this book began with the question, what's the best way for people to deal with their differences? If the council has learned anything during the last couple years, it is that more than one thing can be true at one time and there can be more than one interest that exists, but there is more than one way to address each interest. That is the value of this book for councilmembers and working together to get great policy in place for the entire community, to step back and look at the process and the way members interact and discuss, not just the council but the entire community including the administration and the public, interacting in a way to develop policy that addresses more interests for more people. Council President Olson continued, one of the stories in the book was about two people wanting to have an orange who decided it would be fair to split the orange in half. But it turns out one person wanted to eat the orange and the other wanted to use the peel and not the fruit. They each could have had the whole orange in the context of what they wanted it for, but because they didn't have enough conversation about interests, they completely missed the opportunity to have a better outcome for each of them. If someone Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 22, 2022 Page 1 Packet Pg. 4 comes to the table with a position, both people cannot have the orange, but if they have a conversation about their interest, problem or need, maybe everyone's interests and needs can be addressed. Councilmember Chen referred to the upcoming discussion about the REDI manager, commenting the entire community can agree diversity is a strength for the community, not only skin color but diversity of thought. The difference is how to get there, whether to hire someone to do it, for how long, and in what format. Councilmember Tibbott said he had only read about 1/3 of the book so far. One of the things he picked up was focusing on interests and how to move forward by discovering interests. Another things was the reality that everyone has their own emotions and feelings about a particular issue. With regard to diversity, people have multiple responses to that issue, whether it is something that happened to them in the past and it's impossible to sift through all those personal experiences but realize the community has different kinds of emotional responses to the question of how to get to diversity, such as more diversity in employment, programing, etc. He applauded the idea of using a framework like this book to help understand that there are "land mines" underneath a program. It is not just pushing a program, but creating a pathway of change forward for the community. Councilmember Buckshnis said she skimmed and scanned the book because she did not have enough time to read it. When she lived overseas, she saw diversity and many different cultural issues, practices and reverences, each culture handles things differently. She has traveled throughout the United States and as a regulator she has seen many American things. Once she went overseas to both Lithuania and Kazakhstan, it opened her eyes to the "help me understand" aspect. She looks at things with a financial lens and globally because that's how she was raised, she was a regulator and auditor. Councilmembers are responsible for the taxpayers' money and it is important to have a pragmatic approach. She found the book to be a common sense approach to professionalism and understanding each other, agree to disagree and not make allegations. Walk in each other's shoes and try to understand each other's needs and wants. Councilmembers shared their thoughts on how the concepts in the book, "Getting to Yes; Negotiation Agreement Without Giving In" could be used to improve communications between council, the administration and the community. Try to structure the negotiation as a side -by -side activity in which the two of .for more) with your differences, interests and perceptions and your emotional involvement jointly face a common task. Requires buy -in from all participants, the administration and the public to be in a problem solving mode and interested in working together. That would change the dynamic and put all options on the table instead of a single option that doesn't consider everyone's interests and sets up an adversarial situation where people are either for or against the proposal, but the proposal never represented everyone in the first place. Backing up and having more conversation earlier, discussing the problems in the community and ways to successfully solve those problems Citizens have missed the vetting and dialogue in the last couple years. Different people need different levels of explanation Two negotiators, each pushing hard for their interests, will often stimulate each other's creativity and thinking about mutually beneficial solutions Separating people from the problem • Take emotion out of it and get behind people's objections. A wise solution reconciles interests and not positions • Being fair, covid safe, and centering on business are interests everyone is passionate about, but people disagree on how to further those interests Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 22, 2022 Page 2 Packet Pg. 5 6.1.a • Councilmembers sometimes classify a councilmember or person into a category and their reaction is emotional rather than listening to what the person said. Focus on problem rather than boxing in a councilmember or individual. Consider how get away from that • How does the book fit into the council's use of Robert's Rules? There is an option under Roberts to have a discussion. When there is a contentious item, the council could have a discussion where the principles in the book could be better used • Requires the help of the mayor who moderates meetings. If people are making personal attacks or talking off subject, it is the mayor's job to reign councilmembers in. The principles in the book are good, but need to be applied within the constructs of Roberts Rules • Professionalism, orderly operation of council meetings is lost with Zoom, dynamics have changed in Zoom meetings • Previous method of holding committee meetings simultaneously allowed for longer committee meetings. Committee meetings are very important • Having an opportunity for council discussion at committee meetings is important • Tendency to make something personal rather than work on the problem. Move beyond personal/group/partisan programs to focus on the problem • Politics are different than accounting, everyone has a right to free speech and to have their own perception • Subcommittees support one of the principles in the book, the more interest there is, the more value there is in having fewer people at the table. Do more in subcommittee so what comes to council does not have so many issues to resolve. Think about how to make things better in Zoom. Get to a point where what comes to council is easier Focus on interests, not positions • Offering a suggestion for critique helps identify where interests are or where they divert • How to make it practical in the context of a council meeting, discuss council -initiated items with another councilmember • Regarding this week's budget proposals, REDI manager, some support idea in budget, others have specific ideas. Apply principles of book but wonder if can discuss without people taking sides. A lot of ways to approach the issue • Regarding streateries, some people think they should be free, others think should be gone. Application and implementation of concept is difficult • A missing seventh principle in the book is compromise, find middle ground • Cannot compromise on interest, compromise on position. Compromise is not just get to middle if not based on something • Make wise compromise, focus on objective standards • Sometimes there are two different objective standards, have a reason for choosing a compromise position • Compromise is more successful if take time to explore interests, identify ideas and middle ground for solution. How to make that practical is worth trying to practice over the next year • Cannot make everybody happy • Consider unintended consequences • Citizens want to be heard and to have their problems solved • Return to book club discussion in a few months • Give them a stake in the outcome by making sure they participate in process. If not involved in process, unlikely to approve the product. Budget is good example • Basic needs, control over life, sense of belonging, partisan sense of belonging in past few years, how build sense of belonging to Edmonds and each other versus the divide • Different neighborhoods in Edmonds (uptown, downtown and middle Edmonds) • The more government hears from and is involved in communities, the more everyone feels vested in Edmonds. Appreciating different areas helps build community. Some areas have been annexed Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 22, 2022 Page 3 Packet Pg. 6 6.1.a (like Lake Ballinger) so things they do not have are not Edmonds' fault, but require catching up on what previous government did not provide or make a priority. Instead of anger that it is not there, acknowledge that the City is trying to address it • Council consider all of Edmonds, one Edmonds even though five different neighborhoods with different needs • Many neighborhoods do not have sidewalks and/or streetlights • Demand has been there for many years, need to consider during budget • Mistake to just throw money in budget to solve problem. Utilities element in Comprehensive Plan, have to consider from a citywide prospective • Transportation element in Comprehensive Plan includes a walkway plan. There is a process for addressing transportation, utilities, etc. councilmembers can have input into those processes (Councilmember Tibbott left the meeting at 10:15 a.m.) Communication • When all else fails, consider interim agreement • Agree on procedure if not substance • Agree on where you disagree • Politics have become more divisive, more complicated due to social media • Councilmembers look at things differently due to background, sometimes agree to disagree but still remain friends • Enjoy problem solving and creative solutions, but not personal attacks which shut down discussion • Opportunity with new council to move into more collaborative process • Mindset of serving community, consider everyone's ideas and perspectives regardless of how/where it originates • Challenge councilmembers — ask each councilmember during their term to have one-on-one coffee/lunch Wrap u • Favorite quote from book, conflict is a growth industry. The challenge is to diffuse, work around and not buy in and allow that noise, gallery to dictate actions, be strong enough person to take actions that serve all of Edmonds in spite of context and background • Things will calm down once meetings are no longer held in Zoom and are back to normal. Sometimes councilmembers make wrong decisions, perceptions can change over time. Councilmembers have to consider many different perspectives • Everyone should be listened to, can agree to disagree and still respect each other's opinions, perceptions, life experiences. Helpful to listen to all, the more we understand, the better we can govern. Open yourself to listening and new ideas and do the best you can. Sometimes it is not what you want, but it is what is best for the community • Looking forward and not back helps to have less emotion and a constructive path forward. Make your point without bringing up emotion and memory of past. • Sometimes the past provides helpful context • There are always new ideas and problems that emerge, councilmembers need to listen and learn in order to make a decision • Possible future book for discussion, Council Oversight from Government Finance Office 4. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes January 22, 2022 Page 4 Packet Pg. 7 6.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/15/2022 Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2022 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 02-01-2022 Draft Council Special Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 8 6.2.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING 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 1. CALL TO ORDER DRAFT MINUTES February 1, 2022 STAFF PRESENT Frances Chapin, Arts & Culture Program Mgr Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst The Edmonds City Council special virtual online meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. 2. INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO A CITY BOARD OR COMMISSION 1. ARTS COMMISSION CANDIDATE INTERVIEW Arts & Culture Program Manager Frances Chapin introduced Harry Kirchner, advising his resume is in the packet. The Arts Commission is excited to have someone interested in participating in the literary arts as Write on the Sound Writers Conference (WOS) is one of the key programs for the Edmonds Arts Commission. WOS is unique; no other city art commissions put on a nationally known writers conference. Mr. Kirchner brings a tremendous amount of experience and talent to the commission. Councilmembers interviewed Harry Kirchner for appointment to the Arts Commission (responses in italics): Councilmember Buckshnis said she likes publishers and reading and it will be great to have Mr. Kirchner on the commission. She asked if he had any ideas he wanted to try in 2022 even though there is still a pandemic. I'm just getting my feet wet, so I'm trying to be led by what happened in the past before I put too big an imprint on anything. I was involved in a preliminary meeting of the steering committee for Write on the Sound. I look forward in the future to using some of my contacts in the publishing industry to continue to bring top level talent for participants and sessions offered at WOS as well as getting more involved in other projects. I love the art on the fence concept and the historic plaques. I'm trying to figure out where my talents can be best used and then jump in. Council President Olson offered Mr. Kirchner an opportunity to introduce himself to the council. If you have seen my resume, there is not a lot to add. I have a lot of experience in the publishing industry and am looking forward to bringing that to bear. I am currently self-employed, semi -retired, so I have the time to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 1 Packet Pg. 9 6.2.a devote to the Arts Commission. I'm looking forward to the opportunity to bring those things to my new community. My wife and I moved here three years ago from north Seattle, although we have had a long connection with Edmonds; my wife was a business manager for Rick Steves for 25 years before she retired. We have always had one foot in Edmonds and one foot in Seattle, now both are in Edmonds. Councilmember Chen said downtown Edmonds has a lot of art, the Edmonds Center for the Arts and the 4th Avenue Corridor, a lot of rich culture. His office and home are close to Highway 99 and he is interested in finding ways to bridge the downtown art and Highway 99 art. Do you see a connection between the Creative District and how it relates to broader Edmonds instead of just 4th Avenue and downtown? Fourth Avenue and the downtown area create a create good model that can be easily pushed out to the Highway 99 corridor and the areas between. Wherever there is community, there is an opportunity for community art. Everything that has been done in the downtown can be used as a model and pushed out to other neighborhoods. That is definitely a direction the Arts Commission should go in, look for opportunities to display and encourage art and artists in those neighborhoods. Councilmember L. Johnson read from the Arts Commission webpage, ensure the arts are a vital part of the community's quality of life, economic vitality and central identity. She asked him to expand on ideas that would help further the Arts Commission's offerings, outreach, engagement and accessibility throughout Edmonds. One obvious place to start is the school districts. There are already some interesting programs to encourage participation from younger readers; participation from younger artists could also be encouraged. Displaying and sending local art talent to the schools to do presentations for student where possible through playgrounds, other organizations that can reach out to those communities. There is ample talent and no dearth of opportunity, it's just a matter offending the path to get to it. Councilmember K. Johnson commented the council interview is an opportunity for the council to meet and have a one-on-one exchange with candidates because the council confirms the mayor's appointment. She asked if he specialized in any type of book during his publishing career. My career started primarily through sales and marketing. I have always been involved with independent publishers, the publishers outside the five mayor houses in New York. As I transitioned to more editing and direct publishing, I have always concentrated on what is widely referred to as fiction and long form nonfiction memoirs, etc., but myprimary focus now is bringing new voices into publishing. I do acquisitions for a publisher in California, Counterpoint, and have brought in a number of writers all of whom are under 40 and members of every ethic group imaginable. I've tried to foster diversity and young talent. Councilmember Paine said she was glad to hear him mention the school district. Scriber Lake High School has a have writers' group that does some publishing. She encouraged him to see if they were still doing that; students would write parts of their life story and publish a book. She commented he is well equipped for this position and may not be semi -retired for long as there are a lot of writers and people who are interested in the arts. She assured he would enjoy his time on the Arts Commission. Councilmember Tibbott asked what was his favorite book published in last five years. A very recent publication of Jim Harrison's collected poems by a publisher in Port Townsend. I highly recommend any of Jim Harrison's work; that collection ofpoetry is a real eye opener and mind bender. Council President Olson advised his appointment will be confirmed on the Consent Agenda tonight. 3. ADJOURN With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 6:59 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 2 Packet Pg. 10 6.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/15/2022 Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2022 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 02-01-2022 Draft Council Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 11 6.3.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING DRAFT MINUTES February 1, 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 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Michelle Bennett, Police Chief Dave Turley, Administrative Services Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., Cultural Arts & Human Services Director Doug Merriman, Interim Comm. Serv. & Econ. Dev. Dir. Shannon Burley, Deputy Parks, Rec., Cultural Arts & Human Services Director Megan Menkveld, Deputy Admin. Serv. Dir. Emily Wagener, Human Resources Analyst Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember K. Johnson read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely. 4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 1 Packet Pg. 12 6.3.a Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, spoke regarding the tree ordinance voted in last year. To Mayor Nelson, she said in January 2019 when he announced his run for mayor, he stated, we are seeing Edmonds families struggle to keep up with increasing taxes and rising costs in housing. He said he would help, but he made it worse. The tree ordinance has contributed to the lack of available home inventory which has increased home prices and property taxes. He has bragged about the increase of the City's tax income, and has deliberately devalued all single family zoned vacant properties by the value of their trees and slowed division permit acceptances, and now he endeavors for the City to purchase these properties at a steep discount, a loss for the owners. Every homeowner in Edmonds has benefited from trees cut for homes on their property. If someone cuts down a neighbors tree, you owe them three times the worth. Imagine having to pay a 25% tax, $100,000 because the City wants them to keep their trees instead of building homes on property that is zoned for homes. Mayor Nelson and the council have made undeveloped property undesirable for those needing to build homes with a pay -to -build scheme. Ms. Ferkingstad continued, taking property, the worth of their trees, from an owner no matter the reason violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states, nor shall property be taken for public use without just compensation. Its intent is to uphold the principle that the government should not single out isolated individuals to bear excessive burdens even in support of an important public good. When this happens, the payment of just compensation provides a means of removing any special burden, not half of it. In 1960 the Supreme Court wrote, the Fifth Amendment's takings clause was designed to bar government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which in all fairness and justice should be borne by the public as a whole. The Edmonds mayor and council are enforcing illegal takings. She questioned when the illegal burdens placed on owners of land in single family zones would be removed. All single family land owners have been harmed with lowered worth, delays and regulations requiring double costs for submitting applications. She questioned whether they were waiting for a class action lawsuit to restore property rights. When the tree ordinance is proven illegal in court, Edmonds may be ordered to pay three times the damages incurred by the owners. She requested the mayor and council respect Edmonds property owners and give them back the legal use and rights to their property without demanding hundreds of thousands. Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Edmonds, referred to an Edmonds Beacon article that stated revisiting the budget is good governance and accuses the mayor of hyperbole and fear mongering. She opined in the last six months, Councilmember Buckshnis and Council President Olson have been fear mongering, gaslighting, dismissive, making threats, humiliating, blaming, and belittling to anyone with an opinion that differs from theirs. The prior council worked very hard and spent months on the budget. Councilmember Buckshnis voluntarily missed four meeting during October and November when the council was discussing the budget, but because she chose to miss these important meetings for vacation plans, she now is dragging everyone back into the budget. She recalled what former Mayor Haakenson said about Councilmember Buckshnis, she does not have an accounting degree or a CPA. She was an auditor for a third world country 20 years ago. Ms. Fraley-Monillas said she has seen documented implications of Councilmember Buckshnis and Council President Olson's half-truths, lies and stories about Councilmember Distelhorst and her to get them out of office to give her clear control over the four, coordinated with Donald Trump's campaign associate Carolyn Strong. Ms. Fraley-Monillas said she has discussed the council's redoing of the budget with many electeds and official boards; Edmonds is the laughing stock of the county. She knew of no other elected body that has allowed this sort of deceit and hoped the rest of the council could fight off the nonsense and create their own budget next year. To Council President Olson, Ms. Fraley-Monillas said she had hopes for her to be a good councilmember but unfortunately she has allowed Councilmember Buckshnis to run the council. Ms. Fraley-Monillas said she has given up on Councilmember Buckshnis' ethics but hoped Council President Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 2 Packet Pg. 13 Olson could move forward. Councilmember Buckshnis has forced two finance directors and one HR director to quit to get away from her. After the last election, two directors gave notice and now the City faces another lawsuit from staff due to Councilmember Buckshnis and Council President Olson. The writing is on the wall if the council follows her. She hoped they were independent and looked at this for what it was and that they moved forward in a productive manner. She said she enjoys being off council and it gives her a voice that she will continue. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, referred to the comments she provided in writing which were not attached to the January 25, 2022 minutes. She regularly reads all the comments and would appreciate them being included in the minutes which she believed was the intent of the city based on the note that written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached. She read her January 25, 2022 comments, noting they contain a slight modification based on new information and to meet the time limit with this expanded introduction. With regard to Marina Beach, I would like to thank council for the courage to pause the Marina Beach project as a pre -decision to the marsh and to support the equitable distribution of park resources. I fully support and commend the council for this tough decision. I also want to thank and recognize the significant effort that city staff put into getting a project to 30% design and grants for 20% of the cost. With regard to the proposed budget amendments, a REDI manager is needed. I want to point out the need for this position by highlighting two decisions that the council made at the January 18' meeting. Acceptance of the Frances Anderson Center lease agreements which provide taxpayer maintained space at below market value and at lower tax burden to recreation service providers including a daycare. Private daycares in other areas of the city that are more densely populated, diverse and have greater financial need have to pay fair market rate for their facilities, applicable maintenance and taxes which are passed on to families in the form of tuition. A REID program manager would help the City better understand the relationship between these decisions and equity. Ms. Seitz continued, the council just paused the Marina Beach project to promote more equitable investment, but only after a tremendous amount of City staff time and costs. The REDI program manager is needed and would prevent critical staff resources from being spent on projects ultimately not carried forward. A public information officer is needed. The City needs better capability to inform all Edmonds residents, 83% of which do not live in the downtown area. A new FTE is likely needed. I support the transition of a part-time contract project manager to a full-time project manager planner staff position. This is a needed staff resource to allow for the City to implement park systemwide initiatives around ADA, equity and maintenance and to allow the potential to implement asset management systems that would both save the City money, provide better service and better information to support long term decision making. I support any needed expenses for the new satellite city hall office on Highway 99. I support the study of a police station relocation and/or city hall relocation to a location that is central to the City population and commercial center. I support streetlights in the Lake Ballinger area. I do not support the motion to add $100,000 for the 4' Avenue corridor project. This is planning for a special use park that exceeds the investment identified in the draft PROS Plan for all three new neighborhood parks in underserved areas combined. The downtown area already has 38.62 acres of special use park, far more than all areas of the City combined which is 8.22 acres. Corky [no last name provided], Edmonds, asked why cuts to the police department were being considered and pointed out the importance of providing them current vehicles, techniques and leadership. It seems these tactics mirror everything going on in the country. The people that defend us and keep us safe are valued and that needs to be recognized. Edmonds will continue to grow and the residents need to be kept safe. No other department in the City is on duty 24/7. When responding, they often do not know what situation they will encounter. They need to be protected as much as they protect us. Instead of beating up and discussing what they have done wrong, he suggested finding things they have done right and praise them. They should not be required to drive in poorly functioning equipment and they should be involved in the community. The members of the police department are all great people who go home each day to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 3 Packet Pg. 14 6.3.a families; their families need to be safe and they rely on their teammates to do that. Every time the council looks at the police department, either they do not totally understand what goes on or take them for granted; you shouldn't take the people who keep you safe for granted, something he urged the council to consider. He commended the selection of the police chief and recommended keeping all these things in mind when looking the 2022 budget. Cheryl Foster, Edmonds, urged the council's strong consideration of a budget allocation in support of the 4' Avenue corridor. Everyone was justifiably proud when Edmonds won the first cultural designation in the state. Part of that designation was predicated on the fact that the City would be working on the 4t' Avenue corridor. That designation has brought a lot of status and tourism dollars, something the City would not want to risk losing by not supporting the 4t' Avenue corridor project. If an allocation is not made, it was her understanding the City was in danger of losing that designation, a huge embarrassment for the City. The City would also lose the potential $34,000 in matching funds from the State. She urged the council to give a lot of thought to keeping the prestigious designation as a cultural center. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, stating the last four audience comments were related to the budget other than Ms. Seitz who was reading her January 25t'' email. Mayor Nelson said he mentioned that and people do not seem to listen. If he tries to enforce it, people say he is silencing them so, "I can't win `em all." Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, said overall the PROS Plan is a good overview of the City's existing park system and obviously a lot of effort went into the document. His primary concern with the plan was the goalposts seem to have been moved as it seemed like the plan reduced the metric for park area per capita by almost 50% which alters the perspective of what we have versus what we need. He questioned the wisdom of altering the metric by which the City measures itself. Left as proposed this will become another enabler for higher density housing in Edmonds since park area per capita will be diminished. He suggested this plan could be a cornerstone of a comprehensive plan to develop a one Edmonds type philosophy which would require integrating the thoughts of this plan with other stakeholders. However, it would required a vision for the City to do it right. The plan also highlights accomplishments over the last six years; he asked how these accomplishments aligned with the 2016 PROS Plan, noting that was difficult to determine by reading the document. He questioned whether the PROS Plan was simply relegated to the bookshelf and the City does what it wants. He asked how much confidence residents should have that this plan will be any different than the 2016 plan relative to accomplishments. During the 2022 budget review and CIP process last year, it was stated that the parks budget would need to be altered based on the new PROS Plan. He questioned how it would be altered; over $6 million is allocated to land acquisition over the planning period identified in the plan. He asked whether the plan was to build a reserve in the current budget for this purpose. He did not see anything in the PROS Plan that addressed safety, specifically sidewalks and safety within parks which he felt should be first and foremost in all deliberations. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said the night Resolution 1150 was passed, former City Attorney Scott Snyder stated release of confidential executive session information was a crime and a potential basis for forfeiture of office and that executive session information remained confidential as long as city council felt it should remain confidential. Resolution 1150 was intended to establish an orderly way to decide when executive session privilege ended. Resolution 1150 passed unanimously and has never been repealed or rescinded. He questioned whether the council is reaching consensus regarding when to break the confidentiality of an executive session. For example, has this been done for current, pending property purchases? The city council used to keep minutes of executive session to satisfy the public at a future date that the council discussed appropriate issues in executive session which was in the public interest. Such practice was done away with via Resolution 1360, a legislative act contrary to the public interest. He requested the council add an item to next week's agenda to reconsider and rescind Resolution 1360. Per RCW 42.30.110, the Edmonds City Council may exclude the public from the meeting place and meet in executive session to Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 4 Packet Pg. 15 discuss certain matters. However, entering executive session is optional, not mandatory. Executive session discussions sometimes do not warrant permanent confidentiality. Mr. Reidy continued, rescinding Resolution 853 via Resolution 1360 was a decision promoting permanent confidentiality of all executive session discussions, even when the reason for the executive session has expired. The 1996 Edmonds City Council voted it was in the public interest to maintain summary minutes. The rescission of Resolution 853 twenty years later was contrary to open government and not in the public interest. History shows council has a practice of reaching consensus in executive session. The October 2, 2012 city council meeting minutes indicate council reaches consensus in executive session by head nods and/or by discussion. Resolution 1150 even adopted policy requiring the city council to reach a consensus prior to adjournment of the executive session. The 2016 vote by city council was a blow to open government and harmed the citizens of Edmonds. The 2016 city council had an opportunity to be the beacon for open government and transparency in the State of Washington and improve on Resolution 853; instead, the 2016 city council chose to rescind this good policy adopted because it was in the pubic interest. He hoped the 2022 city council will change all that and requested they reconsider Resolution 1360. Beth Fleming, Edmonds, shared her support and thanks for the city council taking the opportunity to review the proposed budget amendments and to discuss whether what was passed was actually fiscally responsible for the City. Bringing the budget back and not spending unrestricted reserve dollars was a priority and something that could be considered in the discussion of the amendments. She referred to the amendment related to the REDI manager, commenting money could be saved via the use of a consultant versus a full-time new position. There is a lot of discussion around the marsh and Perrinville Creek watershed and the partnership with Lynnwood which she supported. She referred to #61, green streets and raingardens, which seemed to need further clarification based on the federal funds received earlier this year. She also supported reviewing the $200,000 for the human services division. She thanked the council for doing their due diligence and showing the citizens that good governance can happen in Edmonds. Cynthia Sjoblom, Edmonds, expressed support for the blue and every word stated by Corky. With rising crime in all areas including Edmonds, the City needs to ensure the police are provided with what they need to protect Edmonds citizens. She urged the council not to cut their budget. She urged citizens to support SB 5919 that will help restore the ability for Edmonds police to do their jobs and help untie their hands. The council needs to revisit the budget as citizens were not happy with the way the budget was handled. She expressed support for Mr. Reidy's comments; there should not be confidential executive session as the council represents their constituents. Minutes of executive session need to be provided to ensure transparency; government is not meant to operate in a clandestine manner and that is the reason the public trust has been violated. 6. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. Council President Olson announced Item 6.7, Temporary Employment Agreement, was removed as it was not ready. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND SECONDED THAT ITEM 6.3, APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 25, 2022, WOULD BE AMENDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY CLERK'S MEMO THAT WAS SENT AT 12:24 TODAY. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, THAT CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 6.7, TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT FOR ADMIN Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 5 Packet Pg. 16 6.3.a HELP IN COUNCIL OFFICE, BE SET OVER TO THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE FOR NEXT WEEK'S COMMITTEE MEETINGS. Councilmember Paine commented there are elements of the draft contract that need further discussion and the committee is the proper place for that. Council President Olson said she was supportive of having personnel related items go through that committee. However, this item is already somewhat down a path with the support of the HR director and the legal team. To the extent that effort is in conflict with the amendment, she requested the council not mandate anything for the temporary contracts. She will coordinate with the personnel team to the extent she is able based on the timing. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 25, 2022 2. APPROVAL OF 6:30 PM COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 18, 2022 3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 25, 2022 (AS AMENDED) 4. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS 5. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM DAWN RIDGWAY 6. ARTS COMMISSION CANDIDATE APPOINTMENT 7. PUBLIC HEARING 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 2022 ADOPTED CITY BUDGET Mayor Nelson asked if the Council wanted to have discussion first or go straight to the public hearing. Council President Olson said unless Councilmember Buckshnis had an opinion, otherwise she was happy to go straight to the public hearing. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the council voted so the sequence of events was clear. Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing. Brad Bernatek, Edmonds, said he has an MBA, a master's in financial economics and 25 years of financial experience including in the public sector; despite that experience and a review of the budget, he was not in a great position to offer feedback on the specifics of the amendments and would hazard to guess that most citizens are in the same boat. He offered comments regarding the process moving forward, stating his comments were directed at the mayor, previous council majority and new council majority. With regard to the budget timeline, it seems completely reasonable and prudent to have an adopted budget before early December so City staff can act on the budget in a timely fashion, particularly in the current economic climate where hiring timelines are extended. There should always be opportunity to revise the budget based on new information, but it is now 32 days into the new budget year and it is hard not to wonder whether Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 6 Packet Pg. 17 6.3.a some of this isn't a game of tit for tat. Some of the amendments seem reasonable, many he was unable to speak to with any authority but overall he wondered about the process. When it comes to citizen input, as many opportunities as possible should be offered, but at the end of the day, the council makes the decisions on citizens' behalf which is why they are paid the big bucks. Second, related to governance, he appreciated Councilmember Chen's financial experience, but there should be a clear and consistent process regarding which elected council approves the budget. For the most part, councilmembers are seated in January and he assumed there was an exception due to there being an appointed seat. He may have some questions about the acceleration of the budget approval by a week or two but he also had great concerns about the rhetoric about invoking the will of the people when one thinks it is advantageous to their position, commenting that sounded a bit like Mitch McConnell politics. He said it would be wise to decouple the budget process completely from the timing of the seating of new councilmembers. Mr. Bernatek continued, third, the hyperbolic rhetoric on any side of the issue is unhelpful; these expenditures represent a fraction of the City budget and it seems overblown to suggest these cuts would make Edmonds unsafe, polluted and uninformed. Likewise, it was not financial Armageddon. Fourth, related to the use of unrestricted fund balance, it was his understanding the City was to maintain a fund balance of 16%, but the estimated yearend was well above that, he recalled 46%. If there are policies that should be followed to draw down fund balances such as going to the Finance Committee, those should be followed. He requested those who voted in favor of the 2022 budget explain more clearly why the draw down of the fund balance is sustainable in the long term as a short term funding solution. Conversely, he did not understand why the City was maintaining such a high fund balance relative to City policy. If there is a strong argument for a higher fund balance relative to best practice, that should be reflected in policy, otherwise it is too easy to appeal to potential economic downturns that are always on the horizon and to never draw down an excessively high fund balance. He thanked the council for their service, recognizing budgeting was never easy but asked that the council do better going forward. Maralyn Chase, Edmonds (Esperance), said although Esperance is not yet part of Edmonds, she knew the City wants to annex their square mile of real estate with 4,000 residents so residents watch the City's governance structure and public policies. The existing budget reflects the community's priorities for themselves and future generations and expect the budget to demonstrate their belief in universal human rights and that they will be governed with fairness and justice which she believed the existing budget did. The community wants to support the council in the spirit of principled, centered governance, but that presents challenges in times of scarce resources and the ever increasing unfairness in the distribution of incumbent wealth. The budget reflects our priorities and she hoped the council's deliberations would be driven by concerns for justice and fairness and human rights of all people across the City. She urged the council to maintain the full human services budget and fund efforts to fight climate change including preparations for resilience should the big one hit. She also supported a full-time racial equity advisor, commenting it was needed as the public record demonstrates. She thanked the council for their service. Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Edmonds, thanked Senator Chase for her comments and said she would love to meet with Mr. Bernatek for a few moments. She referred to the budget request for a fence around the police department parking lot, pointing out there have been over 50 incidents of vandalism, it would provide a pedestrian safety barrier, and the police department has been asking for a fence since she was on council in 2010. She urged the council to continue to move that item forward, finding it ridiculous if they didn't. With regard to police cameras, she said there have been multiple lawsuits over the years due to alleged police abuse which she did not believe had happened, but until the police wore body cameras, those could not be deterred. She said the proposal to get rid of the cameras was one of the dumbest moves she had seen yet. With regard to human services funding, she pointed out a homeless person cannot be removed unless an equal or better satiation was provided; there is nothing in the City of Edmonds. Cutting the human services budget was incompetence at best. She was very disappointed and hoped the council would move forward with funding for human services. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 7 Packet Pg. 18 6.3.a Ms. Fraley-Monillas recalled every councilmember ran on the promise to fix Highway 99, something she had heard for the last ten years; everyone wants to fix Highway 99. The only one to do anything is the current mayor and Councilmembers Paine and L. Johnson are interested, but everyone else talks about it and then does nothing. She encouraged the council to continue supporting Highway 99. She found it so silly that some councilmembers wanted to reduce the PIO from full-time to part-time when the PIO is the only person who gets out in the community. She anticipated few councilmembers besides Councilmember Chen knew the boundaries of Edmonds. It is important to have a PIO to reach out to different areas of Edmonds and gather people together. She envisioned Councilmember Buckshnis, Council President Olson and possibly Councilmember K. Johnson were doing this as a personal vendetta against the mayor. She supported the PIO due to the need for improved communication and not in the downtown. Heather Damron, Edmonds, expressed support for the previously adopted 2022 budget, especially keeping the PIO as a full-time position rather than reducing it to part-time. Edmonds residents have become more engaged and vocal over the past few years with more callers into council meetings and comments online voicing opinions on local matters important to them, but for the most part, the City only hears from people who regularly engage online. The City Facebook page has slightly over 6,000 followers and the local news pages reach just over 12,000 and she suspected there was a lot of over lap between the three. She wondered how residents who rely on print or who are not online daily were being informed. With only one part-time communications person, it is understandable why other methods like mailings, a blog or print media, ideally translated into multiple language, were difficult because those methods require more time and planning than can be accomplished in 20 hours/week. Other jurisdictions in the region have one or more full-time staff dedicated to keeping residents informed. Mill Creek employs at least 2 in their communications department for a city of approximately 21,000 and the Edmonds School District, which serves 22,000 students, has a communications department of 6. She hears from older neighbors and friends, especially those who work and do not have a lot of time to spend online, that they do not learn about workshops or surveys with enough time to be involved. She never hears people say they get too much information from the City. A part-time position can do a great job of informing residents of urgent emergencies and can reach residents who are active online, but older residents and those who are not online daily also deserve to be informed. She urged the Council to retain the full-time PIO role as approved in the original budget. The return on investment is a more informed citizenry, broader scope of conversation and overall better citywide communication. Dee Shaw Cooper, Edmonds, looked forward to City meetings being held in person soon and City offices open to the public. She voiced her concerns about the City subsidizing or granting car charging stations and solar panels with taxpayer money. If someone purchases an electric car, they can purchase their own charger and if someone purchases a home, they should purchase their own upgrades such as solar panels. She suggested workplaces could supply car chargers for their employees as a perk, but that was not something the City should provide for citizens. She did not support hiring a full-time PIO; if there is a question, citizens should be able to reach out to councilmembers or other City officials if the part-time staff person is unavailable or wait for their reply. It is nice that friends of the mayor and the PIO call in to support her, but it is not a reason to keep the position and increase it to full-time. She thanked the council for reviewing the budget tonight, especially items that were not thoroughly reviewed. She appreciated the council's hard work. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, said she supported investment in the public information officer, transition of the part-time contract project manager to a project manager planner FTE, any needed expense for new satellite city hall office on Highway 99, study of the relocation of the police station and/or city hall and improved lighting in the Lake Ballinger area. She did not support the motion to add a project design for the 4t' Avenue corridor; this investment should be evaluated as part of the PROS Plan process. She relayed her support for a full-time REDI program manager as it is a needed investment for the City and is commensurate with the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 8 Packet Pg. 19 6.3.a investment made by cities of similar size. The long-standing investment pattern within the City has elevated the property values in the downtown area and compressed property values in the commercial center of the City, the SR 99 corridor. The corridor is now painted red for redevelopment in the buildable lands report which is in many ways the result of the City's long-standing under -investment in this area. The lack of investment in combination with specific risk factors for this area based on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey, more than 40% multiracial or non -white population, more than 60% without a bachelor's degree or higher, more than 55% renters, median individual income less than 80% of median household income and more than 15% of children below the poverty level. Ms. Seitz continued, these risk factors, in combination with significant redevelopment of the roadway, gateway revitalization and nearby Community Transit, all point to the City being on the verge of experiencing significant population displacement. A REDI program manager would be central to the development of an anti -displacement strategy to help the diverse SR-99 community stay in Edmonds. In so many facets of the City, the fondest saying is, we are not like Seattle. Seattle has redeveloped Columbia City and South Lake Union, gentrifying and displacing that population. She urged the council not to be like Seattle when it came to the SR-99 corridor and to make the investment now in the existing Edmonds community and a permanent REDI program manager in order to prevent displacement. She thanked the council for the opportunity to read her January 25' comments during Audience Comments. She was happy to be part of the public discourse, wished all a Happy Lunar New Year and thanked the council for their service, time and consideration of her comments. Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, thanked the council for the opportunity to speak as he was one of the ones who was silenced last year. He agreed with most, although not all, the budget cuts proposed by various councilmembers tonight. Many of the amendments were proposed due to lack of information from the administration to justify the budget in the first place, so many could be reinstated in whole or part if the administration cooperated with the city council in a working together approach to find common ground. His overarching concern with the current budget was it spends more than projected revenues, relying on depleting reserves to balance it, a concept that needed to change. He recommended getting back to basics and develop a budget based on what the City needs, not what the mayor wants. A budget that is balanced and within projected revenues and not spending from reserves intended for emergencies. A budget that is practical and pragmatic, prioritized to provide essential services and not for unrealistic or unsubstantiated ideals. A budget that prioritizes public safety first, that improves the public infrastructure for all and not a few, and that is directed toward a future vision for the City which all had a hand in creating. Once there is a well -thought out budget, the mayor needs to be held accountable for spending the taxpayers' money in an efficient manner that provides expected results per predetermined schedules and milestones, all of which will require leadership which hopefully will begin tonight. Scott Merrick, Edmonds, said he is retired after a career in technology and legal technology marketing, and currently serving his second term on the Edmonds Economic Development Commission. He offered his support for the budget amendment to move forward the 4tn Avenue Cultural Corridor. He relayed his reasons, first, the 4' Avenue Cultural Corridor project is vital to the community to increase the focus on diversity in Edmonds. The corridor will provide a focal point for all of Edmonds to recognize different cultures represented in greater Edmonds. Last Saturday's Lunar New Year's event was a great example of how the corridor could be used to facilitate awareness and cultural traditions and bring disparate parts of Edmonds together to learn about diversity and celebrate differences. Holding that wonderful event in the crowded Centennial Plaza prevented a lot of people from participating. Imagine having that cultural event and others like the Day of the Dead in an exciting cultural corridor. Second, there is a significant grant matching opportunity of $35,000 from the State if the budget is approved. This would provide a significant contribution to begin the next steps of design development for the corridor. The grant must be applied for by February 15, 2022; failure to apply could indicate to the State that the City is no longer pursuing the 4' Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 9 Packet Pg. 20 6.3.a Avenue Cultural Corridor project and without that capital improvement project, the City risks losing the designation of the State's first Creative District. Mr. Merrick continued, third, Edmonds is known as an arts town; people come to Edmonds to experience visual, performance and culinary arts and it is a primary driver of the economy. The ECA brings in a significant amount of revenue to the City; having a cultural corridor that links downtown to the ECA will enhance experiences to eat, shop and enjoy all that Edmonds has to offer. It will be a truly unique experience in the State to have such a wonderful street demonstrating creative ways to connect the community and its culture in a Creative District. The money could be spent in other parts of Edmonds, but the economic benefits of this investment will be realized by all Edmonds communities for a long time and help bring them together as we look to better days ahead. He referred to lights in the road on 4' Avenue which have been in place for a number of years, and look like a runway lighting the way to the ECA. The lights are solar and are starting to dim a bit as they age. Imagine how bright it could be if the vision for a true cultural corridor was fulfilled that lights all of our hearts and travels through Edmonds. Nora Carlson, Edmonds, said she was honored to serve along with many other arts advocates on the Creative District Advisory Committee and recommended the council reconsider providing funds for the 4t' Avenue Cultural Corridor. The funding will propel forward the next phase in a project that has been supported by City leadership along with the community and planned for since its original inception in 2005. To retain the exceptional recognition of being the first designated Creative District in the State by the Washington State Arts Commission, the City is required to continue forward momentum on the special project of the 4' Avenue Cultural Corridor. Funding will make the difference for this project. She pictured a wonderful space along 4t'' Avenue from Main Street to connect with the Edmonds Center for the Arts, greatly enhanced by street design and other improvements where special cultural events can be held when the street is closed to vehicles. This street also features several historic homes and buildings that can be highlighted for people to enjoy viewing as they stroll the area. She referred to the Lunar New Year celebration at two locations where marvelous performances delighted the crowd; imagine if there was space along the 4t' Avenue Cultural Corridor where the lion dance could move through the space and many more people could easily view the action. Multicultural events along 4t' Avenue would be a wonderful addition to the wide variety of inclusive performances that the ECA regularly holds. She appreciated the council's service to the community and consideration of her request. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, said the December 10, 2020 meeting minutes show that he asked council to please budget to complete a full rewrite of the city code. The city code contains two parts, the Edmonds City Code, ECC, also known as the Edmonds Municipal Code, which consists of titles 1 through 10 that address issues such as health, safety and finance. The Edmonds Community Development Code, ECDC, consists of titles 15 through 24 that address issues such as building, planning and land use. Both the ECC and ECDC have required updating for years. He has asked City officials to provide a status update of the code update for years as well as asked why hundreds of thousands of dollars previously budgeted have not resulted in execution of the code rewrite; city officials have refused to answer these basic questions. While doing all budgeting, he urged the council to ask themselves what they could do if their budget was not executed by a mayor and City staff; this is a very important question and citizens deserve to know how this works. The December 3, 2013 council meeting minutes indicate he said the code rewrite is the biggest issue facing the City and that establishing a comprehensive, accurate, consistent and easy -to -administer city code is critical to the City's efforts to provide a high level of government service that invites economic and other beneficial activities. Mr. Reidy continued, former City Attorney Scott Snyder stated in his November 2007 Annual Report that the biggest issue at the start of 2007 was the code rewrite. Mr. Snyder stated the intent was to begin the rewrite last year and finish this year, 2007. Mr. Snyder summarized that the code rewrite was approximately a year behind scheduled as of November 2007. Today is February 1, 2022; as a citizen he argued that the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 10 Packet Pg. 21 6.3.a code rewrite is still the biggest issue that needs to be resolved. He urged the council not to dip into $2.1 million of unrestricted reserves, especially when mayors refuse to explain why previous budgets are not executed. He requested the council: • Define what a green street is. He questioned how DP 61 got approved when this is so vague. • Eliminate the public information officer position. He asks City government many questions on a regular basis and in his opinion, this position has not impacted the City's practice of refusing to answer questions. • Delete DP 60, develop a Perrinville Creek restoration plan, detail the cost involved, properly involve the public during council's approval process. Have council approve a plan before budgeting for it. Lora Hein, Edmonds, said she has frequently watch city council meetings over many months and the amount of disruption caused by disagreeable behavior on the part of some citizens and councilmembers does the City a great disservice. It is time for all, residents and councilmembers alike, to take Edmonds forward with civil and mature attention to the very real challenges that need to be addressed. We are still grappling with a pandemic that continues raging here and elsewhere. There are environmental and social imperatives that need attention. Last year, after lengthy deliberation, the council passed a budget that met many of the essential needs for safety, shelter and security for all Edmonds residents as well as measures to protect against environmental degradation and support economic vitality. She was dismayed that some councilmembers are now choosing to undo what was decided to prevent forward motion and exacerbate divisions sown during the contentious election of last year. She urged the council to use taxpayer dollars as intended, to improve services rather than degrade them, protect from changing conditions rather than leave the most vulnerable unprotected from pollution and increasing exposure to harm, and continue to improve the unique character that makes all of Edmonds a desirable community to live in and visit. Rather than attend to every detail and the factious claims made in the numerous budget amendments proposed last week, she urged the council to choose their actions carefully with the long term wellbeing of Edmonds in mind. Senator Chase spoke articulately to many of her concerns and she urged the council to consider the views she expressed. She thanked councilmembers for their service and wished them Happy New Year. Janelle Cass, Edmonds, thanked the council for taking another opportunity to look at the budget and felt it was important to have Councilmember Chen's voice heard and accounted for in the amendments. She supported this effort in view of rising costs of goods and services. As she approaches the renewal of her lease downtown, which is affected by CPI, the increase is over 7% this year, last year it was 2-3%. Now is not the time to dip into reserves; the council should be extra cautious with taxpayers' money because of unknowns around the bend and because of increased expenses to run the City. She supported cutting the installation of the electric charging stations and to wait to purchase vehicles because they are extremely expensive this year and perhaps as supply chains improve, pricing will be better next year. She thanked the council for relooking at the budget and encouraged them to be fiscally responsible in these uncertain times. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. Councilmember Buckshnis advised the intent was to provide information, ask questions, etc. Mayor Nelson said his staff is available to answer questions. Councilmember Buckshnis reviewed the proposed 2022 budget amendments: # 1 - REDI Manager • There was not sufficient information to support an on -going FTE. With this issue comes two motions: 1) Hire consultant to evaluate City on REDI metrics (what has already been done and what needs to be done) and propose three alternatives to accomplishing that work" and with that the allocation reduced to 70K Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 11 Packet Pg. 22 6.3.a 2) Substitute Motion: Hire REDI Manager for year one of a intended three year position to assess what is done, what needs to be done, to do the work, to train staff, and to set systems in place to carry on the work internally and with an occasional professional services contract after the three year period. Councilmember Buckshnis advised subsequent information had been provided by HR Director Neill Hoyson, but it was her understanding she was on leave now. Mayor Nelson agreed she was on leave but other was staff was present to answer questions. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was summarizing this on behalf of the councilmember who submitted it and no information was provided regarding why it was a full-time position. She recalled $70,000 was allocated last year for a REDI consultant, relaying the question regarding the difference between a full-time position and what the City was using now. Human Resources Analyst Emily Wagener relayed her understanding that the consultants are working with the leadership team to identify what is needed in this area. Ultimately, the position would provide ongoing support to staff to carry out what the consultants determine is needed. There are several ongoing job duties that would be required of the ongoing full-time position such as working with mayor on issues, assisting the HR department and just being the point of contact for these kind of concerns. She anticipated the position would grow as more is learned about what is needed throughout this process. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if this position would handle the hate portal. Ms. Wagener said she did not know. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to the comment that there was no justification for this position, pointing out the justification has been seen across country; a call to action to address the impact of the injustices related to race privilege, prejudice and power. Front and center is the need to address these in a meaningful way, in a way that is more than just lip service. This call is also coming from the Edmonds community; the REDI position is a recommendation of the Diversity Commission as well as the Mayor's Equity and Justice Task Force. Social justice is a process that requires action; to not perpetuate or cause additional harm, there needs to be an expert trained in REDI work and this individual's knowledge will help more effectively and equitably allocate City resources. This was mentioned quite eloquently during in citizen comments. Councilmember L. Johnson continued, the position will reduce problems and promote community wellbeing. The best justification came in an email from Ms. Neill-Hoyson who said REDI work is ongoing work, it is not any different than having a person dedicated to ensuring streets are worked on regularly. Having this person on staff shows the City's commitment to this work on an ongoing basis. With everything in the news and everything people are talking about, she was surprised there was a suggestion to cut this position. This position was needed a long time ago and she firmly believed it needed to be retained in the budget. Councilmember Paine encouraged councilmembers to ask questions now when they have the opportunity. She supported the REDI manager position, anticipating they would work as a program manager, adviser, consultant and trainer on tasks for which the need has been highlighted over the last several years and gaps that are becoming more visible. This work will be internal for the City and external for the entire community. Equity work is apparent in some of tonight's budget proposals as well as last year. Examples include the body -worn cameras; a new focus on the PROS Plan, what is done with parks and having an equity lens on that effort; revisions and review of the comprehensive plan. All of this is work that would benefit the entire community and all the City's programs, policies and procedures need to be refreshed. She referred to comments about the need to review the code, noting the policies and procedures used to develop policies need to be reviewed. It is absolutely important to have a permanent position so changes can be put in place through training, guidance and coaching. She recalled when these amendments were proposed two weeks ago, it was the day after the Martin Luther King holiday. She reminded that this struggle is still Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 12 Packet Pg. 23 6.3.a ongoing and the community recognizes it is an ongoing body of work that all communities are facing. It is important to do the work necessary on this issue . Councilmember Chen thanked Councilmember Paine for encouraging councilmembers to ask questions. This position on the surface is super important; everyone wants racial equity and inclusion. His question is what are we hiring this person to do, are we throwing money at it and waiting for this person to figure out things to do or do we know what we want them to accomplish? Mayor Nelson recalled a presentation by Ms. Neill Hoyson before Councilmember Chen was a councilmember and said there is a job description with all the position's duties. Ms. Wagener pointed out the current consultants are working with the departments and the mayor to identify areas that this position will work on. Some of the key roles for the REDI manager will be working closely with staff, directors, the mayor and the HR director to ensure the areas identified by the consultant are put into action. The position will likely grow, but there are already some identified areas. Councilmember Chen cautioned the council and the audience that racial equity and inclusion is a change of heart, it is not something that one person can do. Certainly one person can identify programs and steer people in the right direction, but everyone knows it is important. The reason there are still opportunities to improve is because everyone needs to work on it, it is not just one person's job. It is about HR's hiring practices, about leaders at the top, how treat we each other on a daily basis, how people looking at someone who looks different from them or a political candidate that is not their favorite and try to exclude them. He said some of the people who made comments earlier and some councilmembers know exactly what he is talking about. Councilmember Tibbott agreed that this was an area that everyone wants to move forward in the City. A number of resources are available to councilmembers; AWC recently added courses. He has attended two diversity training opportunity in the last two months. There are many opportunities to grow as individuals in this area; he encouraged all to think about equity, diversity and inclusion training as something everyone embodies, particularly at the director level. He was interested in a consultant that would be available to all City staff and councilmembers, not just directors and the mayor. He expressed support for a consultant that broadens training and availability and supported the opportunities for staff, councilmembers and the mayor to take advantage of training available to them. Council President Olson said inequity and injustice in the way we do business is not acceptable. She took opposition to a statement made earlier that the sitting council had not acted on equity during the last two years. The council made some significant changes to approaches and decisions and she expected that to continue. To the point that Councilmember Tibbott made that much of it comes from personal efforts; that can be enhanced by the City encouraging and supporting training, but a lot of councilmembers have done that on their own. Although she is overall onboard with this as a priority, she was resistant to it being a full- time, forever -after liaison, watchdog position because she felt this was the mayor's role. It is the mayor's organization and it something that is carried from the top and a culture that is built. To the extent that some support from the outside is needed for one, two or three years to help electeds and staff get up to readiness to take that on internally, she was supportive of that and assessing the need on an annual basis. She did not think this was something that should be shopped out and located into a hub, it needs to be in all of us, in every departments and be an internal culture as opposed to a single person who is an enforcement arm for the City. Council President Olson said she was very supportive of one of the two budget amendments, neither says it should not be done; she would even support amending the first motion to increase the dollar amount. She was not supportive of the concept of it being an FTE that is repeated automatically, commenting when bureaucracy is created in a city, it never goes away. There is always the opportunity to go to a full-time Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 13 Packet Pg. 24 6.3.a employee in the future if it is a position that needs to be there forever after. She summarized, until we build the culture, we won't know if that position still has relevance once it's there. Councilmember K. Johnson said it was without question that diversity, equity and inclusion were key words for this new era we're living in; it's part of the state legislators' goals and like many unfunded mandates, there are struggles with how to implement it. She asked several questions regarding the past use of consultants including how much was spent and the products they produced and it was only recently that Councilmember Chen got an answer when he asked that question. She was very frustrated with the lack of transparency on this subject with the council. It would have been great if the council had all been briefed as part of this budget amendment rather than proposing a new FTE. She reminded with all FTEs, there is an associated 30% for benefits. Unless we know what we're asking for, there is no way to know what we'll get. For those reasons she supported these two budget amendments, because it tries to bring some reality to the situation rather than a blank check. These were her questions and frustrations; it was not that she did not believe the City should not move forward in this area, but she was interested in what was the best and most fiscally responsible way to move forward. Those issues are behind the philosophical questions that are being asked tonight. Councilmember L. Johnson referred to a January 25, 2022 email from Director Neill Hoyson that contains 25 bullets items that outline what the REDI manager will do. The vast nature of the position has been well answered and she was confused why there were still questions about what the position would do. She encouraged councilmembers to read Director Neill Hoyson's very detailed analysis of what the position can do. Councilmember Chen said he also asked Director Neill Hoyson about what the REDI consultant the City hired has accomplished over the past year. It sounds like what they are working on is mapping from department to department and there were no concrete plans, actions or programs reached which was part of his concern. He would support a REDI manager and agreed it was a full-time job, but he wanted the council to have an option to renew the position on an annual basis to ensure the right person was doing the work. As everyone knew, this was a very sensitive subject he did not want to commit to a position because if the wrong person with the wrong skill set was hired, they could potentially cause more harm than benefit. Councilmember Buckshnis asked for a time check, recalling one hour was allocated for this item. She recognized there were a couple amendments that people want to discuss such as the REDI manager. She asked if the intent was to continue reviewing the amendments, noting people seem to be repeating their positions. Mayor Nelson said the agenda specified 60 minutes for this topic; the council is 1/4 to 1/3 into it. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested continuing on with other important amendments. As Councilmember Buckshnis began to introduce the next amendment, Councilmember Paine raised a point of order, stating she had one more discussion point on the first amendment. Councilmember K. Johnson relayed councilmembers are only allowed speak twice on any motion or topic. Mayor Nelson said this would be Councilmember Paine's second time speaking on this topic. Councilmember Paine pointed out social justice and equity work has been ongoing in the broader community for over a decade. Some communities have been work on this for over 15 years. Edmonds would benefit from putting better practices developed by other communities put into place with the support of a REDI manager. To Councilmember Paine, Councilmember Chen said people have been working on this issue for 150 years, not just 5 years. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 14 Packet Pg. 25 6.3.a Councilmember Buckshnis reviewed: #11 — One Commander FTE • Proposed organizational restructure of the Police Department should be brought forth to a council committee. Appropriation is premature. • Motion: Remove this decision packet. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was in total support of the police department restructuring. This decision package is one commander FTE which is definitely needed and the department definitely needs to be restructured, and the addition of body cameras creates additional work. The amendment proposes rather than the one commander FTE, to fast track the restructure through the council committee process and identify all the necessary positions for council review and discussion. The crime analyst is another important position as well as two positions associated with the body cameras. Budget amendments are done quarterly and a restructure would result in a fully staffed department. Council President Olson expressed support for the motion, noting people who have followed her at all know that public safety is a huge priority to her. The earlier comment about things that are budgeted for and don't happen with transparency, that is what this budget amendment addresses. If it goes through the committee process to take a holistic look at the entire department, good decisions can be made about whether this is the right amount of money to budget. She summarized no one was against the police department getting what they need, but wanted the need fleshed out before it was funded. Councilmember Paine said discussions at the end of last year were sufficient; Police Chief Bennett was very explicit about the need for the position and the decision package was very explicit. This position should be installed right away as there are pay compression issues, this is a necessary position that came to the council along with the organizational changes. It provides greater flexibility and functionality to the police department because with the pay compression, there is very little opportunity for movement. She offered that the existing budget was optimal for this need. Councilmember L. Johnson agreed this was addressed during budget deliberations in the fall. She requested Chief Bennett restate the justification for this decision package. Chief Bennett said the justification for the position is related to the CPSM audit as well as her experience in law enforcement administration where there is no mid -level management within the department. The current rank structure goes from sergeant to assistant chief, just as the CPSM audit stated, there needs to be mid -level management for transparency and accountability within the department. Additionally there are significant pay compression issues; currently a top step sergeant to assistant chief is a difference of .09%, a significant compression issue. She believed that mid -level management positions were necessary. It would also be good to flesh out the body cam positions and other positions that are needed; those are not mutually exclusive but a commander position as proposed in the budget needs to be added. Councilmember L. Johnson asked why now in budget and why it was a priority in this budget versus waiting for a restructure. Chief Bennett answered the department is in the process of hiring two assistant chiefs; they are currently in the polygraph and psychological interview process and she hoped to hire them by March. However, it is worrisome if they will accept due to pay compression, because both are external candidates. Adding the commander position and funds in the budget to address pay compression would provide a better package for the two assistant chief candidates. She summarized that was in part the necessity for addressing this sooner rather than later. Councilmember L. Johnson recognized there have been challenges with hiring overall. She asked if not having this in place would add to the challenges of hiring. Chief Bennett said that was concern; she was not even sure adding a commander position would provide any differentiation. Part of the budget amendment Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 15 Packet Pg. 26 was addressing the compression issue and putting set differentials in place so the best candidates can be hired for these positions. Councilmember Buckshnis was glad Chief Bennett said the hiring of the other individual was not mutually exclusive because all the police department's hiring needs need to be addressed. She asked if the positions were non -represented or bargained. Chief Bennett answered they were non -represented. Councilmember Buckshnis said she did not see the positions in the non -represented summary and asked if they would be added so their new salaries would be adjusted to what was found in the survey. Chief Bennett said that would be the desire, that they would be added to that study. The commander position is represented; that is where the compression issue is between top step sergeant and commander needs to be addressed. The assistant chief positions are non -represented so they need to be adjusted commensurate with differential pay between commander, assistant chief and chief. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding there would be three commanders. Chief Bennett agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the commanders needed to be updated to the non -rep policy. Chief Bennett clarified the commanders are represented; the two assistant chiefs are not represented. Councilmember K. Johnson said what caught her attention was about 1/3 of the salary is overtime; there is a base salary of $160,000 and an overtime salary of $56,000. She asked Chief Bennett to explain why there is built in overtime that is higher than the benefits. Chief Bennett said the three commanders are positions the City does not currently have. The $56,000 is actually divided among those three positions, approximately $17,000 per position per year; they are represented positions and subject to overtime. For example, during last week's SWAT callout, the sergeant (who would be a commander) was on overtime for 12 hours which equates to $1500 in one day for one commander. Councilmember K. Johnson said that was not clear in the decision package. It talked about converting the two assistant police into one commander position and adding two sergeant positions and converting one into a commander and hiring a new commander. Chief Bennett agreed there would be three commander positions that will need to be bargained with the union and will be subject to overtime. There were additional funds in the decision package to address the pay differential issue plus the position itself. Councilmember K. Johnson said the bottom line is there will be one assistant chief and three commanders. Chief Bennett clarified there will continue to be two assistant chiefs and three commanders. The two assistant chiefs are still in the budget; this package adds one commander and two current sergeant positions will be converted to commander positions, the professional standards current sergeant and the administrative sergeant, which should probably be commander positions already due to their job descriptions. Councilmember K. Johnson referred to the narrative which states the decision package recommendation is to take one of existing two assistant chief positions and make it a commander position. Chief Bennett explained after further reflection and speaking with Administrative Services Director Dave Turley and internal discussions she has had with people in the industry, she believed it was a better idea to keep the two assistant chiefs. There is no change to the budget to add one commander and converting the two current sergeant positions. Councilmember K. Johnson recommended updating the decision package to reflect the current thinking. Chief Bennett agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis reviewed: #14 — Police Scuba Team • In the past, we had a three member dive team. While a five member team may be optimal, suggests looking for community partners to fund the service level between minimum and optimal in future years. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 16 Packet Pg. 27 6.3.a • Motion: Decrease scuba team to three. Chief Bennett referred to an email from Sergeant Damian Smith who wanted to clarify this following the introduction at the previous council meeting; the police scuba team has had five members because two were alternates for days off so it has never been a three person team. Council President Olson said if the police scuba team is provided, it needs to be staffed properly. She was one of the councilmembers who was discouraged and unhappy that when Edmonds is basically the playground for all of Snohomish County coming to the waterfront and the dive park, that there were no community partners who contribute financially. She suggested the Fire District, Washington State Ferries and the Port of Edmonds as potential stakeholders and partners who should contribute to this. She hoped the City would make it a priority in the future to work together financially as well as in terms of response and support, etc. so the City was not carrying the bill for a service utilized by many in Snohomish County. Councilmember Paine pointed out there is an need for this due to the active dive community. The dive community talked about the needs of their community at the Planning Board's PROS Plan presentation. If people are coming to the Edmonds community, their public safety needs to be actively supported. Councilmember Buckshnis reviewed: # 16 — Public Information Officer • Not sufficient support for FTE provided. • Motion: Remove this decision packet Councilmember L. Johnson said any reduction in a community strategist PIO is a reduction in the administration's ability to get message out and communicate with residents. Most cities Edmonds size have more than one FTE allotted to this critical function; smaller cities have a full-time person, yet this proposal is to reduce the City's ability to engage with the public. The council prioritized engaging with the public at council retreats. Since the position was implemented, the number of press releases has increased dramatically and the amount of outreach via social media, the method many people use to communicate and get information today, has increased substantially. With that type of increase comes a more informed and engaged constituency, but that increased engagement takes time and follow-up such as media requests, monitoring social media, etc. The position also coordinates multiple events including town halls, State of the City and serves all departments of the City. Councilmember L. Johnson said she recently used the PIO, with permission, to assist in carrying out Suicide Prevention Month. The person in the position was able to help with a number of things she would not have been able to do on her own and was able to pull off a very successful event for the City. A full-time PIO helps the City to be proactive instead of reactive and is not something that can be accomplished effectively as a part-time position. There needs to be someone available full-time to respond to needs and events as they occur. Being able to engage with constituents and get information out was a priority of the previous and current council and was proposed by the earlier administration. When there are so many people interested in increased communication, she did not understand a request to reduce that ability; if anything it should be increased via the PIO, message board, any and all ways to reach out to the public should be encouraged. Councilmember Paine echoed some of what Councilmember L. Johnson said. She recalled vividly that every councilmember during the 2020 budget retreat said communication was important and that was also important at the last budget retreat. Having a full-time person adds to transparency, adds to community discussions and results in a more rich discussion. Having a more informed community helps everyone and the PIO needs to be a full-time position. The need will increase as more people become engaged so it is appropriate for the position to be full-time. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 17 Packet Pg. 28 6.3.a Council President Olson said she has had confusion and concern regarding the approach to communications which grays up this issue for her. She referred to the citizen comment that there hasn't been communication from the City on a lot of admin/City topics that citizens should be able to get answers to. She had a different experience than Councilmember L. Johnson when she suggested using the PIO to get the word out about adding lighting to existing electric poles. Two different times she included the mayor and PIO on that subject, thinking that was something the public would want to hear and it wasn't something she should be informing them as a councilmember, but nothing ever went out on that topic although it seemed like something the PIO is supposed to be doing. At the same time, the PIO is being used to put out messages that are somewhat inflammatory and concerning, causing division, or undermining what people's motives must be if they do not agree with the mayor. She said all those things end up being bundled up for her and confuse the issue. Mayor Nelson said he is the moderator and will not tolerate someone making attacks on him. If the intent is to have a professional discussion on items before the council, that's great, but he requested councilmembers refrain from providing examples that make personal remarks about members, particularly about the moderator who cannot defend himself. Council President Olson said she was asking if it was appropriate for the PIO to be used to undermine other City electeds. Mayor Nelson said he obviously cannot answer that question. As a refresher for those who are confused, he explained the mayor is in charge of the day-to-day operations and running of the City; the council is in charge of legislation, policy and budget. Council President Olson said she had nothing else to add but that was why she was having an issue with this budget item. Councilmember L. Johnson recalled this was discussed during budget deliberations, but since it is coming back, asked if the interim director was available to speak to this item. Interim Community Services & Economic Development Director Doug Merriman recalled the same issue was raised in Oak Harbor two years ago and they ended up hiring a full-time person. He described what he sees as the need for the position: • Why retain the PIO position at full-time 1. To take a proactive, forward thinking approach to community information and transparency rather than reporting "after the fact" 2. A part-time position does not allow for enough time capacity to incorporate a more strategic approach how we communicate to the community o Data: 2021: 97 press releases - nearly double the previous year o Last 28 days: Facebook page reached 9,571 interactions and 520 comments to be monitored 3. Allows City staff to be "out there" actively engaging with our community o Public topics of interest o Quick responses to media inquires o Enhance our transparency to citizens on city initiatives, project and council goals and objectives o Emergency events — provide a "go to" resource in times of emergency ■ Road conditions, weather alerts, beach closures o Marketing the best of City of Edmonds community 4. Centralize internal departmental efforts. Potential cost savings o Consolidation and pre -planning of print and digital media o Streamlined effort to press releases o Consistent form and style to information output o Avoids conflicting information output 5. Examples of possible products and value-added opportunities: o Possibilities! ■ A possible city mailer Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 18 Packet Pg. 29 6.3.a ■ Possible city blog ■ Strategic planning of communication of 4-6 week work plan o Value added opportunities ■ Improved transparency ■ Possible cost savings by consolidation and planned media production ■ Enhanced response time to cruitial inquires and events ■ Reduction of risk ■ Creation of a PIO template database so that outgoing communications are consistent and recognizable citywide ■ Enhanced and responsive social media presence ■ The ability to highlight the good things about the community Examples of other cities with PIOs o Oak Harbor, population 23,000 when hired first full-time PIO o Marysville, population 70,000, has three PIOs o Mill Creek, population 21,000, has two PIOs Councilmember L. Johnson suggested depersonalizing this and speaking to the need for Edmonds. She appreciated the examples of other cities and found the information that press releases have doubled and about the number of Facebook interactions in one month very helpful information as it speaks to what a full-time position can do. Councilmember K. Johnson spoke in favor of the motion, commenting the best example was the public information piece put out by Kelsey Foster this past week, Mayor Nelson's statement that council budget cuts will make Edmonds unsafe, polluted and uninformed. Her reaction to that was it was not the role of the PIO. She has noticed over the past couple years that council often gets information in this manner; instead of being told by the mayor about closing Sunset Avenue or starting Walkable Main, council is informed via public information announcements which she did not feel served the City. She viewed expanding the role of the PIO as a marketing piece for the City that is not in the council's best interest and that concerned her. Council President Olson asked Mr. Merriman whether Oak Harbor required applicants have any government or corporate communications experience when hiring a PIO. Mr. Merriman answered they looked for some previous PIO background; that was key because the city was starting from scratch and wanted to get going right away and not have a long learning curve. Oak Harbor looked for previous experience and examples of work they had done in the past. Council President Olson referred to Mr. Merriman's comments about the tsunami warnings, pointing out the City has an emergency manager and she could see those positions working together. She asked if he agreed that in the case of a natural emergency, there would be a coordinated program through that other office. Mr. Merriman said he would definitely see that being coordinated, particularly to avoid conflicting information. Steps would need to be taken to ensure everything was lock stepped and information is coordinated when it goes out to public. Council President Olson asked whether there was reporting associated with the PIO position in Oak Harbor; how did he know if the person was meeting the objectives that were laid out for the city in terms of strategy, whether they were meeting the mark with regard to doing positive things and getting the word out to citizens about opportunities. Mr. Merriman answered there were some definite benchmarks such as the number of responses. The city could not respond to every comment on Facebook, but if there were recurring themes, there was an expectation that those would be addressed. The city council and mayor were both interested in some type of publication to the public. It was easy to look at the metrics because there were easily measured deliverables. There was also a process of setting standards for the PIO person as far as their Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 19 Packet Pg. 30 6.3.a development. He summarized some things were very easy to monitor; others were more of a conversation that came up at the city council retreat where one of the topics was the PIO position and whether it was meeting the needs that the council thought it should. The council, mayor, staff and members of the public were polled about whether the PIO added value to the city. Councilmember Paine commented the PIO has gotten a lot more information out since the position became full-time at the beginning of 2022 and there has been much better communication. The more personalized concerns that have been voiced do not belong as part of this discussion. The entire City, both staff and residents, need fast, proactive information that that they can use right away. She did not believe the City could skimp on anything less than a full-time PIO position. She referred to the data in Mr. Merriman's presentation about press releases and Facebook interactions and comments. She was hopeful any wrinkles could be ironed out and that there could be a full-time PIO position to ensure transparency to the public and that all the departments' needs are met. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested out of respect to the agenda, moving this discussion to next week. She invited councilmembers who provided information, amendments or comments about the amendments to review the data and make any changes. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess (9:13 - 9:19 p.m.) 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. 2022 PARKS, RECREATION & OPEN SPACE (PROS) PLAN Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts & Human Services Director Angie Feser introduced Deputy Parks, Recreation, Cultural Arts & Human Services Director Shannon Burley and Steve Duh, Project Consultant, Conservation Technics. Tonight is a presentation on the first stage of the proposed 2022 PROS Plan approval process. No action is requested tonight, but staff and Mr. Duh will be available to answer questions. There are three Council presentations this month; the capital program related to PROS Plan will be presented to the Parks & Public Works Committee next Tuesday, a public hearing will held on February 15t' followed by council consideration for plan approval on February 22" a. The Planning Board has been quite involved with the PROS Plan, more than five presentations and reviews, and are currently developing their recommendations which will be shared with the Council during the public hearing presentation on February 15' Mr. Duh reviewed: PROS Plan Overview o Planning Forward ■ The PROS Plan is a 6-year guide for managing and enhancing parks, open space, trails, and recreation opportunities for the Edmonds community. ■ Plan adoption required to retain eligibility for state & federal grants o Relating to Citywide Plans ■ Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Plan - Stormwater Plan - Climate Action Plan - Community Cultural Plan - Urban Forest Management Plan - Highway 99 Plan - Economic Development Plan - Water System Plan Integrated Pest Management Pan Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 20 Packet Pg. 31 6.3.a ■ Civic Center Playfield Site Master Plan ■ Aquatic Feasibility Study ■ Recreation Cost Recovery Plan o Steps to Building the Plan: ■ Inventory Site Assessments ■ Community Engagement ■ System -wide Needs Assessment ■ Goals & Policies Review ■ Capital Project Planning ■ Implementation & Funding Strategies ■ Plan Review & Approval Project Timeline Assessment Site Assessment Review Conditions Assessment Review g Data Demographics, Mapping, Trends Analysis Svstem Needs Assessment Goals & Policies Review Gap Analysis & Levels of Service Synthesize Community Needs I Priorities & Strategies Initiate Plan Development Capital Facilities Plan Implementation Ideas matt PROS Plan Review & A SEPA Checklist Board review Council review f Community Outreach o Intention and focused effort by the City to reach out to the complete Edmonds community in terms of different language groups living in Edmonds; community engagement occurred in four different languages: English, Spanish, Korean and Chines. o Community survey conducted in four languages and virtual public meetings which had live interpretation in four languages Community Feedback o Community Survey ■ Total Responses: 1,958 o Virtual Public Meetings (July & October) ■ — 60 attendees participated o Website/Social Media ■ Ongoing ■ Chinese, English, Korean, Spanish o —2,000 engaged respondents ■ 99% feel parks and recreation is essential or important ■ 81 % visit Edmonds parks at least a couple times/month o Priority improvements to park system ■ Connect gaps in the trail system & expand trail connections ■ Improve or upgrade existing parks and amenities ■ Buy more conservation & open space lands ■ Renovate or replace the pool ■ Community events, such as outdoor movies and summer concerts PROS Plan Structure o Contents: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 21 Packet Pg. 32 6.3.a ■ Introduction & Community Profile ■ Community Engagement ■ Goals & Objectives ■ Inventory & Classifications ■ Parks & Open Space ■ Recreation Programs & Facilities ■ Trails & Connections ■ Capital Projects & Implementation ■ Appendices o Sample chapters ■ Chapter 1: Parks & Recreation Planning Forward ■ Chapter 2: Community Profile ■ Chapter 4: Goals and Objectives ■ Chapter 6: Parks & Open Space System Analysis o Examining System Gaps ■ Park Access & Distribution ■ Physical Accessibility ■ Diversity of Places & Spaces ■ Programs, Events & Activities ■ Serving Today's Residents ■ Planning for Future Growth o Approaches to Service Standards ■ Acreage / Population -based - Quantity of places; # of park acres per # of people ■ Distribution / Proximity -based - Coverage; Travel distance between people & parks ■ Quality / Condition - Condition of existing amenities ■ Available Amenities - Variety & range of recreational amenities and opportunities o Considerations ■ Compares today's inventory to current and future population (per capita metrics) ■ As population grows, demand for facilities increases ■ Considers development patterns & future opportunities ■ Goal is for locally -appropriate, reasonably attainable, and fiscally prudent standards relatable to the capacity to grow the system ■ Reframe: example - trail connectivity vs. mileage P°p�la�jOn Growing Deficit tCurrent entory TODAY TOMORROW o Level of Service Review ■ Prior plan noted acreage standard as 11.4 acres per 1,000 population ■ Applying that standard, creates current deficit of over 220 acres Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 22 Packet Pg. 33 6.3.a IN 2022 Plan proposes reframing standards on active -use and open space ypz of Park Existing Existing LOS 2022 Proposed Current Need Inventory(ac.} I (ac.J1,000} Standard I (ac.) Community' 79.2 acres 1.85 acres/1,000 2.25 acres/1,000 17.2 acres Neighborhood 26.2 acres 0.61 acres/1,000 1 acres/1,000 16.7 acres Open Space 75.6 acres 1.76 acres/1,000 3-5 acres/1,000 74.4 acres Totals 181.0 acres 422 acres/1,000 6.75 acres/1,000 107.0 acres " Includes acreage from Lynndale Skate Park and Mea dowdale PlayfeIds, prorated at ' iO" ■ Public Satisfaction (based on survey responses) ■ Site Conditions Assessment (based on physical site assessments) ■ Distribution / Travelsheds (based on GIS analyses) ■ Usage / Visitation (based on survey responses) Public Satisfaction Condition of Local CltyParks (rated as Exce lie nt or Good) 76.1% LOS Grade B A Condition of Trails in Parks crated as Excellent or Good) 55.099 L05 Grade U Agency -based Assessmorrt Condition Assessment Rating of Existing Parks (3-point scale) 1.31M LOS Grade B Parkland Access (within 1/7-mile t rave Is he d ) Percent service Area with Access to Active -Use City Parks 48,IV, LOS Grade D Parkland Access (within 1/2-mile trave Ishod I Pe rcent Servlce Area with Access to All Parks & 0pen Space 69.8% LOS Grade C Trail System Access (within 112-mile travelshed) Percent Service Area with Access to Recreational Trails LOS Grade Frequency of Park or Trail Usage Percent Visiting Parks at Least Multiple Times per Month LOS Grade N r.: The Prtag- arear.nrP d by mrei ra area vralk,h,d.,isa proxy h.r rho pnpu.b. k•irhln drn re vdenlial po, lion of the rily. Changes from 2016 Plan o Intentional & focused diversity -oriented outreach o Diversity, Equity & Inclusion goals and objectives explicit and written into Plan o Acquisition focus recommended for south and southeast Edmonds o Future land acquisition strategy as tool to guide and refine property searches o Expanding level of service metrics to include distribution, condition & satisfaction o Adjustment to acreage -based standards to focus on active -use parks and open space o Increasing acreage -based standard for neighborhood & community parks from 2.7 ac/1000 to 3.25 ac/1000 o Trail connectivity as policy, rather than mileage -based metric Key Recommendations o Acquisitions to Fill Gaps and for Conservation ■ Secure additional parkland in south and southeast Edmonds ■ Pursue acquisitions that adjoin city properties or conserve unique natural areas (e.g., wetlands, forests, stream corridors) ■ Parks Development and Upgrades ■ Complete renovation of Civic Center Playfield ■ Playground replacements at Maplewood Hill Park, Sierra Park & Yost Memorial Park Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 23 Packet Pg. 34 6.3.a ■ Add amenities to Mathay Ballinger Park, Elm Street Park & Pine Street Park o Trail and Bikeway Connections ■ Acquire easements & rights -of -way for trail connections ■ Coordinate with the Comprehensive Transportation Plan regarding bicycle & pedestrian system improvements o Yost Pool Replacement ■ Refine options for replacement of Yost Pool o ADA and Accessibility Enhancements ■ Remove barriers and improve universal access to and within parks, natural areas and trails o User Convenience Improvements ■ Upgrade or replace restrooms ■ Improve signage & wayfinding Next Steps o City council review and approval (February 15 & 22) COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO EXTEND TO 10:15. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Tibbott said he appreciated the community comments/feedback the City received, it is a very helpful part of the PROS Plan report. He asked how public schools were factored in as part of the City's recreation capacity. For example, his kids spent a lot of time on school playgrounds and soccer fields. Mr. Duh answered schools and school facilities play a role in the overall suite of amenities the community has access to. However, due to limitations on usage, time of use, and safety and security of students, they are not captured within the system for numeric acreage or other amenities. Ms. Feser said the plan also tried to focus on property the City owns, manages and maintains because the City can control improvements, changes or additions. Obviously, the City has community partners on other facilities but the focus was on amenities for which the City makes decisions. The City has an ILA with the City of Lynnwood for two facilities, the Lyndale Skatepark and the Lyndale Playfields, and half the acreage is counted in the inventory because the City has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into those facilities so it is equitable to count them. Councilmember Buckshnis said one thing she found lacking was an action plan. The goals and objectives are great, the plan is very readable, nicely done with lots of pictures, but she wondered how the goals and objectives made it into action plan that was carried forward. As far as an action plan, Mr. Duh referred to the capital project list that identifies the specific enhancements at the project site level or systemwide enhancement such as ADA, signage and similar enhancements. Beyond the capital projects, the three needs assessment chapters, Parks and Open Space, Recreation Programs and Open Space and Stewardship, they each have additional recommendations that suggest additional follow-up such as an acquisition strategy to identify key purchases to fill gaps going forward, trail corridor connectivity, recreation program enhancements, etc. If that could be more clear, he was open to taking direction from council identifying those differently or more boldly. Councilmember Buckshnis felt it was important because one of her concern is the watersheds and watershed issues. There are Yost Park, Perrinville, and the marsh, but there is no conservation stewardship type of goal or action plan that scores things. She was looking for an action plan in this PROS Plan, similar to the one in the 2016 PROS Plan. An action plan makes it easy to see what is being done; now she has to look at the capital project list and other chapters. Councilmember Paine referred to the open space plan, specifically slide 17 in the presentation titled system analysis, commenting the plan talks about increasing the existing level of service for open space from 1.76 acres/1,000 to 3.5 acres/1,000 and increase of 74.4 acres. Mr. Duh explained that reflects the existing demand/need for another 74 acres based on today's population which will grow going forward. The plan Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 24 Packet Pg. 35 6.3.a suggests additional open space/conservation acquisitions to fulfill that gap and would rely on an acquisition strategy to more appropriately define and refine where those targets might be. Councilmember Paine pointed out that goal anticipated doubling the open space through the end of the PROS Plan period. Councilmember L. Johnson commented in the interest of time, she thanked staff and the consultant for the presentation, it was very thorough and there was a lot to take in. She planned to watch the presentation again and was certain she would have questions. She appreciated the presentation, especially the part about increasing open space and specific kinds of park accessibility. Councilmember Chen applaud applauded the tremendous efforts to develop a complete package with tags, pictures, etc. to layout a six -year plan. The presentation referred to Parks' outreach to the non-English speaking population. He asked the participation rate with those efforts, whether people came out or nobody showed up. Mr. Duh answered the response to the community survey from non-English participations was light, but they recognized engaging the community in multiple languages was a process over time and it takes relationship building. Ms. Feser said this is the first time in the history of the City there has been a concerted effort to reach out to under -represented populations in the planning process. It was felt parks was one of the easier topics to talk about instead of police efforts or utilities. Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin has contacted her to discuss Parks' efforts to reach out to these populations related to her efforts on Highway 99 planning, to reinforce Parks' relationships and hopefully expand on them. Having a table at the Uptown market and providing materials in various languages is an indication to those populations that the City is sincere and wants to build relationships. They have created some relationships in the Korean community; Councilmember Chen helped introduce her to those individuals and those relationships, which did not exist prior to this planning process, will continue in the future. Councilmember Chen encouraged staff to continue that effort, commenting he will be happy to help make more connections in the future. Councilmember Chen referred to page 23 in the presentation about bike lane connectivity, suggesting consideration be given to having bike lanes in certain confined areas like within parks. That is a new concept that he encouraged Parks to explore in addition to connectivity. For example, it would be great to have a bike trail in Yost Park that could create miles of exercise pathways. He asked if that would be something worth exploring. Mr. Duh answered absolutely. The notion of pathways within parks is part of this plan. Ms. Feser said there has been interest from the public about mountain bike trails inside parks; they are happening organically which demonstrates a need and desire for them. Creating those in a more appropriate way is important and she saw that as a planning effort moving forward. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND TO 10:30. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SYSTEM (ERP) REPLACEMENT: ACTION ITEMS Deputy Administrative Services Director Megan Menkveld reviewed: • ERP — product selection in process; no recommendation yet o General Ledger o Payroll o HRIS o Utility Billing • OpenGov Budget Suite — separate product not ERP, that is an add -on to any ERP o Reporting o Planning o Budgeting Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 25 Packet Pg. 36 6.3.a o Transparency Reporting o Eden ■ Requires training ■ Formatting is only preset ■ Staff downloads data to create offline reports and calculations o Crystal Reports ■ Requires training ■ Formatting is customizable ■ Report queues ■ Calculations can happen within the report, rather than Excel o OpenGov ■ Looks like Amazon.com menu ■ User friendly ■ Accessible and transparent ■ Drillable ■ Staff s recommendation • Action Items 1. Authorize the mayor to execute an agreement for implementation of OpenGov's Budget Suite for a fixed -fee five-year SaaS contract of $67,822 per year and a $55,500 one-time implementation fee for a five-year total of $394,610 using ARPA funds. 2. Waive RFP purchasing requirements for ERP replacement. LGeneral HRIS Waiver of RFP's Ledger Payroll (Employee Utility Billing Self-service) ERP Planning & Implementation (12 months+) Council Approval for OpenGov Budget Module Planning, Implementation &Training Budget Suite January M0r[h May July "ptamher ❑aCember February April �une August • November • 2023 • Action 1: ARPA ARPA: American Rescue Plan Act Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds: A subset of ARPA o 2 CFR Part 35 111. Eligible Uses I A. Public Health and Economic Impacts ■ Purpose is to "authorize the use of payments from the Fiscal Recovery Funds to respond to the public health emergency with respect to COVID 19... ■ Must be in response to the disease itself... • Action Item 2: Wave RFP requirement for ERP Replacement o Uniform exemptions to competitive bidding requirements (39.04.280 RCW) 1. Purchases that are clearly and legitimately limited to a single source of supply (Sole Source Vendor): 2. Purchases involving special facilities or market conditions (auction) 3. Surplus Property (surplus property from another government 4. Purchases in the event of an emergency 5. Interlocal Agreements (State standard contracts) 6. Competitive Negotiations Competitive negotiation can be used as an alternative to the competitive bidding procedures for the acquisition of electronic data processing and telecommunications systems; energy saving or energy related equipment or services; or Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 26 Packet Pg. 37 6.3.a when it is determined in writing that the use of competitive bidding is neither practical nor advantageous to the City. With regard to using ARPA funds for the budget suite, City Attorney Jeff Taraday said they considered this recommendation and the rules regarding how ARPA funds can be used. He quoted from what he felt was the most applicable part of the rule, State and Local Fiscal Recovery (SLFR) funds may be used to address administrative needs of recipient governments that were caused or exacerbated by the pandemic... such as technology infrastructure to adapt government operations to the pandemic, e.g. video conferencing software, improvements to case management systems, or data sharing resources. When he considers the language in the rule and hears Ms. Menkveld talk about how this will allow the City's Finance employees to work more effectively from home, many of whom are working from home due to the pandemic, it seems to be an appropriate use of those funds if the council wants to spend them that way. Council President Olson asked if it was also Mr. Taraday's opinion that the council had the authority to wave the RFP purchasing requirements. Mr. Taraday said the reason was not related to the reason cited by staff; he did not analyze 39.04.280 because that applies where there is a competitive bidding requirement. This is a software service contract; services are a different category of acquisition and there is no state competitive bidding requirement to bid service contracts. The only question is, there is a City policy that says service contracts over $100,000 should have focused public solicitation. Elsewhere in the policy it states (page 15 of the City's purchasing policy), on a case -by -case basis, the city council may waive any requirement contained in the City's purchasing policies and procedures as long as the result complies with applicable State laws. As is no State law that requires competitive bidding or RFP process for a service contract, it is up to the council whether they want to take advantage of the waiver that the policy contemplates. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF OPENGOV'S BUDGET SUITE FOR A FOR FIXED FIVE YEAR SAAS CONTRACT OF $67,822 PER YEAR AND A $55,000 ONE TIME IMPLEMENTATION FEE FOR A FIVE YEAR TOTAL OF $394,610 USING ARPA FUNDS AND WAIVE THE CITY COUNCIL REQUIREMENT FOR FOCUSED PUBLIC SOLICITATION.. Mr. Taraday said he recommend a couple small edits to the contract: delete Section 7.2 of the contract in its entirety and replace Section 7.3 with the following language: "City may terminate this agreement for any reason upon [to be determined number] days written notice." As written, it is a five year contract with basically no clear termination. He did not recommend signing a five-year contract for services because if the services are not being performed well, the City wants to be able to terminate the services. For example, if the City gets two years into the contract and OpenGov is not as great as everyone thought, staff will want to get out of it. It was not clear under the existing language that that could be easily accomplished. He was hopeful the vendor would be agreeable to his proposed changes. Ms. Menkveld said she talked to the vendor and they are totally open to negotiating that. She suggesting amending her recommendation to allow the mayor to negotiate and execute Sections 7.2 and 7.3. Council President Olson said she has experience as a government contracting officer and acknowledged the waiver of solicitation was an uncomfortable concept for a lot of people who are cautious with spending. In previous discussions, staff provided examples of cities who went through the solicitation process and selected OpenGov as a result. That was very reassuring to her and she felt it prudent to go forward with the waiver. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO AMEND TO ACCEPT MS. MENKVELD'S SUGGESTED AMENDMENT, ALLOWING THE Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 27 Packet Pg. 38 6.3.a MAYOR TO NEGOTIATE SECTIONS 7.2 AND 7.3 OF THE CONTRACT FOR OPENGOV. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-0-1), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, PAINE, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON ABSTAINING. Mayor Nelson observed the time was 10:28 and asked if the council wished to extend. Council President Olson pointed out there are still council and mayor comments as well as an update on hybrid meetings which the council had committed to voting on this month. The council either needs to vote to change the date for that item or discuss it tonight. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO EXTEND 15 MINUTES TO 10:45 P.M. Council President Olson was hopeful the staff that was present to discuss virtual meetings could do so in the shortest amount of time possible. Councilmember L. Johnson preferred to move the discussion on hybrid meetings to an upcoming meeting as it is late and it is an important topic. Therefore she will vote no on the motion. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SUPERMAJORITY (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. 3. HYBRID MEETINGS UPDATE AND VOTE TO EXTEND VIRTUAL MEETINGS 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 1, 2022 Page 28 Packet Pg. 39 6.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/15/2022 Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of February 8, 2022 Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda. Narrative N/A Attachments: 02-08-2022 Council Special Meeting Minutes Packet Pg. 40 6.4.a EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING DRAFT MINUTES February 8, 2022 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Vivian Olson, Council President Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Laura Johnson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Brook Roberts, Student Representative 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE STAFF PRESENT Dave Turley, Administrative Services Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., Cultural Arts & Human Services Director Susan McLaughlin, Dev. Serv. Director Shannon Burley, Deputy Parks, Rec., Cultural Arts & Human Services Director Emily Wagener, Human Resources Analyst Thom Sullivan, Facilities manager Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Dave Rohde, GIS Analyst The Edmonds City Council virtual online meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Chen read the City Council Land Acknowledgement Statement: "We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water." 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely. 4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson invited participants and described the procedures for audience comments. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 1 Packet Pg. 41 6.4.a Linda Ferkingstad, Edmonds, speaking in regard to the tree ordinance, said in 2017 her husband went to Edmonds City Planning to ask about a property they were looking at with her parents to build homes for themselves to downsize. He was told it was possible to divide the property into four parcels; it is zoned R- 12. They paid a geotech to survey the property and ensure it was not in a critical area and he confirmed it was all hardpan soil with no risk of slides. They purchased the property; they own 1.2 acres with 172 trees, a 5 minute walk from 108 acres of dense forest called Meadowdale Beach Park. Next, they were told by the planning department that only three lots would be allowed and it would be easier to divide without a small critical area on the southwest corner. Confirming with the City and the map they provided, they transferred that corner to their neighbor. Since then, they have been going through the division process, paying the necessary professionals $125,000 so far. Just as their engineers were to submit their application, the council placed a 6-month moratorium on applications. The council then voted for the tree ordinance, requiring property owners to pay the City the value of their own trees needing removal, $3,000412,000 per tree, $250,000 before they could remove trees to build their homes. Council later put a limit on the tree extortion at $2/square foot which is over $107,000 for their land with an exemption of payment if 50% of the trees are retained. Ms. Ferkingstad continued, they have paid engineers and arborists twice to comply with the new regulations. When they submitted their application a year later, retaining 50% of the trees, they received a new request, a tree appraisal by an arborist for every tree even while retaining 50%, $300-$400 per tree totaling $50,000460,000. The City map has now changed to show the only place there isn't a critical area in the southwest corner of their property, the parcel they gave to their neighbor. Edmonds Planning Department is not working in good faith. On August 24', when the council learned the tree ordinance couldn't immediately apply to all homeowners, Mr. Chave replied that a lengthy public outreach is critical before bringing forward a tree code that addresses what happens on private property. She questioned why the tree ordinance was enforced on private property owners applying to divide their properties. Extorting hundreds of thousands from Edmonds land owners before they can use their property is an illegal infringement. It can be looked up on Google if Mr. Taraday won't tell the council. She suggested they also look up what an acre of timber is worth, $1800. She urged the council not to apply this extortion to other homeowners and to rescind the illegal ordinance. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, spoke regarding the budget amendments. With regard to the REDI program manager, she was deeply frustrated by the council's conversation last week, many members willing to say that they did not understand what the REDI program manager would do and only one willing to phrase their concerns in the form of a question to staff. She questioned why council did not have the REDI manager position that was available months ago and why City staff doesn't resend it to council every day if that is needed. This is too an important to be a matter of miscommunication. Delaying the REDI program manager even a year will have significant negative impacts. Planning for the comprehensive plan is happening now, delaying the REDI program manager will lower the City's ability to comprehensively incorporate equity and consider all Edmonds communities in a document that will have lasting impacts for years to come. An anti -displacement strategy needs to be developed and implemented now ahead of the comprehensive plan and concurrent with revitalization plans if the City wants to maintain diversity in the SR 99 corridor. While racism may be a matter of the heart, the solution is not. The solution is institutionalizing practices and procedures that equitably invest in all communities. Focusing on individual training is not the same as accountability of action and progress is not the same as equity. Removing the FTE position for the REDI program manager in this budget is a big step backwards. With regard to parks, Ms. Seitz said she has been listening to the PROS Plan planning for a while and each group of supporters for the marsh, the waterfront, the walkway, the Creative District, the beautification program, and the dive park always say how much these investments benefit the Edmonds economy. A more accurate statement would be that it benefits downtown businesses. There are numerous commercial areas, Westgate, Five Corners, Firdale, and the commercial center on SR 99 which she doubted would generate Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 2 Packet Pg. 42 6.4.a any significant commercial activity from these investments that are often claimed to be central to the City's economy. There are over 108 acres of total park open space investments downtown, a total which does not include the beautification program, Creative District or walkway. She questioned when it would be enough and urged the council to let the PROS Plan weigh the 4' Avenue Cultural Corridor Plan against other investments. She supported investments in a public information officer, the transition of a part-time contract project manager to a project manager/planner FTE, any needed expense for the new satellite office on Highway 99, study of the relocation of the police station and/or city hall to a location that is more central to the City's population and commercial center and improved lighting for the Lake Ballinger area. Patrick Doherty commented on the public information officer (PIO), a proposal he made in the budget that was approved last fall. In 2019 the half-time PIO position was created for the 2020 year as a pilot to test the need for and viability of a PIO position for Edmonds. At the time, he advocated for a full-time PIO as he came from a municipality that had a full-time PIO and saw that most cities Edmonds' size had full- time PIOs, but in the spirit of piloting new ideas, it was proposed as half-time to start. It was clear during 2020 that a half-time PIO was not sufficient to meet the expectations for the public, the press, other departments, the mayor and the department director. He described why he felt a full-time PIO was necessary. First, emerging and important business through the City arises daily and sometimes hourly and a key staff person must be available during regular business hours and even after to address the public information components of issues. Second, the press expects someone at city hall is available and accessible at essentially all times to field inquiries, provide important information, etc. Mr. Doherty continued, the City often receives inquiries after hours, on weekends, etc. It is not an unreasonable expectation; this is what the press expects and receives from other municipal governments. Public information including releases, media posts, blog posts, etc. can require review by multiple parties before publication which can take a full day or more. If the PIO is off the clock by noon, the director (him during the years this position existed) has to pick up the pieces and put on the PIO hat for the rest of the day or even a full day, after hours or on weekends. He had to do that many times as the director, taking him away from other important duties and sometimes creating problems associated with too many cooks in the kitchen Lastly, a full-time PIO will be able to do more than simply react to emerging issues which is essentially what half-time allows, but also allow comprehensive, strategic citywide communications support and planning for a comprehensive, strategic communication engagement. He summarized he hoped this explanation would provide some support for the continued approval of the full-time position. Luke Distelhorst, Edmonds, commented on the unprecedented budget cuts and the harassment of City staff by certain councilmembers. The 2022 budget was developed with over 6 months of deliberation, consultation with residents and City staff, and three public hearings. Edmonds was the only city he was aware of with councilmembers trying to defend an approved budget. This is not good governance and is not normal. It is certain councilmembers intentionally defunding items that support lower income residents, that address environmental justice and police accountability, and that favor the haves and not the have-nots. Second, it is concerning that the City has lost a number of directors since the November election and it was his understanding key staff have also been lost in public works as well as planning and development services. Additionally, council did not renew the contract of the legislative aide and he hoped the council president would address why. As someone who worked closely with the legislative aide for the last two years and provided input into their performance review both years, he was concerned the City may be opening itself to claims of workplace harassment and future legal action. If staff is not supported and respected as professionals, it impacts their ability to provide service to the City's 43,000 residents. He sincerely hoped councilmembers would follow the council code of conduct and stay far away from staffing issues which under state law are explicitly the responsibility of the City's administration. Ken Reidy, Edmonds, spoke about the code of ethics, recalling at the council retreat in 2012, the city council decided to make the code of ethics a priority. A critical element of a functional code of ethics is an Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 3 Packet Pg. 43 enforcement board; most cities put together an independent board to review ethics matters, they counsel, mediate and help guide city government toward more ethical, better behavior. The city council worked on a code of ethics for several years; it was discussed at many meetings in 2012, 2013, and 2014. In late 2014 it was suggested in a committee meeting that enforcement be adopted under a separate policy. At the start of 2015, the task was assigned to two councilmembers and they worked hard on it and developed what appeared to be a good code of ethics that came to city council on June 2, 2015. However, the item on the agenda was not even discussed; a totally different code of ethics was voted on and the councilmember who put it forth, the council president at that time, apparently had her votes lined up because the people that voted with her didn't even explain why they were voting for a smaller code of ethics than the one in the agenda packet. Mr. Reidy continued, on that very same night, city council violated the state law that requires public hearings for interim zoning ordinances within 60 days of passage. That law was flat-out broken like it didn't matter. Laws do matter and the lack of respect for laws is a huge problem. The next morning he sent an email saying the council broke a state law, the same night they adopted a code of ethics. The council president forwarded it to the mayor at the time, stating this is why Storm and I put it together this way. She was talking about Strom Peterson, but Strom Peterson did not have a role in it as he had been off council for months. Mr. Reidy recommended the council take a good hard look at the code of ethics, figure out what is missing from it, make sure it is a complete code of ethics and establish an independent board to help enforce the code of ethics so all can pursue better government. Deborah Arthur, Edmonds, said she did not like the idea of [the City partnering on a playground at] Sherwood Elementary School. Although a really nice place, it is 21/2 miles from Five Corners downhill. She commented on other parks such as Yost, noting she was talking about a park with playground and shelters where families could go and get sun. The idea of access after 4 p.m. when it is dark by 5 in the winter seems ridiculous. There would be little time to use the playground by the time school was out, kids were picked up and someone drove 2%2 miles from Five Corners or other locations. She noted it was nice of Sherwood to offer, but she suggested finding three tear downs close to Yost Park and building a playground. She commented on trees that could remain on those sites. (Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.) 6. COUNCIL BUSINESS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 2022 ADOPTED CITY BUDGET Councilmember Buckshnis said the intent was to keep this simple and expedite it if possible. She suggested asking if there were any comments on the proposed amendments and if there were no questions, she would open it to the floor for a motion. She reminded according to Robert's Rules, councilmembers should only speak twice. She hoped to get through all the amendments tonight so this could be resolved quickly. Councilmember L. Johnson said before this process begins, it is important to address claims regarding Resolution 1433, the Fund Balance Reserve Policy. Some have continued to willfully misrepresent the policy and she believed it was important to clarify it before moving on since decisions would be made based on available funds. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, this item is about the 2022 budget amendment. If Councilmember L. Johnson needed to have an explanation about the Fund Balance Policy, she could have addressed it earlier in an email and shared it with council. Everyone is aware of what has been going on and she would like to just handle the amendments. It is unknown how many will be approved so she preferred to follow the order of agenda which was to discuss the budget amendments. Mayor Nelson said Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 4 Packet Pg. 44 6.4.a Exhibit C on the agenda states 2022 budget amendments Fund Balance Reserve so it is actually on the agenda so Councilmember L. Johnson's comment is appropriate. Councilmember Buckshnis explained at the request of a councilmember and a vote of 4-2-1, the entire agenda memo was blanked out. When this is concluded, she will provide a substantiated one. She has not changed the agenda packet because then she would be accused of removing items. The council is here to address the budget amendments, not the Fund Balance or who has what opinion, what one person believes or another person believes, it is only to address the amendments. Councilmember L. Johnson raised a point of order, stating Councilmember Buckshnis was going on and on and she should have an opportunity to rebut. Mayor Nelson said as the chair, he is ruling based on the exhibits, the Fund Balance Reserve is an exhibit for the item under discussion so it does seem to fall within the purview. He ruled that it was appropriate for Councilmember L. Johnson to proceed with her question. Councilmember Buckshnis said she wanted that put to a vote of the council. City Clerk Scott Passey explained the motion would be to appeal the ruling of the chair, the council would vote and a majority vote would remove the ruling. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO APPEAL THE RULING OF THE CHAIR. Councilmember Buckshnis explained the council did not need to discuss Fund Balance Policy as the council is here to discuss the 2022 amendments which have nothing to do with the Fund Balance Policy at this time. Councilmember L. Johnson said councilmembers are being asked to vote on amendments to the budget. One of the things put forward in letters to the editor and was included as part of the amendments was reference to the fund balance. She believed she had a full understanding of it, but would like clarification from the director to ensure everyone is on the same page and that her understanding was correct before moving on with voting on items related to the budget. Given that it is part of the agenda and directly relates to the budget items, that clarification should be provided. Councilmember Paine referred to page 3 of the agenda packet which states, we have local budgetary pressures from changes in the South Fire Contract, impacts on wages and maybe benefits from the recent compensation study. The topic is raised in the documents the council is reviewing and the council would be remiss if they did not also address this because the fund balance and claims of budgetary pressure are absolutely part of the whole discussion. She summarized it needed to be addressed foremost. Council President Olson said the council needed to keep the discussion exclusively on whether to overturn the mayor's ruling. She was eager to get onto the business at hand, did not disagree with the mayor's ruling, and supported continuing the conversation about the fund balance. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. Councilmember L. Johnson continued, in reviewing Resolution 1433, adoption of the Fund Balance Policy Reserve, there are numerous parts that list the various portions of the fund balance such as non -spendable, restricted, committed, assigned and unassigned. The fund balance has to do with reserves that must be kept aside. It was her understanding the budget was not touching any emergency reserves. Given the misinformation going around, she asked Administrative Service Director Dave Turley to speak to this. Mr. Turley answered that is a big question and he was not sure how to approach it. Packet page 4 states the use of $2.1 million in unrestricted reserves in this budget should be a council decision as to the amount and Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 5 Packet Pg. 45 6.4.a purpose — per council approved Fund Balance Policy. He did not think the Fund Balance Policy was clearly written but he did not agree with the comment on packet page 4 and did not think the budget used $2.1 million in unrestricted reserves. The December financial statements show the General Fund is $15,509,095 and of that, $7.5M is reserves. That is part of what goes into the 20% policy. Above the $7.5M, there is $8,015,763 that represents unrestricted fund balance that can be used for pretty much anything. He concluded that contradicts the statement on packet page 4 that the budget uses unrestricted reserves and needs to be approved by council Councilmember L. Johnson stated the overall objective of the Fund Policy Reserve Management Policy is to define that portion of the fund balance that is unavailable to support the current budget. The unassigned fund balance comprises the residual classification of the General Fund and includes amounts not contained in other classifications. Unassigned amounts are available for any purpose and represents the residual amount of the fund balance that has not been restricted, committed or assigned. The council has heard before that the fund balance is quite a bit over what is required by law and a cushion beyond that. She recalled Mr. Turley's past comments about good policy concerning what is done with taxes, what these funds actually represent and asked him to comment on that. Mr. Turley explained a lot of the comments he receives imply the City should act like a for -profit business and should always have more revenues than expenses, should underbudget revenues, and the fund balance should continue to grow like the City is a profit center. In actuality, residents are taxed with the intent of spending that money to provide goods and services to benefit them. To continue to build up fund balance means the City is taxing people and not spending the money on things to better the community or citizens' lives which is the purpose of local government. Councilmember L. Johnson relayed her understanding by law the City was to have 16% and asked how much the City had now. Mr. Turley answered per policy, the City needs to maintain 20% and is currently at 37%. Councilmember L. Johnson relayed her understanding that the 20% was 16% in one fund and 4% to another. Mr. Turley agreed. Councilmember L. Johnson summarized the City had almost double what was required by policy. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed the December numbers presented tonight were very favorable. She reiterated the council needs to move forward with considering these amendments because they deal with issues related to economic instability and inflation. Council President Olson referred to packet page 26, Limitations on Fund Use which when the City is over the amount it needs to have, the funds should be used on one-time non -reoccurring expenditures and/or capital projects. The discussion she has heard is concern with spending that on staff and other recurring expenses. She was also in favor of moving on. Councilmember Paine said, after listening in on the Finance Committee meeting tonight, she learned the City is expecting to have the same level of REET funds in the coming year, which support the General Fund. Sales tax revenues also continue to increase which go straight into the General Fund. It doesn't appear the City is expecting any decrease in REET funds. At end the of 2021 REET revenue was close to $1.5M and there will also be additional funds collected this year. It is irresponsible to not properly assign these funds to projects for the betterment of the City. She asked if REET was expected to be $1.5M in the coming year. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, commenting this agenda item was not about forecasting for the 2023 or 2022 budget. The intent was to review and discuss some of the 2022 budget amendments that were not addressed by some councilmembers. She clarified her point of order was related to the Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 6 Packet Pg. 46 6.4.a comments about financial forecasting in 2022 and 2023 instead of amendments to the budget. Mayor Nelson agreed discussion should be kept to the topic to the fund balance. Councilmember Chen encouraged the council to keep their eyes on the ball and stop the filibuster. It is now February and the departments are waiting for the council to finalize the budget so they can move on with the business. Continued delay is not good for the City. He said the notion that if the City had money, it needed to be spent was not the right logic. Of course the council wants to fund the City so the citizens can benefit from the taxes they pay, but the council needs to focus and move on. Councilmember K. Johnson agreed with Councilmember Chen and added clarification. In 2008 the City had a financial crisis and could not pay its employees and furloughs and 10% across board cuts were necessary. As a result, Mr. Turley, she and others were on a Long Range Financial planning group that worked for years and years to develop a policy. She reiterated the 2022 budget included some very large expenses, some were included and some were not such as the court reorganization, Fire District 1 costs and police cameras. In addition, the City often gets unfunded mandates. She believed the council should be fiscally conversative and not spend everything in the piggy bank and be good servants of the people to protect the City's finances. Councilmember Buckshnis explained the format; she will ask if anyone has questions of the administration and the mayor will moderate that. If there are no questions, she will open it to the floor for motions so she is not always making the motions. Some of the motions may not be the suggested motion in the presentation. Councilmember Paine requested instead of the amendments being anonymized, they be assigned to the councilmember who made the request. If there is more than one, that should be identified. The amendments should be presented by the councilmember who made the request. She did not think that was unreasonable and it would not take any additional time. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, FOR ALL THE BUDGET AMENDMENTS THAT THEY HAVE THE COUNCILMEMBER WHO MADE THE REQUEST SPEAK TO THEIR MOTION. Councilmember Buckshnis did not support the motion. She will read the item and whoever wants to make the motion from the floor can make it. She was trying to expediate the process and she didn't care who provided the information and that was the easiest way to handle it. Councilmember Paine referred to the November 17, 2021 approved city council minutes that identify some of the people who made these requests. She was prepared to help by offering the names of people to speak to the motion. Councilmember L. Johnson said for transparency sake, the council should know who made each amendment. That was done during budget season and this is an extension of the budget season. Council President Olson commented it will be fully transparent when councilmembers vote for or against the amendments. She did not make any of the amendments but would be happy to make a motion similar to the proposed motion. Councilmember K. Johnson commented this is another delaying tactic. She did not support it and wanted to get on to the 2022 budget amendments. Councilmember L. Johnson suggested at the very least when the amendments are read, the council should be told who proposed it. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 7 Packet Pg. 47 6.4.a Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, stating this was the third time Councilmember L. Johnson spoke to the motion. Mayor Nelson disagreed, advising it was her second time. Councilmember L. Johnson reiterated for transparency sake, councilmembers should know who made the amendment. If the intent is not to have each person read their own budget amendments, then the person reading them should inform the council who provided it. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, AND BUCKSHNIS, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Buckshnis introduced the following amendment: # 1 - REDI Manager • There was not sufficient information to support an on -going FTE. With this issue comes at least two motions: 1) Hire consultant to evaluate City on REDI metrics (what has already been done and what needs to be done) and propose three alternatives to accomplishing that work." With this motion, the allocation will be reduced to $70K 2) Substitute Motion: Hire REDI Manager for budget year (part of an intended three year contract). A job description should be written to ensure an assessment is done, what needs to be done, workplan for training staff and to set systems in place to maintain the work internally so as at the end of three years, only periodic reviews would occur as needed. Councilmember L. Johnson asked who put forward this amendment. Councilmember Paine requested Acting Director Emily Wagener speak to this budget amendment. There are a lot of people who continue to say they have not had enough information and a refresher would be helpful. Council President Olson voiced an objection. Ms. Wagener read from the job description, under the direction of the mayor, the City's REDI program manager provides citywide leadership to advance the City's race, equity, diversity and inclusion goals. The position will provide advice and consultation to City departments on equity and inclusion principles and practices, provide strategic technical guidance and policy direction of the City's diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, help coordinate the implementation of the City's equity roadmap and oversee the update of the roadmap as needed and facilitate the City's organizational equity team. This position is extremely important for the City to meet its goals surrounding race, equity, diversity and inclusion and it is important to have a dedicated person in order to satisfy all the job duties and to meet not only the mayor's goals but also assist all departments. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO HIRE A REDI MANAGER FOR THE BUDGET YEAR (PART OF AN INTENDED THREE YEAR CONTRACT). A JOB DESCRIPTION SHOULD BE WRITTEN TO ENSURE AN ASSESSMENT IS DONE, WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, WORKPLAN FOR TRAINING STAFF AND TO SET SYSTEMS IN PLACE TO MAINTAIN THE WORK INTERNALLY SO AT THE END OF THREE YEARS, ONLY PERIODIC REVIEWS WOULD OCCUR AS NEEDED. Council President Olson commented that was an anticipated plan and could be revisited at any of the yearly points. As she stated during the previous council meeting, she feels this is an upper management thing that needs to be owned and managed by the mayor and that expediting the culture through a real concentration on this for what she expected would take three years will get over the hurdle and the reins can then be Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 8 Packet Pg. 48 6.4.a turned back over to the mayor. The plan to do this via contract is wise. There is always the option of going to a full-time employee in the future if needed, but as she hoped and expected it would be a lens change for personnel and elected, that everyone would own it individually. Councilmember L. Johnson asked, given the current job market, how having this as a contract position versus a full-time FTE will impact the City's ability to hire the most qualified person for the position. Ms. Wagener answered contract employees can be a little bit more difficult to hire in some ways because of their limited term. Typically when the City hires a full-time employee for an indefinite period of time, it can be easier to gather a large pool of candidates, it is less likely that they will leave early, and it is more likely someone with a limited term will leave in the middle of the term because they find something else. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if in Ms. Wagener's opinion, there was justification for this being a full- time permanent position and did she anticipate the need for the position would go away in three years. Ms. Wagener answered she did do not, the City's race, equity, diversity and inclusion goals are important and are not going anywhere. While these issues have come more to light recently, it will continue to be a priority and there will be more to focus on and if anything, the position will expand as time goes on. Councilmember Paine said she was unsure who to address this to question to, possibly Ms. Wagener, but she may not have this level of knowledge. She asked whether directors have asked for and found the gap of information that would be provided by the REDI manager. She could see the need for it in the comprehensive plan work to ensure the City is meeting all the target residents' needs and to make sure it is entirely inclusive and to have that analysis. She asked if directors had spoken about the need for a REDI manager. Ms. Wagener said she was not comfortable answering that as she did not have the information Councilmember Paine was looking for. Councilmember Paine asked Mayor Nelson if he could speak to it. Mayor Nelson said as much as he supports the position, he was present to chair the meeting, not provide testimony. Councilmember Paine said in her work as a councilmember, she sees opportunities to for removing barriers, adding diversity, and adding inclusion every day. When she find it, it means it slipped through the dragnet and she recognized that happened during tonight's Personnel Committee meeting. She summarized there are always opportunities to do better and she found this work valuable for the entire community. Councilmember K. Johnson directed her question to City Attorney Jeff Taraday, pointing out the motion calls for a one year contract for the budget year but it is intended to be a three year contract. She did not see how it could be both; it was either a three-year or a one-year contract. Mr. Taraday said he thought he heard the motion as a three-year contract. Councilmember K. Johnson read the motion, it is intended for the budget year (part of an intended three year contract) and that it would be assessed at the end of a year to see what needs to be done, workplan, training, etc. She asked whether the council could have a motion for one year along with the intent to extend it for three years; she found that contradictory. Mr. Taraday answered it would depend on how the contract is set up. If the council has the ability to terminate the contract, that could work. He was not sure what firms provide these services so it was hard to know who the contracting entity would be. Councilmember K. Johnson asked the maker of the motion to explain their intent. Council President Olson clarified she was the maker of the motion tonight. She was thinking along the same lines as the city attorney; as long as the contract could be terminated after the annual assessment, it could be set up as a three-year contract. It was her understanding the expenditure needed to target that budget year, but assumed it would be a three year project It would be a $100,000 allocation in the current budget year with the expectation that the following two years would be the same. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 9 Packet Pg. 49 6.4.a Councilmember K. Johnson asked whether extending the contract for future years would be under the mayor's or the council's purview. Council President Olson said that had not been determined. She assumed council would want to approve the annual assessments. She clarified this motion was contracting for the position instead of adding a full-time employee. It was not deciding whether or not to have a REDI program manager, it was the instrument used to do it. Councilmember Chen said he wanted to ask a question from a different angle. On the surface when it comes to a REDI manager, most people think the position will benefit minorities. He asked whether this position would benefit the entire city, including the majority of the white population. Ms. Wagener answered of course, this position is intended to positively benefit everyone, because it would require all employees, processes and policies throughout the City go through an equity lens. The position will help everyone look at things in a way that not only benefits the minority populations but also benefits everyone in how they respond to issues and process in their daily work which in turn may be reflected in their personal lives. Councilmember Chen asked for an example. Ms. Wagener said looking at recruitment through an equity lens includes looking at how to bring a diverse group of candidates to apply for jobs and also looking at how to make it more accessible for everyone, not just minorities and uncovering our own biases that someone may not even be aware which opens doors in other areas of our work. Mayor Nelson commented for the public's benefit, Ms. Wagener is not the HR director; the City's HR director is unfortunately on leave. He cautioned the council is beginning to grill her a little more than her regular expertise. Councilmember L. Johnson expressed her understanding of what a REDI manager would do and what diversity is. In looking it up to ensure she did not miss something, diversity includes knowing how we relate to each other. It includes but isn't limited to age, ethnicity, class, gender, physical abilities, quality, race, sexual orientation, as well as religious status, gender expression, educational background, geographical location, income, marital status, premarital status and work experience. This applies to everybody in one way, shape or form. It applies age wise, we all started out young and hopefully will get old. A number of things are covered by the REDI manager and diversity has a wide compass. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON, TO OFFER AN ALTERNATE MOTION FOR A FIVE YEAR LONG TERM TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY FOR THE REDI MANAGER POSITION. Councilmember Paine commented this position is very important for the City and the community and will have broad implications across south Snohomish County. Edmonds is one of the few cities that does not have this position and it will help support all the departments' functions and the community. The Diversity Commission would benefit from position and would be in regular contact with this person. She referred to a January 25t' email from HR Director Neill Hoyson that stated key outcomes include serving the leadership team for planning and implementation, a training component for all department directors, community perspectives and community engagement that are essential for any robust equity plan, help to advise the mayor and also council, and assist HR and all other departments. Councilmember Paine said this position will be entirely relevant for the community. There have been incidents that the City hasn't been able to address quickly and forthrightly with equity leading the discussion. She hoped the council would support this counter motion for a five-year full-time position. Councilmember Chen recalled Ms. Wagener saying this position can easily be expanded and asked her to explain. Ms. Wagener answered this position is new and more will be discovered and she expected it would expand. She agreed with Mayor Nelson's comment, explaining she hasn't been directly involved in the creation of this position and did not want to continue to not speak to something that she was not expert level Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 10 Packet Pg. 50 6.4.a familiar with. From her knowledge of the City's race, equity, diversity and inclusion goals and what she knows of it, she did expect it to expand, but she was not prepared to give details about that. Councilmember Chen repeated the comments he made last week, racial equity, diversity and inclusion is something we as a community including all the top level staff, from the mayor to each department to everyone, needs to take to heart; it is not one person's job. With that said, he believed there was a need for someone to take the lead to put a program together and then hand it over to the mayor, to the City to implement. Therefore, he supported Councilmember Paine's alternate motion. Councilmember Buckshnis said Councilmember Paine first said temporary and then said full-time. She asked if the intent was a five-year contract position. Councilmember Paine clarified she said a five year long term temporary position, similar to the code writer. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that was a contract position. Councilmember Paine reiterated it was a long term City employee temporary position with a five year timeline. Councilmember K. Johnson stated her belief that what Councilmember Paine offered was not an alternate motion but a substitute motion. If so, the council should vote on the original motion before considering the substitute. Mr. Passey explained the process is the council would discuss and debate motion #1, then discuss and debate motion #2, and then vote whether to substitute motion #2 for motion #1 and then take an immediate vote on the motion. Mayor Nelson asked for discussion/debate on the original motion; there was none. He then asked for discussion/debate on the substitute motion; there was none. UPON ROLL CALL, SUBSTITUTE MOTION #2 FAILED (3-3-1), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND TIBBOTT AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO; AND COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS ABSTAINING. UPON ROLL CALL, ORIGINAL MOTION #1 CARRIED (5-2); COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Mr. Turley asked if the motion was to have a $70,000/year contract. Council President Olson answered it was a $100,000/year contract for three years. Mr. Turley said he did not mean to throw a wrench into the works, but there is an approved REDI position in the budget. If the council wanted to remove that REDI manager position, there needed to be a motion to remove the REDI position because right now there was a REDI position and a $100,000 contract. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO REMOVE THE INITIAL REDI MANAGER THAT WAS IN THE 2022 BUDGET THAT HAS NOW BEEN REPLACED BY THE CONTRACT. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested these could all be substitute motions instead of removing and replacing. Mr. Taraday said it depends; his understanding of the motion that just passed was to leave money in the budget for a contract for services versus an employee that would be hired under a contract. He described the distinction between those; for example, he serves the City under a contract for services; there are other employees of the City who have contracts that establish their compensation. It was his understanding that the motion was related to a contract for services. Council President Olson said that was her intent. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 11 Packet Pg. 51 6.4.a Councilmember Buckshnis agreed, but it was her understanding the amendments were substitute motions for the approved budget. To save time, she suggested there be an understanding that the motions that pass with a super majority are substitute motions. Mr. Taraday said in the case of #1, it was obvious that that was the council's intent so any ordinance prepared would remove the FTE because there would be no reason to have an FTE if the City also has a contract for services. He was unsure it would be as obvious for other amendments. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if it was Mr. Taraday's opinion that this was a substitute motion for #1 or does the council have to vote to remove the FTE. Mr. Taraday said the phrase substitute motion is not applicable. None of the amendments take effect until the council adopts an ordinance. He understood the council's intent with respect to #1 and did not need any further council direction. That may not be as clear with the next amendment. Councilmember Buckshnis introduced the following amendment: #16 — Public Information Officer • Not sufficient support for FTE provided. • Motion: Remove this decision packet Councilmember Buckshnis said this was discussed in detail last week and there was public comment from Patrick Doherty. She asked if there were any other questions and if not, a motion would be entertained from the floor. Councilmember L. Johnson recalled the council heard from Acting Director Merriman last week. Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, stating there needed to be a motion before councilmembers spoke to the amendment. Mayor Nelson said it was confusing when Councilmember Buckshnis introduced the amendment and then asked for questions. Councilmember L. Johnson continued, the council heard from Acting Director Merriman last week that since the full-time position was implemented, the number of press releases has increased dramatically as well as the amount of outreach via social media. With that type of increase comes a more informed and engaged constituency and that increased engagement takes time. Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, stating Councilmember L. Johnson's comment did not sound like a question. Mayor Nelson agreed, asking if Councilmember L. Johnson had a question. Councilmember L. Johnson said there would be at the end but she first needed to make her point. She wished to speak to the motion. Mayor Nelson suggested she would have an opportunity to speak once the motion was made. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO REMOVE DECISION PACKAGE #16. Councilmember L. Johnson continued, the increased engagement takes time including follow-up media requests, monitoring social media, coordination of multiple events including town halls, state of the city, etc. The PIO serves all departments in the City. The PIO position is also critical for communication with the public during emergencies. From the City's website, the City's emergency management says focusing on people, plans and programs to promote a prepared and resilient City of Edmonds. To meet our mission, the Edmonds Office of Emergency Management disseminates information and coordinates and supports response and recovery from emergencies. In talking with the City's Safety and Disaster Coordinator Wallace, he stated as the safety and disaster coordinator for the City, "I am in full support of a full-time public administration PIO. The PIO can help gain and develop trust and support of our emergency Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 12 Packet Pg. 52 6.4.a management program by constructing and disseminating alert and warning messages along with preparedness, response, prevention, mitigation and recovery information to citizens we serve." In fact FEMA incident command system values the role of PIOs so highly that it places the position in the organizational structure as reporting directly to the incident commander. If you are not proactively and consistently communicating, then your organization will always be reacting to the whims of media coverage, social media misinformation and rumors focusing on your organization. Government is responsible for protecting the community during an emergency. Providing critical information to the public before, during and after. As elected officials, we have an obligation to the public to notify the community on matters of public safety, so much so that failure to do so can and has resulted in civil liability for willful and intentional neglect. Councilmember L. Johnson continued, most cities Edmonds' size have more than one FTE allotted to this critical function. Lynnwood with a population of 40,000 has 2 full-time PIOs, Shoreline with a population of 57,000 has 2 full-time PIOs, Marysville with a population of 71,000 has 3 full-time PIOs, Redmond with a population of 80,000 has 7 full-time PIOs and Everett with a population of 112,000 has 4 full-time PIOs. Edmonds' population of 43,000 has only 1 PIO; the City is understaffed with 1 full-time PIO, yet some councilmembers are actively attempting to further reduce the administration's ability to inform the public. With this motion, some councilmembers are choosing to put the safety of the entire community at risk and reduce all departments' ability to engage with the public. As a citizen commented via email, why would the City want to communicate less with its citizens. She was opposed to the motion. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REMOVE 3/ OF THE DECISION PACKAGE. THE DECISION PACKAGE WAS THE CHANGE FROM PART-TIME TO FULL TIME SO REMOVING 3/4 OF THE DECISION PACKAGES LEAVES IT FULL-TIME THROUGH THE END OF MARCH. Council President Olson explained this would give the HR department an opportunity to modify the job description. There is nothing in the job description that talks about the need for neutral, fact -based communications by this position which is what she was looking for. The position could be handled via an amendment process after the PSPP committee and the council approved a new job description. Councilmember Paine said she was confused by amendment and questioned why the council would not want to keep a full-time person for the full year. Having the position full-time for another month and a half seems rather short-sighted because there are all sorts of things that need to be communicated. As the council has heard from the people who put this position and program together, it was already understaff from the beginning. She did not support the motion which has the position full-time until the end of March and then cuts it off at the knees. It does not seem to make sense; if there is value to the position, then it needs to be funded appropriately and fully so all can see the benefit throughout the entire City. The amendment seems very short sighted and she did not support it. Council President Olson offered a point of clarification as her motion was not understood. Her motion was to fund it so a new job description could be approved through the budget amendment process to continue it full-time once the job description was further detailed with regard to the need for neutral, fact -based communication. Councilmember Tibbott disagreed with the characterization that the City has only one PIO as the Police Department has a full-time PIO. There are also contracts; for example, the PROS Plan had very robust community engagement process that included reporting on what happened. The Transportation Plan has always included consultants with very robust engagement programs. The characterization that the City does not have enough information going out is not accurate. However, he supported Council President Olson's amendment because he was willing to look at a PIO that serves the whole City especially the entire City staff. Some City staff are burdened with the responsibility of handling public information and he was not Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 13 Packet Pg. 53 6.4.a sure the PIO was shared with other departments. He wanted to be assured of that and he wanted to be assured that information was fact -based and as Council President Olson said that it would be recognized as a position that utilizes the best practices of a PIO. He did not believe that solely depending on social media and sending emails was adequate. He referred to 97 emails that went out last year and asked whether the goal was 200. He requested clarification with regard to best practices. Councilmember L. Johnson raised a point of clarification, suggesting Councilmember Tibbott misspoke and meant 97 media releases and not emails, noting there is a big difference. Councilmember Tibbott asked how the press releases were made. Mayor Nelson clarified there is not a full-time Police PIO. As an axillary duty, the assistant police chief does some PIO work although that assistant chief is very busy. Councilmember K. Johnson said she has been very concerned about the tone and temperament of some of the PIO's public statements. They need to be fact based and not used as a weapon against the city council which she found very counterproductive and offensive. She will support the motion by Council President Olson to fund the position through the end of March and look at a new job description to ensure these mistakes are not made in the future. Councilmember L. Johnson said she did not support the motion. It put people's livelihoods at stake and played with people's income and it was not good government. In a time when it is difficult to hire and retain, this is what the council is telling people how the City operates and how staff is treated. It was not good governance and was embarrassing and she would not support it. Councilmember Chen said a City of Edmonds' size needs a full-time PIO. However, he also agreed with Councilmember K. Johnson that some of the PIO announcements have been used by one branch of government to attack another which is not a good use of the resource. He hoped everyone could work together to make the City a more welcoming and open place for all. Mayor Nelson provided clarification, anything the PIO has said been saying about council is from him. When he issues a statement, it is clear that the mayor is issuing a statement and the PIO is following his direction. It should be clear that the legislative branch is telling the executive branch what they should be communicating to the public. Councilmember Chen said he was suggesting that all three branches of the government should work together and not attack each other. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Councilmember L. Johnson said she thought a super majority was required for a motion to pass. Council President Olson advised not for an amendment. Council President Olson restated the motion: REMOVE 3/4 OF THIS DECISION PACKAGE WHICH FUNDS IT FULL-TIME THROUGH MARCH, GIVING TIME TO GET THE NEW JOB DESCRIPTION. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that was the amendment. Council President Olson said it was, but now the Council needed to vote on the motion to see if there were five votes. Mr. Passey advised the vote was on the motion as amended. Councilmember Chen recalled the main motion was to remove the PIO position. Mayor Nelson said the motion was to replace the full-time PIO with the amended PIO position. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 14 Packet Pg. 54 6.4.a Council President Olson clarified the motion was to fund it through March so a new job description can come forward and to consider the full-time position through the budget amendment process with the new job description. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. Council President Olson pointed out for the purposes of the budget ordinance, the motion did not pass because a super majority was required. Mr. Taraday said the council is not voting on the ordinance today. If the council's direction to him is to only include in the ordinance motions with five votes, then this one would be not included. Council President Olson said she did not want to give that direction. She suggested including all the motions that pass and they can be addressed at the time of the ordinance. Mr. Taraday said that is another option, but if the last motion were to be included in the ordinance and if the ordinance passed 4-3, most of the ordinance would not succeed. Council President Olson suggested head nods from council. She was okay with only including the ones that pass with a super majority. Councilmember Buckshnis said the intent stated in the PowerPoint was to include the ones that passed with a super majority. Councilmember K. Johnson recalled Councilmember Tibbott offered an original motion that Council President Olson then amended. Mr. Taraday said council voted on the amended main motion. Councilmember Buckshnis introduced the following amendment: #20 — Solar Program • This is a pilot project geared towards low-income families; yet it takes approximately $13K to be part of the $5K grant program and this does not appear realistic without support data. There are many state solar programs that offer incentives and grants. • Motion: Remove this decision packet and review through council committee to review alternatives Councilmember Paine clarified this is not for low income families; in the original packet it was described as providing a subsidy to eligible applicants for small scale solar, a one-time subsidy for moderate to lower income applicants rather than higher income households. She requested the description be changed to accurately describe it and no longer be called low income. Councilmember K. Johnson reminded this was an opportunity for questions and councilmembers could make comments after a motion is made. Councilmember L. Johnson requested the department that spoke to this during the traditional budget season speak to the justification for this budget item. Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin provided three points of reference to substantiate why the decision package was proposed. The climate action plan promoted as one of its key strategies the installation of renewable energy projects and specifically recommended creating financial assistance program. A 2017 GHG inventory found 50% of buildings constitute a majority of the GHG emissions, the residential building sector dominates as a source of building emissions. In 2020, the city council adopted an aggressive target of a 1.5 degree Celsius which means eliminating or offsetting all GHG emissions by 2050, a very aggressive target which will require moving forward all strategies, actions and funding. Ms. McLaughlin continued, at the time the decision package was proposed, staff was speculating what a program may look like. Since that time more thought has been put into what makes sense; coupling a program with Washington State programs would be effective. In fact Washington State programs prioritize Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 15 Packet Pg. 55 6.4.a applications that have other grant matches. Having a local program that can collaborate with State programs makes it even more effective. Staff is still calculating an average cost; the estimate in the decision package of $18,000 on average to complete an installation was a ballpark figure as was the $5,000 per household. Staff believes a program can be created that targets low to moderate income, but they are even looking at multifamily to reduce the energy burden and maximizing the carbon reduction. Council President Olson commented that was exciting new information. She asked if the Washington State programs would bring the investment for homeowners into the $5,000 range rather $13,000 or was it still over $10,000. Ms. McLaughlin answered there is no fixed limit regarding how much could be offered per grant. The State program is focused on low income. The City's goal in thinking about this program would be to try to reduce the installation cost almost completely. Staff has talked about bundling the administrative permit fees, which can be quite high, into the grant cost as well. The goal is to drive down the actual personal contribution to get these installed, particularly if it targets low income. Councilmember K. Johnson commented about 10 years ago the State legislature offered very attractive tax rebates for solar installations. It was her understand that that program went away and there were no more State grant resources available. She asked Ms. McLaughlin to speak to the current grant programs. Ms. McLaughlin said she cannot speak to all the State programs but there is an existing and active low income solar grant program. The preferred applicants are those with some matching grant funds. Staff is researching to determine if any Edmonds households have applied. Councilmember K. Johnson asked how much the State offered in grants. Even if a household was low to moderate income, an $18,000 solar project may be beyond their financial capability. Ms. McLaughlin said she could not answer that question, but unless the council established a per installation limit on the grants, the City's grant could cover the cost of the installation in its entirety. If the council was interested in covering the cost it its entirety, the City could do $18,000 grants and just cover fewer households. She summarized if the council's interest was to drive down the per installation cost burden, that can be done when the criteria is drafted. Councilmember L. Johnson said she was one of the councilmembers who voted for those aggressive climate goals so she was supportive of this decision package, noting it will all be incremental, everything that can be done to help reach that goal. She asked whether the low income solar program would be prioritized based on need, especially since those would be the households that would qualify for the State low income solar program. If there were additional funds, they could be used for grants for moderate income households. Ms. McLaughlin said if this decision package passes, staff can return with a proposal. Her thinking was if the council's interest was to cover installation as a whole, there are four affordable housing complexes in Edmonds. Some of the calculations staff is doing include the roof size, how many units could be covered, and whether that approach was appropriate. The thought is to drive down the cost burden to the most units and reduce the energy cost burden for the low income in the community. Councilmember Paine commented when there is an opportunity to install solar panels across the entire City, the more the better. Reducing the cost burden was a good idea and she wondered about the rebate that homeowners would receive from the PUD for producing energy. Ms. McLaughlin said she did not have that information but could return with it. Councilmember Paine commented having additional money coming in would be exciting especially for income constrained families. Councilmember Buckshnis complimented Ms. McLaughlin for her explanation, recalling when this first came to council it was still being researched and few specifics were provided. She supported providing grants to low income versus moderate to low income because the State has good programs for low income families. She pointed out the need for criteria to ensure everyone gets fair chance. Ms. McLaughlin said the intent was to have this funding be the most effective toward the goal of reducing carbon emissions and draft Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 16 Packet Pg. 56 6.4.a the criteria so that the most people and entities were eligible. She suggested staff continue their efforts and return to council with a proposal. Councilmember Tibbott said with those clarifications, he was excited about this program. It offers incentives to low income homeowners who may want to add solar. He liked the idea of allow multifamily to apply for grants, anticipating that would provide a bigger bank for the buck. He did not support removing this decision package from the budget. Councilmember Chen said it was exciting that staff was attempting to reach the entire low income population. He suggested providing educational outreach in Korean, Chinese, and Spanish because those are the low income people. Councilmember K. Johnson relayed her concern that this was not a well thought out decision package because it sounds like it's pretty fluid and staff has a lot of ideas. She will support removing the decision package and allowing staff to come back when these details have been worked out. There is no information available about the State program, whether it is available for low income or moderate income, or whether the cost is $5,000 or $18,000. She summarized the decision package is too broad and too loose. Although she absolutely supported solar programs and said staff was going in the right direction, it was not a well thought out decision package. COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED TO REMOVE DECISION PACKAGE #20. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the funding was from the General Fund and others such as DP #71 came from bond proceeds. Mr. Turley commented it was his understanding the building maintenance department would be installing the solar panels, but he was not involved with developing this decision package. Councilmember Buckshnis said it would have been appropriate to fund this from bond proceeds instead of the General Fund. Mayor Nelson clarified this is related to solar on private residences, not on City buildings. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why it was funded from bond proceeds instead of the General Fund. Mr. Turley said when decision packages were developed in July/August, the process of issuing the bonds was just beginning. Mayor Nelson clarified the bond proceeds were for maintenance of City buildings. Councilmember Buckshnis said there are other decision packages that have nothing to do with building that are funded by bond proceeds. Mayor Nelson observed the time allotted for this item was 120 minutes. He asked if a special meeting can be extended. Mr. Taraday answered it could be extended with a super majority vote. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND 10:30. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND PAINE VOTING NO. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess (9:59 —10:04 p.m.) Councilmember Chen raised a point of clarification. He observed the council was voting on individual items and asked if the council would vote on an ordinance at the end. Mr. Taraday said unless he was directed differently, he will take the motions that have the support of five or more councilmembers and put them in an ordinance that will come back to council for final approval. Councilmember Chen observed the motions that did not have a super majority would fall off the ordinance. Mr. Taraday agreed, the budget will not be amended for anything that does not have five votes. He assumed most of the amendments would be removing money from the General Fund or other funds which requires a super majority vote. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 17 Packet Pg. 57 6.4.a Councilmember Buckshnis introduced the following amendment: #21 — Last year, a $550K appropriation was approved for Human Services and $409,000 was left unspent and has been carried into 2022. The City is distributing funds to households utilizing ARPA funds. • Motion: Reduce decision packet by $200K represented by the new request. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO REDUCE THE DECISION PACKET BY $200K AND ALLOW THE $409,000 IN THE CARRYFORWARD. Councilmember Buckshnis said everyone supports human services. Snohomish County is looking at Edmonds to assist in a coordinated effort, but the cost and extent is unknown. There have been discussions about $300,000 but she has heard it may be more. She preferred that the community relief fund be considered by the Finance Committee first and then brought to forward with a budget. Snohomish County recently passed a sales tax and it is unknown exactly how those funds will be used. She summarized there is not enough information to support this decision package. Councilmember L. Johnson commented today the PIO released an exciting press release, Mayor Nelson announces homelessness response actions, City identifies short and long term strategies to address homelessness, which clearly ties into the human services division. She hoped either Director Feser or Deputy Director Burley could speak to how the human services division will support these actions and what it would mean if funding to the division were reduced. Ms. Burley answered in April 2022 the human services division was moved into parks. The first thing parks staff did in May/June 2021 was meet with council to establish council priorities for the human services division. In July staff was asked to propose a budget for the human services division. The budget request is a direct reflection of the council priorities. Ms. Burley continued, the council's priorities were to hire a social worker, that contract is part of the budget; to establish collaboration and support of partner organizations, establish programs to keep vulnerable people in their homes, remove barriers that keep people unsheltered (move -in support, motel vouchers, prepaid cards, other essentials), ensure there are operating extreme weather and emergency condition shelters, provide hygiene opportunities for unsheltered residents (toiletries program, blanket exchange programs, coat exchange programs), collaborate with faith -based organizations and non-profit organizations to expand the resources they offer, establish a coordinated approach to providing services for behavior health to include partnering with neighboring jurisdictions and Snohomish County, update the Kone report to make data -drive decisions (update nearly complete), establish programs that qualify for grants, and secure grant funding for the entire human services program. Ms. Burley continued, this decision package was developed in July and a lot more has been learned. Between Mindy Woods' 20 hours and a portion of her job, movement has been made in a short amount of time on every one of the priorities established by council. These programs are just getting started and this funding was intended to those efforts. Since July there has been more movement and conversation on the shelter situation as well as a significant amount of public input regarding how to address residents living on public right-of-way and in public spaces. Due to the Martin v. Boise case that established constitutional law, the City is prohibited from removing someone from a public space without providing adequate shelter and property storage, both are very expensive and something that will need to be done in collaboration with neighboring jurisdictions and Snohomish County. In response to Councilmember Buckshnis' comment about the cost, Ms. Burley anticipated it would be a many million dollar endeavor by Snohomish County; the City's contribution is yet to be determined and the property has yet to be identified. Snohomish County is trying to determine if cities and municipalities are in support of increasing shelter in south county and she has assured them that Edmonds is by showing them the City's budget. She assured a contract of that size would need to go through the Finance Committee Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 18 Packet Pg. 58 6.4.a and council. In order to meet established council priorities and better enhance shelter opportunities, the City needs to demonstrate a level of financial commitment which is what the budget was intended to do. Councilmember L. Johnson asked what defunding the human services budget by 1/3 would say to the City's partners. Ms. Burley thanked the members of council who met with her and who have supported staff's efforts. This conversation has caused partners to reach out with concerns that the City will defund the program. She thanked Council President Olson specifically with helping her assure the City's partners that the City remains committed to human services. Since this issue arose, she has spent most of her time reassuring partners that the City remains committed. Snohomish County and others are watching tonight to understand the City's level of commitment to human services, program development and assisting vulnerable residents. Some of the programs are small, some are large and some are rather opportunistic. When a faith based organization or a non-profit comes to City with an idea, there need to be resources to evaluate it. Councilmember L. Johnson congratulated staff on their progress, especially in today's world when there is so much news that is not positive. She hoped this could be adequately funded so staff could continue their efforts. Councilmember Paine expressed appreciation for Ms. Burley's abundance of communication with the council. She asked if a quarterly budget amendment would be adequate if the staff needed to move quickly such as providing a match. She asked how nimble staff needed to be and what had staff seen and learned in the past few months. Ms. Burley said it depends on the scale of the project. Smaller projects come together and happen faster than larger projects; larger projects such as a potential shelter facility will take a lot of time. Staff is getting close to hiring a social worker; the mental health worker applicant pool is not keeping up with the available positions and especially in Snohomish County, the need far exceeds the available workforce. It will be a tremendous benefit when a social worker is hired to discuss what programs are necessary, what's missing, etc. Ms. Burley recalled council indicated grants were an important part of the human services division. To secure grants requires building a program because funding sources want to know what they are funding. A lot of the funds were intended to develop programs that could be used as collateral for a grant match. The social worker is a good example; once there is a social worker in place, it would make sense to reach out to Verdant and other partners to request funding to cover a portion of that position similar to what was done in Lynnwood and South County Fire. She commented it is a bit of if you build it, they will come. Staff would like to offer programs and sometimes the City needs to spend a little to be able to apply for it in return. Councilmember Paine asked if staff was seeing requests from the full range of services such as domestic violence, senior services, etc. in terms of ensuring people have housing support and mental health services. Ms. Burley said the City is blessed with ARPA funding to support homeless prevention efforts. When the portal was reopened in 2022, the City received 100 applications the first week and that has doubled in two weeks and she anticipated the City would quickly burn through the ARPA funds allocated for 2022. In the winter months, the need is significant. The update of the Kone report is nearly complete and staff intends to bring that to council in March. The Kone report is built on data and utilizes updated census data, data from DSHS, point in time counts, and McKinney Vento numbers. She concluded no one will be too surprised by the fact that the number of homeless individuals in Edmonds is increasing. Councilmember Paine said she looked forward to that report. Councilmember Tibbott said this this decision package reminded him of the previous one in that it was not fully formed and council was being asked to take a leap of faith regarding how the funds would be used. He liked the idea of having funds available for housing projects and suspected $200,000 was not enough. He recalled the City had $500,000 available when a housing project was contemplated a few years ago. He asked if the council could earmark $200,000 in the budget for the purpose of a housing match and if it is Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 19 Packet Pg. 59 6.4.a not used for that purpose, it would roll over to the next year. Mr. Taraday said any additional housing match would require council approval anyway. Just because it is in the budget does not mean that checks can be written. Councilmember Tibbott said theoretically that $200,000 could be spent on toothpaste and underwear and not be available for housing. Mr. Taraday said fundamentally the question is whether to leave the money as an appropriation in the General Fund or not. The council could remove the $200,000 appropriation from the General Fund and reappropriate it later or just stick with the status quo. Councilmember Tibbott asked Mr. Turley his opinion on earmarking funds such as putting a note on an item. Mr. Turley agreed with Mr. Taraday's opinion. The council can earmark funds by authorizing $200,000 for a specific purpose. Legally the funds could probably be spent on something else but that would cause a lot of problems and would just not be done. For example, when the council approves the purchase of a Ford F 150 pickup, that is what is purchased, not a Chevy Suburban for the same amount. Councilmember K. Johnson recalled 3-4 years ago, she was one of 4 councilmembers who approved a human services manager. One of reasons she voted to approve it was at that time was she was told it would be done as a demonstration and after six months or a year, it would be fully self -funded by grants, but that has not really happened. There was a modest amount, $75,000, estimated in grants for 2022. It is in the human services manager's job description but she has not seen that approach taken. Grants are important to many councilmembers, the City is not in a position to self -fund human services and there are many agencies throughout the state, county and region that can help fund this and that is the direction the City needs to put efforts toward. Hiring a social worker may help, but there needs to be efforts toward grant opportunities, filling out forms, answering questions, and doing everything humanly possible to acquire grants. She was less interested in coordinating with other agencies on a multimillion dollar project for Snohomish County and more interested in leveraging the City's dollars to make them work stronger for Edmonds citizens. She asked how much money the City received in grants in 2021. Ms. Burley answered with 20 hours week from one person and a slice of her time, the need far outweighs their ability. Staff looks at what are critical services. We have been living in a pandemic and providing a critical service to people which means filling out grant applications is not as high a priority as helping people secure food, medicine, and shelter. Staff did not apply for grants last year. She recently initiated her first grant request, but there are simply not enough staff resources. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO EXTEND TO 10:50. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4); COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND BUCKSHNIS, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO. 7. ADJOURN The council meeting was adjourned at 10:31 p.m. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 20 Packet Pg. 60 6.4.a WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED BETWEEN 1/4/22 and 2/9/22 From: Jim Fairchild Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 5:41 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comment Tomorrow you will be asked to alter city code? To adopt language from the state 7.94.120 my concern is this language is set to expire I think 7-1-2022. Why would the city adopt language set to expire? Of course the city can use this language but without knowing what the new language the state puts in place it could create a conflict. Maybe no big deal but in my mind it would give the city the opportunity to write its own language. To me this is concerning. The mayor/city has already at least once tried to make criminals of legal gun owners. I would encourage council to wait and see what the new language from the state is before adopting expiring language. Thank you Jim Fairchild From: Joan Bloom Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 4:58 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Budget amendments, agenda for 2-8-22 Council meeting Council, My input on budget amendments on your agenda 2-8-22 is as follows: #1 REDI manager I support option 1, continuing with the REDI consultant, at this time. The following LTE by Elizabeth Miakinin is excellent: https://myedmondsnews.com/2021 /11 /letter -to -the -editor- proposed -red i-manager-not-the- answer-for-achieving-citys-diversity-goals/ #16 Public Information Officer Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 21 Packet Pg. 61 6.4.a I agree with Ken Reidy that the POI position should be removed entirely to ensure "the position is used properly, in a non -biased, nonpartisan fashion." However, given that is not part of this discussion, I support the "Motion: Remove this decision packet" A half-time PIO should be sufficient for Mayor Nelson to continue to promote his personal agenda for Edmonds. Since I don't see my email comments to Council attached to the February 8 agenda, here is a link to my LTE on all of the budget amendments that I support: https://myed mondsnews.com/2022/01 /letter-to-the-ed itor-mayors-statement-on-budget- amendments-not-supported-by-facts/ Regards, Joan Bloom Former Edmonds City Councilmember Joan Bloom Edmonds is a gift. Let's show our appreciation. From: Jan Wohlers <janel.wohlers@live.com> Sent: Sunday, February 6, 2022 6:25 PM To: council@edomdswa.gov; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Request for Caspers Street Revision Dear City Council, There is a high number of cumulative issues with traffic and congestion on Caspers Street between 2nd Ave and Sunset. These issues are ripe and long overdue for change and need further investigating and resolution. ISSUES Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 22 Packet Pg. 62 6.4.a • Excessively high trafficked vehicle and pedestrian street. Excessive for a residentially zoned area • Cars drive the wrong way down Caspers onto Sunset's one way street on average 2-3 daily • There are 25 streets signs beginning at 3rd Ave. It is very confusing in this 1 block section. 5 to 10 vehicles turn around in our driveway daily. Does not account for turnarounds occurring in other driveways People walk 'in the street' Casper to Sunset 50+ on an average day. Summer months/ sunny days this doubles/triples • High number of speeding vehicles • Many vehicles make a high acceleration 'gun it' around the corner Sunset onto Casper Curbs are deteriorating (mostly due to high speeds and oversized vehicles hitting them) • Large RV's and semi trucks cannot maneuver corner Sunset to Caspers and become stuck. Especially when the truck goes down the wrong way. Backing up causes major congestion's and safety issues • Many unfriendly and upset tourists direct profanities and hand gestures at home owners • High number of recurring vehicle accidents in the yards of three separate homes. Majority are hit and run. Increases homeowners problems and expenses • Vehicles block access to driveways RECOMMENDATIONS Remove all current street signage and replace with limited necessary signage • Remove parking on north side of Caspers. Special permit for local residents and guests only Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 23 Packet Pg. 63 6.4.a • Install speed bumps before and after the corner Sunset to Caspers • Limit vehicle size and prohibit large semi trucks on Sunset and Caspers • Make Caspers a one way street • Change directions on Google Maps and Waze redirecting tourists, ferry and beach access visitors I feel very privileged and love living in Edmond's, however the aforementioned issues makes it very challenging at times. Thank you for looking into this matter. Respectfully, Richard Blacklow and Janel Wohlers Edmonds WA From: Michael Murdock Sent: Saturday, February 5, 2022 1:34 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: PIO > Good Afternoon, > I don't know why this position is even there and needs to be a paid position. > If the article in MEN from the Mayor is an example of factual literature we expect to receive I don't want to pay for it. Who edited this piece for facts? I really did not understand the reason for writing such a piece and then actually printing it. > Perhaps, another option would be to enlist the services of the independent student representative on council. It would be great experience with little cost. > Thanks for listening. > Mike Murdock From: Joan Bloom Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 1:18 PM Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 24 Packet Pg. 64 6.4.a To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to the 2022 Adopted City Budget Council, Mayor Nelson's inflammatory statement in his myedmondsnews commentary, "These council cuts will make Edmonds unsafe, polluted and make our residents uninformed" is unsubstantiated by fact or by the proposed amendments. I'll demonstrate with amendments that I support. Mayor Nelson's statement: "Additionally, they wish to cut funding to our new Human Services Department." Proposed amendment: #21 — $200,000 for the Human Services Department. The Division has a carry forward of $409,000 and there is no need to add additional money. An amendment can always occur during the year if that money is needed." My comment: Based on my five decades of work as a social worker, in and with non-profit agencies, I contend that City government is ill-equipped to provide social services to the public. Many non-profit agencies exist that have the supportive staff, training, expertise, agency structure, outreach, and HIPPA compliance procedures (not to mention liability insurance) to better serve needy populations. Adding an additional $200,000 to the Human Services Department is an unwise use of taxpayer dollars. Mayor Nelson's statement: "Removing green streets and rain garden programs will create more flooding of our roadways and pollution of our streams." Proposed amendment: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 25 Packet Pg. 65 6.4.a "461 Green Street and Rain Gardens — excerpt- "There is not sufficient information to support where green streets are or the definition and how the bio-retention and rain gardens should be built to reduce flooding?" My comment: Without a definition of "Green Street", how can the city proceed with allocation of the American Rescue Program Act (ARPA) funds? Also, rain gardens must be carefully located and strategically built in order to provide bio-retention and reduce flooding. Mayor Nelson's statement: "They want to cut a new pedestrian safety barrier at the police parking lot designed to protect our residents from being struck by police cars responding to emergency calls." Proposed amendment: #38 — New Police perimeter fence - this should be vetted through a committee to determine less expensive methods can be utilized. My comment: I support Council reviewing the expense of this perimeter fence. Mayor Nelson's statement: "For the first time ever, this year our city has a full time public information officer (PIO)." And "some councilmembers wish us to go backwards and cut the position from full-time to half- time." Proposed amendment: #16 — Public Information Officer — support for full time not provided. My comment: Mayor Nelson references "the recent tsunami advisory" as rationale for a full time PIO, despite that a PIO has nothing to do with emergency management. Mayor Nelson's misrepresentation of the role of the PIO is just one reason I don't support a full time PIO being at his disposal. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 26 Packet Pg. 66 6.4.a Side note: An updated CEMP (Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan), and related staffing, as Ken Reidy has been emailing Council about for many months, would assure residents that the administration has a "comprehensive plan" in the event of a catastrophic event in Edmonds. Mayor Nelson's statement: "Their removal of the filtration system used to clean polluted water entering the Edmonds Marsh will allow toxic chemicals to harm salmon and wildlife in our city and Puget Sound." Proposed amendment: #55 — Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Improvements — excerpt: "there was no justification for the water mitigation or the phases of this stormwater project. Suggest that the stormwater aspect that was clarified in the CIP/CFP be brought forth for Council" My comment: Depending upon the methods used to reduce pollutants to improve the Edmonds Marsh water quality, this could be extremely expensive and significantly increase our stormwater utility rates It is important for the details to be known BEFORE Council allocates funds. Additional amendments I support: #60 — Perrinville Creek Projects • The COE received the $3.5 ARPA funds in 2021. The damaged watershed at the lower end is caused by the upper watershed, which includes Lynnwood. • Complete restoration of Perrinville Creek will cost significantly more than 3.5 million, so ARPA funds should not be spent until a restoration plan for the entire watershed, including Lynnwood, is presented to and approved by Council. • This means partnering with Lynnwood so that both cities contribute to the restoration of Perrinville Creek. This would, obviously, be fiscally prudent. # 1 - REDI Manager Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 27 Packet Pg. 67 6.4.a Adding a full-time REDI Manager, without justification, also adds significant ongoing costs associated with a new position, and new department. I support a REDI consultant. #22 — New FTE position to manage existing capital projects Creating a new FTE, which creates an ongoing expense, without first answering the questions posed in this amendment is a reckless allocation of funds. Respectfully, Joan Bloom Former Edmonds City Councilmember From: joe scordino Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 8:46 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com> Subject: Public Hearing on 2022 Budget Amendments Please include the following public comment in your public hearing and DISCUSS PUBLIC INPUT in your deliberations on the amendments to the 2022 budget. I am pleased to see the "new" Council is reconsidering the 2022 budget. The "prior" Council majority not only ignored and prevented public input, which should have been the essence of the Councils' budget deliberations, but they manipulated the budget approval process to exclude Council members who intended to `insert' public input into the budget deliberations. Any and all spending of taxpayer money should be well justified with public support. When pre -planning is required, such plans must be made available and vetted with the public well before budgets are proposed. This is especially the case with the 2022 budget items for restoring Perrinville Creek. In March of 2021, the Mayor issued a Press Release on developing a Perrinville Creek Restoration Plan, with costs involved, for public review and Council approval. But Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 28 Packet Pg. 68 6.4.a instead, the "prior" Council majority approved spending of 3.5 million dollars with no detail on what the money would be spent on, how much a `fully successful' restoration would cost, nor how much money the City of Lynnwood taxpayers would be contributing since, according to City staff, the majority of the stormwater impacting the watershed comes from Lynnwood. This is extremely bad budget planning and very poor environmental stewardship. The 2022 budget items that lack detail and adequate justification, including why prior year funds or staffing were insufficient, should be reconsidered and deleted from the 2022 budget, or delayed until adequate detail or justification is provided and approved by the "new" Council. This would include so-called green infrastructure and stormwater treatment budget items which "sound" environmentally responsible, but lack sufficient detail for an informed person to agree that it is a wise investment in protecting our environment. The bottom -line is that the reconsideration of the 2022 budget represents a great start for a "new" Council that hopefully is committed to actually listening to and considering public input in all of its deliberations and decisions, and following accepted public meeting and decision -making procedures (which is critical for good government). I urge Council members to not only look at your agenda packet information, but on this agenda item, please go back and look at all the written and oral public comments made about the 2022 budget from October through December of 2021, which as I noted before, were totally ignored by the "prior" Council majority in adopting the 2022 budget. From: Pam Brisse Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2022 9:16 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comments on the proposed 2022 Budget Amendments Dear Edmonds City Council, I'm writing to you to express my displeasure with your attempts to dismantle the 2022 City Budget. This budget was passed after many discussions and public comments, was passed legally, and in the normal order of things. Just because some of you were not on the council during that time does not mean you get to revise it - you can have your chance when it comes time for the 2023 budget. This is how politics work. You know better. I'm also disgusted to learn that you wish to eliminate the programs and services that help our most vulnerable citizens, the ones we most see people in the neighborhood groups complaining about - the homeless that wander our streets or park their families in their cars and huddle waiting for a new day. These are not the only people in our town who benefit from the social programs you wish to cut, it's also our elderly neighbors on fixed incomes with a house repair crisis or someone with food insecurity - you wish to dismantle the Human Services department that is here to help these people? Our Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 29 Packet Pg. 69 6.4.a neighbors? Programs that keep people from desperation? Not only does this help them, it helps keep our neighborhoods safe from desperate crimes and thefts which helps the rest of us. And then you want to use the money for your pet art project in the bowl? Do you even hear yourself? Do you see how that looks? I am an artist myself and of course support the arts - but over hungry children and suffering residents? No. We have plenty of people in this city who support the arts and contribute to projects, the arts will not suffer if your personal project isn't funded this year by the city. Not only are you trying to kill jobs - jobs held by our residents and friends, but you are also trying to eliminate public safety, eliminate public communications and transparency, to "defund the police" as it were. Really? Anti -jobs, anti -police? Come on. Do you see how that looks? We are watching. And then you want to defund environmental protections for the Marsh, allow pollution into the Sound, to harm our salmon and orca? Nice look. Have an Edmonds Kind of Day, right? Leave the budget alone, we want progress and solutions, environmental and social. We want a satellite police station in an area where police are needed. Where actual crime is UP. Why would you try to remove that? These programs were installed to protect the city and it's residents. Please do better. Pam Brisse Edmonds Resident From: Natalie Seitz Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 5:32 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: 1/25 Public Comment Hello, Good Evening. I will be unable to virtually attend the council meeting tonight. Would you please accept my written comments below? Thank you, Natalie Seitz 1/25 Public Comment to Council • Good Evening. I would like to comment tonight about marina beach and the proposed budget amendments. o With regard to Marina Beach: I would like to thank the Council for the courage to pause the Marina Beach project as pre -decisional to the Marsh and to support the equitable distribution of park resources. I fully support and commend the Council for this tough decision. I also want to thank the City staff who worked on the grant and project, getting a project to 30% and grants for 20% of costs is a lot of effort. While I advocated against this project, I want to express my appreciation of the staff effort to get grant funding. o With regard to the proposed budget amendments: Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 30 Packet Pg. 70 6.4.a • #1 A REDI manager is needed: I want to point out the need for this position by highlighting two decisions the Council made at the last meeting: • Acceptance of the Francis Anderson Lease agreement which provides tax -payer maintained space at below market value and at a lower tax burden to recreation service providers including a daycare. In contrast there are no community center facilities in the two most diverse and densely populated areas of the City (north east of five corners and the east side of SR99) and none are proposed in the Draft PROS plan. Private daycares in these areas have to pay fair market rate for their facilities, applicable maintenance and taxes, which is passed on to families in the form of tuition. I think the REDI program manager would help the City better understand the relationship between these decisions and equity to make sure that appropriate investments are made in all areas of the City, AND • The Council has just paused the Marina Beach project to promote more equitable investments, but only after a tremendous amount of City staff time and cost. The REDI program manager is needed and would likely pay for itself if you look at it through the lens of preventing the waste of staff resources and project planning costs. • #16 Public Information Officer is needed: I think I am as engaged a citizen as possible, yet I am still amazed at the amount of opportunities I miss and that I have every advantage in knowing (e.g. language). 83% of the City's population is not located in the Downtown area. The City needs a better capability to inform all Edmonds residents. • #22 New FTE is needed: It is my understanding that the Director, in addition to that role, is project managing Civic Center, the PROS plan, and other capital investments. This is not a realistic workload, and will not allow for the Director to focus on the provision of human services or on park -system wide initiatives (ADA, equity, maintenance) and the potential to implement asset management that would both save the City money and provide better service. Similar to the budget, there are so many errors in the PROS plan that I have decided not to provide direct text related comments - this is a matter of staff resources • Motion to reflect expense of the new satellite City Hall office on HWY 99 in the 2011 budget numbers - I support any needed expenses to provide this service. • Motion to add $100K for the Creative District's Fourth Avenue Corridor project design - This is planning for a special use park that exceeds the investment identified in the Draft PROS plan for all three of the new neighborhood parks in underserved areas combined. It is inconsistent with the intent of the proposed level of service for the PROS plan and the planning board recommendation for the priority of this project. Please note that for the resources counted by the PROS plan, Downtown already has 38.62 acres of special use park, far more than all areas of the city combined (8.22 acres). Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 31 Packet Pg. 71 6.4.a • Motion to add $60K for study of a Police Station relocation and/or City Hall relocation. Government should be accessible to the public. Moving City Hall and Police Station to a location more central to the city population and commercial center is needed (i.e. Five Corners or the SR99 corridor). • Motion to add $150K for streetlights in the Lake Ballinger Area - this is a much needed improvement for safety and to reduce crime in this area. It is far less than the $1.5M identified in the 6-year UP for street lights Downtown. Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments. From: Joan Bloom Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 5:05 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Budget Amendments agenda item Council, First, thank you to Council President Olson, Council President pro -tern Buckshnis and Council member Kristiana Johnson for persevering and getting these 93 budget amendments on the Council agenda for this evening. I appreciate your diligence in paying careful attention to the financial health of the City of Edmonds. My prepared comments will be in order of their placement on your agenda: # 1 - REDI Manager — there is not sufficient information to support a full-time FTE. Suggest data being accumulated along with reasons as to why the current consultant that is used is not sufficient. • 1 support this budget amendment. A consultant should be sufficient. Adding a full-time FTE, without justification, also adds the ongoing costs associated with a new position. This is not the time to create MORE staff positions. #16 — Public Information Officer — support for full time not provided. • Same as above. Why increase to a full time position, at this time? Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 32 Packet Pg. 72 6.4.a #21 — $200,000 for the Human Services Department. The Division has a carry forward of $409,000 and there is no need to add additional money. An amendment can always occur during the year if that money is needed. I agree. The COE is already negotiating a contract with Compass Health to provide a staff person on site in Edmonds. I was opposed to expansion of the Human Services department with such a position (although relieved that Council decided to contract with Compass Health) because City government is ill-equipped to provide social services to the public. State government oversees DSHS (Dept of Social and Health Services). Federal government mandates Senior Services in all communities. Edmonds is served by Homage Senior Services. In addition to Compass Health, many non-profit agencies exist to provide support to the needy. These many agencies have the supportive staff, training, expertise, agency structure, liability insurance, etc to better serve these populations. #22 — New FTE position to manage existing capital projects — there is not sufficient information to support a full time FTE or how this position will manage what projects. the Council Personnel Committee should look at this to determine what exactly projects are part of this request and why contractors cannot handle this process and the interaction with Public Works and their capital projects. Creating a new FTE, which creates an ongoing expense, without first answering the questions posed in this amendment is a reckless allocation of funds. #38 — New Police perimeter fence - this should be vetted through a committee to determine less expensive methods can be utilized. • Agree. And I would add that, given the newly created police/court offices on Hwy 99, and discussions re: moving city hall, any expenditures for the fence should take those planning issues into account. #48 — 3-year Rate Study Consultant — The CIP/CFP should be scrubbed before we allow any review by a consulting firm. Agree #55 — Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Improvements — there was no justification for the water mitigation or the phases of this stormwater project. Suggest that the stormwater aspect that was clarified in the CIP/CFP be brought forth for Council and what are the costs and plans for this project as these restoration plans are not clear and this will impact stormwater utility rates. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 33 Packet Pg. 73 6.4.a • What will the money be used to do? Depending upon the methods used to reduce pollutants to improve the Edmonds Marsh water quality, this could be very expensive and significantly increase our stormwater utility rates. It is important for the details to be known BEFORE Council allocates funds. #60 — Perrinville Creek Projects — The Administration promised an entire Perrinville Watershed review in 2020 when the Creek was damaged by high water flow and City placed debris was placed by the Administration to cause the creek to flow into two vaults. There is no support for funding $3.5MM of ARPA money for this rehabilitation. • The COE received the $3.5 ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) infrastructure funds in 2021, to the best of my knowledge. So there is time to develop a plan for a complete restoration of the Perrinville Creek. • The damaged watershed at the lower end is caused by the upper watershed of Perrinville Creek, which includes Lynnwood. • Since complete restoration of Perrinville Creek will cost significantly more than the 3.5 million ARPA funds, it is critical that we not spend spend any of the ARPA funds until a complete restoration plan of the entire watershed, including Lynnwood, is presented to and approved by Council. • This means partnering with Lynnwood so that both cities contribute to the restoration of Perrinville Creek. #61 Green Street and Rain Gardens — opposed to this ARPA funding and continue to be opposed as there is not sufficient information in any City documents to support what a green street is and Rain Gardens have granting opportunities through Snohomish County. There is not sufficient information to support where green street are or the definition and how the bio- retention and rain gardens should be built to reduce flooding? This should be done before funds are programmed. • Agree completely. The allocation of the ARPA funds should be carefully clarified. Without a definition of what a Green Street is, how can the city proceed with allocation of the funds for them? • Rain gardens must be carefully located and strategically built in order to provide bio- retention and reduce flooding. Careful planning is required. #93. Elm Way Walkway — not enough information. If this project will be done by the city's sidewalk crew, then why is the cost $$859,600? Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 34 Packet Pg. 74 6.4.a The $ amount of the allocation certainly raises questions for me as well. Thank you, Council members who have gotten this far for reading my comments. Again, I applaud your serious deliberations on how you spend taxpayer dollars. Regards, Former Edmonds City Councilmember From: LaFave, Carolyn Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 9:19 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: FW: Proposed 24-unit buildings on Main and Dayton Streets From: Judith Leraas Cook Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 1:44 PM To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Proposed 24-unit buildings on Main and Dayton Streets The Honorable Mayor Nelson: My husband and I, Edmonds residents for the past six years, would like to go on record in opposition to approving the 24-unit apartment building scheduled to be constructed at 605/611 Main Street with only one parking stall per unit as well as one now wending its way through the system that would appear on Dayton near the Frances Anderson Center. These buildings in no way reflect the desires of Edmonds' population or its comprehensive plan. Their proposed locations do NOT enhance the downtown core of our small city. Our daughter and her family have lived in Ballard for the past 18 years and my husband and I have seen the desecration that the construction of similar units has wreaked on that formerly charming part of Seattle. We do not want to see it happen here! You are the decision maker on this issue. Make us proud. Robert and Judith Cook Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 35 Packet Pg. 75 6.4.a From: Will Magnuson Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 11:02 AM To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov>; Chave, Rob <Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien @edmondswa.gov> Subject: Mayor's comments Greetings, I wholeheartedly agree with Mayor Nelson's final comments last night. This new initiative will: • identify locations that provide opportunities for social interaction • create new public space that provide room on the street for social interactions • prioritize an investment strategy that identifies public and private funding "We are going to take more steps on making Edmonds livable for all, build community connections to improve public safety, and evolve our streets to create new public spaces for our neighbors to gather," Nelson concluded. "Edmonds is and will continue to be a caring and vibrant community because I know that regardless what the future may hold, we will move forward together." This is exactly what is required at primary street developments including Main, Dayton and elsewhere. These gateway development opportunities require residential, commercial, and public space to create a healthy, vibrant and sustainable community. Thank you, Will Magnuson From: Luke Distelhorst Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 1:40 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Item 8.7 -Jan. 18, 2022 Dear Councilmembers, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 36 Packet Pg. 76 6.4.a Looking at tonight's agenda item 8.7, 1 felt like it was important to share some information as a Councilmember who was present and participated in the 2022 budget process. The false and error -filled agenda memo unfortunately creates a narrative that is not supported by the facts contained in the numerous public meetings, budget retreat, public hearings, and documents listed on the City's Administrative Services page, which was updated weekly, at a minimum, during the Fall 2021 budget process (https://edmondswa.gov/government/departments/administrative services). As a Councilmember in this process, which started in May 2021, staff were always available to answer questions by email, phone, or during our public meetings. Similarly, the majority of Councilmembers showed up and participated in this budget process and were available for conversations with other councilmembers. At this point I do not feel it is even worth going through many of the erroneous statements linked to certain approved budget items. Answers to those "questions", or personal opinions, are publicly available from documents listed on the link above, or from Council -approved minutes/videos of Council meetings. City residents and city staff need certainty in their day-to-day lives and professional status when Council approves policy and budgetary direction. I sincerely hope Councilmembers will speak with city staff or other Councilmembers who actually participated in the 6-month-long budgeting process. The 2022 budget is a significant step forward for our city and residents, especially many who have been excluded from city policy and budget considerations in years and decades past. Please feel free to reach out should you have any questions. Thank you, Luke Distelhorst From: Kathy Brewer Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 3:15 PM To: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Chave, Rob <Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov>; Clugston, Michael <Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien@edmondswa.gov>; Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Code Rewrite! To Mayor Nelson, Council Members and Planning Staff, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 37 Packet Pg. 77 6.4.a It is past time for an overhaul of our City Code! We need to update, clarify and rewrite, especially our development codes, so Council, staff, citizens and developers know, understand and work together towards a clear vision for our city. Currently and for a long time developers have been exploiting loopholes, errors and inconsistencies for their gain and citizens' loss. This must change ASAP! I and many of my fellow citizens strongly request adequate funds be budgeted immediately to start this process. Once started, we want ongoing status updates as to progress made. As concerned citizens we want to be involved, to give input and help affect change so our city will evolve and develop as we wish. Please put this at the top of your priority list, just as the citizens are at the top of the City's Organizational Chart -- this should be #1 and so should we! It is crucial to our city and citizens. Please do not delay any longer. Let's get this in motion. Please confirm that you hear this and understand the urgency. Sincerely, Kathy Brewer From: LaFave, Carolyn Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 8:22 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: FW: Letter to the Mayor: Proposed building at 6th and Main St. From: Dawn Malkowski Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2022 2:37 PM To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Letter to the Mayor: Proposed building at 6th and Main St. January 15, 2022 Dear City Council Members and Mr. Mayor, I implore you not to approve the proposed apartment building on 6t" and Main St. as it appears now. The building is positively hideous, there are no setbacks, thus little room for attractive landscaping, plus it absolutely does not fit in with the flavor and style of this town. Slight changes to the elevation would make a world of difference. As it stands now, it looks like it belongs in MIAMI BEACH, no different than the awful building they built on 3rd Ave. several years ago. A different color, darker pacific NW colors, i.e., greens, browns, golds would be better, along with wood trim accents. It would be much more aesthetically pleasing. Developers seem to have a tendency to build and design whatever is cheapest, with little regard to fitting in with the existing community. What they design, doesn't mean it's the best for the community they are entering into. I addition to that, there are not enough parking spaces. Why is it that the developers are accommodated at the expense of the citizens? Each unit should have, at no cost to the tenants, two (2) on -site parking spaces. I know of 3 people of all the 50+ friends that I have in town here, that have 1 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 38 Packet Pg. 78 6.4.a car. All are widowed, and two (2) are in their 80's. Other than that, the majority of people have 2 or more vehicles. I realize after watching the recent planning meeting that our city code allows the 1 parking space per unit. It is an outdated and unrealistic code which should be addressed. This developer is entering our town. Let's request that he or she build what fits into this area and what will realistically work for the betterment of our community. For example, he or she could add additional underground parking via another level, or purchase another lot next to his proposed building. I sincerely hope that you will have the courage to stand up these developers and hold them accountable for keeping our town the lovely, livable place that it is. Allowing them to do what they want because they meet code, doesn't mean it's right for our town. We do not want to be Kirkland or Bellevue. Kirkland made a huge effort to become a walking town only, with large apartment buildings with little parking available. It was a smashing failure. I lived there for ten (10) years and saw the congested disaster the massive apartment buildings caused. The same thing occurred in Bellevue. Please don't do that to us. Respectfully, Dawn Malkowski From: GARY PYFER Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 6:42 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comment You have done the city of Edmond a great disservice by making the restaurants remove their outdoor seating or pay a Hugh fee. This will cause a loss of business and that will hurt Edmonds. This Covid is serious and most people will not eat in. BAD IGNORANT MOVE. From: Kathy Brewer Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2022 9:41 PM To: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Chave, Rob <Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien@edmondswa.gov>; Clugston, Michael <Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov>; Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Proposed apartment complex on Main Street and 6th Ave To Architectural Board Members, Planning Staff, Council Members, and Mayor Nelson, Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 39 Packet Pg. 79 6.4.a Please do not allow Safadago's proposed apartment complex as designed on Main Street! Sixth and Main is the gateway to our quaint, historic, one -of -a -kind downtown. It has been the primary location for citizens and visitors for over a century to enter our downtown and it should be protected from inappropriate development. Yes, there have been changes and development over the years but for the most part the scene that we are greeted with has remained relatively the same, and the buildings have stayed small-scale and harmonious. This oversized building would drastically change that and set a precedent for things to come! As we walk or drive down Main Street and approach downtown, our eyes naturally gravitate towards the beautiful, charming, special scene -- historic one to two floor buildings and homes, pretty gazebo fountain roundabout in the center, leafy green trees and colorful gardens and flower baskets that line the streets, the glow of the vintage -style street lamps, beautiful views of Puget Sound and Olympic Mountains off in the distance, and the cheerful green and white ferries coming and going. If this apartment complex gets built, this will no longer be the case. Our eyes will be assaulted by this large- scale, out of place blight. No one will be able to ignore an oversized, ugly, square box with three story straight up walls and flat roof, no style, detail, setbacks, open or green space, patios, balconies or courtyard. It will abut the sidewalk and street so will be in every pedestrian and driver's line of vision. What a loss this will be to the beauty, charm and historic nature of our city! Future generations will ask why was this allowed to be built? What were the city planners and officials thinking? How could Edmonds not stop a developer from marring our gateway? People say we need more housing and that development is unavoidable and necessary. This may be true but housing and development should not be allowed anywhere and everywhere and without regard to aesthetics. It should be thoughtful and appropriate. Long-term ramifications must be considered. This location is crucial to our downtown. This building is not worthy. A few blocks away may be acceptable, other locations in the Bowl or elsewhere in Edmonds may be acceptable, but not at Edmonds' main entryway on Main Street! Please reject this development! Don't allow it just because it meets code (and it barely does!) That's not good enough! Edmonds is better than that. It deserves buildings with attractive designs that enhance our downtown, not detract from it. Our building codes need to be rewritten and updated to require developers to build according to our vision for our city, to keep its small town look and feel, at least in the downtown core. The developer with the assistance of city planners should be encouraged and expected to build in consideration of the setting, environment, neighbors and community. He or she should offer more than the bare minimum! Look at the condominium complex behind this site, just north of it across the alley on 6th Avenue -- a beautiful building with setbacks, green and open spaces, patios and decks, and attractive details and roof lines. It fits in very well. Why can't something like this be built there instead? Once built, this cheap and ugly complex will set a precedent for more of the same throughout our downtown. Don't let that happen! Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 40 Packet Pg. 80 6.4.a Our special, historic downtown, our citizens and visitors and the future occupants of any building built there deserve better. Don't allow this to be built and become a permanent, ruinous feature of Edmonds -- one that we will all regret except for the developer! Sincerely, Kathy Brewer From: Greg Brewer Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2022 4:23 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; Clugston, Michael <Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov>; Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov>; robchave@edmondswa.gov; Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Proposed development 605/611 Main Street Hello Architectural Board members, Building Department officials, Mayor Nelson and Councilmembers, I'm writing in response to the recent Architectural Board meeting on January 5th concerning the application for construction on the 600 block of Main Street. I have grave concerns about the look and function of this building and how it fits into the landscape. It was helpful for me to hear Kernan Lien's explanation of the codes as related to the proposed design. Unfortunately, the plan is to maximize dwellings while providing minimal parking, minimal amenities to the occupants and minimal aesthetics. Not only does the design go sidewalk to alley straight up to the max 30' height creating a giant and imposing box, the developer wants to reduce the buffer on the east side so a minimal parking ramp and garage can be squeezed in. Adding insult to injury, the developer wants a concession to add a 5' parapet wall to the front of the building to hide HVAC to the street side. Further increasing the bulk, sun and view blocking of the adjacent properties. One parking space per dwelling unit for a mixed use project is the code. The problem is this isn't mixed use. It more closely mimics the RM-1.5 buildings a few lots up the hill. It's 100% residential! We all know the parking needs of a true mixed use building can be less than 100% residential. Thus the difference to parking code requirements. This seems to be a loophole in the code. Moving forward if a proposed building is truly not mixed use and 100% residential the parking requirements should be increased accordingly. The project has other problems and design flaws. The garage doesn't have adequate size for two spaces to turn inside the garage to head up the ramp. This looks insurmountable and likely Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 41 Packet Pg. 81 6.4.a will require a two unit reduction. NO concessions should be given when a developer is providing the absolute bare minimum for parking and other amenities. There is no outdoor space for the tenants, and I mean zero. No balconies, no courtyard, or anything close to 5% green space. Although Kernan has explained 5% green space is not required it should be. Without space it resembles some communist bloc housing I've seen. The developer has an opportunity to correct these mistakes. He should be encouraged to pull back from the street and give his tenants and pedestrians a little bit of breathing room. If the developer needs that one foot reduction in the buffer the entire length of the property to make the parking ramp work then the city should get something in return. How about a lid over part of the ramp thus providing some sorely needed open space at the ground level. A lid over the southeast corner of the parking ramp could provide ample outdoor space for tenants and eliminate the need for a fence around two sides of what would be a 9-10' deep ramp pit right on the sidewalk. The site in question is in the BD2 zone which is also deemed a transition zone. Look at the renderings. This building does not appear to be transitional at all. It's a massive apartment building with no business or commercial space. In fact I'm hard pressed to find anything like it in any of the BD2 zones. The scale and use are totally out of place. So it appears the developer is trying to set a precedent. Is this really what we want our town to look like? Just because you can doesn't mean you should. We need to revisit the comprehensive plan and get everyone on the same page or this is going to get ugly real quick. Change is coming. Let's not fall into the trap of writing code one building at a time with concessions and variances granted along the way. The time has come to rewrite the comprehensive code. Who will lead us through the changes that are at our doorstep? How can concerned citizens be a part of the process? How long will the process take? How much irreversible damage will be sustained while we wait? Sincerely, Greg Brewer Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2022 11:43 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Regarding the GBH Holdings LLC redevelopment at 6th and Main Street in Edmonds From: Will Magnuson Date: January 16, 2022 at 11:05:49 AM PST To: Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov>, Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>, "LaFave, Carolyn" <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Regarding the GBH Holdings LLC redevelopment at 6th and Main Street in Edmonds Why is there never enough time to do it right, but always enough time to fix it later? Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 42 Packet Pg. 82 6.4.a My wife and I moved here to Edmonds in 1989 inspired by a college class I was fortunate to attend. The class was called Urbanalysis and it's primary message was that cities compete just as businesses do to remain viable, grow and prosper. Cities compete and remain viable based on their attributes inclusive of commerce, transportation, recreation and livability. Edmonds was a city we had passed through while traveling in the PNW during the decade prior to our move. Back in the late 1980's, the Seattle area was primed for growth and Edmonds checked all the boxes as a viable regional city for our future. We loved this area in the PNW and chose beautiful Edmonds to establish our residence. The 1990's was a decade of substantial growth in the Puget Sound and the area grew in population and opportunities. Edmonds was then a very sleepy community on the edge of Puget Sound and was slowly evolving to adapt to the new growth opportunities and challenges. Often the most minor of changes to our community were met with harsh citizen comments to curtail any alteration to the established way things were in Edmonds. I recall the concerted effort to develop the Harbor Square complex being rebuked over cries to restrain building heights and as result the Harbor Square redevelopment failed to progress. Any effort by the public(city) or private(developer) to provide new development opportunities was greeted by severe community backlash with criticism like "we don't want to be like Kirkland" or the extreme "don't let Edmonds become like Manhattan". Building heights became the battle cry for any discussion regarding development in Edmonds, especially in the downtown and bowl neighborhoods. There were some discussions about incentivizing any new development with building stepbacks and providing public or open spaces, but those discussions were too often overwhelmed with cries to keep building heights down. There was additional discussion regarding how much height does first floor commercial space require to establish a downtown first floor level and establish criteria for overall building heights in downtown. Eventually some standards were enacted for new development in particular locations, but not an adequate comprehensive plan that would support responsible new development, especially throughout our downtown core. Basically the building heights debate overwhelmed the discussion thus leaving behind lost opportunities to properly discuss and evaluate Edmonds design standards for new development regardless if it was downtown, highway 99 or anywhere else in Edmonds. As the Puget sound region continues to grow, pressure will continue to build in Edmonds to proceed with new development to meet new opportunities and challenges. The city's population will require more commercial and residential space to be built and the city will require more revenues to properly function. This community has already witnessed a great deal of change in the last few decades. I continue to be amused when someone states they "just want to keep Edmonds the way it is" even as many of us can attest that the present 2022 Edmonds is significantly different from the 1989 Edmonds. We have far more opportunities for lifestyle, employment, recreation and entertainment as Edmonds remains a desirable location. Correspondingly affordability will continue to be a challenge. We must not shut the door on growth for fear of change nor should we expect that we can. The city of Edmonds will need to strive to continue to be competitive for sustained viability. Edmonds has a unique opportunity to witness the recent growth and evolution of communities such as Bothell, Kenmore and elsewhere to find the successes, failures and challenges to manage growth. We're all in this together including the developers, city and community of Edmonds. Growth is going to happen, the only question is do we manage it or do we let it manage us? Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 43 Packet Pg. 83 6.4.a Now we have a block style building of 24 apartment units proposed near 6th Ave on Main Street and located on a major gateway with an opportunity to set the tone for Edmonds. Will that be a welcome message to inclusivity, diversity and community? The city and community are in a difficult position to challenge the overall design impact of this imposing redevelopment based on existing codes and ordinances. It is true that a property owner is fully entitled to build on their property per development standards and building codes to maximize it's financial potential for the property. However, just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. There is a moral and social long term benefit to being a responsible member of the community. Development codes and ordinances should responsibly balance opportunities and benefits for the developer and community alike. The city does indeed have tools available to implement community oriented design standards and requirements for this and future projects. It's not too late, but community and city action needs to proceed quickly as no doubt the Safadago's GBH Holdings LLC is moving expeditiously to procure permits and proceed with work for this project as well as other projects in the city. Implementing amended development standards will require community support, political will, and a municipal commitment to make that happen. Much should be done inclusive of reevaluating some governing departments and committees which at times appear to have evolved as the permit expeditors for a developer. It's important for a comprehensive review of the options available now for reworking development guidelines as this proposed redevelopment will establish a gateway for a very long time. I personally have been active in residential and commercial development for nearly 40 years and have witnessed a big difference between good development and bad development. This proposed project by Safadago's GBH Holdings LLC is indeed bad development. I feel the proposed project design is more appropriate for a medical complex on Hwy 99 than a building located at a gateway to our downtown. The project will be a vivid daily reminder to the resident and visitor alike of how we build projects wrong or we build projects right in our beautiful city of Edmonds. It's the future of the city and the choice of how we proceed belongs to all of us. Will Magnuson Edmonds, WA From: N Middleton Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2022 5:00 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Trash, Recycling and Yard Waste Hi, Please address these questions in your Tuesday, 1/18 meeting: 1. Why does the City have 3 different service providers for waste pickup? Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 44 Packet Pg. 84 6.4.a 2. When does Republic Services contract come up for review? 3. Can Republic contract be re-evaluated earlier, given the lack of service? 4. Will homeowners who are not getting pickups get refunds? 5. What temporary solution can the city come up with? Thank you. Norma Middleton From: LaFave, Carolyn Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 10:16 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: FW: Proposed development at 605 and 611 Main Street From: jane simpson Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 10:15 AM To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Proposed development at 605 and 611 Main Street Dear Mayor Nelson, I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed development at the above addresses. The displacement of eight businesses will be a significant loss to the community. In addition, the proposed design, as I understand it, will be yet another soulless box so prevelent in urban areas recently. My husband and I are relative newcommers to Edmonds and one of the things that drew us to the community was the character of the downtown business district. We appreciate the variety of architecture and the repurposing of existing buildings for commercial use. Please do not let Edmonds go the way of Greenwood, Ballard and Columbia City. Keep the character of our downtown and support local businesses! Sincerely, Jane Simpson Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 45 Packet Pg. 85 6.4.a From: LaFave, Carolyn Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 3:55 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: FW: Proposed 24-unit building to be located on Main Street From: Judith Leraas Cook Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 3:38 PM To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Proposed 24-unit building to be located on Main Street The Honorable Mayor Nelson: My husband and I, Edmonds residents for the past six years, would like to go on record in opposition to approving the 240-unit apartment building scheduled to be constructed at 605/611 Main Street with only one parking stall per unit. This building in no way reflects the desires of Edmonds' population or its comprehensive plan. Its proposed location does NOT enhance the downtown core of our small city. Our daughter and her family have lived in Ballard for the past 18 years and we have seen the desecration the construction of similar units has wreaked on that formerly charming part of Seattle. We do not want to see that happen here! You are the decision maker on this issue. Keep it away from us ---- and please entertain no more similar proposals. Robert and Judith Cook From: Gayla Shoemake Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:28 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Parks and Recs Plan- Postpone Ratification Dear Edmonds City Council, I am concerned that the proposed plan for Edmonds Parks and Recs does not include sufficient action regarding climate change and its impact on our city environment, including the parks. While there is slight mention of climate change on 3 pages (84,85,91), carbon is mentioned only once and there is no mention of greenhouse gases, which includes methane, and other serious gases. There is no plan for how they will reduce greenhouse Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 46 Packet Pg. 86 6.4.a gas emissions within their own department (such as using only battery powered leaf blowers, electric powered trucks, etc.). Such a reduction would be easy to implement. Nor is there any mention of how they will prepare for sea level rising and how they will adjust to increasing heavy storms in their plans. Again, some of these adjustments can be fairly simple and easy to add to the plan. After discussion at the public meeting about trees, there was only a reference to the Urban Forestry Management Plan, but no implementation actually included for trees. How will the Parks and Recs Dept address the serious reduction of our tree canopy? Will additional trees be planted in the parks; if so, which parks, who will decide which kinds of trees, and when they are planted. These trees can form excellent sequestration for the carbon and other greenhouse gases emitted in the future, and a fairly simple addition to the plan. I hope you will postpone acceptance of this plan until more of the comments (similar to mine above) from the public have been included in the plan. Thank you, Gayla Shoemake From: LaFave, Carolyn Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:28 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: FW: Please Put Our Email on Record! -----Original Message ----- From: Chris Koser Sent: Saturday, January 8, 2022 2:58 PM To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Please Put Our Email on Record! We are very opposed to approval of the application for the 24 unit apartment building at 605 and 611 Main Street, ESPECIALLY with only one parking stall per unit. Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 47 Packet Pg. 87 6.4.a > As life long citizens of Edmonds, it is a very high priority to maintain the charming, quaint, quiet downtown area of Edmonds. > Chris and Arnt Koser Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes February 8, 2022 Page 48 Packet Pg. 88 6.4.a WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED BETWEEN 1/4/22 and 2/5/22 From: Michael Murdock Sent: Saturday, February 5, 2022 1:34 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: PIO > Good Afternoon, > I don't know why this position is even there and needs to be a paid position. > If the article in MEN from the Mayor is an example of factual literature we expect to receive I don't want to pay for it. Who edited this piece for facts? I really did not understand the reason for writing such a piece and then actually printing it. > Perhaps, another option would be to enlist the services of the independent student representative on council. It would be great experience with little cost. > Thanks for listening. > Mike Murdock From: Joan Bloom Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 1:18 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to the 2022 Adopted City Budget Council, Mayor Nelson's inflammatory statement in his myedmondsnews commentary, "These council cuts will make Edmonds unsafe, polluted and make our residents uninformed" is unsubstantiated by fact or by the proposed amendments. I'll demonstrate with amendments that I support. Mayor Nelson's statement: "Additionally, they wish to cut funding to our new Human Services Department." Packet Pg. 89 6.4.a Proposed amendment: #21 — $200,000 for the Human Services Department. The Division has a carry forward of $409,000 and there is no need to add additional money. An amendment can always occur during the year if that money is needed." My comment: Based on my five decades of work as a social worker, in and with non-profit agencies, I contend that City government is ill-equipped to provide social services to the public. Many non-profit agencies exist that have the supportive staff, training, expertise, agency structure, outreach, and HIPPA compliance procedures (not to mention liability insurance) to better serve needy populations. Adding an additional $200,000 to the Human Services Department is an unwise use of taxpayer dollars. Mayor Nelson's statement: "Removing green streets and rain garden programs will create more flooding of our roadways and pollution of our streams." Proposed amendment: "461 Green Street and Rain Gardens — excerpt- "There is not sufficient information to support where green streets are or the definition and how the bio-retention and rain gardens should be built to reduce flooding?" My comment: Without a definition of "Green Street", how can the city proceed with allocation of the American Rescue Program Act (ARPA) funds? Also, rain gardens must be carefully located and strategically built in order to provide bio-retention and reduce flooding. Mayor Nelson's statement: "They want to cut a new pedestrian safety barrier at the police parking lot designed to protect our residents from being struck by police cars responding to emergency calls." Proposed amendment: Packet Pg. 90 6.4.a #38 — New Police perimeter fence - this should be vetted through a committee to determine less expensive methods can be utilized. My comment: I support Council reviewing the expense of this perimeter fence. Mayor Nelson's statement: "For the first time ever, this year our city has a full time public information officer (PIO)." And "some councilmembers wish us to go backwards and cut the position from full-time to half- time." Proposed amendment: #16 — Public Information Officer — support for full time not provided. My comment: Mayor Nelson references "the recent tsunami advisory" as rationale for a full time PIO, despite that a PIO has nothing to do with emergency management. Mayor Nelson's misrepresentation of the role of the PIO is just one reason I don't support a full time PIO being at his disposal. Side note: An updated CEMP (Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan), and related staffing, as Ken Reidy has been emailing Council about for many months, would assure residents that the administration has a "comprehensive plan" in the event of a catastrophic event in Edmonds. Mayor Nelson's statement: "Their removal of the filtration system used to clean polluted water entering the Edmonds Marsh will allow toxic chemicals to harm salmon and wildlife in our city and Puget Sound." Proposed amendment: #55 — Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Improvements — excerpt: "there was no justification for the water mitigation or the phases of this stormwater project. Suggest that the stormwater aspect that was clarified in the CIP/CFP be brought forth for Council" Packet Pg. 91 6.4.a My comment: Depending upon the methods used to reduce pollutants to improve the Edmonds Marsh water quality, this could be extremely expensive and significantly increase our stormwater utility rates. It is important for the details to be known BEFORE Council allocates funds. Additional amendments I support: #60 — Perrinville Creek Projects • The COE received the $3.5 ARPA funds in 2021. The damaged watershed at the lower end is caused by the upper watershed, which includes Lynnwood. Complete restoration of Perrinville Creek will cost significantly more than 3.5 million, so ARPA funds should not be spent until a restoration plan for the entire watershed, including Lynnwood, is presented to and approved by Council. This means partnering with Lynnwood so that both cities contribute to the restoration of Perrinville Creek. This would, obviously, be fiscally prudent. # 1 - REDI Manager Adding a full-time REDI Manager, without justification, also adds significant ongoing costs associated with a new position, and new department. I support a REDI consultant. #22 — New FTE position to manage existing capital projects Creating a new FTE, which creates an ongoing expense, without first answering the questions posed in this amendment is a reckless allocation of funds. Respectfully, Joan Bloom Former Edmonds City Councilmember Packet Pg. 92 6.4.a From: joe scordino Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 8:46 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Taraday, Jeff <jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com> Subject: Public Hearing on 2022 Budget Amendments Please include the following public comment in your public hearing and DISCUSS PUBLIC INPUT in your deliberations on the amendments to the 2022 budget. I am pleased to see the "new" Council is reconsidering the 2022 budget. The "prior" Council majority not only ignored and prevented public input, which should have been the essence of the Councils' budget deliberations, but they manipulated the budget approval process to exclude Council members who intended to `insert' public input into the budget deliberations. Any and all spending of taxpayer money should be well justified with public support. When pre -planning is required, such plans must be made available and vetted with the public well before budgets are proposed. This is especially the case with the 2022 budget items for restoring Perrinville Creek. In March of 2021, the Mayor issued a Press Release on developing a Perrinville Creek Restoration Plan, with costs involved, for public review and Council approval. But instead, the "prior" Council majority approved spending of 3.5 million dollars with no detail on what the money would be spent on, how much a `fully successful' restoration would cost, nor how much money the City of Lynnwood taxpayers would be contributing since, according to City staff, the majority of the stormwater impacting the watershed comes from Lynnwood. This is extremely bad budget planning and very poor environmental stewardship. The 2022 budget items that lack detail and adequate justification, including why prior year funds or staffing were insufficient, should be reconsidered and deleted from the 2022 budget, or delayed until adequate detail or justification is provided and approved by the "new" Council. This would include so-called green infrastructure and stormwater treatment budget items which "sound" environmentally responsible, but lack sufficient detail for an informed person to agree that it is a wise investment in protecting our environment. The bottom -line is that the reconsideration of the 2022 budget represents a great start for a "new" Council that hopefully is committed to actually listening to and considering public input in all of its deliberations and decisions, and following accepted public meeting and decision -making procedures (which is critical for good government). Packet Pg. 93 6.4.a I urge Council members to not only look at your agenda packet information, but on this agenda item, please go back and look at all the written and oral public comments made about the 2022 budget from October through December of 2021, which as I noted before, were totally ignored by the "prior" Council majority in adopting the 2022 budget. From: Pam Brisse Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2022 9:16 AM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comments on the proposed 2022 Budget Amendments Dear Edmonds City Council, I'm writing to you to express my displeasure with your attempts to dismantle the 2022 City Budget. This budget was passed after many discussions and public comments, was passed legally, and in the normal order of things. Just because some of you were not on the council during that time does not mean you get to revise it - you can have your chance when it comes time for the 2023 budget. This is how politics work. You know better. I'm also disgusted to learn that you wish to eliminate the programs and services that help our most vulnerable citizens, the ones we most see people in the neighborhood groups complaining about - the homeless that wander our streets or park their families in their cars and huddle waiting for a new day. These are not the only people in our town who benefit from the social programs you wish to cut, it's also our elderly neighbors on fixed incomes with a house repair crisis or someone with food insecurity - you wish to dismantle the Human Services department that is here to help these people? Our neighbors? Programs that keep people from desperation? Not only does this help them, it helps keep our neighborhoods safe from desperate crimes and thefts which helps the rest of us. And then you want to use the money for your pet art project in the bowl? Do you even hear yourself? Do you see how that looks? I am an artist myself and of course support the arts - but over hungry children and suffering residents? No. We have plenty of people in this city who support the arts and contribute to projects, the arts will not suffer if your personal project isn't funded this year by the city. Not only are you trying to kill jobs - jobs held by our residents and friends, but you are also trying to eliminate public safety, eliminate public communications and transparency, to "defund the police" as it were. Really? Anti -jobs, anti -police? Come on. Do you see how that looks? We are watching. And then you want to defund environmental protections for the Marsh, allow pollution into the Sound, to harm our salmon and orca? Nice look. Have an Edmonds Kind of Day, right? Leave the budget alone, we want progress and solutions, environmental and social. We want a satellite police station in an area where police are needed. Where actual crime is UP. Why would you try to remove that? These programs were installed to protect the city and it's residents. Please do better. Pam Brisse Edmonds Resident Packet Pg. 94 6.4.a From: Natalie Seitz Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 5:32 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: 1/25 Public Comment Hello, Good Evening. I will be unable to virtually attend the council meeting tonight. Would you please accept my written comments below? Thank you, Natalie Seitz 1/25 Public Comment to Council Good Evening. I would like to comment tonight about marina beach and the proposed budget amendments. o With regard to Marina Beach: I would like to thank the Council for the courage to pause the Marina Beach project as pre -decisional to the Marsh and to support the equitable distribution of park resources. I fully support and commend the Council for this tough decision. I also want to thank the City staff who worked on the grant and project, getting a project to 30% and grants for 20% of costs is a lot of effort. While I advocated against this project, I want to express my appreciation of the staff effort to get grant funding. o With regard to the proposed budget amendments: • #1 A REDI manager is needed: I want to point out the need for this position by highlighting two decisions the Council made at the last meeting: ■ Acceptance of the Francis Anderson Lease agreement which provides tax -payer maintained space at below market value and at a lower tax burden to recreation service providers including a daycare. In contrast there are no community center facilities in the two most diverse and densely populated areas of the City (north east of five corners and the east side of SR99) and none are proposed in the Draft PROS plan. Private daycares in these areas have to pay fair market rate for their facilities, applicable maintenance and taxes, which is passed on to families in the form of tuition. I think the REDI program manager would help the City better understand the relationship between these decisions and equity to make sure that appropriate investments are made in all areas of the City, AND • The Council has just paused the Marina Beach project to promote more equitable investments, but only after a tremendous amount of City staff time and cost. The REDI program manager is needed and would likely pay for itself if you look at it through the lens of preventing the waste of staff resources and project planning costs. #16 Public Information Officer is needed: I think I am as engaged a citizen as possible, yet I am still amazed at the amount of opportunities I miss and that I have every advantage in knowing (e.g. language). 83% of the City's population is not located in the Downtown area. The City needs a better capability to inform all Edmonds residents. Packet Pg. 95 6.4.a #22 New FTE is needed: It is my understanding that the Director, in addition to that role, is project managing Civic Center, the PROS plan, and other capital investments. This is not a realistic workload, and will not allow for the Director to focus on the provision of human services or on park -system wide initiatives (ADA, equity, maintenance) and the potential to implement asset management that would both save the City money and provide better service. Similar to the budget, there are so many errors in the PROS plan that I have decided not to provide direct text related comments - this is a matter of staff resources. Motion to reflect expense of the new satellite City Hall office on HWY 99 in the 2011 budget numbers - I support any needed expenses to provide this service. Motion to add $100K for the Creative District's Fourth Avenue Corridor project design - This is planning for a special use park that exceeds the investment identified in the Draft PROS plan for all three of the new neighborhood parks in underserved areas combined. It is inconsistent with the intent of the proposed level of service for the PROS plan and the planning board recommendation for the priority of this project. Please note that for the resources counted by the PROS plan, Downtown already has 38.62 acres of special use park, far more than all areas of the city combined (8.22 acres). Motion to add $60K for study of a Police Station relocation and/or City Hall relocation. Government should be accessible to the public. Moving City Hall and Police Station to a location more central to the city population and commercial center is needed (i.e. Five Corners or the SR99 corridor). Motion to add $150K for streetlights in the Lake Ballinger Area - this is a much needed improvement for safety and to reduce crime in this area. It is far less than the $1.5M identified in the 6-year CFP for street lights Downtown. Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments. From: Joan Bloom Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 5:05 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Budget Amendments agenda item Council, First, thank you to Council President Olson, Council President pro-tem Buckshnis and Council member Kristiana Johnson for persevering and getting these 93 budget amendments on the Council agenda for this evening. I appreciate your diligence in paying careful attention to the financial health of the City of Edmonds. My prepared comments will be in order of their placement on your agenda: Packet Pg. 96 6.4.a # 1 - REDI Manager — there is not sufficient information to support a full-time FTE. Suggest data being accumulated along with reasons as to why the current consultant that is used is not sufficient. I support this budget amendment. A consultant should be sufficient. Adding a full-time FTE, without justification, also adds the ongoing costs associated with a new position. This is not the time to create MORE staff positions. #16 — Public Information Officer — support for full time not provided. • Same as above. Why increase to a full time position, at this time? #21 — $200,000 for the Human Services Department. The Division has a carry forward of $409,000 and there is no need to add additional money. An amendment can always occur during the year if that money is needed. I agree. The COE is already negotiating a contract with Compass Health to provide a staff person on site in Edmonds. I was opposed to expansion of the Human Services department with such a position (although relieved that Council decided to contract with Compass Health) because City government is ill-equipped to provide social services to the public. State government oversees DSHS (Dept of Social and Health Services). Federal government mandates Senior Services in all communities. Edmonds is served by Homage Senior Services. In addition to Compass Health, many non-profit agencies exist to provide support to the needy. These many agencies have the supportive staff, training, expertise, agency structure, liability insurance, etc to better serve these populations. #22 — New FTE position to manage existing capital projects — there is not sufficient information to support a full time FTE or how this position will manage what projects. the Council Personnel Committee should look at this to determine what exactly projects are part of this request and why contractors cannot handle this process and the interaction with Public Works and their capital projects. Creating a new FTE, which creates an ongoing expense, without first answering the questions posed in this amendment is a reckless allocation of funds. #38 — New Police perimeter fence - this should be vetted through a committee to determine less expensive methods can be utilized. • Agree. And I would add that, given the newly created police/court offices on Hwy 99, and discussions re: moving city hall, any expenditures for the fence should take those planning issues into account. Packet Pg. 97 6.4.a #48 — 3-year Rate Study Consultant — The CIP/CFP should be scrubbed before we allow any review by a consulting firm. • Agree #55 — Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Improvements — there was no justification for the water mitigation or the phases of this stormwater project. Suggest that the stormwater aspect that was clarified in the CIP/CFP be brought forth for Council and what are the costs and plans for this project as these restoration plans are not clear and this will impact stormwater utility rates. • What will the money be used to do? Depending upon the methods used to reduce pollutants to improve the Edmonds Marsh water quality, this could be very expensive and significantly increase our stormwater utility rates. It is important for the details to be known BEFORE Council allocates funds. #60 — Perrinville Creek Projects — The Administration promised an entire Perrinville Watershed review in 2020 when the Creek was damaged by high water flow and City placed debris was placed by the Administration to cause the creek to flow into two vaults. There is no support for funding $3.5MM of ARPA money for this rehabilitation. • The COE received the $3.5 ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) infrastructure funds in 2021, to the best of my knowledge. So there is time to develop a plan for a complete restoration of the Perrinville Creek. • The damaged watershed at the lower end is caused by the upper watershed of Perrinville Creek, which includes Lynnwood. • Since complete restoration of Perrinville Creek will cost significantly more than the 3.5 million ARPA funds, it is critical that we not spend spend any of the ARPA funds until a complete restoration plan of the entire watershed, including Lynnwood, is presented to and approved by Council. • This means partnering with Lynnwood so that both cities contribute to the restoration of Perrinville Creek. #61 Green Street and Rain Gardens — opposed to this ARPA funding and continue to be opposed as there is not sufficient information in any City documents to support what a green street is and Rain Gardens have granting opportunities through Snohomish County. There is not sufficient information to support where green street are or the definition and how the bio- retention and rain gardens should be built to reduce flooding? This should be done before funds are programmed. Packet Pg. 98 6.4.a Agree completely. The allocation of the ARPA funds should be carefully clarified. Without a definition of what a Green Street is, how can the city proceed with allocation of the funds for them? • Rain gardens must be carefully located and strategically built in order to provide bio- retention and reduce flooding. Careful planning is required. #93. Elm Way Walkway — not enough information. If this project will be done by the city's sidewalk crew, then why is the cost $$859,600? The $ amount of the allocation certainly raises questions for me as well. Thank you, Council members who have gotten this far for reading my comments. Again, I applaud your serious deliberations on how you spend taxpayer dollars. Regards, Joan Bloom Former Edmonds City Councilmember From: LaFave, Carolyn Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 9:19 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: FW: Proposed 24-unit buildings on Main and Dayton Streets From: Judith Leraas Cook Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 1:44 PM To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Proposed 24-unit buildings on Main and Dayton Streets The Honorable Mayor Nelson: My husband and I, Edmonds residents for the past six years, would like to go on record in opposition to approving the 24-unit apartment building scheduled to be constructed at 605/611 Main Street with only one parking stall per unit as well as one now wending its way through the system that would appear on Dayton near the Frances Anderson Center. These buildings in no way reflect the desires of Edmonds' population or its comprehensive plan. Their proposed locations do NOT enhance the downtown core of our small city. Our daughter and her family have lived in Ballard for the past 18 years and my husband and I have seen the Packet Pg. 99 6.4.a desecration that the construction of similar units has wreaked on that formerly charming part of Seattle. We do not want to see it happen here! You are the decision maker on this issue. Make us proud. Robert and Judith Cook From: Will Magnuson Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 11:02 AM To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov>; Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov>; Chave, Rob <Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien @edmondswa.gov> Subject: Mayor's comments Greetings, I wholeheartedly agree with Mayor Nelson's final comments last night. This new initiative will: identify locations that provide opportunities for social interaction create new public space that provide room on the street for social interactions prioritize an investment strategy that identifies public and private funding "We are going to take more steps on making Edmonds livable for all, build community connections to improve public safety, and evolve our streets to create new public spaces for our neighbors to gather," Nelson concluded. "Edmonds is and will continue to be a caring and vibrant community because I know that regardless what the future may hold, we will move forward together." This is exactly what is required at primary street developments including Main, Dayton and elsewhere. These gateway development opportunities require residential, commercial, and public space to create a healthy, vibrant and sustainable community. Thank you, Will Magnuson Packet Pg. 100 6.4.a From: Luke Distelhorst Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 1:40 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Item 8.7 - Jan. 18, 2022 Dear Councilmembers, Looking at tonight's agenda item 8.7, 1 felt like it was important to share some information as a Councilmember who was present and participated in the 2022 budget process. The false and error -filled agenda memo unfortunately creates a narrative that is not supported by the facts contained in the numerous public meetings, budget retreat, public hearings, and documents listed on the City's Administrative Services page, which was updated weekly, at a minimum, during the Fall 2021 budget process (https://edmondswa.gov/government/departments/administrative services). As a Councilmember in this process, which started in May 2021, staff were always available to answer questions by email, phone, or during our public meetings. Similarly, the majority of Councilmembers showed up and participated in this budget process and were available for conversations with other councilmembers. At this point I do not feel it is even worth going through many of the erroneous statements linked to certain approved budget items. Answers to those "questions", or personal opinions, are publicly available from documents listed on the link above, or from Council -approved minutes/videos of Council meetings. City residents and city staff need certainty in their day-to-day lives and professional status when Council approves policy and budgetary direction. I sincerely hope Councilmembers will speak with city staff or other Councilmembers who actually participated in the 6-month-long budgeting process. The 2022 budget is a significant step forward for our city and residents, especially many who have been excluded from city policy and budget considerations in years and decades past. Please feel free to reach out should you have any questions. Thank you, Luke Distelhorst From: Kathy Brewer Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 3:15 PM Packet Pg. 101 6.4.a To: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Chave, Rob <Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov>; Clugston, Michael <Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien@edmondswa.gov>; Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Code Rewrite! To Mayor Nelson, Council Members and Planning Staff, It is past time for an overhaul of our City Code! We need to update, clarify and rewrite, especially our development codes, so Council, staff, citizens and developers know, understand and work together towards a clear vision for our city. Currently and for a long time developers have been exploiting loopholes, errors and inconsistencies for their gain and citizens' loss. This must change ASAP! I and many of my fellow citizens strongly request adequate funds be budgeted immediately to start this process. Once started, we want ongoing status updates as to progress made. As concerned citizens we want to be involved, to give input and help affect change so our city will evolve and develop as we wish. Please put this at the top of your priority list, just as the citizens are at the top of the City's Organizational Chart -- this should be #1 and so should we! It is crucial to our city and citizens. Please do not delay any longer. Let's get this in motion. Please confirm that you hear this and understand the urgency. Sincerely, Kathy Brewer From: LaFave, Carolyn Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 8:22 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: FW: Letter to the Mayor: Proposed building at 6th and Main St. From: Dawn Malkowski Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2022 2:37 PM To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Letter to the Mayor: Proposed building at 6th and Main St. January 15, 2022 Dear City Council Members and Mr. Mayor, I implore you not to approve the proposed apartment building on 6t" and Main St. as it appears now. The building is positively hideous, there are no setbacks, thus little room for attractive landscaping, plus it absolutely does not fit in with the flavor and style of this town. Slight changes to the elevation would make a world of difference. As it stands now, it looks like it belongs in MIAMI BEACH, no different than Packet Pg. 102 6.4.a the awful building they built on 3d Ave. several years ago. A different color, darker pacific NW colors, i.e., greens, browns, golds would be better, along with wood trim accents. It would be much more aesthetically pleasing. Developers seem to have a tendency to build and design whatever is cheapest, with little regard to fitting in with the existing community. What they design, doesn't mean it's the best for the community they are entering into. I addition to that, there are not enough parking spaces. Why is it that the developers are accommodated at the expense of the citizens? Each unit should have, at no cost to the tenants, two (2) on -site parking spaces. I know of 3 people of all the 50+ friends that I have in town here, that have 1 car. All are widowed, and two (2) are in their 80's. Other than that, the majority of people have 2 or more vehicles. I realize after watching the recent planning meeting that our city code allows the 1 parking space per unit. It is an outdated and unrealistic code which should be addressed. This developer is entering our town. Let's request that he or she build what fits into this area and what will realistically work for the betterment of our community. For example, he or she could add additional underground parking via another level, or purchase another lot next to his proposed building. I sincerely hope that you will have the courage to stand up these developers and hold them accountable for keeping our town the lovely, livable place that it is. Allowing them to do what they want because they meet code, doesn't mean it's right for our town. We do not want to be Kirkland or Bellevue. Kirkland made a huge effort to become a walking town only, with large apartment buildings with little parking available. It was a smashing failure. I lived there for ten (10) years and saw the congested disaster the massive apartment buildings caused. The same thing occurred in Bellevue. Please don't do that to us. Respectfully, Dawn Malkowski From: GARY PYFER Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 6:42 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Public Comment You have done the city of Edmond a great disservice by making the restaurants remove their outdoor seating or pay a Hugh fee. This will cause a loss of business and that will hurt Edmonds. This Covid is serious and most people will not eat in. BAD IGNORANT MOVE. From: Kathy Brewer Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2022 9:41 PM To: Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson @edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn Packet Pg. 103 6.4.a <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; Chave, Rob <Rob.Chave@edmondswa.gov>; Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien @edmondswa.gov>; Clugston, Michael <Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov>; Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Proposed apartment complex on Main Street and 6th Ave To Architectural Board Members, Planning Staff, Council Members, and Mayor Nelson, Please do not allow Safadago's proposed apartment complex as designed on Main Street! Sixth and Main is the gateway to our quaint, historic, one -of -a -kind downtown. It has been the primary location for citizens and visitors for over a century to enter our downtown and it should be protected from inappropriate development. Yes, there have been changes and development over the years but for the most part the scene that we are greeted with has remained relatively the same, and the buildings have stayed small-scale and harmonious. This oversized building would drastically change that and set a precedent for things to come! As we walk or drive down Main Street and approach downtown, our eyes naturally gravitate towards the beautiful, charming, special scene -- historic one to two floor buildings and homes, pretty gazebo fountain roundabout in the center, leafy green trees and colorful gardens and flower baskets that line the streets, the glow of the vintage -style street lamps, beautiful views of Puget Sound and Olympic Mountains off in the distance, and the cheerful green and white ferries coming and going. If this apartment complex gets built, this will no longer be the case. Our eyes will be assaulted by this large- scale, out of place blight. No one will be able to ignore an oversized, ugly, square box with three story straight up walls and flat roof, no style, detail, setbacks, open or green space, patios, balconies or courtyard. It will abut the sidewalk and street so will be in every pedestrian and driver's line of vision. What a loss this will be to the beauty, charm and historic nature of our city! Future generations will ask why was this allowed to be built? What were the city planners and officials thinking? How could Edmonds not stop a developer from marring our gateway? People say we need more housing and that development is unavoidable and necessary. This may be true but housing and development should not be allowed anywhere and everywhere and without regard to aesthetics. It should be thoughtful and appropriate. Long-term ramifications must be considered. This location is crucial to our downtown. This building is not worthy. A few blocks away may be acceptable, other locations in the Bowl or elsewhere in Edmonds may be acceptable, but not at Edmonds' main entryway on Main Street! Please reject this development! Don't allow it just because it meets code (and it barely does!) That's not good enough! Edmonds is better than that. It deserves buildings with attractive designs that enhance our downtown, not detract from it. Our building codes need to be rewritten and updated to require developers to build according to our vision for our city, to keep its small town look and feel, at Packet Pg. 104 6.4.a least in the downtown core. The developer with the assistance of city planners should be encouraged and expected to build in consideration of the setting, environment, neighbors and community. He or she should offer more than the bare minimum! Look at the condominium complex behind this site, just north of it across the alley on 6th Avenue -- a beautiful building with setbacks, green and open spaces, patios and decks, and attractive details and roof lines. It fits in very well. Why can't something like this be built there instead? Once built, this cheap and ugly complex will set a precedent for more of the same throughout our downtown. Don't let that happen! Our special, historic downtown, our citizens and visitors and the future occupants of any building built there deserve better. Don't allow this to be built and become a permanent, ruinous feature of Edmonds -- one that we will all regret except for the developer! Sincerely, Kathy Brewer From: Greg Brewer Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2022 4:23 PM To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>; LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov>; Nelson, Michael <Michael.Nelson@edmondswa.gov>; Clugston, Michael <Michael.Clugston@edmondswa.gov>; Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov>; robchave@edmondswa.gov; Lien, Kernen <Kernen.Lien@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Proposed development 605/611 Main Street Hello Architectural Board members, Building Department officials, Mayor Nelson and Councilmembers, I'm writing in response to the recent Architectural Board meeting on January 5th concerning the application for construction on the 600 block of Main Street. I have grave concerns about the look and function of this building and how it fits into the landscape. It was helpful for me to hear Kernan Lien's explanation of the codes as related to the proposed design. Unfortunately, the plan is to maximize dwellings while providing minimal parking, minimal amenities to the occupants and minimal aesthetics. Not only does the design go sidewalk to alley straight up to the max 30' height creating a giant and imposing box, the developer wants to reduce the buffer on the east side so a minimal parking ramp and garage can be squeezed in. Adding insult to injury, the developer wants a concession to add a 5' parapet wall to the front of the building to hide HVAC to the street side. Further increasing the bulk, sun and view blocking of the adjacent properties. Packet Pg. 105 6.4.a One parking space per dwelling unit for a mixed use project is the code. The problem is this isn't mixed use. It more closely mimics the RM-1.5 buildings a few lots up the hill. It's 100% residential! We all know the parking needs of a true mixed use building can be less than 100% residential. Thus the difference to parking code requirements. This seems to be a loophole in the code. Moving forward if a proposed building is truly not mixed use and 100% residential the parking requirements should be increased accordingly. The project has other problems and design flaws. The garage doesn't have adequate size for two spaces to turn inside the garage to head up the ramp. This looks insurmountable and likely will require a two unit reduction. NO concessions should be given when a developer is providing the absolute bare minimum for parking and other amenities. There is no outdoor space for the tenants, and I mean zero. No balconies, no courtyard, or anything close to 5% green space. Although Kernan has explained 5% green space is not required it should be. Without space it resembles some communist bloc housing I've seen. The developer has an opportunity to correct these mistakes. He should be encouraged to pull back from the street and give his tenants and pedestrians a little bit of breathing room. If the developer needs that one foot reduction in the buffer the entire length of the property to make the parking ramp work then the city should get something in return. How about a lid over part of the ramp thus providing some sorely needed open space at the ground level. A lid over the southeast corner of the parking ramp could provide ample outdoor space for tenants and eliminate the need for a fence around two sides of what would be a 9-10' deep ramp pit right on the sidewalk. The site in question is in the BD2 zone which is also deemed a transition zone. Look at the renderings. This building does not appear to be transitional at all. It's a massive apartment building with no business or commercial space. In fact I'm hard pressed to find anything like it in any of the BD2 zones. The scale and use are totally out of place. So it appears the developer is trying to set a precedent. Is this really what we want our town to look like? Just because you can doesn't mean you should. We need to revisit the comprehensive plan and get everyone on the same page or this is going to get ugly real quick. Change is coming. Let's not fall into the trap of writing code one building at a time with concessions and variances granted along the way. The time has come to rewrite the comprehensive code. Who will lead us through the changes that are at our doorstep? How can concerned citizens be a part of the process? How long will the process take? How much irreversible damage will be sustained while we wait? Sincerely, Greg Brewer Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2022 11:43 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Regarding the GBH Holdings LLC redevelopment at 6th and Main Street in Edmonds Packet Pg. 106 6.4.a From: Will Magnuson Date: January 16, 2022 at 11:05:49 AM PST To: Planning <Planning@edmondswa.gov>, Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>, "LaFave, Carolyn" <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Regarding the GBH Holdings LLC redevelopment at 6th and Main Street in Edmonds Why is there never enough time to do it right, but always enough time to fix it later? My wife and I moved here to Edmonds in 1989 inspired by a college class I was fortunate to attend. The class was called Urbanalysis and it's primary message was that cities compete just as businesses do to remain viable, grow and prosper. Cities compete and remain viable based on their attributes inclusive of commerce, transportation, recreation and livability. Edmonds was a city we had passed through while traveling in the PNW during the decade prior to our move. Back in the late 1980's, the Seattle area was primed for growth and Edmonds checked all the boxes as a viable regional city for our future. We loved this area in the PNW and chose beautiful Edmonds to establish our residence. The 1990's was a decade of substantial growth in the Puget Sound and the area grew in population and opportunities. Edmonds was then a very sleepy community on the edge of Puget Sound and was slowly evolving to adapt to the new growth opportunities and challenges. Often the most minor of changes to our community were met with harsh citizen comments to curtail any alteration to the established way things were in Edmonds. I recall the concerted effort to develop the Harbor Square complex being rebuked over cries to restrain building heights and as result the Harbor Square redevelopment failed to progress. Any effort by the public(city) or private (developer) to provide new development opportunities was greeted by severe community backlash with criticism like "we don't want to be like Kirkland" or the extreme "don't let Edmonds become like Manhattan". Building heights became the battle cry for any discussion regarding development in Edmonds, especially in the downtown and bowl neighborhoods. There were some discussions about incentivizing any new development with building stepbacks and providing public or open spaces, but those discussions were too often overwhelmed with cries to keep building heights down. There was additional discussion regarding how much height does first floor commercial space require to establish a downtown first floor level and establish criteria for overall building heights in downtown. Eventually some standards were enacted for new development in particular locations, but not an adequate comprehensive plan that would support responsible new development, especially throughout our downtown core. Basically the building heights debate overwhelmed the discussion thus leaving behind lost opportunities to properly discuss and evaluate Edmonds design standards for new development regardless if it was downtown, highway 99 or anywhere else in Edmonds. As the Puget sound region continues to grow, pressure will continue to build in Edmonds to proceed with new development to meet new opportunities and challenges. The city's population will require more commercial and residential space to be built and the city will require more revenues to properly function. This community has already witnessed a great deal of change in the last few decades. I continue to be amused when someone states they "just want to keep Edmonds the way it is" even as many of us can attest that the present 2022 Edmonds is significantly different from the 1989 Edmonds. We have far more opportunities for lifestyle, employment, recreation and entertainment as Edmonds Packet Pg. 107 6.4.a remains a desirable location. Correspondingly affordability will continue to be a challenge. We must not shut the door on growth for fear of change nor should we expect that we can. The city of Edmonds will need to strive to continue to be competitive for sustained viability. Edmonds has a unique opportunity to witness the recent growth and evolution of communities such as Bothell, Kenmore and elsewhere to find the successes, failures and challenges to manage growth. We're all in this together including the developers, city and community of Edmonds. Growth is going to happen, the only question is do we manage it or do we let it manage us? Now we have a block style building of 24 apartment units proposed near 6th Ave on Main Street and located on a major gateway with an opportunity to set the tone for Edmonds. Will that be a welcome message to inclusivity, diversity and community? The city and community are in a difficult position to challenge the overall design impact of this imposing redevelopment based on existing codes and ordinances. It is true that a property owner is fully entitled to build on their property per development standards and building codes to maximize it's financial potential for the property. However, just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. There is a moral and social long term benefit to being a responsible member of the community. Development codes and ordinances should responsibly balance opportunities and benefits for the developer and community alike. The city does indeed have tools available to implement community oriented design standards and requirements for this and future projects. It's not too late, but community and city action needs to proceed quickly as no doubt the Safadago's GBH Holdings LLC is moving expeditiously to procure permits and proceed with work for this project as well as other projects in the city. Implementing amended development standards will require community support, political will, and a municipal commitment to make that happen. Much should be done inclusive of reevaluating some governing departments and committees which at times appear to have evolved as the permit expeditors for a developer. It's important for a comprehensive review of the options available now for reworking development guidelines as this proposed redevelopment will establish a gateway for a very long time. I personally have been active in residential and commercial development for nearly 40 years and have witnessed a big difference between good development and bad development. This proposed project by Safadago's GBH Holdings LLC is indeed bad development. I feel the proposed project design is more appropriate for a medical complex on Hwy 99 than a building located at a gateway to our downtown. The project will be a vivid daily reminder to the resident and visitor alike of how we build projects wrong or we build projects right in our beautiful city of Edmonds. It's the future of the city and the choice of how we proceed belongs to all of us. Will Magnuson Edmonds, WA From: N Middleton Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2022 5:00 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Trash, Recycling and Yard Waste Packet Pg. 108 6.4.a H i, Please address these questions in your Tuesday, 1/18 meeting: 1. Why does the City have 3 different service providers for waste pickup? 2. When does Republic Services contract come up for review? 3. Can Republic contract be re-evaluated earlier, given the lack of service? 4. Will homeowners who are not getting pickups get refunds? S. What temporary solution can the city come up with? Thank you. Norma Middleton From: LaFave, Carolyn Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 10:16 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: FW: Proposed development at 605 and 611 Main Street From: jane Simpson Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 10:15 AM To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Proposed development at 605 and 611 Main Street Dear Mayor Nelson, I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed development at the above addresses. The displacement of eight businesses will be a significant loss to the community. In addition, the proposed design, as I understand it, will be yet another soulless box so prevelent in urban areas recently. My husband and I are relative newcommers to Edmonds and one of the things that drew us to the community was the character of the downtown business district. We appreciate the variety of architecture and the repurposing of existing buildings for commercial use. Packet Pg. 109 6.4.a Please do not let Edmonds go the way of Greenwood, Ballard and Columbia City. Keep the character of our downtown and support local businesses! Sincerely, Jane Simpson From: LaFave, Carolyn Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 3:55 PM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: FW: Proposed 24-unit building to be located on Main Street From: Judith Leraas Cook Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 3:38 PM To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Proposed 24-unit building to be located on Main Street The Honorable Mayor Nelson: My husband and I, Edmonds residents for the past six years, would like to go on record in opposition to approving the 240-unit apartment building scheduled to be constructed at 605/611 Main Street with only one parking stall per unit. This building in no way reflects the desires of Edmonds' population or its comprehensive plan. Its proposed location does NOT enhance the downtown core of our small city. Our daughter and her family have lived in Ballard for the past 18 years and we have seen the desecration the construction of similar units has wreaked on that formerly charming part of Seattle. We do not want to see that happen here! You are the decision maker on this issue. Keep it away from us ---- and please entertain no more similar proposals. Robert and Judith Cook From: Gayla Shoemake Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:28 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Parks and Recs Plan- Postpone Ratification Packet Pg. 110 6.4.a Dear Edmonds City Council, I am concerned that the proposed plan for Edmonds Parks and Recs does not include sufficient action regarding climate change and its impact on our city environment, including the parks. While there is slight mention of climate change on 3 pages (84,85,91), carbon is mentioned only once and there is no mention of greenhouse gases, which includes methane, and other serious gases. There is no plan for how they will reduce greenhouse gas emissions within their own department (such as using only battery powered leaf blowers, electric powered trucks, etc.). Such a reduction would be easy to implement. Nor is there any mention of how they will prepare for sea level rising and how they will adjust to increasing heavy storms in their plans. Again, some of these adjustments can be fairly simple and easy to add to the plan. After discussion at the public meeting about trees, there was only a reference to the Urban Forestry Management Plan, but no implementation actually included for trees. How will the Parks and Recs Dept address the serious reduction of our tree canopy? Will additional trees be planted in the parks; if so, which parks, who will decide which kinds of trees, and when they are planted. These trees can form excellent sequestration for the carbon and other greenhouse gases emitted in the future, and a fairly simple addition to the plan. I hope you will postpone acceptance of this plan until more of the comments (similar to mine above) from the public have been included in the plan. Thank you, Gayla Shoemake From: LaFave, Carolyn Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:28 AM To: Public Comment (Council) <publiccomments@edmondswa.gov> Subject: FW: Please Put Our Email on Record! Packet Pg. 111 6.4.a -----Original Message ----- From: Chris Koser Sent: Saturday, January 8, 2022 2:58 PM To: LaFave, Carolyn <Carolyn.LaFave@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Please Put Our Email on Record! We are very opposed to approval of the application for the 24 unit apartment building at 605 and 611 Main Street, ESPECIALLY with only one parking stall per unit. > As life long citizens of Edmonds, it is a very high priority to maintain the charming, quaint, quiet downtown area of Edmonds. > Chris and Arnt Koser Packet Pg. 112 6.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/15/2022 Approval of claim checks and wire payment Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Nori Jacobson Background/History Approval of claim checks #251073 through #251177 dated February 3, 2022 for $556,951.12 and wire payment of $3,859.30. Staff Recommendations Approval of claim checks and wire payment. Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Attachments: claims 02-03-22 claim marsh 02-03-22 FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 2-10-22 Packet Pg. 113 6.5.a vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Page Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun r c 251073 2/3/2022 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 15-90788 INTERPRETER - SPANISH 1A05826- INTERPRETER - SPANISH 1A05826- >, 001.000.23.512.51.41.01 186.9E a 15-91490 INTERPRETER - KOREAN 1A02730' L INTERPRETER - KOREAN 1 A02730' 3 001.000.23.512.51.41.01 161.2( 15-91520 INTERPRETER - SPANISH XZ01270 INTERPRETER - SPANISH XZ01270 Y 001.000.23.512.51.41.01 214.8( (D 15-91588 INTERPRETER - SPANISH XZ01270 U INTERPRETER - SPANISH XZ01270 E 001.000.23.512.51.41.01 208.0E 2 Total : 771.0' ,- 0 251074 2/3/2022 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 53439 PUBLIC WORKS - PEST CONTROL R PUBLIC WORKS - PEST CONTROL o 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 99.0( a 10.4% Sales Tax Q 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 10.3( N Total : 109.3( N M O 251075 2/3/2022 064088 ADT COMMERCIAL 143631037 ALARM MONITORING - PARKS MAIL ci ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS I c 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 30.0E E ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS I R 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 30.0E 143631038 ALARM MONITORING - FS #16 ALARM MONITORING FOR FIRE ST E 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 34.1 1 U 143631039 ALARM MONITORING - FS #17 f° ALARM MONITORING FOR FIRE ST Q 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 78.3< 143631040 ALARM MONITORING FOR MUSEUI ALARM MONITORING FOR Museum 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 129.0E Page: 1 Packet Pg. 114 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251075 2/3/2022 064088 ADT COMMERCIAL 251076 2/3/2022 078469 AGUIRRE, RAUL 251077 2/3/2022 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 2 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) r 143631041 ALARM MONITORING - WASTEWAT c ALARM MONITORING - Wastewater E 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 45.9E a 10.4% Sales Tax L .3 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 4.7£ 143631042 ALARM MONITORING FOR PUBLIC ALARM MONITORING FOR Public S, 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 101.9( Y 10.4% Sales Tax U 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 10.6( 143631043 FIRE INSPECTION - F.S.#17, MUSEI E Fire Inspection - Fire Station #17, 27E M 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 55.4, u Fire Inspection, Museum O 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 35.0, > Fire Inspection - Public Safety 250 0 L 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 153.3z a 2010551 ALARM MONITORING MEADOWDAI Q ALARM MONITORING CLUBHOUSE C%4 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 188.8E M FIRE INSPECTION AND MONITORII` c 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 63.1.E o 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 19.61 Total: 980.3, Z 68843 INTERPRETER - SPANISH 7Z032451 m INTERPRETER - SPANISH 7Z032451 E 001.000.23.512.51.41.01 100.0( m Total : 100.0( Q 1079462 WWTP: JACKETS--TOLLIE, PAMELI JACKETS--TOLLIE, PAMELA, JIM, D, 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 471.81 Custom Embroidery on Jackets Page: 2 Packet Pg. 115 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251077 2/3/2022 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 251078 2/3/2022 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 3 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) r 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 c 47.9, Freight >, 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 5.9f a 10.4% Sales Tax L .3 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 54.6E 24152098 WWTP: T-SHIRTS T-Shirts 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 181.4, Y Custom screen print t-shirts a0i 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 391.5E r Freight E 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 5.9� n 10.4% Sales Tax ,- 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 60.2- 0 _ 24162608 WWTP: JACKETS--DAN, JEREMIAH fd JACKETS--DAN, JEREMIAH, ROSS, 0 L 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 370.9< a Custom Embroidery ($41.93) + (Nami Q 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 83.8E N 10.4% Sales Tax M 423.000.76.535.80.24.00 47.3( c Total : 1,721.6' o 656000176669 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS E PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS fd U 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.6" ; PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS (D 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.1- E PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS m 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 6.1- Q PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.1- PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 6.1- Page: 3 Packet Pg. 116 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251078 2/3/2022 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 4 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) r PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE c E, 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 6.0£ 10.4% Sales Tax a 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.1; L 10.4% Sales Tax 3 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6z c 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6z Y 10.4% Sales Tax (D 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6z U 10.4% Sales Tax E 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6z R 10.4% Sales Tax - 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.6' 656000176674 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT > FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS L 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 9.2� a FLEET DIVISION MATS Q 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 19.1( N 10.4% Sales Tax N M 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 1.5E c 10.4% Sales Tax o 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.4' E 656000178049 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 27.9- 10.4% Sales Tax aD 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 2.9( t 656000180200 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE r Q 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 1.6' PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 6.1' PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE Page: 4 Packet Pg. 117 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251078 2/3/2022 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 5 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) r 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 c 6.1' m PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS E, 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 6.1 - a PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS L 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 c 6.0£ 10.4% Sales Tax Y 001.000.65.518.20.41.00 0.3' (D 10.4% Sales Tax U 111.000.68.542.90.41.00 0.6 1 E 10.4% Sales Tax 2 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 0.6 ' ,� 10.4% Sales Tax O 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 0.6, > 10.4% Sales Tax o 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 0.6, a 10.4% Sales Tax Q 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 0.3< N 656000180206 FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT 04 M FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS c 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 9.2� o FLEET DIVISION MATS 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 19.1('� 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.24.00 1.5E 10.4% Sales Tax m 511.000.77.548.68.41.00 1.4' t 656000181507 PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE r Q 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 63.4, 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.24.00 6.5� 656000181516 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS Page: 5 Packet Pg. 118 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 6 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251078 2/3/2022 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES (Continued) FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 27.9- >, 10.4% Sales Tax a 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 2.9( L Total: 265.21, .3 251079 2/3/2022 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0427178-IN FLEET - FUEL/ DIESEL & REGULAR DIESEL 3,500 GALLONS Y 511.000.77.548.68.34.10 12,436.2z REG FUEL 6,701 GALLONS 511.000.77.548.68.34.11 22,376.3( E Total: 34,812.5' 'jj z 251080 2/3/2022 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 122854 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS — UB Outsourcing area Printing 723 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 50.5E o UB Outsourcing area Printing 723 a 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 50.5E Q UB Outsourcing area Printing 723 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 N 52.1 , N UB Outsourcing area Postage 723 c 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 154.5< c UB Outsourcing area Postage 723 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 154.5< .E 10.25% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.49.00 5.1 E 10.25% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.49.00 5.1 E E 10.25% Sales Tax U 423.000.75.535.80.49.00 m 5.3E Total : 478.0! Q 251081 2/3/2022 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 78857 ROUGH BOX - KNOWLSON ROUGH BOX - KNOWLSON 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 738.0( Page: 6 Packet Pg. 119 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251081 2/3/2022 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 251082 251083 251084 251085 251086 2/3/2022 075217 BASLER, ANTHONY 2/3/2022 072577 BAURECHT, MAGRIT Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 78959 79113 79162 68784 01262022 2/3/2022 002300 BEAVER EQUIPMENT SPECALITY CO 220061 2/3/2022 075941 BELL, LAURIE 2/3/2022 028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC 10255 ZENTANGLE 803600 6.5.a Page: 7 PO # Description/Account Amoun c ROUGH BOX - BUNDRANT ROUGH BOX - BUNDRANT E >, 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 738.0( a ROUGH BOX - ANTHONY L ROUGH BOX - ANTHONY 3 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 738.0( c ROUGH BOX - ANTHONY ca ROUGH BOX - ANTHONY Y 130.000.64.536.20.34.00 738.0( Total: 2,952.0( E INTERPRETER - SPANISH 7ZO32451 2 INTERPRETER - SPANISH 7ZO32451 0 001.000.23.512.51.41.01 100.0( o Total: 100.0( i 0 BUSINESS BOOSTER LOGO ADJUc a BUSINESS BOOSTER LOGO ADJUr Q 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 65.0( Total : 65.0( N A WWTP: P0754 ROTORK MODULES G P0754 ROTORK MODULES N c 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 3,068.0( E 10.4% Sales Tax R 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 319.0, Total: 3,387.0, m 10255 ZENTANGLE CLASS INSTRU, E t 10255 ZENTANGLE CLASS INSTRUi m 001.000.64.571.22.41.00 r 66.0( Q Total : 66.0( UNIT 68 - PARTS/ RADIO & CORE UNIT 68 - PARTS/ RADIO & CORE 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 926.9, Page: 7 Packet Pg. 120 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251086 2/3/2022 028050 BILL PIERRE FORD INC 251087 2/3/2022 076741 BLOSSMAN SERVICES INC Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 8 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) r 10.25% Sales Tax c m E 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 95.0- 806767 UNIT 437 - PARTS/ SWITCH f° a UNIT 437 - PARTS/ SWITCH L 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 74.01 .3 10.25% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 c 7.5� 807000 FLEET MAINT - PARTS/ ROTOR Y FLEET MAINT - PARTS/ ROTOR U 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 106.6, � 10.25% Sales Tax E 511.000.77.548.68.34.40 10.9< n 807757 UNIT 64 - PARTS %- UNIT 64 - PARTS O 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 133.8( > 10.25% Sales Tax o 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 13.7- a 807812 UNIT 818 - PARTS Q UNIT 818 - PARTS c%4 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 75.2, M 10.25% Sales Tax c 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 7.7- o 808552 UNIT 342 - PARTS N UNIT 342 - PARTS E 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 101.61 Z 10.25% Sales Tax +% 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.4, CM803600 UNIT 68 - RADIO CORE RETURN E t UNIT 68 - RADIO CORE RETURN m 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -600.0( Q 10.25% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 -61.5( Tota I : 902.1 f SO0047196 UNIT 286 - PARTS/ REDUCER OVEF Page: 8 Packet Pg. 121 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 251087 2/3/2022 076741 BLOSSMAN SERVICES INC (Continued) UNIT 286 - PARTS/ REDUCER OVEF 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Freight 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Tota I : 251088 2/3/2022 074307 BLUE STAR GAS 1295641 FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 669.20 GF FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 669.20 GF 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 1299451 FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 646.90 GF FLEET - AUTO PROPANE 646.90 GF 511.000.77.548.68.34.12 Tota I : 251089 2/3/2022 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY 10265 YOGA 10265 YOGA INSTRUCTION 10265 YOGA INSTRUCTION 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 Total 251090 2/3/2022 078083 BUYCE JR, RICHARD J 10276 10277 TRAINING 10276 10277 PERSONAL TRAINING 10276 PERSONAL TRAINING INSTP 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 10277 PERSONAL TRAINING INSTP 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 Total 251091 2/3/2022 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 27937580 PM: IRC250IF COPIER CONTRACT i PARK MAINT IRC250IF COPIER COI 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 27937581 FLEET COPIER Fleet Copier 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 10.4% Sales Tax 6.5.a Page: 9 Page: 9 Packet Pg. 122 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 10 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251091 2/3/2022 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 3.3E 27937584 INV 27637584 - EDMONDS PD E >% 1/22 CONTRACT WXD1878 f° a 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 185.7z L 10.4% Sales Tax 3 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 19.3, -o 27937586 WATER SEWER COPIER Water Sewer Copier Y 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 54.7z u Water Sewer Copier 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 54.7< E 10.4% Sales Tax is 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 5.7( u 10.4% Sales Tax O 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 5.6E > 27937587 PW ADMIN COPIER o L PW Office Copier for 01/01/22 - 01/31 a 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 66.1 E Q PW Office Copier for 01 /01 /22 - 01/31 N 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 37.4� M PW Office Copier for 01 /01 /22 - 01/31 G 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 37.4� o PW Office Copier for 01 /01 /22 - 01/31 N 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 26.4E PW Office Copier for 01/01/22 - 01/31 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 26.4E PW Office Copier for 01/01/22 - 01/31 m 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 26.4E t 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 r 6.8£ Q 10.4% Sales Tax 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 3.9( 10.4% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 3.9( Page: 10 Packet Pg. 123 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251091 2/3/2022 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 11 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) r 10.4% Sales Tax c E, 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 2.7,' 10.4% Sales Tax a 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 2.7E L 10.4% Sales Tax 3 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 2.7E 27937588 INV 27937588 - EDMONDS PD ea 1/22 CONTRACT - FAXBOARD Y 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 36.0, 10.4% Sales Tax U 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 3.7,' E 27937591 COPIERS JAN 2022 ii COPIERS JAN 2022 U 001.000.23.512.51.45.00 212.5E O 10.4% Sales Tax > 001.000.23.512.51.45.00 22.1- o 27937592 INV 27937592 - EDMONDS PD a 1 /22 CONTRACT-3APO1257 Q 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 175.9E 1 /22 CONTRACT - 3AP01253 C, 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 175.9E c 10.4% Sales Tax o 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 36.6( E 27937593 CANON 5750 contract charge 1/1/ 1/31/2022- 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 181.6: contract charge 1/1/ 1/31/2022- m 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 22.7( t contract charge 1 /1 / 1 /31 /2022- 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 r 22.7- Q 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.22.518.10.45.00 18.8� 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.61.557.20.45.00 2.3E Page: 11 Packet Pg. 124 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 12 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251091 2/3/2022 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued) 10.4% Sales Tax E, 001.000.21.513.10.45.00 2.3( 27937594 P&R C5750 COPIER: CONTRACT OE f° a P&R C5750 Copier: Contract Number L 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 227.01 .3 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 c 23.6- 27937595 C/A 572105-1 CONTRACT# 06619 Y Finance dept copier contract charge U 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 227.0, r- 10.4% Sales Tax E 001.000.31.514.23.45.00 23.6- n 27937598 WWTP: 1/2022 CONTRACT CHG - C U 1/2022 CONTRACT CHG - COPIER I O 423.000.76.535.80.45.00 81.8z > 10.4% Sales Tax o 423.000.76.535.80.45.00 8.5" a 27937599 INV 27937599 - EDMONDS PD Q 1 /22 CONTRACT 38C0l 511 N 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 191.7E M 10.4% Sales Tax c 001.000.41.521.10.45.00 19.9z o 27995948 PW ADMIN COPIER N PW Office Copier Contract charge for E 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 10.51 z PW Office Copier Contract charge for 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 5.9E PW Office Copier Contract charge for E 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 5.9E m PW Office Copier Contract charge for Q 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 4.2- PW Office Copier Contract charge for 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 4.2- PW Office Copier Contract charge for Page: 12 Packet Pg. 125 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251091 2/3/2022 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 13 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) r 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 c 4.2, 10.4% Sales Tax E, 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 1.1( a 10.4% Sales Tax L 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 0.6, .3 10.4% Sales Tax 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 c 0.6, 10.4% Sales Tax Y 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 0.4z (D 10.4% Sales Tax U 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 0.4z E 10.4% Sales Tax ii 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 0.4< ,- 27995949 P&R C2571F COPIER: S/N 3CE0793, O P&R C257iF Copier: Contract Numbe > 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 35.0, o 10.4% Sales Tax a 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 3.6E Q 27995952 PW ADMIN COPIER N PW Office Copier Contract Charge fo 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 10.5, c PW Office Copier Contract Charge fo 0 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 5.9E PW Office Copier Contract Charge fo 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 5.9( PW Office Copier Contract Charge fo 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 4.2- E PW Office Copier Contract Charge fo t 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 4.2- PW Office Copier Contract Charge fo Q 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 4.2- 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.65.518.20.45.00 1.1( 10.4% Sales Tax Page: 13 Packet Pg. 126 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251091 2/3/2022 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 251092 2/3/2022 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 14 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) r 111.000.68.542.90.45.00 c 0.6, 10.4% Sales Tax E 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 0.6, a 10.4% Sales Tax L 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 0.41 .3 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 c 0.4z ea 10.4% Sales Tax Y 511.000.77.548.68.45.00 0.4( (D 27995953 P&R C2571F COPIER: S/N 3CE0793, U P&R C257iF Copier: Contract Numbe E 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 35.0, n 10.4% Sales Tax ,U 001.000.64.571.21.45.00 3.6E 0 Total: 2,506.01, > 0 L Q571498 HP PROBOOK 450 G8 a HP Probook 450 G8 Core i5-1135G7 Q 512.100.31.518.88.35.00 2,639.5, N 10.4% Sales Tax N 512.100.31.518.88.35.00 274.5" o Q615293 ADOBE CC ENT ALL APPS L7 N 0 Abode CC Ent All Apps L7 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 788.0( . 10.4% Sales Tax fd U 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 81.9E +: Q743373 ADOBE ACROBAT PRO DC (D 10.4% Sales Tax E 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 925.2, m Adobe Acrobat Pro DC = Qty 86 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 8,896.4, Q Q903759 MS OFFICE 365 SOFTWARE RENE\ MS Office 365 software renewal 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 117,099.4< 10.4% Sales Tax Page: 14 Packet Pg. 127 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251092 2/3/2022 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC 251093 251094 251095 251096 251097 2/3/2022 063902 CITY OF EVERETT 2/3/2022 075856 CITY OF KIRKLAND POLICE DEPT 2/3/2022 070323 COMCAST BUSINESS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 122000844 SWAT funds final 8498310300732547 2/3/2022 078498 COMMUNITIES OF COLOR COALITION 1021 2/3/2022 069529 D & G BACKHOE INC E7JA/E8JA.Pmt 5 6.5.a Page: 15 PO # Description/Account Amoun c 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 12,178.3< d Total: 142,883.3( E, �a WATER QUALITY LAB ANALYSIS a� WATER QUALITY LAB ANALYSIS 3 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 1,603.8( Total: 1,603.8( NORTH SOUND METRO SWAT FIDI 1k North Sound Metro SWAT Fiduciary F 628.000.283.900 5,023.2( u Total : 5,023.2E •E PUBLIC WRKS - DIGITAL CABLE Public Works - 7110 210th S SW O 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 2.3, R o Public Works - 7110 210th S SW a 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 11.1 z Q Public Works - 7110 210th S SW �- 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 11.1 , N Public Works - 7110 210th S SW c� 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 11.1 z 0N Public Works - 7110 210th S SW o 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 10.6E E Total : 46.0 .m U PMT 4 ERPF HOUSEHOLD SUPPOF PMT 4 ERPF HOUSEHOLD SUPPOF aD 142.000.39.518.63.41.00 16,226.& t Total: 16,226.& M E7JA/E8JA.PMT 5 THRU 12/31/21 Q E7JA.Pmt 5 thru 12/31/21 421.000.74.594.34.65.10 20,976.0( EBJA.Pmt 5 thru 12/31/21 Page: 15 Packet Pg. 128 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 16 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251097 2/3/2022 069529 D & G BACKHOE INC (Continued) 421.000.74.594.34.65.10 21,617.7( E7JA.Ret 5 421.000.223.400 -950.0( EBJA.Ret 5 421.000.223.400 -979.0E Total: 40,664.6' 251098 2/3/2022 046150 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 292345 CITY HALL ELEVATOR CERT RENE) CITY HALL ELEVATOR CERT RENE) 001.000.66.518.30.49.00 168.3( Total: 168.3( 251099 2/3/2022 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 22-4144 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 1/18 AND city council minutes 1/18 and 1/25 001.000.31.514.31.41.00 529.2( Total : 529.2( 251100 2/3/2022 076172 DK SYSTEMS 30197 CITY PARK BUILDING - NEW BOILE CITY PARK BUILDING - NEW BOILE 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 534.0E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 55.5z Total : 589.55 251101 2/3/2022 007253 DUNN LUMBER 8451430 FAC MAINT- UPTOWN BUILDING S 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 12.3( FAC MAINT- UPTOWN BUILDING S 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 119.4< Total : 131.7; 251102 2/3/2022 078494 ECONORTHWEST 24822 DEV SVCS - PROF SERVICES Edmonds Gap Analysis- 001.000.62.524.10.41.00 4,095.0( Total: 4,095.0( Page: 16 Packet Pg. 129 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251103 2/3/2022 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 251104 2/3/2022 063448 EDMONDS LIONS CLUB 251105 2/3/2022 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 17 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 2752 WWTP: ICE MELT BAGS r ICE MELT BAGS c d 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 89.9E >, 10.4% Sales Tax a 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 9.3E L 2768 WWTP: PO 735 CERAMIC HEATER 3 PO 735 CERAMIC HEATER & BRAS! 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 54.9E c 10.4% Sales Tax Y 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 5.7, 2797 PM: CLOG REMOVER, FRICTION Ti U PM: CLOG REMOVER, FRICTION Ti E 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 15.7, n 10.4% Sales Tax ,U 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.6, _0 2804 MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE - HEM > MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE - HEM o L 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 179.9E a 10.4% Sales Tax Q 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 18.7, c,4 2810 PM: SANDBELTS M PM: SANDBELTS c 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 13.9E o 10.4% Sales Tax N 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.4E Total: 391.5' Z 2224 2022 EDMONDS LION CLUB FLAG f m 2022 Flag program E 001.000.39.513.10.49.00 500.0( m Total : 500.0( Q 001 EDMONDS WATERFRONT CENTER Edmonds Waterfront Center Cost Shy 001.000.64.571.22.45.00 15,000.0( Page: 17 Packet Pg. 130 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 251105 2/3/2022 038500 038500 EDMONDS SENIOR CENTER (Continued) 251106 2/3/2022 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-01808 3-03575 3-07490 3-07525 3-07709 3-09350 3-09800 3-29875 3-38565 6-02735 6-02736 6-02737 6.5.a Page: 18 PO # Description/Account Amoun Total: 15,000.0( m LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL S E LIFT STATION #11 6807 157TH PL S' sa 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 a 61.2z m CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL 3 CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDAL 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 518.3, HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING F Y HAINES WHARF PARK DRINKING F U 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 114.7, t LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE U E LIFT STATION #12 16100 75TH AVE 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 61.2z Z LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST S o LIFT STATION #15 7701 168TH ST S 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 61.2z o LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD i L a LIFT STATION #4 8313 TALBOT RD i Q 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 114.7, v LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT R N LIFT STATION #10 17612 TALBOT R M 0 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 61.2z c14 LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / N LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR / E 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 61.2z 12 SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 c SPRINKLER FOR RHODIES 18410 c 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 56.3E E PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TF t PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TF f° 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,790.1; Q FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH Ab FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH Ab 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 13.5 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / Page: 18 Packet Pg. 131 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 19 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251106 2/3/2022 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued) FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / E, 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 528.5( 6-02738 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGA f° a PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGA L 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 323.5, .3 6-02825 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,103.2E Y 6-02875 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF U FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 23.7. E 6-02925 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( M FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,400.2, O 6-04127 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST : > FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ; o 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,174.0E a 6-04128 FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TF Q FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TF N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 13.51 N 6-05155 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; o PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; c 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 221.7, N PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; E 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 842.5< 2 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 842.5' (D PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH : E t 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 842.5' m PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH Q 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 842.5' PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 842.5 6-05156 PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 Page: 19 Packet Pg. 132 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251106 2/3/2022 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 251107 251108 251109 251110 2/3/2022 075200 EDUARDO ZALDIBAR Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 68662 2/3/2022 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR210268 2/3/2022 076939 ESSENTRICALLY FIT LLC 2/3/2022 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD 10206 ESSENTRICS EDH947136 6.5.a Page: 20 PO # Description/Account Amoun c PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 m E, 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 1.7( PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 f° a 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 6.4z L PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 .3 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 6.4z PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 ea 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 6.4z Y PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 (D 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 6.4z U PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21 E 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 6.4' R Total : 14,949.4E ,- 0 INTERPRETER SPANISH 1A058764; INTERPRETER SPANISH 1A058764; o 001.000.23.512.51.41.01 100.0( a Total : 100.0( Q CUST# MK5533 C57501 3AP07496 C N Meter charges 12/16/21 - 1/15/22- c 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 10.3E c Meter charges 12/16/21 - 1/15/22 Col 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 73.9E . 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.23.48.00 8.7, Total: 93.0F E 10206 ESSENTRICS CLASS INSTRI 10206 ESSENTRICS CLASS INSTRI f° r 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 86.2E Q Total : 86.2E 2022 BUDGET AMENDMENTS, PUB public hearing, budget amendments Page: 20 Packet Pg. 133 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 21 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251110 2/3/2022 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD (Continued) 001.000.31.514.31.41.40 44.7, EDH947138 PLANNING - LEGALAD Legal Notice of City Application- a 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 75.6E L EDH947404 PLANNING - LEGAL NOTICE 3 Notice of City Application- 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 72.2z EDH947411 PLANNING LEGAL NOTICE Y Notice of City Application- U 001.000.62.558.60.41.40 61.9, u Total: 254.5E E 251111 2/3/2022 076751 FALK, NICHOLAS NFalk Jan2022 REIMB - MILEAGE EXPENSE 2 U Jan 2022 Employee Expense Reimb- o 001.000.62.524.10.43.00 42.3E i Total: 42.3E o L Q 251112 2/3/2022 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0969240-1 WATER - PARTS/ METER BOXES °- Q WATER - PARTS/ METER BOXES 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 2,145.2E N 10.4% Sales Tax M 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 0 223.1' N 0969240-2 WATER - PARTS/ METER BOX COVI N WATER - PARTS/ METER BOX COVI E 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 4,441.4z 12 10.4% Sales Tax U 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 461.9' 1061788 WATER - SUPPLIES/ RUBBER WAS E WATER - SUPPLIES/ RUBBER WAS U 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 920.0( 10.4% Sales Tax Q 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 95.6E Total : 8,287.4: 251113 2/3/2022 073821 GEODESIGN INC DBA NV5 229016 E21CA.SERVICES THRU 7/31/21 Page: 21 Packet Pg. 134 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 22 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251113 2/3/2022 073821 GEODESIGN INC DBA NV5 (Continued) E21CA.SERVICES THRU 7/31/21 112.000.68.542.30.41.00 2,574.5E �% E21CA.SERVICES THRU 7/31/21 f° a 125.000.68.542.30.41.00 9,216.1 E L E21CA.SERVICES THRU 7/31/21 .3 126.000.68.542.30.41.00 6,865.4E Total: 18,656Z 251114 2/3/2022 078793 GMA NETWORK SERVICES BLD2021-1578 PERMIT FEE REFUND U BLD2021-1578 Cell Alteration- 001.000.257.620 391.9E E Total: 391.9E 251115 2/3/2022 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 166717 UNIT 64 - TIRES & SNOW STUDS p UNIT 64 - TIRES & SNOW STUDS 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 1,206.1 £ o WA STATE TIRE FEE a 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 6.0( Q 10.5% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 N 126.6E N Total: 1,338X c 251116 2/3/2022 012199 GRAINGER 9170453634 PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES/ BATT N PUBLIC SAFETY - SUPPLIES/ BATT E 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 287.2.E .2 10.4% Sales Tax U 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 29.8 Total: 317.1, E t 251117 2/3/2022 076542 GRANICUS 148208 AGENDA & MINUTES, CIVIC STREA r agenda and minutes and civic stream Q 001.000.31.514.31.41.00 1,417.5E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.31.514.31.41.00 147.4E Page: 22 Packet Pg. 135 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 23 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251117 2/3/2022 076542 076542 GRANICUS (Continued) Total: 1,564.9' m 251118 2/3/2022 067615 GTS INTERIOR SUPPLY 40106579-00 UPTOWN BUILDING - SUPPLIES E UPTOWN BUILDING - SUPPLIES sa 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 a 257.5E m HANDLING FEE 3 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 3.8E 9.8% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 25.2z Y Total: 286.61 u t 251119 2/3/2022 074722 GUARDIAN SECURITY SYSTEMS 1205017 OLD PW - SECURITY U OLD PW - SECURITY E 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 2 55.0( U 10.4% Sales Tax o 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 5.7( R Total: 60.7; o L Q 251120 2/3/2022 012560 HACH COMPANY 12835662 WWTP: PO 678 SENSOR CAP REPI Q PO 678 SENSOR CAP REPLACEME v 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 163.5, N 10.4% Sales Tax M 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 0 17.0- N 12852788 WWTP: 2022 SERVICE AGMT o 2022 Service Agreement E 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 3,815.0( .m 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 396.7, 12856059 WWTP: PO 697 SENSOR CAP REPI m E PO 697 SENSOR CAP REPLACEME 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 163.5, 10.4% Sales Tax Q 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 17.0- Total : 4,572.& 251121 2/3/2022 074804 HARLES, JANINE 284607 PHOTOGRAPHY & INSTAGRAM SEI Page: 23 Packet Pg. 136 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 24 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251121 2/3/2022 074804 HARLES, JANINE (Continued) PHOTOGRAPHY & INSTAGRAM SEI m E, 001.000.61.558.70.41.00 300.0( Total: 300.0( a m 251122 2/3/2022 078783 HAWK ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 5970 WWTP: ANALYSIS FOR ASBESTOS 3 ANALYSIS FOR ASBESTOS 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 390.0( 5991 WWTP: PO 711 ON -SITE SAMPLINC Y PO 711 ON -SITE SAMPLING & PLM U 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 1,150.0( Total: 1,540.0( E 251123 2/3/2022 010900 HD FOWLER CO INC C542378 STORM - PARTS (RETURNED) U STORM - PARTS (RETURNED) o 422.000.72.531.40.31.00 -280.7E -jj 15994317 WATER - INVENTORY & PARTS 0 WATER - INVENTORY PARTS/ METE a 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 4,855.6( Q WATER - PARTS 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 1,417.5E N 10.4% Sales Tax c 421.000.74.534.80.34.20 504.9E c� 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 147.4< E 15994320 WATER - PARTS/ METER BOX fd WATER - PARTS/ METER BOX U 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 3,017.2E 10.4% Sales Tax E 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 313.7� U Total: 9,975.85 Q 251124 2/3/2022 070673 HID GLOBAL CORPORATION 13402008143 INV 13402008143 - EDMONDS PD CROSSMATCH TECH 1 YR SUBS 001.000.41.521.11.35.00 2,067.4, 10.4% Sales Tax Page: 24 Packet Pg. 137 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 25 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251124 2/3/2022 070673 HID GLOBAL CORPORATION (Continued) 001.000.41.521.11.35.00 215.0E Total: 2,282.4: E �a a 251125 2/3/2022 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1051481 PM SUPPLIES: BEAM, ROPES, STAI m PM SUPPLIES: BEAM, ROPES, STAI 3 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 112.7E 10.3% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 11.6( Y 2022697 PM SUPPLIES: STEEL STAKES U PM SUPPLIES: STEEL STAKES t 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 U 58.7( E 10.3% Sales Tax M 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 6.0E 5073165 PM SUPPLIES: STORAGE TOTES o PM SUPPLIES: STORAGE TOTES �a 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 117.9, o L 10.3% Sales Tax a 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 12.1.E Q 93678 PM SUPPLIES: STORAGE BOX N PM SUPPLIES: STORAGE BOX N 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 1.7£ o 10.3% Sales Tax c 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 0.1 £ U) Total: 321.11 .E M 251126 2/3/2022 061013 HONEY BUCKET 0552532976 MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY U MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 221.6E E 0552542131 BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH PAF U BRACKETT'S LANDING NORTH PAF f° r 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 1,634.8E Q 0552542132 PINE RIDGE PARK HONEY BUCKET PINE RIDGE PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 249.1.E 0552546256 HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET Page: 25 Packet Pg. 138 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251126 2/3/2022 061013 HONEY BUCKET 251127 251128 251129 Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 0552546257 0552546258 0552546259 0552546260 0552546261 0552546262 2/3/2022 076828 INSTRUMENT TECHNOLOGIES INC W220109 2/3/2022 075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS 2/3/2022 078844 JOHNSON, LUCAS .:. 47120868810 6.5.a Page: 26 PO # Description/Account Amoun c HICKMAN PARK HONEY BUCKET d 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 644.9� >, YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET f° a YOST PARK POOL HONEY BUCKET L .3 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 439.6( HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUC HAINES WHARF PARK HONEY BUC sa 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 346.0( Y PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE U PINE STREET PARK HONEY BUCKE 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 120.4.E E SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET M SIERRA PARK HONEY BUCKET 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 120.4E WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY I _0 > WILLOW CREEK FISH HATCHERY I o 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 221.6E a MARINA BEACH/DOG PARK HONED Q MARINA BEACH/DOG PARK HONED N 001.000.64.576.80.45.00 1,514.1 , M Total : 5,512.9, c N WWTP: SCALE CALIBRATION & MA SCALE CALIBRATION & MAINTNEN, E 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 260.0( TU Total : 260.0( FIBER OPTICS INTERNET CONNEC E Feb-2022 Fiber Optics Internet 512.000.31.518.87.42.00 590.0( 10.4% Sales Tax Q 512.000.31.518.87.42.00 61.3( Total: 651.3E WWTP: SALT PELLETS & SOCKET; Page: 26 Packet Pg. 139 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251129 2/3/2022 078844 JOHNSON, LUCAS 251130 2/3/2022 078471 LEMM, KEVIN 251131 2/3/2022 067725 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER 251132 2/3/2022 075716 MALLORY PAINT STORE INC Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 10221 TAEKWON-DO 80500344532 E0148985 E0149247 251133 2/3/2022 077253 MAYES TESTING ENGINEERS INC TG25181 6.5.a Page: 27 PO # Description/Account Amoun c Salt Pellets $29.85 + $3 (10.1 % tax) m 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 32.8,>, Shockwave Socket Adapter Set: $9.9' a 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 10.9E L Total : 43.8: 10221 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTIOI` ea 10221 TAEKWON-DO INSTRUCTIOI` Y 001.000.64.571.27.41.00 464.4( u Total: 464.4( UNIT 25 - TIRES E UNIT 25 - TIRES U 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 3,152.5E p 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 327.8 1 o WA STATE TIRE TAX a 511.000.77.548.68.34.30 6.0( Q Total : 3,486.4° N N UPTOWN BUILDING - PAINT M UPTOWN BUILDING - PAINT N 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 391.9' N 10.4% Sales Tax E 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 40.7E .2 UPTOWN BUILDING - PAINT SUPPL U UPTOWN BUILDING - PAINT SUPPL 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 49.4E E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 5.1E Total : 487.1 Q EOMA.SERVICES THRU 01/08/22 EOMA.SERVICES THRU 01/08/22 332.000.64.594.76.41.00 358.0, Page: 27 Packet Pg. 140 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 251133 2/3/2022 077253 MAYES TESTING ENGINEERS INC (Continued) 251134 2/3/2022 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 71544630 71556671 PO # Description/Account EOMA.SERVICES THRU 01/08/22 125.000.64.594.76.41.00 Total WWTP: PIPE FITTINGS, VALVES Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 PIPE FITTINGS, VALVES 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 WWTP: PO 751 SAW BLADES, SAN PO 751 SAW BLADES, SANDING BE 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Freight 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.48.00 Total 251135 2/3/2022 078806 MM COMFORT SYSTEMS BLD2021-1740 PERMIT FEE REFUND Permit fee refund: BLD2021-1740- 001.000.257.620 Total 251136 2/3/2022 022009 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INC 8281300076 WWTP: PO 728 SOFTWARE-TRBO PO 728 SOFTWARE-TRBO CPS DC 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.76.535.80.49.00 Tota I : 251137 2/3/2022 072746 MURRAYSMITH INC 20-2775.01-9 E21GA.SERVICES THRU 12/31/21 E21GA.SERVICES THRU 12/31/21 423.000.75.594.35.41.00 6.5.a Page: 28 Amoun c 34.9E E, 393.0( a m L 3 12.3E 54.2z t U 509.1 z E M 683.9( O R 24.2E o a 73.6E Q 1,357.5E N N M 0 N O 52.0( N 52.0( E .R U 169.0( E t U 17.5E 186.5f Q 24,338.5E Page: 28 Packet Pg. 141 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 29 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251137 2/3/2022 072746 072746 MURRAYSMITH INC (Continued) Total : 24,338.51 m 251138 2/3/2022 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0641304-IN WATER/ SEWER - RAIN PANTS E WATER/ SEWER - RAIN PANTS sa 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 a 404.6< m WATER/ SEWER - RAIN PANTS 3 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 404.6, 10.4% Sales Tax 423.000.75.535.80.24.00 42.0E Y 10.4% Sales Tax U 421.000.74.534.80.24.00 42.Of Total: 893.41 E 251139 2/3/2022 062837 NORSTAR INDUSTRIES 59798 UNIT 11 - PARTS/ CYLINDER REPAI 2 U UNIT 11 - PARTS/ CYLINDER REPAI o 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 92.5E -jj Freight o 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 12.2( a 10.4% Sales Tax Q' Q 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.9( Total: 115.6E N M 251140 2/3/2022 064215 NORTHWEST PUMP & EQUIP CO 3285576-00 FLEET- FUEL ISLAND - PARTS/ KEl G FLEET- FUEL ISLAND - PARTS/ KEI N 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 370.0( E Freight M 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 23.9, U 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 40.9E E Total: 434.8E u m 251141 2/3/2022 067868 NW TANK & ENVIRONMENTAL 95922 FLEET - PRESSURE DECAY SEMI A r Q FLEET - PRESSURE DECAY SEMI A 511.000.77.548.68.49.00 415.0( Total : 415.0( Page: 29 Packet Pg. 142 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account 251142 2/3/2022 076377 OPTRICS INC 52177 SERVICEDESK PLUS MAINTENANC ServiceDesk Plus Enterprise - 600 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 Desktop Central Pro Annual Subscrip 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 Desktop Central Pro Subscription Sec 512.000.31.518.88.48.00 Tota I : 251143 2/3/2022 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 053787 YOST POOL SUPPLIES YOST POOL SUPPLIES: CHEMICAL 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 Tota I : 251144 2/3/2022 072739 O'REILLYAUTO PARTS 3685-181974 UNIT 35 - PARTS/ AXLE SEAL UNIT 35 - PARTS/ AXLE SEAL 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 Tota I : 251145 2/3/2022 064951 OTIS ELEVATOR CO 100400654702 PW ELEVATOR MAINT SVC CONTR PW ELEVATOR MAINT SVC CONTR 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 Tota I : 251146 2/3/2022 077288 PANG, LAWRENCE 12/23/2021 INTERPRETER CANTONESE 1A072 INTERPRETER CANTONESE 1A072 001.000.23.512.51.41.01 Total 251147 2/3/2022 069322 PETERSEN BROTHERS INC E21AB. Pmt 1 E21AB. PMT 1 6.5.a Page: 30 Page: 30 Packet Pg. 143 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 31 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251147 2/3/2022 069322 PETERSEN BROTHERS INC (Continued) E21AB. Pmt 1 126.000.68.542.64.48.00 10,646.8£ �% E21AB. Ret 1 f° a 126.000.223.400 -1,597.0< L Total: 9,049.8E .3 251148 2/3/2022 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 200000704821 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( ea FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( Y 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 2,755.6E u 200007876143 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON E 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 634.6( 200009595790 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST : o 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,551.8( R 200011439656 FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE o L FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE a 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 237.3z Q 200016558856 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME N CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N / ME N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 893.5, o 200016815843 FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / c FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N / N 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 1,422.4' . 200017676343 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7 FLEET MAINTENANCE BAY 21105 7 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 1,184.8, a� 200019375639 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 t MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE 6801 U 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 419.1' 200019895354 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � Q SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / � 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 306.1 z 200020415911 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; Page: 31 Packet Pg. 144 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 32 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251148 2/3/2022 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY (Continued) 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 87.3: PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; >, 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 331.8, a PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; L 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 331.8, .3 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 c 331.81 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH : Y 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 331.8z (D PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 331.8', E 200024711901 CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE CITY PARK BUILDING 600 3RD AVE U 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 637.0< _0 220027305568 W WTP: 12/21 /21-1 /21 /22 200 2ND P 12/21/21-1/21/22 200 2ND AVE S, O L 423.000.76.535.80.47.63 3,097.5E a Total : 14,886.5: Q 251149 2/3/2022 030695 PUMPTECH INC 0177526-IN WWTP: PO 653 COLUMN PUMP N N PO 653 COLUMN PUMP o 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 18,327.2( c 10.4% Sales Tax U) 423.000.76.535.80.35.00 1,906.0< .E Total: 20,233Z 251150 2/3/2022 077429 PURE WATER AQUATICS 2758-A PM SUPPLIES: ROL-DRI MASTER V PM SUPPLIES: ROL-DRI MASTER V E 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 134.1( U 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.64.576.80.31.00 13.9E Q Total: 148.0E 251151 2/3/2022 076328 SCJ ALLIANCE 66329 E20CE.SERVICES THRU 12/31/21 E20CE.SERVICES THRU 12/31/21 Page: 32 Packet Pg. 145 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 33 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251151 2/3/2022 076328 SCJ ALLIANCE (Continued) 112.000.68.595.33.41.00 25, 973.9 1 E20CE.SERVICES THRU 12/31/21 112.000.68.595.20.61.00 2,175.5E Tota I : 28,149.5, 251152 2/3/2022 066964 SEATTLE AUTOMOTIVE DIST INC S3-6960325 UNIT 35 - PARTS/ BRAKE ROTOR UNIT 35 - PARTS/ BRAKE ROTOR 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 263.2E 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.31.10 27.3E Tota I : 290.6' 251153 2/3/2022 077069 SEMACONNECT INC INV0027589 FAC MAINT - REPAIRS FAC MAINT - REPAIRS 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 277.0( Freight 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 41.4� 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 33.1 , Total: 351.61 251154 2/3/2022 060889 SNAP -ON INDUSTRIAL ARV/51373542 FLEET- SHOP SUPPLIES/ BATTERY FLEET- SHOP SUPPLIES/ BATTERY 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 129.6� 10.4% Sales Tax 511.000.77.548.68.35.00 13.4� Tota I : 143.1 f 251156 2/3/2022 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200202547 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95- PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21930 95- 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 19.3 , 200260271 YOST POOL YOST POOL 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 1,435.1- 200348233 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W Page: 33 Packet Pg. 146 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251156 2/3/2022 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 34 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) r TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 84TH AVE W c E, 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 42.2( 200386456 CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE f° a CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE L 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 95.3E 3 200398956 FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ; 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 945.5E Y 200468593 LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / U LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD / 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 392.5E E 200493146 MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M M MAPLEWOOD PARK IRRIGATION M 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.4' 200496834 LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT R _0 > LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT R o 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 96.11 a 200611317 LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V Q LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V N 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 102.01 N 200638609 OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON o OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON N 0 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 418.0, N 200714038 SEAVIEW PARK E SEAVIEW PARK 2 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 25.2. +: 200723021 TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI (D TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI E 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 29.6E m 200739845 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH Q 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 20.1 £ 200748606 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH ST SW 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 21.2 Page: 34 Packet Pg. 147 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251156 2/3/2022 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 35 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) r 200865202 LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE c LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTRE E 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 106.2< a 201197084 SEAVIEW PARK L SEAVIEW PARK 3 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 96.0� -o 201236825 FISHING PIER RESTROOMS FISHING PIER RESTROOMS Y 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 582.41 y 201265980 LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL � LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL � E 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 218.0< 'R 201327111 PINE ST PARK PINE ST PARK O 001.000.64.576.80.47.00 18.7� > 201374964 LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P o LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH P a 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 25.0E Q 201431236 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLY N PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9110 OLY N 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 17.0E c 201431244 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC N 0 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 9301 PUC 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 17.6E . 201441755 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 245.9' (D 201551744 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / E SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / IN U 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 m 3,037.2� Q 201572898 TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S / ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 64.0, 201582152 TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W Page: 35 Packet Pg. 148 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 36 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251156 2/3/2022 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 35.9E 201594488 LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL S f° a 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 25.91 L 201611951 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W 3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH AVE W 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 35.4E 201751476 TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW Y TRAFFIC LIGHT 9932 220TH ST SW U 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 49.7, u 201782646 TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / � E TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST / � 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 _M 19.1E 201907862 TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW O TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH ST SW 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 31.5E o 201942489 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; a PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; Q 001.000.65.518.20.47.00 98.7.E N PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; N 111.000.68.542.90.47.00 375.2< o PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; c 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 375.2< N PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; E 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 375.2< 2 PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH : +: 511.000.77.548.68.47.00 375.2E (D PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ; E t 422.000.72.531.90.47.00 375.2E m 202087870 LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl Q LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST / MEl 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 193.9" 202289120 TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99 / ME 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 58.9E Page: 36 Packet Pg. 149 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 37 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251156 2/3/2022 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued) 202289450 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / ME TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / ME E 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 90.5" a 202291662 CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1, L CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1 , 3 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 6,161.4E 202579520 WWTP: 1/2022 ENERGY MGMT SEF 0 1/2022 ENERGY MANAGEMENT SE Y 423.000.76.535.80.47.61 9.71 202807632 TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW TRAFFIC LIGHT 8429 196TH ST SW E 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 20.2E 'R 203652151 FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191 FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191 0 421.000.74.534.80.47.00 345.7, > 204425847 LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / o LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN / a 423.000.75.535.80.47.10 124.5, Q 220216386 PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MF N PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MF N 111.000.68.542.64.47.00 98.5< c 220547574 TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH S1 N 0 TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH S1 111.000.68.542.63.47.00 85.2, . 222704264 WWTP: 12/24/21-1/24/22 FLOWMET 0 U 12/24/21-1/24/22 FLOW METER 23 423.000.76.535.80.47.62 20.6' (D Total: 17,472.11 E v 251157 2/3/2022 037376 SNO CO PUD NO 1 1900088809 ACCT# 30000075 f° Advanced Contact fee on jointly owne Q 512.000.31.518.87.41.00 257.3E Total : 257.3f 251158 2/3/2022 066072 SNO CO SHERIFF & POLICE CHIEFS JAN 2022 SCSPCA - EDMONDS PD Page: 37 Packet Pg. 150 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 251158 2/3/2022 066072 SNO CO SHERIFF & POLICE CHIEFS (Continued) 251159 251160 251161 251162 2/3/2022 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE 2/3/2022 078846 SOLAR ART ABC SUN CONTROL 2021-7179 70409 2/3/2022 075875 SOUND CLEANING RESOURCES INC 24434 2/3/2022 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103583 103584 103585 103586 6.5.a Page: 38 PO # Description/Account Amoun c ANNUAL SCSPCA DUES 2022 d E, 001.000.41.521.10.49.00 75.0( Total: 75.0( a m INV 2021-7179 - MED DEC 2021 - El 3 177.57 INMATE MED SERVICES @ ' 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 177.5 1 2.01 INMATE PHARM SERVICE @ $ Y 001.000.39.523.60.41.50 2.0' u Total : 179.51 UPTOWN BUILDING - INTERIOR & E E UPTOWN BUILDING - INTERIOR & E U 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 3,156.0( o 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 328.2, o Total: L 3,484.2: a Q WWTP: 1/2022 JANITORIAL SERVIC 1/2022 JANITORIAL SERVICES N N 423.000.76.535.80.41.00 1,165.6, m Total : 1,165.61, N 0 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N E CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N M 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 717.7, Z WWTP: 1/2022 RECYCLING 1/2022 Recycling + taxes °' 423.000.76.535.80.47.66 38.7E t FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( m r FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70( Q 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 704.5f SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 605.1 f Page: 38 Packet Pg. 151 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 39 Bank code : Voucher usbank Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251162 2/3/2022 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO (Continued) 103588 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N E 001.000.66.518.30.47.00 459.8� a 201159 WWTP: 1/2022 GARBAGE & TAXES L 1/2022 GARBAGE & TAXES ACCT. 2 3 423.000.76.535.80.47.65 147.4, -a Total: 2,673.5( M 251163 2/3/2022 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 123410/4 FAC MAINT - WORK WEAR A. BARk U) U FAC MAINT - WORK WEAR A. BARk t 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 U 218.5z E 10.4% Sales Tax M 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 22.7< Z 123412/4 FAC MAINT- WORK WEAR E. ZHOI 14- o FAC MAINT- WORK WEAR E. ZHOI Ta 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 315.3z o L 10.4% Sales Tax a 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 32.8( Q 123508/4 FAC MAINT - WORK WEAR S. BRIN N FAC MAINT - WORK WEAR S. BRIN N 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 200.0" o 10.4% Sales Tax c 001.000.66.518.30.24.00 20.8( Total: 810.2, M 251164 2/3/2022 078370 TEAM WENDY LLC CD970053499 INV CD970053499 - EDMONDS PD U COMM HEADSET ADAPTER 001.000.41.521.23.31.00 21.0( E Total: 21.0( U m r 251165 2/3/2022 078845 THAI, RYAN 1/31/22 1/31/21 CPL RENEWAL REFUND - E Q CPL RENEWAL REFUND 001.000.322.90.000.00 14.0( CPL RENEWAL REFUND 001.000.237.190 18.0( Page: 39 Packet Pg. 152 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251165 2/3/2022 078845 078845 THAI, RYAN 251166 2/3/2022 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 251167 251168 251169 2/3/2022 044300 US POSTAL SERVICE 2/3/2022 064423 USA BLUE BOOK Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) I N V76048 PO BOX 2008 2/3/2022 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 1120146 6.5.a Page: 40 PO # Description/Account Amoun Total: 32.0( m FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ METERINC E FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ METERINC sa 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 a 74.4E m Freight 3 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 11.1( 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 8.9- Y Total: 94.5E u t 2022 ANNUAL RENTAL FEE FOR EE U 2022 ANNUAL RENTAL FEE FOR EE E 421.000.74.534.80.45.00 2 543.3< U 2022 ANNUAL RENTAL FEE FOR EE o 422.000.72.531.90.45.00 543.3 R 2022 ANNUAL RENTAL FEE FOR EE > 0 423.000.75.535.80.45.00 543.3, a Total : 1,630.0( Q WWTP: PO 753 POLYMER CLEANE N N PO 753 POLYMER CLEANER M 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 0 41.2( N Freight o 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 18.2E E 10.4% Sales Tax M 423.000.76.535.80.31.00 6.1 � U Total: 65.6, r- m UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI t UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI m r 421.000.74.534.80.41.00 80.0' Q UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI 422.000.72.531.90.41.00 80.0, UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATI 423.000.75.535.80.41.00 82.4E Page: 40 Packet Pg. 153 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Bank code : usbank Voucher List City of Edmonds Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 251169 2/3/2022 044960 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTI (Continued) 251170 2/3/2022 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 9897910546 6.5.a Page: 41 PO # Description/Account Amoun Total: 242.5: m C/A 571242650-0001 E iPhone/iPad Cell Service Bldg a 001.000.62.524.20.42.00 640.9z m iPhone/iPad Cell Service City Clerk 3 001.000.31.514.31.42.00 36.3z iPhone/iPad Cell Service Comm Svc �a 001.000.61.557.20.42.00 216.6� Y iPhone/iPad Cell Service Council U 001.000.11.511.60.42.00 773.4' iPhone/iPad Cell Service Court E 001.000.23.512.51.42.00 307.4E 'M iPhone/iPad Cell Service Dev Svcs 001.000.62.524.10.42.00 311.5" O iPhone/iPad Cell Service Engineering 001.000.67.518.21.42.00 1,476.6, o iPhone/iPad Cell Service Facilities a 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 227.4E Q iPhone/iPad Cell Service Finance N 001.000.31.514.20.42.00 36.3z N iPhone/iPad Cell Service Finance o 001.000.31.514.23.42.00 76.7' c iPhone/iPad Cell Service HR 001.000.22.518.10.42.00 141.1' •� iPhone/iPad Cell Service Human Sen U 001.000.63.557.20.42.00 50.3, iPhone/iPad Cell Service IS (D 512.000.31.518.88.42.00 413.8< E iPhone/iPad Cell Service Mayor m 001.000.21.513.10.35.00 607.1 Q iPhone/iPad Cell Service Mayor 001.000.21.513.10.42.00 100.7z iPhone/iPad Cell Service Park Admin 001.000.64.571.21.42.00 50.3 , Page: 41 Packet Pg. 154 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251170 2/3/2022 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 42 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) r iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Maint c E, 001.000.64.576.80.42.00 436.9( iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Rec f° a 001.000.64.571.22.42.00 140.7E L iPhone/iPad Cell Service PD 3 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 2,765.4E c Air cards PD ea 001.000.41.521.40.35.00 1,103.9E Y Air cards PD 001.000.41.521.10.42.00 1,204.1 � U iPhone/iPad Cell Service Planning E 001.000.62.558.60.42.00 462.9E R iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin - 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 26.7, o iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin > 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 7.61 iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin a 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 26.7, Q iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin N 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 N 7.61 M iPhone/iPad Cell Service PW Admin e 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 N 7.6< c iPhone/iPad Cell Service Street E 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Fleet 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 50.3 1 iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water/SeWe °' t 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 70.3E iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water/Sewe r 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 70.3, Q iPhone/iPad Cell Service Sewer 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 340.8( iPhone/iPad Cell Service Water 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 486.8" Page: 42 Packet Pg. 155 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251170 2/3/2022 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice (Continued) 9898047654 251171 2/3/2022 067216 VIKING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER CO 62593 6.5.a Page: 43 PO # Description/Account Amoun c iPhone/iPad Cell Service Storm d 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 156.3 1 >, iPhone/iPad Cell Service Street/Storn f° a 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 265.2E L iPhone/iPad Cell Service Street/Storn 3 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 265.21 iPhone/iPad Cell Service WWTP 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 661.1 E Y iPhone/iPad Cell Service Parks Disco 001.000.64.571.23.42.00 40.0- U C/A 772540262-00001 E Cradlepoint 1 - IT 2 512.000.31.518.88.42.00 100.0- ,- Trimble 2 - Engineering Storm O 421.000.74.534.80.49.20 3.3" > Trimble 2 - Engineering Storm o 422.000.72.531.90.49.20 3.3- a Trimble 2 - Engineering Storm Q 423.000.75.535.80.49.20 3.4( c%q Trimble 1 - Storm N ch 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 10.0, c Lake Ballinger monitor o 422.000.72.531.90.49.20 34.0 - E Wonderwear Modem Water/Sewer Te 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 15.7£ Wonderwear Modem Water/Sewer Te 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 15.7E E Total: 14,416.9, m FIRE STATION 16 - ANNUAL FIRE Q FIRE STATION 16 - ANNUAL FIRE 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 2,826.9E 10.4% Sales Tax 001.000.66.518.30.41.00 294.0- Page: 43 Packet Pg. 156 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251171 2/3/2022 067216 VIKING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER CO 251172 251173 251174 2/3/2022 075635 WCP SOLUTIONS 2/3/2022 073552 WELCO SALES LLC Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 44 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) r 62622 FIRE STATION 16 - REPAIR TO SPR c FIRE STATION 16 - REPAIR TO SPR E 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 664.0( a 10.4% Sales Tax L .3 001.000.66.518.30.48.00 69.0( Total : 3,854.0, 12598210 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES Y FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES U 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 622.4E 10.4% Sales Tax E 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 12608169 FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ GLOVES FAC MAINT - SUPPLIES/ GLOVES o 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 216.0( > 10.4% Sales Tax o L 001.000.66.518.30.31.00 22.4E a Total : 925.6E Q 8189 UTILITY BILLING - 2500 #9 RETURN C14 UTILITY BILLING - 2500 #9 RETURN M 0 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 66.0( c14 UTILITY BILLING - 2500 #9 RETURN c 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 66.0( E UTILITY BILLING - 2500 #9 RETURN fd 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 U 66.0( 10.4% Sales Tax 421.000.74.534.80.31.00 6.8E E 10.4% Sales Tax U 423.000.75.535.80.31.00 6.8E 10.4% Sales Tax Q 422.000.72.531.90.31.00 6.8, Total : 218.55 2/3/2022 078807 ZACHOR STOCK & KREPPS INC PS 22-EDM-0001 JAN-2022 RETAINER Page: 44 Packet Pg. 157 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Voucher List City of Edmonds Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 251174 2/3/2022 078807 ZACHOR STOCK & KREPPS INC PS (Continued) 251175 2/3/2022 078389 ZENNER USA 251176 2/3/2022 011900 ZIPLY FIBER 0064598-IN 253-007-4989 253-011-1177 253-012-9166 253-012-9189 PO # Description/Account Monthly Retainer 001.000.36.515.41.41.20 Total ; WATER - INVENTORY/ METERS WATER - INVENTORY/ METERS 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 Freight 421.000.74.534.80.34.30 Total SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR) SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETR) 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 PUBLIC WORKS OMC RADIO LINE 422.000.72.531.90.42.00 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 WWTP: 1/25-2/24/22 AUTO DIALER 1/25-2/24/22 AUTO DIALER - 1 VOI 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 6.5.a Page: 45 Amoun c 23,625.0( �% 23,625.0( a m L 3 5,535.4E 277.5, u 5,813.0: u E 2 U 31.1, o R 0 6.4' a 0_ Q 24.41 N N 24.4< c N O 24.4< N E 24.4< 12 24.4' y E t U 162.7- Q 302.1, 92.7< Page: 45 Packet Pg. 158 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251176 2/3/2022 011900 ZIPLY FIBER Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 46 Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun (Continued) r 253-014-8062 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE c TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE >, 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 19.8, a TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE L 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 36.9( .3 253-017-4360 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 47.0, Y TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE U 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 87.3,1 425-697-6502 MUSEUM ALARM LINES - 118 5TH A E Museum Alarm Lines - 118 5th Ave N R 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 225.6< u 425-712-0417 TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE _0 > 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 35.6� o TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE a 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 35.6� Q 425-712-8251 PUBLIC WORKS OMC ALARM, FAX, N PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' Cl) 001.000.65.518.20.42.00 16.8E c PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' N 0 111.000.68.542.90.42.00 84.3, PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' E E 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 70.8< Z PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 70.& PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE AND IN' E E 511.000.77.548.68.42.00 94.4, um m 425-712-8347 CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE Q CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 73.1' 425-745-4313 CLUBHOUSE ALARM LINES 6801 M CLUBHOUSE FIRE AND INTRUSION Page: 46 Packet Pg. 159 vchlist 02/03/2022 9:53:34AM Voucher List City of Edmonds 6.5.a Page: 47 Bank code : usbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun 251176 2/3/2022 011900 ZIPLY FIBER (Continued) 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 137.7< 425-771-0158 FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FA} FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FA} f° a 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 137.7< L 425-771-5553 W WTP: 12/25/21-1 /24/22 & 1 /25-2/2z 3 12/25/21-1/24/22: $129.54 & 423.000.76.535.80.42.00 266.2� 425-775-2455 CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5 Y CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUSIC U 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 145.7( u 425-775-7865 UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE E UTILITY BILLING RADIO LINE TO FI M 421.000.74.534.80.42.00 71 Z _� 425-776-3896 FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER AL, O FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF 001.000.66.518.30.42.00 276.3E o 509-022-0049 LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACC[ a LIFT STATION #2 VG SPECIAL ACC[ Q 423.000.75.535.80.42.00 26.4, N Total: 2,677.3° M 103 Vouchers for bank code : usbank Bank total : 0 555,422.9: N 0 103 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 555,422.9: E M U m E t U m r Q Page: 47 Packet Pg. 160 6.5.b vchlist 02/03/2022 4:15:33PM Bank code: usbank Voucher Date Vendor 251177 2/3/2022 078126 MARSH USA INC 1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank 1 Vouchers in this report Voucher List City of Edmonds Invoice PO # Description/Account 920056883832 STORAGE TANK LIABILITY INSURA Storage Tank Liability Insurance WW 423.000.76.535.80.46.00 Total Bank total ; Total vouchers Page 0 Z Amoun co E M Q. 1,528.1 ,L 1,528.1 <, 3 c 1,528.1 < R N 1,528.1 < t U E V O O L Q CL El N N M O N O t N L E E a V Page: 1 Packet Pg. 161 6.5.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number STM 174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements c521 im STM 175th St. SW Slope Stabilization c560 E21 FB STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study qMi s018 EBFA SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 EBGA STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 EBFC WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 EBJA STIR 2019 Traffic Calming i038 E9AA STIR 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades i045 E9AD UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s020 EBJB WTR 2019 Waterline Overlay i043 E9CB 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA STIR 2020 Guardrail Installations i046 EOAA 20 Overlay Progranla i042 STIR 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program i049 EODB STIR 2020 Pedestrian Task Force 02 STIR 2020 Traffic Calming _ i048 EOAC STIR 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades i047 EOAB STIR 2020 Waterline Overlay i053 EOCC STIR 2021 Guardrail Installations i057 E21AB STIR 2021 Overlay Program 051 E21 CA STIR 2021 Pedestrian Task Force i062 E21DB SWR 2021 Sewer Overlay Program i060 E21CC STM 2021 Stormwater Overlay Program i061 E21 CD STIR 2021 Traffic Calming i056 E21 AA WTR 2021 Waterline Overlay Program i059 E21CB STIR 2022 Guardrail Program i073 E22AC STIR 2022 Overlay Program i063 E22CA STIR 2022 Pedestrian Safety program i072 E22DA 2022 Sewerline Overlay Program i065 E22CC _ STIR 2022 Signal Upgrades i070 E22AA STIR 2022 Stormwater Overlay Program i066 E22CD STIR 2022 Traffic Calming Program 071 E22AB UTILITIES 2022 Utility Rate and GFC Study s030 E22NB STIR 2022 Waterline Overlay Program i064 E22CB 220th Adapti i028 EBAB STIR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC 11111110& 2j/3th St,ysland & Mj�c. Ramna i037 EBDC STIR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 STIR 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) i052 E20CB STIR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 EBCA STIR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 ElCA STIR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 EBCC STIR 89th PI W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD urb Ram i033 EBDB STIR Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing i040 E91DA STD Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB STM Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design s022 E9FA STIR Bikelink Project c474 ESDA STIR Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project i050 EODC SWR Citvwide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase I c488 E6GB STIR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements i026 E7DC Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB PRK Civic Center Playfield (Construction) c551 EOMA PRK Civic Center Playfield (Design) c536 EOMA Revised 12129/2021 Packet Pg. 162 PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title) 6.5.c Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding Project Title Number Number WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 ESJB MENfilfiiii Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 Jim FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project c564 E21 FE STR Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector c478 ESDB WTR Elm St. Waterline Replacement 6 c561 E21JB STR Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave i058 E21 DA WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coati c473 ESKA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization STR Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 3 (224th-238th) STR Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 4 (224th-220th) STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study STR Minor Sidewalk Program STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) GF Official Street Map & SidewalkIan Update STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization STM Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements c282 EBMA s014 E6AA i067 E22CE i068 E22CF c436 E4FD s0l l ESGB c461 E4GC 017 E6DD m013 s025 m105 c552 STM Perrinville Creek Recovery Study s028 SWR Phase 10 Sewerline Replacement Project c566 WTR Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c549 WTR Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c558 WTR Phase 13 Waterline Replacement Project c565 Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project c547 STM Phase 3 Storm Utility Replacement Project c563 L STM Phase 4 Storm Utility Replacement Project c567' SWR Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c548 SWR Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c559 FAC PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South c502 SWR Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services c562 STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 c546 WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 STR SR 104 Adaptive Systems (136th-226th_ 9 STR SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) i055 UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 STR Trackside Warning System c470 UTILITIES Utility Funds reserve Policies Study s029 STR Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) i044 PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) c544 PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) c496 PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) m103 STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 WTR Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment s026 WTR Yost & Seaview Reservoir Repairs and Upgrades m160 PRK Yost Park Infiltration Facili c556 E7FG EONA E7FA E20FC E21FC E22GA EOJA E21JA E22JA EOFB E21FD E22FA EOGA E21 GA E9MA E21 GB ESFD EOFA E4HA E22CG E20CE ESNA E7FB E6FD E1 DA ESAA E22NA E9DC E7MA E7MA E7MA E4FC ESHA EOJB E22JB E21 FA Revised 12/29/2021 Packet Pg. 163 6.5.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number i046 STR EOAB i047 o STR EOAC i048 STR EOCA i042 STR EOCC i053 STR EODA s024 STR i049 STR EODC i050 STM EO STM EOFB c547 SWR EOGA JL48 WTR EOJA c549 Project Title 2020 Guardrail Installations 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades 2020 Traffic Calming 2020 Overlay Program 2020 Waterline Overlay 2020 Pedestrian Task Force 2020 Pedestrian Safety Prog Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Projec Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project WTR EOJB 26 Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment PRK EOMA c551 Civic Center Playfield (Construction) PRK EOMA c536 Civic Center Playfield (Design) MEOPME" - GF EONA s025 Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update STR E1CA 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STR E1 DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STR E20CB M 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD1 STR E20CE i055 SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) STM Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvem STR E21AA i056 2021 Traffic Calming STR E21AB i057 2021 Guardrail Installations STR E21 CA 051 2021 Overlay Program WTR E21 CB i059 2021 Waterline Overlay Program SWR E21 CC i060 2021 Sewer Overlay Program STM E21 2021 Stormwater Overlay Program STR E21 DA i058 Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave STR r E21 DB M 2021 Pedestrian Task Force PRK E21 FA c556 Yost Park Infiltration Facility E21 FB � AMSW Slope Stabilization STM E21 FC s028 Perrinville Creek Recovery Study STM E21 FD e 3 Storm Utility Replacement Project STM E21 FE c564 Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project MLSWR E21 GA JL59 Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Proje SWR E21GB c562 Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services WTR E21JA 8 Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project WTR E21JB c561 Elm St. Waterline Replacement STR F99AA i070 2022 Signal Upgrades STR E22AB i071 2022 Traffic Calming Program STR i073 2022 Guardrail Program STR E22CA i063 2022 Overlay Program STR i064 2022 Waterline Overlay Program STR E22CC i065 2022 Sewerline Overlay Program STR i066 2022 Stormwater Overlay Progra STIR E22CE i067 Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 3 (224th-238th) STR E2 i068 Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 4 (224th-220th) STR E22CG i069 SR-104 Adaptive Systems (136th-226th) STR E22DA i072 2022 Pedestrian Safety program STM E22FA c567 Phase 4 Storm Utility Replacement Project SW c566 Phase 10 Sewerline Replacement Project WTR E22JA c565 Phase 13 Waterline Replacement Project WTR m160 Yost & Seaview Reservoir Repairs and Upgrades UTILITIES E22NA s029 Utility Funds reserve Policies Study Revised 12/29/2021 Packet Pg. 164 6.5.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title UTILITIES E22NB s030 2022 Utility Rate and GFC Study STR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STM c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study WWTP E4HA JS c446 J�tfall Groundwater Monitoring FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab STR E57 c470 cside Warning System STR E5DA c474 Bikelink Project STR E5DB c478 Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector STM E5FD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility SWR E5GB 11 Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study WWTP E5HA c481 WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications WTR E5JB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) WTR E5KA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating UTILITIES E5NA solo Standard Details Updates STR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization STR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) ST Minor Sidewalk Program STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update SWR E6GB 88 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase III STR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STR E7CD i025 89th PI W Retaining Wall STR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization IV STM E7FB Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) WT c498 2019 Waterline Replacert, PRK E7MA c544 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) PRK E7Mq2WW c496 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) STR E8AB i028 220th Adaptive STR E8CA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements STR i031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 21 STR E8DB i033 ADA Curb Ramps STR E8DIff i037 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps STM E8FA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study STM E8FB St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements STM E8FC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project SWJ& E8GJW c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Proj4h WTR E8JA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement UTILITIES s020 Zulu utlilre & GFC Update PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor IV STR E9AA i038 2019 Traffic Calming STR E9AD i045 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades WTR E9CB i043 2019 Waterline Overla STR E9DA i040 Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing STR E9DC i044 Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) STM E9FA s022 Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design FAC E9MA c502 PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South Revised 12/29/2021 Packet Pg. 165 6.5.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title PM EBMA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor STIR E1 DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements STIR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements STIR E3DB c423 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) STM E4FC c435 Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration STM E4FD c436 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects FAC E4MB c443 Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab WWTP E4HA c446 Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring STM E4FE c455 Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station SWR E4GC c461 Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study STIR ESAA c470 Trackside Warning System WTR ESKA c473 Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating STIR ESDA c474 Bikelink Project STIR ESDB c478 Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector STM ESFD c479 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility WWTP ESHA c481 WWTP Ouffall Pipe Modifications WTR ESJB c482 Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) STIR E6DA c485 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) SWR E6GB c488 Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase III STM E7FB c495 Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW PRK E7MA c496 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) WTR E7JA c498 2019 Waterline Replacement FAC E9MA c502 PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South SWR EBGA c516 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project STM EBFB c521 174th St. & 71st Ave Storm Improvements WTR EBJA c523 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement STM EBFC c525 2019 Storm Maintenance Project PRK EOMA c536 Civic Center Playfield (Design) PRK E7MA c544 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) STM EOFA c546 Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 STM EOFB c547 Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project SWR EOGA c548 Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project WTR EOJA c549 Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project PRK EOMA c551 Civic Center Playfield (Construction) STM E20FC c552 Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements PRK E21 FA c556 Yost Park Infiltration Facility WTR E21JA c558 Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project SWR E21 GA c559 Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project STM E21 FB c560 175th St. SW Slope Stabilization WTR E21JB c561 Elm St. Waterline Replacement SWR E21 GB c562 Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services STM E21 FD c563 Phase 3 Storm Utility Replacement Project STM E21 FE c564 Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project WTR E22JA c565 Phase 13 Waterline Replacement Project SWR E22GA c566 Phase 10 Sewerline Replacement Project STM E22FA c567 Phase 4 Storm Utility Replacement Project STIR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements STIR E6AB i015 Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion STIR E6DD i017 Minor Sidewalk Program STIR E7AB i024 Audible Pedestrian Signals STIR E7CD i025 89th PI W Retaining Wall STIR E7DC i026 Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements STIR EBAB i028 220th Adaptive STIR EBCA i029 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements Revised 12/29/2021 Packet Pg. 166 6.5.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number) Engineering Project Project Accounting Funding Number Number Project Title STIR EBCC 031 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th STIR EBDB i033 ADA Curb Ramps STIR EBDC i037 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps STIR E9AA i038 2019 Traffic Calming STIR E9DA i040 Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing STIR EOCA i042 2020 Overlay Program WTR E9CB i043 2019 Waterline Overlay STIR E9DC i044 Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) STIR E9AD i045 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades STIR EOAA i046 2020 Guardrail Installations STIR EOAB i047 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades STIR EOAC i048 2020 Traffic Calming STIR EODB i049 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program STIR EODC i050 Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project STIR E21 CA i051 2021 Overlay Program STIR E20CB i052 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) STIR EOCC i053 2020 Waterline Overlay STIR E20CE i055 SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) STIR E21 AA i056 2021 Traffic Calming STIR E21AB i057 2021 Guardrail Installations STIR E21 DA i058 Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave WTR E21 CB i059 2021 Waterline Overlay Program SWR E21 CC i060 2021 Sewer Overlay Program STM E21CD i061 2021 Stormwater Overlay Program STIR E21DB i062 2021 Pedestrian Task Force STIR E22CA i063 2022 Overlay Program STIR E22CB i064 2022 Waterline Overlay Program STIR E22CC i065 2022 Sewerline Overlay Program STIR E22CD i066 2022 Stormwater Overlay Program STIR E22CE i067 Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 3 (224th-238th) STIR E22CF i068 Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 4 (224th-220th) STIR E22CG i069 SR-104 Adaptive Systems (136th-226th) STIR E22AA i07O 2022 Signal Upgrades STIR E22AB i071 2022 Traffic Calming Program STIR E22DA i072 2022 Pedestrian Safety program STIR E22AC i073 2022 Guardrail Program STM E7FG m013 NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) PRK E7MA m103 Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) STM E7FA m105 OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization WTR E22JB m160 Yost & Seaview Reservoir Repairs and Upgrades UTILITIES ESNA solo Standard Details Updates SWR ESGB s0l l Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study STIR E6AA s014 Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization STM E6FD s017 Stormwater Comp Plan Update STM EBFA s018 2018 Lorian Woods Study UTILITIES EBJB s020 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update STM E9FA s022 Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design STIR EODA s024 2020 Pedestrian Task Force GF EONA s025 Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update WTR EOJB s026 Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment STM E21 FC s028 Perrinville Creek Recovery Study UTILITIES E22NA s029 Utility Funds reserve Policies Study UTILITIES E22NB s03O 2022 Utility Rate and GFC Study Revised 12129/2021 Packet Pg. 167 6.5.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding ProiectTitle Number Number FAC Edmonds Fishing Pier Rehab c443 E4MB FAC PW Concrete Regrade & Drainage South c502 E9MA GF Official Street Map & Sidewalk Plan Update s025 EONA PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 EBMA PRK Civic Center Playfield (Construction) c551 EOMA PRK Civic Center Playfield (Design) c536 EOMA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Construction) c544 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Design) c496 E7MA PRK Waterfront Development & Restoration (Pre - Design) m103 E7MA PRK Yost Park Infiltration Facility c556 E21 FA STM 174th St. & 71 st Ave Storm Improvements c521 EBFB STM 175th St. SW Slope Stabilization c560 E21 FB STM Phase 4 Storm Utility Replacement Project c567 E22FA STM 2018 Lorian Woods Study s018 EBFA STM 2019 Storm Maintenance Project c525 EBFC STM 2021 Stormwater Overlay Program i061 E21 CD STM Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design s022 E9FA STM Phase 3 Storm Utility Replacement Project c563 E21 FD STM Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station c455 E4FE STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects c436 E4FD STM NPDES (Students Saving Salmon) m013 E7FG STM OVD Slope Repair & Stabilization m105 E7FA STM Perrinville Creek Flow Reduction Improvements c552 E20FC STM Perrinville Creek Recovery Study s028 E21 FC STM Phase 2 Annual Storm Utility Replacement Project c547 EOFB STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility c479 ESFD STM Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2 c546 EOFA STM Storm Drain Improvements @ 9510 232nd St. SW c495 E7FB STM Stormwater Comp Plan Update s017 E6FD STM Willow Creek Daylighting/Edmonds Marsh Restoration c435 E4FC STM Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Project c564 E21 FE STR 2019 Traffic Calming i038 E9AA STR 2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades i045 E9AD STR 2020 Guardrail Installations i046 EOAA STR 2020 Overlay Program i042 EOCA STR 2020 Pedestrian Safety Program i049 E0D13 STR 2020 Pedestrian Task Force s024 EODA STR 2020 Traffic Calming i048 EOAC STR 2020 Traffic Signal Upgrades i047 EOAB STR 2021 Guardrail Installations i057 E21 AB STR 2021 Overlay Program i051 E21 CA STR 2021 Traffic Calming i056 E21AA STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC STR 238th St. Island & Misc. Ramps i037 EBDC STR 238th St. SW Walkway (100th Ave to 104th Ave) c423 E3DB STR 238th St. SW Walkway (Edmonds Way to Hwy 99) c485 E6DA STR 76th Ave Overlay (196th St. to OVD) i052 E20CB STR 76th Ave W & 220th St. SW Intersection Improvements i029 EBCA STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 ElCA STR 84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th i031 EBCC STR 89th PI W Retaining Wall i025 E7CD STR Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 3 (224th-238th) i067 E22CE STR Hwy 99 Revitalization Stage 4 (224th-220th) i068 E22CF STR SR-104 Adaptive Systems (136th-226th) i069 E22CG STR ADA Curb Ramps i033 EBDB Revised 12/29/2021 Packet Pg. 168 6.5.c PROJECT NUMBERS (By Funding) Project Engineering Accounting Project Funding ProiectTitle Number Number STIR Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing 040 E9DA STIR Audible Pedestrian Signals i024 E7AB STIR Bikelink Project c474 ESDA STIR Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project i050 EODC STIR Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements 026 E7DC STIR Citywide Protected/Permissive Traffic Signal Conversion i015 E6AB STIR Edmonds Street Waterfront Connector c478 ESDB STIR Elm Way Walkway from 8th Ave to 9th Ave i058 E21 DA STIR Hwy 99 Gateway Revitalization s014 E6AA STIR Minor Sidewalk Program i017 E6DD STIR SR Revitalization Stage 2 (Medians, Gateway Signage & Hawk Signal) 055 E20CE STIR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1 DA STIR Trackside Warning System c470 ESAA STIR Walnut St. Walkway (3rd-4th) i044 E9DC STIR 2021 Pedestrian Task Force 061 E21 DB STIR 2022 Overlay Program i063 E22CA STIR 2022 Waterline Overlay Program 064 E22CB STIR 2022 Sewerline Overlay Program i065 E22CC STIR 2022 Stormwater Overlay Program 066 E22CD STIR 2022 Signal Upgrades i07O E22AA STIR 2022 Traffic Calming Program 071 E22AB STIR 2022 Pedestrian Safety program i072 E22DA STIR 2022 Guardrail Program 073 E22AC STIR 2020 Waterline Overlay i053 EOCC STIR 220th Adaptive 028 EBAB SWR 2019 Sewerline Replacement Project c516 EBGA SWR 2021 Sewer Overlay Program 060 E21 CC SWR Citywide CIPP Sewer Rehab Phase III c488 E6GB SWR Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer Study s0l l ESGB SWR Lift Station #1 Basin & Flow Study c461 E4GC SWR Phase 8 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c548 EOGA SWR Phase 9 Annual Sewer Replacement Project c559 E21 GA SWR Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Pipe Rating Services c562 E21 GB SWR Phase 10 Sewerline Replacement Project c566 E22GA UTILITIES 2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update s020 EBJB UTILITIES Standard Details Updates solo ESNA UTILITIES Utility Funds reserve Policies Study s029 E22NA UTILITIES 2022 Utility Rate and GFC Study s030 E22NB WTR 2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement c523 EBJA WTR 2019 Waterline Overlay 043 E9CB WTR 2019 Waterline Replacement c498 E7JA WTR 2021 Waterline Overlay Program 059 E21 CB WTR Dayton St. Utility Replacement Project (3rd Ave to 9th Ave) c482 ESJB WTR Elm St. Waterline Replacement c561 E21JB WTR Five Corners Reservoir Re -coating c473 ESKA WTR Phase 11 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c549 EOJA WTR Phase 12 Annual Water Utility Replacement Project c558 E21JA WTR Yost & Seaview Reservoir Assessment s026 EOJB WTR Phase 13 Waterline Replacement Project c565 E22JA WTR Yost & Seaview Reservoir Repairs and Upgrades m160 E22JB WWTP Sewer Outfall Groundwater Monitoring c446 E4HA WWTP WWTP Outfall Pipe Modifications c481 ESHA Revised 12/29/2021 Packet Pg. 169 6.6 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/15/2022 Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. Staff Lead: Megan Menkveld Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Lori Palmer Background/History Approval of payroll checks #64988 through #64990 for $4,639.39 dated 02/04/2022, payroll direct deposit for $690,184.41, benefit checks #64991 through #64995 and wire payments of $584,179.40 for the pay period January 16, 2022 through January 31, 2022. Staff Recommendation Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments. Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non -approval of expenditures. Attachments: 01-16-2022 to 01-31-2022 benefit checks summary report 01-16-2022 to 01-31-2022 payroll earnings summary report Packet Pg. 170 Benefit Checks Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,040 - 01/16/2022 to 01/31/2022 Bank: usbank - US Bank Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 64991 02/04/2022 bpas BPAS 5,593.60 0.00 64992 02/04/2022 jhan JOHN HANCOCK 212.22 0.00 64993 02/04/2022 flex NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 3,499.98 0.00 64994 02/04/2022 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 5,239.52 0.00 64995 02/04/2022 afscme WSCCCE, AFSCME AFL-CIO 2,408.00 0.00 16,953.32 0.00 Bank: wire - US BANK Check # Date Payee # Name Check Amt Direct Deposit 3317 02/04/2022 pens DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 288,540.99 0.00 3319 02/04/2022 aflac AFLAC 4,337.58 0.00 3321 02/04/2022 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 26,334.11 0.00 3322 02/04/2022 us US BANK 119,619.94 0.00 3323 02/04/2022 mebt WTRISC FBO #N317761 121,613.17 0.00 3325 02/04/2022 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 5,961.29 0.00 3326 02/04/2022 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 819.00 0.00 567,226.08 0.00 Grand Totals: 584,179.40 0.00 6.6.a 2/2/2022 Packet Pg. 171 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,040 (01/16/2022 to 01/31/2022) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount 111 ABSENT NO PAY LEAVE -29.00 0.00 121 SICK SICK LEAVE 816.07 32,532.58 122 VACATION VACATION 672.18 28,291.95 123 HOLIDAY HOLIDAY HOURS 33.00 1,676.28 124 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY 41.00 1,495.15 125 COMP HOURS COMPENSATORY TIME 146.25 5,650.83 130 COMP HOURS Holidav Compensation Used 8.00 321.30 135 SICK WASHINGTON STATE SICK LEAVE 22.00 370.80 150 REGULAR HOURS Kelly Day Used 12.00 446.56 152 COMP HOURS COMPTIME BUY BACK 3.25 122.30 154 HOLIDAY FLOATER HOLIDAY BUY BACK 4.50 151.12 155 COMP HOURS COMPTIME AUTO PAY 333.54 18,486.98 157 SICK SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 400.00 27,299.20 158 VACATION VACATION PAYOFF 309.60 20,747.14 160 VACATION MANAGEMENT LEAVE 52.00 3,910.74 170 REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL BASE PAY 700.00 9,916.62 174 REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAY 0.00 300.00 175 REGULAR HOURS COUNCIL PAY FOR NO MEDICAL 0.00 4,055.30 190 REGULAR HOURS REGULAR HOURS 15,456.50 656,894.67 191 REGULAR HOURS FIRE PENSION PAYMENTS 4.00 5,912.37 194 SICK Emerqencv Sick Leave 444.00 17,128.44 195 REGULAR HOURS ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE 90.00 3,842.00 196 REGULAR HOURS LIGHT DUTY 237.00 14,327.81 205 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME .5 138.50 2,608.15 210 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -STRAIGHT 171.75 8,542.69 215 OVERTIME HOURS WATER WATCH STANDBY 42.00 2,405.68 216 MISCELLANEOUS STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT 16.00 1,431.80 220 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME 1.5 504.50 39,047.75 225 OVERTIME HOURS OVERTIME -DOUBLE 21.50 1,446.78 400 MISCELLANEOUS MISC PAY 0.00 -104.21 405 ACTING PAY OUT OF CLASS - POLICE 0.00 503.76 410 MISCELLANEOUS WORKING OUT OF CLASS 0.00 359.48 411 SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL 0.00 1,393.06 602 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 1.0 110.25 0.00 603 COMP HOURS Holiday Comp 1.0 27.00 0.00 02/02/2022 Packet Pg. 172 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,040 (01/16/2022 to 01/31/2022) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount 604 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5 283.50 0.00 606 COMP HOURS ACCRUED COMP 2.0 12.00 0.00 902 MISCELLANEOUS BOOT ALLOWANCE 0.00 2,250.00 903 MISCELLANEOUS CLOTHING ALLOWANCE 0.00 -37.50 acc MISCELLANEOUS ACCREDITATION PAY 0.00 85.09 acs MISCELLANEOUS ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT 0.00 148.12 boc MISCELLANEOUS BOC II Certification 0.00 96.39 colre MISCELLANEOUS Collision Reconstructionist 0.00 92.72 cpl MISCELLANEOUS TRAINING CORPORAL 0.00 185.44 crt MISCELLANEOUS CERTIFICATION III PAY 0.00 390.67 deftat MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSE TATICS INSTRUCTOR 0.00 171.68 det MISCELLANEOUS DETECTIVE PAY 0.00 127.02 det4 MISCELLANEOUS Detective 4% 0.00 895.02 ed1 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 2% 0.00 714.79 ed2 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 4% 0.00 772.80 ed3 EDUCATION PAY EDUCATION PAY 6% 0.00 6,586.71 firear MISCELLANEOUS FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR 0.00 461.43 furls SICK FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK 80.00 5,037.50 hol HOLIDAY HOLIDAY 1,273.16 53,181.47 k9 MISCELLANEOUS K-9 PAY 0.00 273.06 less MISCELLANEOUS LESS LETHAL INSTRUCTOR 0.00 88.70 Iq1 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2% 0.00 974.58 Ig11 LONGEVITY LONGEVITY PAY 2.5% 0.00 599.74 Ig12 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 9% 0.00 4,697.39 Ig13 LONGEVITY Longevity 7% 0.00 945.39 Ig14 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 5% 0.00 706.98 Iq2 LONGEVITY PAY LONGEVITY PAY 4% 0.00 259.00 Iq4 LONGEVITY Longevity 1 % 0.00 390.23 Iq5 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 3% 0.00 1,313.39 Iq6 LONGEVITY Longevity .5% 0.00 293.21 Iq7 LONGEVITY Lonqevitv 1.5% 0.00 408.72 Iq8 LONGEVITY Longevity 8% 0.00 252.04 mtc MISCELLANEOUS MOTORCYCLE PAY 0.00 127.02 ooc MISCELLANEOUS OUT OF CLASS 0.00 186.00 pfmp ABSENT Paid Family Medical Unpaid/Sup 281.43 0.00 02/02/2022 Packet Pg. 173 Payroll Earnings Summary Report City of Edmonds Pay Period: 1,040 (01/16/2022 to 01/31/2022) Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount pfms SICK Paid FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK 24.57 849.63 phy MISCELLANEOUS PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY 0.00 2,681.06 prof MISCELLANEOUS PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SER 0.00 201.50 pto MISCELLANEOUS Traininq Officer 0.00 161.22 sdp MISCELLANEOUS SPECIAL DUTY PAY 0.00 310.53 sqt MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT 0.00 201.50 St REGULAR HOURS Serqeant Pay 0.00 151.13 traf MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC 0.00 127.02 22,742.05 $998,873.47 Total Net Pay: $694,823.80 6.6.b a+ Q 02/02/2022 Packet Pg. 174 6.7 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/15/2022 Position Description Revisions - Day Camp Staff Lead: Angie Feser Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Preparer: Angie Feser Background/History The Parks, Recreation & Cultural Department has historically implemented non -school day camp program for over 20 years prior to making the decision to forgo that programming in 2016. In 2020, when the pandemic forced school children away from their schools the Department developed a distance learning program by the name LEAP, for children whose parents or guardians were unable to support their educational efforts at home. The success of this program, as well as findings in the 2022 Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan, it was determined that there is a need in the community for non - school day, safe and fun activities for youth. The Recreation Division intends to bring back a non -school day camp as was submitted and approved in the 2022 budget. Staff Recommendation Approve the Recreation Leader - Day Camp and Day Camp Assistant position description as revised. Narrative Staff has revised updated the previously approved position descriptions from the LEAP distance learning program with minor revisions to bring them into alignment with the anticipated position responsibilities associated with implementing the upcoming day camp. This is not a request for additional funding. This is a request to approve the revisions suggested on the two attached redline documents. Documents titled FINAL reflect the position descriptions with all changes accepted. Proposed revisions have been reviewed and approved by the Human Resources staff. Attachments: Day Camp Assistant Redline Day Camp Assistant FINAL Recreation Leader - Day Camp Redline Recreation Leader - Day Camp FINAL Packet Pg. 175 6.7.a City of EDMONDS Washington Recreation Leader ;efatDay Camp Assistant H07 Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Pay Grade:9 Bargaining Unit: Hourly FLSA Status: Non -Exempt Reer-eation S"ervisef Recreation Leader Revised Date: 9/ °��1/26/2022 Reports To: Day Camp POSITION PURPOSE: Under supervision, this position is responsible for assisting in providing the planning, organization, and implementation of effective, healthy, and safe school -aged youth recreation and instruction programs to include, but not limited to suppoi4ing dista ee le ,. ing ,,etivities as preser-ibed by edueatio a those in a classroom -like environment, and other day camp recreation activities. Candidate should have strong organizational, leadership and communication skills with a commitment to providing quality recreation and instruction activities to each and every youth participant. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES: The following duties ARE NOT intended to serve as a comprehensive list of all duties performed by all employees in this classification, only a representative summary of the primary duties and responsibilities. Incumbent(s) may not be required to perform all duties listed and may be required to perform additional, position -specific duties. • Assist with and lead youth recreation programs • Support classroom -like operations and participant aeademie o ,.h.Y e • Provide leadership and effective problem -solving skills • Communicate with participants and guardians in a manner that favorably represents the City of Edmonds. • Monitor and maintain cleanliness of facility to include following COVID safety procedures such as frequent wiping of high touch surfaces • Assist with monitoring and implementing current COVID health and safety guidelines such as health screening, temperature taking and enforcing mask requirements • Monitor the safety of children • Handle minor emergent situations that may arise as per city policy • Assist with site operations as outlined in program handbook • Complete reports and file paperwork as needed • Open and close facility as assigned May be tasked with performing related duties as required. Related duties are duties that may not be specifically listed in the position description, but are within the general occupational series and responsibility level typically associated with the employee's classification of work. Packet Pg. 176 6.7.a 2 of 3 JOB DESCRIPTION Recreation Lead ---Gems aigg Camp Assistant Required Knowledge of: • Knowledge of and ability to administer CPR, AED, and First Aid • Knowledge of and ability to positively influence and motivate youth Required Skill in: • Communicate effectively orally and in writing • Consistently provide quality customer service • Learn and apply new skills • Solve problems effectively and efficiently • Planning and preparation of age -appropriate activities for youth • Remaining calm in an environment that is sometimes stressful, with distractions and interruptions • Ability to shift priorities rapidly • Ability to tise eamptitefs and seftware to assist in the use of the Edmonds Sehool Distr-iet dista MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Education and Experience: • Must be 18 years of age or older • High school diploma • Prior work experience with school -aged children is preferred Preferred Qualifications: • One year of experience leading or teaching school -aged youth programs such as day camp or day care Required Licenses or Certifications: • Current CPR and First Aid or ability to obtain by start date • Must be able to successfully complete and pass a pre -employment background check WORKING CONDITIONS: Environment: • Indoor and outdoor environment • Classroom environment • Constant interruptions • Sometimes loud/noisy • Work is generally performed Monday through Friday and the incumbent may be hired into either morning or afternoon shifts or full day shifts as needed for the purposes of the program to which they are assigned. Physical Abilities: • Required to wear a face covering (mask) at all times • Sit or stand for extended periods of time • Specific vision abilities include close vision, distance vision, color vision, peripheral vision, depth perception, and the ability to adjust focus in order to maintain surveillance of participants and employees • Stoop, kneel, twist, bend, crouch or crawl • Walk up and down stairs • Use hands and fingers to handle or feel objects or equipment • Lift, move and handle minimum of 50 pounds Packet Pg. 177 6.7.a 3of3 JOB DESCRIPTION Recreation Lead ---Gene aigg Camp Assistant • Move over rough ground, including outdoor playground Hazards: • Potential contact with sick children Incumbent Signature: Department Head: Date: Date: Packet Pg. 178 6.7.b City of EDMONDS Washington Day Camp Assistant Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Pay Grade: H07 Bargaining Unit: Hourly FLSA Status: Non -Exempt Recreation Leader Revised Date: 1/26/2022 Reports To: — Day Camp POSITION PURPOSE: Under supervision, this position is responsible for assisting in providing the planning, organization, and implementation of effective, healthy, and safe school -aged youth recreation and instruction programs to include, but not limited to those in a classroom -like environment, and other day camp recreation activities. Candidate should have strong organizational, leadership and communication skills with a commitment to providing quality recreation and instruction activities to each and every youth participant. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES: The following duties ARE NOT intended to serve as a comprehensive list of all duties performed by all employees in this classification, only a representative summary of the primary duties and responsibilities. Incumbent(s) may not be required to perform all duties listed and may be required to perform additional, position -specific duties. • Assist with and lead youth recreation programs • Support classroom -like operations • Provide leadership and effective problem -solving skills • Communicate with participants and guardians in a manner that favorably represents the City of Edmonds. • Monitor and maintain cleanliness of facility to include following COVID safety procedures such as frequent wiping of high touch surfaces • Assist with monitoring and implementing current COVID health and safety guidelines such as health screening, temperature taking and enforcing mask requirements • Monitor the safety of children • Handle minor emergent situations that may arise as per city policy • Assist with site operations as outlined in program handbook • Complete reports and file paperwork as needed • Open and close facility as assigned May be tasked with performing related duties as required. Related duties are duties that may not be specifically listed in the position description, but are within the general occupational series and responsibility level typically associated with the employee's classification of work. Required Knowledge of: • Knowledge of and ability to administer CPR, AED, and First Aid • Knowledge of and ability to positively influence and motivate youth Packet Pg. 179 6.7.b 2 of 3 JOB DESCRIPTION Day Camp Assistant Required Skill in: • Communicate effectively orally and in writing • Consistently provide quality customer service • Learn and apply new skills • Solve problems effectively and efficiently • Planning and preparation of age -appropriate activities for youth • Remaining calm in an environment that is sometimes stressful, with distractions and interruptions • Ability to shift priorities rapidly MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Education and Experience: • Must be 18 years of age or older • High school diploma • Prior work experience with school -aged children is preferred Preferred Qualifications: • One year of experience leading or teaching school -aged youth programs such as day camp or day care Required Licenses or Certifications: • Current CPR and First Aid or ability to obtain by start date • Must be able to successfully complete and pass a pre -employment background check WORKING CONDITIONS: Environment: • Indoor and outdoor environment • Classroom environment • Constant interruptions • Sometimes loud/noisy • Work is generally performed Monday through Friday and the incumbent may be hired into either morning or afternoon shifts or full day shifts as needed for the purposes of the program to which they are assigned. Physical Abilities: • Required to wear a face covering (mask) at all times • Sit or stand for extended periods of time • Specific vision abilities include close vision, distance vision, color vision, peripheral vision, depth perception, and the ability to adjust focus in order to maintain surveillance of participants and employees • Stoop, kneel, twist, bend, crouch or crawl • Walk up and down stairs • Use hands and fingers to handle or feel objects or equipment • Lift, move and handle minimum of 50 pounds • Move over rough ground, including outdoor playground Hazards: • Potential contact with sick children Packet Pg. 180 6.7.b 3of3 JOB DESCRIPTION Day Camp Assistant Incumbent Signature: Department Head: Date: Date: a E cc U cc In Q Packet Pg. 181 City of EDMONDS Washington Recreation Leader -14Day Camp Parks, Recreation & Cultural NE-2 Department: Services Pay Grade: H4-2 Bargaining Unit: AFSCME Council 2 FLSA Status: Non -Exempt Recreation Revised Date: 21/26/22 Reports To: Coordinator POSITION PURPOSE: Under general supervision, this position is responsible for providing the planning, organization, and implementation of effective, healthy, and safe school -aged youth recreation and instruction programs to include, but not limited to, or-ganiza4ions, in a classroom -like environment, and other day camp recreation activities. Candidate should have strong organizational, leadership and communication skills with a commitment to providing quality recreation and instruction activities to each and every youth participant. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES: The following duties ARE NOT intended to serve as a comprehensive list of all duties performed by all employees in this classification, only a representative summary of the primary duties and responsibilities. Incumbent(s) may not be required to perform all duties listed and may be required to perform additional, position -specific duties. • Responsible for the daily work management of the Recreation Leader — General job classification. • Facilitate classroom -like operations .:-hies, suppeft p^tieipa t aeademie epAiehmefit • Provide leadership and effective problem -solving skills • Lead youth recreation programs and provide academic enrichment support • Monitor and maintain cleanliness of facility to include following COVID safety procedures such as frequent wiping of high touch surfaces • Monitor and implement current COVID health and safety guidelines such as health screening, temperature taking and enforcing mask requirements • Monitor the safety of children and supervised Recreation Assistant(s) • Handle minor emergent situations that may arise as per city policy • Complete reports and file paperwork as needed. • Communicate with participants and guardians in a manner that favorably represents the City of Edmonds. May be tasked with performing related duties as required. Related duties are duties that may not be specifically listed in the position description, but are within the general occupational series and responsibility level typically associated with the employee's classification of work. Required Knowledge of: • Knowledge of and ability to administer CPR, AED, and First Aid • Knowledge of and ability to use leadership and supervisory methods to motivate staff • Knowledge of and ability to positively influence, engage, and motivate youth Required Skill in: • Communicate effectively orally and in writing • Consistently provide quality customer service Packet Pg. 182 2 of 3 JOB DESCRIPTION Recreation Leader 14- Day Camp • Learn and apply new skills • Solve problems effectively and efficiently • Planning and preparation of age -appropriate activities for youth • Remaining calm in an environment that is sometimes stressful, with distractions and interruptions • Ability to shift priorities rapidly • Ability to use eemputer-s and seftwar-e to assist in the use of the Edmonds Sehool Distfiet distanee !ear-ning platform with program participants MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Education and Experience: • Must be 21 years of age or older • High school diploma • One year of experience leading or teaching school -aged youth programs such as day camp or day care • One year of college coursework in Recreation, Education, and/or related field. • Any equivalent combination of education, training, experience, knowledge, and abilities which would allow individual to perform the duties of the position will be considered Preferred Qualifications: • Completion of thirty or more college quarter credits or combination of one-third clock hours and two- thirds college credits in early childhood education/child development, elementary education, social work, or another child -related field. Required Licenses or Certifications: • Current CPR and First Aid or ability to obtain by start date • Must be able to successfully complete and pass a pre -employment background check WORKING CONDITIONS: Environment: • Indoor and outdoor environment • Classroom environment • Constant interruptions • Sometimes loud/noisy • This position will generally work a regular Monday through Friday 8 am -5 pm schedule, however this schedule may change as necessary to meet the needs of the program and the incumbent must be able to work alternative schedules as necessary. Physical Abilities: • Required to wear a face covering (mask) at all times • Sit or stand for extended periods of time • Specific vision abilities include close vision, distance vision, color vision, peripheral vision, depth perception, and the ability to adjust focus in order to maintain surveillance of participants and employees • Stoop, kneel, twist, bend, crouch or crawl • Walk up and down stairs • Use hands and fingers to handle or feel objects or equipment • Lift, move and handle minimum of 50 pounds • Move over rough ground, including outdoor playground Hazards: • Potential contact with sick children Last Revis Packet Pg. 183 6.7.c 3of3 JOB DESCRIPTION Recreation Leader I4- Day Camp Incumbent Signature: Department Head: Date: Date: Last Revis Packet Pg. 184 6.7.d City of EDMONDS Washington Recreation Leader - Day Camp Parks, Recreation & Cultural Department: Services Pay Grade: NE-2 Bargaining Unit: AFSCME Council 2 FLSA Status: Non -Exempt Recreation Revised Date: 1/26/22 Reports To: Coordinator POSITION PURPOSE: Under general supervision, this position is responsible for providing the planning, organization, and implementation of effective, healthy, and safe school -aged youth recreation and instruction programs to include, but not limited to, , in a classroom -like environment, and other day camp recreation activities. Candidate should have strong organizational, leadership and communication skills with a commitment to providing quality recreation and instruction activities to each and every youth participant. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES: The following duties ARE NOT intended to serve as a comprehensive list of all duties performed by all employees in this classification, only a representative summary of the primary duties and responsibilities. Incumbent(s) may not be required to perform all duties listed and may be required to perform additional, position -specific duties. • Responsible for the daily work management of the Recreation Leader — General job classification. • Facilitate classroom -like operations • Provide leadership and effective problem -solving skills • Lead youth recreation programs and provide academic enrichment support • Monitor and maintain cleanliness of facility to include following COVID safety procedures such as frequent wiping of high touch surfaces • Monitor and implement current COVID health and safety guidelines such as health screening, temperature taking and enforcing mask requirements • Monitor the safety of children and supervised Recreation Assistant(s) • Handle minor emergent situations that may arise as per city policy • Complete reports and file paperwork as needed. • Communicate with participants and guardians in a manner that favorably represents the City of Edmonds. May be tasked with performing related duties as required. Related duties are duties that may not be specifically listed in the position description, but are within the general occupational series and responsibility level typically associated with the employee's classification of work. Required Knowledge of: • Knowledge of and ability to administer CPR, AED, and First Aid • Knowledge of and ability to use leadership and supervisory methods to motivate staff • Knowledge of and ability to positively influence, engage, and motivate youth Required Skill in: • Communicate effectively orally and in writing • Consistently provide quality customer service Packet Pg. 185 6.7.d 2 of 3 JOB DESCRIPTION Recreation Leader - Day Camp • Learn and apply new skills • Solve problems effectively and efficiently • Planning and preparation of age -appropriate activities for youth • Remaining calm in an environment that is sometimes stressful, with distractions and interruptions • Ability to shift priorities rapidly MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Education and Experience: • Must be 21 years of age or older • High school diploma • One year of experience leading or teaching school -aged youth programs such as day camp or day care • One year of college coursework in Recreation, Education, and/or related field. • Any equivalent combination of education, training, experience, knowledge, and abilities which would allow individual to perform the duties of the position will be considered Preferred Qualifications: • Completion of thirty or more college quarter credits or combination of one-third clock hours and two- thirds college credits in early childhood education/child development, elementary education, social work, or another child -related field. Required Licenses or Certifications: • Current CPR and First Aid or ability to obtain by start date • Must be able to successfully complete and pass a pre -employment background check WORKING CONDITIONS: Environment: • Indoor and outdoor environment • Classroom environment • Constant interruptions • Sometimes loud/noisy • This position will generally work a regular Monday through Friday 8 am -5 pm schedule, however this schedule may change as necessary to meet the needs of the program and the incumbent must be able to work alternative schedules as necessary. Physical Abilities: • Required to wear a face covering (mask) at all times • Sit or stand for extended periods of time • Specific vision abilities include close vision, distance vision, color vision, peripheral vision, depth perception, and the ability to adjust focus in order to maintain surveillance of participants and employees • Stoop, kneel, twist, bend, crouch or crawl • Walk up and down stairs • Use hands and fingers to handle or feel objects or equipment • Lift, move and handle minimum of 50 pounds • Move over rough ground, including outdoor playground Hazards: • Potential contact with sick children Last Revis Packet Pg. 186 6.7.d 3of3 JOB DESCRIPTION Recreation Leader - Day Camp Incumbent Signature: Department Head: Date: Date: Last Revis Packet Pg. 187 6.8 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/15/2022 Sherwood Elementary Playground Renovation Project Staff Lead: Angie Feser Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Preparer: Angie Feser Background/History The Sherwood Elementary Parent -Student Organization (PSO) is endeavoring to build a larger capacity playground to supplement the existing piece of equipment. They are requesting a $20,000 contribution from the City of Edmonds for the $120,000 project. Nearly 20% students at Sherwood qualify for the free and reduced lunch program and so the student body and surrounding community will be greatly served by a playground addition supported by community funds. In addition, the current playground equipment is reaching the end of its life cycle being more than 20 years old. Submitted by the PSO "Sherwood Elementary school is home to over 400 students and features a playground and field area that is used by all of the Edmonds community to play. The playground that currently exists is small and does not allow for more than 20 students on it at a time. During this pandemic, the students at Sherwood have found it challenging to find places to play that would help them with their cardiovascular health as well as strength and agility while remaining a safe distance from each other. We have been using the field and the sides of the school, which is grass and often ends up muddy. It's also not the most ideal situation in order to keep kids moving, healthy and using their energy efficiently and productively in order to stay both heart healthy and Covid-19 healthy. We currently have a small playground, a Gaga pit, and 3 large bars that many use for flipping, etc. It would be a wonderful improvement to the Sherwood facilities if there was a structure in place that would accommodate a larger group of students and also play to the strengths of our intermediate level students. The current play equipment is for younger students and, as mentioned above, can only allow up to 20 students at a time. This addition would increase capacity and encourage exercise, strength and agility at a time when this pandemic is making that difficult to achieve. We are also proud with the design of the playground addition as it will feature inclusive play apparatus that will serve students with disabilities - cognitive, physical, or otherwise - at Sherwood" As stated by the Sherwood Elementary PSO, the proposed playground will be available to the general community when the school is closed including summer, spring/winter breaks, weekends, and weekday evenings. The playground equipment, fall zone area wood chip material and approach from the school is ADA compliant. The goal is to secure funding now so the playground can be ordered in February to allow for installation of the new playground before the start of the next school year. Packet Pg. 188 6.8 Project Funding The PSO is seeking funding from a variety of sources and is providing $20,000 from their organization. The Edmonds School District will match one to one the funding secured by the PSO. Their proposed funding is as follows - City of Edmonds $ 20,000 Verdant grant $ 20,000 Sherwood PSO $ 20,000 Edmonds School District match 60,000 Total Project $ 120,000 The City of Edmonds Parks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) historically had an annual allocation of $25,000 for the Playground Partnership improvement projects. In an effort to simplify the CIP, that individual project allocation was combined with several others in the 2021 CIP to create one citywide improvement allocation. The $20,000 being requested is available in the 2022 Parks CIP budget within the $155,000 Citywide Park Improvements/Capital Replacement Program. The official request letter from the PSO is Attachment #1 and the playground project proposal is found in Attachment #2. The goal is to secure funding now so the playground can be ordered in February to allow for installation of the new playground before the start of the next school year. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the City Council approve a $20,000 reimbursable grant allocation for the new playground Sherwood Elementary project as proposed. Attachments: Sherwood Elementary Playground Funding Request Sherwood Elementary School KidCourse Option 3 Design Packet Pg. 189 6.8.a Angie Feser Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director City of Edmonds 700 Main Street Edmonds, WA 98020 We are seeking funding from the City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Department for this reason: Sherwood Elementary school is home to over 400 students in the school and a playground and field area that is used by all of the Edmonds community to play. The playground that currently exists is small and does not allow for more than 20 students on it at a time. During this pandemic, the students at Sherwood have found it challenging to find places to play that would help them with their cardiovascular health as well as strength and agility. We have been using the field and the sides of the school and it is not the most ideal situation in order to keep kids moving, healthy and using their energy efficiently and productively in order to stay both heart healthy and Covid-19 healthy. We currently have a small playground, a Gaga pit, and 3 large bars that many use for flipping, etc. It would be a wonderful improvement to the Sherwood facilities if there was a structure in place that would allow for the 50+ students in a grade level to be on at one time. They would be able to use multiple forms of equipment that would encourage exercise, strength and agility. This would also allow students a variety of apparatus to play on, especially during this pandemic. Funding sources: The 2021-2022 Parent -Student Organization (PSO) at Sherwood Elementary has a pot of over $20,000 in surplus funds from fundraisers that occurred during the pandemic, but were not spent because of distancing restrictions. The group at -large has agreed to use that money towards a new playground because of the need and because they believe it will be a lasting gift to the community. Through conversations with the Edmonds School District, the PSO learned that the district would be able to match any funds gathered for this project at 100%. We are hoping to earn a gift from the City of Edmonds Parks and Recreation Department in addition to funds from Verdant Health Commission, with which we are currently in talks. We would be humbled to receive a matching amount of $20,000 from the City of Edmonds, and would welcome additional funds if the city were able. If we were to receive $20,000 from the City and Verdant, combined with the $20,000 in surplus funds from the PSO, the Edmonds School District will match that with $60,000 — putting our project at a $120,000 budget. That will be just enough to cover the playground we have envisioned for the students. Packet Pg. 190 6.8.a GameStop is a playground equipment manufacturer and installer that has worked with the district on many other projects, including the original playground that still stands today at Sherwood Elementary. The company has drawn up two proposals that should demonstrate the range of playgrounds we can pull off with full funding from all sources, and a scaled -back version. Please see the attached document. We believe the proposals represent the wants and needs of the Sherwood student body, who will use this playground multiple times daily. In addition, we believe this will be a useful resource for the community around Sherwood. Sincerely, Colleen Byrum Sherwood PSO Secretary Packet Pg. 191 Proposal for 6.8.b Edmonds School District Prepared by GREAT WESTERN R E C R E A T I O N 01-31-2022 Job # 10 5332-0 1 Sherwood Elementary School Kid Course Option 3 Game RM44 n PLA CORE c --, 435-901-9544 1 www.gwpark.com Packet Pg. 192 Sherwood Elementary School Playground -Project 105332-01-Opt 3 G R E A A STRONG FOUNDATION IN PLAY FOR OVER 50 YEARS P: (435) 245-5055 / F: 435 245-5057 Quinn@gwpark.com R E c i Sherwood Elementary School Playground -Project 105332-01-Opt 3 Edmonds, WA s� ICU :4( _ .0 i;t.��11J1 ram, I' R in RINI in N ii in t A STRONG FOUNDATION IN PLAY FOR OVER 50 YEARS P: (435) 245-5055 / F: 435 245-5057 Quinn@gwpark.com 6.8.b Jg&hhJh' I G R E A R E C Sherwood Elementary School Playground -Project 105332-01-Opt 3 Edmonds, WA I11 I� II I 6.8.b G R E A A STRONG FOUNDATION IN PLAY FOR OVER 50 YEARS P: (435) 245-5055 / F: 435 245-5057 Quinn@gwpark.com R E c i Sherwood Elementary School Playground -Project 105332-01-Opt 3 Edmonds, WA _ 'Air v .►:_�kMb '91 n., 'oil 1'wi 50 F f Y.. A STRONG FOUNDATION IN PLAY FOR OVER 50 YEARS P: (435) 245-5055 / F: 435 245-5057 Quinn@gwpark.com 6.8.b 0 I G R E A R E C Sherwood Elementary School Playground -Project 105332-01-Opt 3 G R E A A STRONG FOUNDATION IN PLAY FOR OVER 50 YEARS P: (435) 245-5055 / F: 435 245-5057 Quinn@gwpark.com R E c i Sherwood Elementary School Playground -Project 105332-01-Opt 3 Edmonds, WA 'y+ A STRONG FOUNDATION IN PLAY FOR OVER 50 YEARS P: (435) 245-5055 / F: 435 245-5057 Quinn@gwpark.com 6.8.b Jg&hhJh' I G R E A R E C CUSTOM COLOR SELECTIONS Project: 105332-01-Opt 3 Approved by: Surfacing: EWF CUSTOM COLORS: ITEM COLOR Sky wheel Blue ITEM COLOR NAO BASIC NAOACCENT/ARCH ,AO METAL ROOF NAOROTO Whlre Whl[e 0 Ya1k�Y l 1 Yellow DECKS NA 0 � 0 HANDGRIP O NA O PRIMARY ONATURAL P&J Green Biue Berge 0000 • GrNn • L>!m[ Green • • Oark B&ue Blue Sky Blue P�nw;pkl. � 'irRpya[Perple Burgundy • Wd • • NAOTUBE NAOPLASTIC ROOF • • Hen ` Grevn ` �iyht [;reM • ` Oark Blue Biw ' Sr]` Bk. - P.riwintie -�- Royal purple • 0urg�ndY • fled • Orarge • OKhaki 0© 0�s 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ODancWlon ROCK • • BiDe • GrNn • Llplrt Yarwn • • Oark Blue • Blue ` iWflWW"V Royal purple • &arguney • Rvd • ITEM NAtJnDPE 0© 0.,: O 0 0 0 0® 0 0 yellow COLOR 2 COLOR HDPE NAOSHADE NA l-1 O= 0 ' 0 -1- - ;UVk RECYCLED LUMBER NA ONA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q Packet Pg. 199 Q O ROCKCAPE ROCKS STEP 7088 CHROCK PT STRETCHED CLIMBER T TRIANGULAR TRAPEZOID PT TRAPEZOID7087 °� 90 °�27079 90 26094 (1e) 27081 ROCKSCAPE ROCK STEP START SINGLE LINK SINGLE LINK 7088 ROCKSCAPE ACCESS CROSS BEAM 2 WAY X—POD STEP CROSS BEAM ROCKSCAPE ROCK STEP 7088 PLATFORM 19818 26155 26057 26155 WEB WALL SINGLE LINK 7091 CROSS BEAM THERAPEUTIC ROCK STEP 26155 RING ROCK STEP 26109 ROCKSCAPE 26109 LIGHTNING SINGLE SUPPORT STRETCHED ROCKSCAPE CUMBER WITHP LOOP LADDER ROCK 26080 ROCKSCAPE STEP LINK ROCKSCAPE ROCK 7071 LIGHTNING ARCH ROCK STEP LINK CUMBER CUMBER UMB R 2 WAY X—POD 7071 STEP 26057 ROCK STEP ROCK STEP 26109 TRACK 26109 SINGLE LINK 12729 SINGLE LINK RIDE CROSS BEAM TURNING BAR CROSS AM 26038 26155 55 ARCHED CHAIN INVERTED LOOP ANGING POD NET LINK LADDER ARCHED LINK 26096 26079 TRAPEZE RING 26095 26084 ARCHED SKY WHEELS LOOP LADDER #*a� 26081 26078 90' 2 WAY 90' 2 WAY 90' V " . 2 WAY 90' 2 WAY UPPER BODY TRAINER X—POD STEP X—POD STEP X—POD STEP X—POD STEP 12923 / 26143 26143 26143 26143 60'-0" 0 10' 20' 5' 15' II�V EO This Unit includes play events and Sherwood Elementary School routes or travel specifically designed Total Elevated Play Components 0 for special needs users. It is the Total Elevated Play Components Accessible By Ramp 0 Required 0 -FIA Cdfa� Edmonds, WA opinion of the manufacturer that these play events and routes of Total Elevated Components Accessible By Transfer 0 Required 0 150 PlayCore Drive SE Representative travel conform to the accessibility Total Accessible Ground Level Components Shown 14 Required 0 Fort Payne, AL 35967 y w .gametimexom Great Western Recreation requirements of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) Total Different Types Of Ground Level Components 5 Required 3 44'-0" i 's Area: Sales Representative d SF:2,650 /N Quinn Connell LF:210 -r, quinn@gwpark.corn 435-901-9544 r Drawn By: BW Date: 12/2/21 6.9 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/15/2022 Preliminary December 2021 Quarterly Financial Report Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Sarah Mager Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation No action needed; informational only. Narrative Preliminary December 2021 Quarterly Financial Report Attachments: Complete December 2021 Quarterly Financial Report Jan -Dec 2021 P&L Packet Pg. 201 6.9.a INSIDE THIS ISSUE: Revenues By Fund Summary Expenditures By Fund Summary General Fund Revenues Expenditures By Fund Detail Gen. Fund Depart- ment Expenditures Summary Revenues 1 This report is a summary of the City's preliminary operating results for the year ended December 31,2021. Investment Portfolio 32 Fund Balance Overview Right. Cases and hospitalizations may be begin- ning to level off, but COVID will have lasting im- pacts to our lives far beyond 2022. Revenue Update: As the coronavirus pandemic contin- ues, more people have been vaccinat- ed against COVID-19, and govern- ment -provided stimulus plans have contributed to a significant economic recovery nationwide. Our regional economy, including our City, contin- ues to exceed expectations. Howev- er, not enough people have been vac- cinated to successfully slow the pan- demic, and as a result a new "Omicron variant" has become prev- alent. General Fund revenues for the year of $44.1 million are $1,436,045 or 3.4% ahead of budget. The largest contributor to this is from sales tax collections that are $1,985,472 ahead of this time last year, and $1,702,518 ahead of budget. Due to a currently strong local and regional economy, virtually all tax collections are ahead of last year's pace, as well as ahead of budget. (page 21.) categories except for Fines and Penalties. General Fund revenues to date exceed rev- enues for the same period last year by $2,144,140, or 5.1 %. The General Fund finished the year with a fund balance of $15,509,095 which repre- sents 37% of the General Fund Operating Budget. The $1,768,863 in the Contingent Reserve Fund coupled with the $7,493,332 in the General Fund Operating Reserve give the city a total of $9,262,195 in Reserved (Restricted) Fund Balance, which equates to 20% of the General Fund Operating Budget. This leaves $8,015,763 in Unrestricted Fund Balance. A more detailed breakdown of infor- mation for City revenues can be found be- ginning on page 19. The City currently has no interf ind loans outstanding. Revenues by Category: WHO: Europe entering'plausible General Fund revenues for endgame' to COVID pandemic the year end- The director of the World Health Organization's Europe office says the continent is ed December now entering a "plausible endgame" to the pandemic and that the number of 31, 2021 are coronavirus deaths is now starting to plateau higher than 2020 in all By The Associated Press !I February 3, 2022, 5:35 AM • 3 min read Preliminary Financial Management Report as of December Packet Pg. 202 6.9.a Top: Construction of Civic Field contin- ues, with comple- tion anticipated for Summary of Operating Funds: Expenditures General Fund ex- I penditures for the stol year are $1,765,905 less than this time last sport year, which is 8.42% courts under the budgeted amount. future :: R General Fund expens- footprint es by sub -fund and line item categories are on page 24 and expenses by depart- ment are on pages 31- 32. Every department in the General Fund i is reasonably where79 expected after nine months, and the Gen- Gen- i* eral Fund as a whole I z has spent 92% of its 1 annual budget. This same information can be found graphical form on pages 8-16. in Special Revenue Funds during the year have spent only 52% of their an- nual expense budget. This is ex- pected, as much of the underspending comes from REET funds, which at 100% of the way through the year have spent only 55% of their annual allotment. Some of this will be made up when in- voices are received af- ter the end of the year. In addition, the City re- ceived $5.9 million In Kristiana Johnson American Position #1 $1.1 million has been spent so far. Addi- tional Special Revenue Fund expenditure information can be found on pages 25-26. The total fund balance for the General Fund and Sub -funds at December 31 is $22.8 million, or approximately 48% of the annual expenditure budget for those funds. Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds this .26 Isummer, of which only DianeBuckshnis Vivian Olson I I I Will Chen NeilTibbott Position#2 Position#3 � — I Y F I Susan Paine Laura Johnson / Position#4 Postion#5 Position#6 Position#7 MMMML— Preliminary Financial Management Report as of December Packet Pg. 203 GENERAL FUND SUMMARY 6.9.a General Fund Revenues and Expenses (Rolling 24 months) General Fund Revenue General Fund Expenses 10,000, 000 — 9,000,000 8,000,000 ♦ • 7,000,000 ♦ ; ♦ ; 6,000,000 ♦ • 5,000,000 4,000,000 2,000, 000 1,000, 000 January April July October January April July October General Fund Tax Revenue (2015 through 2020) Sales Tax Property Tax EMS Tax Other Taxes 12,000, 000 10,000, 000 8,000,000 —---—————————-—-—-—- 6,000,000 4,000, 000 2,000,000 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 12,000,000 11,000,000 10,000, 000 9,000, 000 8,000, 000 7,000, 000 6,000,000 5,000, 000 4,000,000 3,000, 000 2,000, 000 1,000, 000 Sales Tax General Fund Tax Revenue (2021 YTD) $10,541,754 ]I Property Tax EMS Tax Other Taxes 1 I Packet Pg. 204 I 6.9.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -General Fund 2021 General Fund Cumulative Budget Forecast Monthly Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 2,296,180 $ 2,296,180 $ 2,740,276 19.34% February 4,631,714 2,335,534 5,089,278 9.88% March 7,134,855 2,503,141 7,050,949 -1.18% April 10,214,588 3,079,733 11,029,475 7.98% May 18,446,129 8,231,541 20,122,774 9.09% June 20,867,080 2,420,951 22,872,014 9.61% July 23,169,697 2,302,617 25,583,320 10.42% August 25,715,721 2,546,024 28,113,466 9.32% September 27,989,932 2,274,211 30,286,676 8.21% October 31,872,260 3,882,327 33,150,940 4.01% November 40,264,126 8,391,867 41,509,313 3.09% December 42,615,777 2,351,651 44,051,822 3.37% City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Real Estate Excise Tax 2021 Real Estate Excise Tax 1 & 2 Cumulative Budget Forecast Monthly Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 195,748 $ 195,748 $ 625,840 219.72% February 341,557 145,810 922,678 170.14% March 525,343 183,786 1,222,093 132.63% April 697,989 172,646 1,478,072 111.76 May 895,413 197,424 1,949,651 117.74% June 1,120,061 224,648 2,330,065 108.03% July 1,335,075 215,015 2,879,064 115.65% August 1,581,214 246,138 3,453,870 118.43% September 1,849,736 268,522 3,818,929 106.46% October 2,083,774 234,038 4,224,981 102.76% November 2,308,787 225,013 4,659,366 101.81% December 2,500,000 191,213 5,001,330 100.05% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 2 Packet Pg. 205 1 SALES TAX SUMMARY I 6.9.a I Sales Tax Analysis By Category Current Period: December 2021 Year -to -Date Total $10,302,518 Automotive Repair, $218,677 Amusement & Construction Trade, Recreation, $56,086 $1,583,256 Health & Personal Business Services, Accommodation, Care, $261,143 $1,056,864 Gasoline, $40,056 $37,654 Clothing and Accessories, $331,417 Communications, $240,348 Wholesale Trade, $365,304 Misc Retail, $1,831,412 12,000,000 10,000, 000 8,000,000 6,905,1 $6,741,838 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 2015 2016 Retail Food Stores, Iw $342,348 Retail Automotive $2,524,990 Manufacturing, Others, $243,622 Eating & Drinking, $128,854 $1,040,487 Annual Sales Tax Revenue 7.395.114 $8,406,296 $8,452,715 $8,317,046 2018 201 $10,302,518 2020 YTD 2021 3 Packet Pg. 206 1 I 6.9.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Sales and Use Tax 2021 Sales and Use Tax Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 661,963 $ 661,963 $ 774,198 16.95% February 1,491,081 829,118 1,647,058 10.46% March 2,110,825 619,744 2,350,659 11.36% April 2,677,870 567,045 3,041,781 13.59% May 3,379,279 701,409 3,922,140 16.06% June 4,038,220 658,941 4,797,214 18.80% July 4,756,025 717,805 5,699,002 19.83% August 5,547,915 791,890 6,634,250 19.58% September 6,288,480 740,565 7,479,695 18.94% October 7,063,515 775,035 8,493,819 20.25% November 7,866,501 802,986 9,428,122 19.85% December 8,600,000 733,499 10,302,518 19.80% Gas Utility Tax Sales and Use Tax 11,000,000 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 - 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC -*-- Current Year Budget - Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Gas Utility Tax 2021 Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 82,557 $ 82,557 $ 84,132 1.91% February 170,654 88,097 172,999 1.37% March 250,947 80,292 269,171 7.26% April 317,447 66,501 350,366 10.37% May 368,586 51,139 413,190 12.10% June 403,108 34,522 453,419 12.48% July 430,884 27,777 489,128 13.52% August 454,299 23,415 512,233 12.75% September 475,121 20,822 535,887 12.79% October 498,594 23,472 565,388 13.40% November 537,295 38,702 612,631 14.02% December 595,000 57,705 683,675 14.90% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 4 Packet Pg. 207 I 6.9.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Telephone Utility Tax 2021 Telephone Utility Tax Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 69,351 $ 69,351 $ 56,592 -18.40% February 138,426 69,074 85,370 -38.33% March 199,085 60,660 140,907 -29.22% April 265,909 66,823 190,824 -28.24% May 325,636 59,728 218,932 -32.77% June 385,177 59,540 274,873 -28.64% July 443,946 58,770 322,813 -27.29% August 501,501 57,554 365,431 -27.13% September 557,882 56,382 391,086 -29.90% October 615,320 57,437 452,939 -26.39% November 665,999 50,679 494,628 -25.73% December 723,000 57,001 534,819 -26.03% Electric Utility Tax 800,000 Telephone Utility Tax 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget -*-- Prior Year City of'Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Electric Utility Tax 2021 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 179,984 $ 179,984 $ 192,356 6.87% February 379,889 199,905 367,328 -3.31% March 546,637 166,748 537,433 -1.68% April 730,293 183,656 721,208 -1.24% May 873,813 143,520 872,875 -0.11% June 997,568 123,755 987,183 -1.04% July 1,114,337 116,769 1,105,355 -0.81% August 1,230,154 115,816 1,217,532 -1.03% September 1,342,671 112,517 1,330,863 -0.88% October 1,453,976 111,305 1,439,342 -1.01% November 1,576,729 122,753 1,557,394 -1.23% December 1,710,000 133,271 1,687,180 -1.33% Electric Utility Tax 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 , , JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget � Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 5 Packet Pg. 208 I 6.9.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Meter Water Sales 2021 Meter Water Sales Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 779,311 $ 779,311 $ 785,708 0.82% February 1,323,513 544,201 1,376,327 3.99% March 2,123,378 799,865 2,200,360 3.63% April 2,634,733 511,355 2,730,111 3.62% May 3,397,533 762,799 3,527,366 3.82% June 3,993,888 596,356 4,181,353 4.69% July 4,928,107 934,219 5,161,097 4.73% August 5,728,520 800,414 6,057,803 5.75% September 6,831,863 1,103,343 7,158,105 4.78% October 7,628,547 796,684 7,904,214 3.61% November 8,538,589 910,042 8,773,134 2.75% December 9,090,825 552,236 9,318,825 2.51% City of'Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary -Storm Water Sales 2021 Storm Water Sales Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 384,276 $ 384,276 $ 377,845 6.87% February 1,216,009 831,732 1,205,144 -3.31% March 1,599,504 383,495 1,586,561 -1.68% April 1,939,303 339,799 1,926,094 -1.24% May 2,323,204 383,901 2,307,849 -0.11% June 2,663,931 340,727 2,647,822 -1.04% July 3,048,086 384,154 2,994,340 -1.76% August 3,880,066 831,980 3,819,514 -1.56% September 4,263,771 383,706 4,201,629 -1.46% October 4,604,458 340,687 4,540,958 -1.38% November 4,988,465 384,006 4,923,087 -1.31% December 5,316,477 328,012 5,263,287 -1.00% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 0 Packet Pg. 209 1 I 6.9.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Revenue Summary-Unmeter Sewer Sales 2021 Unmeter Sewer Sales Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 846,742 $ 846,742 $ 806,699 -4.73% February 1,539,036 692,295 1,482,613 -3.67% March 2,387,119 848,083 2,293,552 -3.92% April 3,078,705 691,586 2,976,527 -3.32% May 3,923,269 844,563 3,802,264 -3.08% June 4,616,005 692,736 4,493,851 -2.65% July 5,485,907 869,902 5,279,791 -3.76% August 6,180,993 695,086 5,974,891 -3.33% September 7,065,967 884,974 6,845,543 -3.12% October 7,769,759 703,792 7,541,945 -2.93% November 8,630,384 860,626 8,386,649 -2.82% December 9,319,928 689,544 9,079,753 -2.58% Unmeter Sewer Sales 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC � Current Year Budget � Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 7 Packet Pg. 210 I 6.9.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -General Fund 2021 General Fund Cumulative Budget Forecast Monthly Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 4,880,180 $ 4,880,180 $ 4,488,492 -8.03% February 8,299,840 3,419,660 7,637,016 -7.99% March 11,831,083 3,531,244 11,022,804 -6.83% April 15,341,609 3,510,526 14,232,961 -7.23% May 18,617,019 3,275,410 17,443,966 -6.30% June 22,848,194 4,231,174 21,115,256 -7.58% July 26,741,625 3,893,431 24,346,357 -8.96% August 30,443,226 3,701,601 27,848,489 -8.52% September 33,900,570 3,457,344 31,332,012 -7.58% October 37,713,389 3,812,819 34,558,991 -8.36% November 41,828,169 4,114,780 38,282,347 -8.48% December 46,310,977 4,482,808 42,411,472 -8.42% City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Non -Departmental 2021 Non -Departmental Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance January $ 2,151,201 $ 2,151,201 $ 2,013,112 -6.42% February 2,991,776 840,575 2,845,113 -4.90% March 3,955,309 963,533 3,679,050 -6.98% April 4,791,890 836,581 4,484,023 -6.42% May 5,479,033 687,143 5,278,401 -3.66% June 6,953,782 1,474,749 6,412,264 -7.79% July 8,001,951 1,048,169 7,203,386 -9.98% August 8,876,350 874,399 8,115,624 -8.57% September 9,624,018 747,668 8,838,355 -8.16% October 10,547,157 923,139 9,614,308 -8.84% November 11,682,309 1,135,152 10,495,603 -10.16% December 13,031,593 1,349,284 11,373,477 -12.72% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. Q Packet Pg. 211 1 I 6.9.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Council 2021 City Council Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 27,295 $ 27,295 $ 26,808 -1.79% February 57,824 30,529 53,681 -7.17% March 91,440 33,616 83,267 -8.94% April 122,323 30,882 110,738 -9.47% May 163,149 40,826 137,169 -15.92% June 212,026 48,877 164,613 -22.36% July 246,267 34,241 192,621 -21.78% August 293,761 47,494 219,652 -25.23% September 333,076 39,315 247,315 -25.75% October 357,472 24,396 273,284 -23.55% November 393,733 36,262 302,438 -23.19% December 432,478 38,745 333,112 -22.98% City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Office of Mayor 2021 Office of Mayor Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 28,543 $ 28,543 $ 27,531 -3.55% February 58,378 29,835 55,740 -4.52% March 86,855 28,477 83,532 -3.83% April 115,847 28,992 111,352 -3.88% May 144,377 28,530 138,910 -3.79% June 172,357 27,980 166,677 -3.30% July 200,988 28,631 194,309 -3.32% August 230,481 29,494 221,858 -3.74% September 259,088 28,607 249,093 -3.86% October 287,175 28,087 276,714 -3.64% November 315,280 28,104 311,403 -1.23% December 345,501 30,221 337,753 -2.24% Office of Mayor 350,000.00 300,000.00 250,000.00 200,000.00 150,000.00 100,000.00 50,000.00 0.00 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC --"-CunentYeaz Budget •PriorYeaz *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 9 Packet Pg. 212 I 6.9.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Human Resources 2021 Human Resources Cumulative Budget Forecast Monthly Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 73,271 $ 73,271 $ 75,120 2.52% February 138,790 65,519 132,066 -4.84% March 202,112 63,322 187,141 -7.41% April 262,791 60,679 252,612 -3.87% May 326,332 63,541 319,298 -2.16% June 403,462 77,130 368,323 -8.71% July 464,647 61,185 419,004 -9.82% August 528,490 63,843 462,324 -12.52% September 598,547 70,057 506,717 -15.34% October 664,032 65,485 554,503 -16.49% November 731,681 67,649 622,562 -14.91% December 837,176 105,495 694,985 -16.98% City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Municipal Court 2021 Municipal Court Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 94,968 $ 94,968 $ 93,953 -1.07% February 198,805 103,837 183,450 -7.72% March 299,941 101,136 275,717 -8.08% April 402,735 102,794 359,370 -10.77% May 513,290 110,555 445,221 -13.26% June 611,079 97,789 535,746 -12.33% July 712,118 101,040 622,191 -12.63% August 816,971 104,853 749,313 -8.28% September 918,568 101,597 857,840 -6.61% October 1,025,192 106,624 955,506 -6.80% November 1,125,425 100,233 1,083,397 -3.73% December 1,252,513 127,088 1,197,713 -4.38% *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 10 Packet Pg. 213 1 I 6.9.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Community Services/Economic Development 2021 Community Services/Economic Development Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 41,233 $ 41,233 $ 43,221 4.82% February 88,221 46,989 85,831 -2.71% March 135,256 47,034 130,319 -3.65% April 184,259 49,003 157,909 -14.30% May 233,650 49,391 198,730 -14.95% June 281,295 47,646 263,632 -6.28% July 332,496 51,200 308,903 -7.10% August 387,551 55,056 366,310 -5.48% September 434,722 47,170 427,478 -1.67% October 487,409 52,687 473,861 -2.78% November 550,406 62,997 533,780 -3.02% December 624,198 73,792 663,128 6.24% City Clerk Community Services/Economic Development 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget -0-- Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Clerk 2021 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 73,276 $ 73,276 * 78,859 7.62% February 133,953 60,677 139,396 4.06% March 196,194 62,241 209,183 6.62% April 261,901 65,707 272,337 3.98% May 322,071 60,170 328,247 1.92% June 380,379 58,308 351,029 -7.72% July 444,659 64,280 363,075 -18.35% August 511,894 67,234 408,783 -20.14% September 567,756 55,862 444,121 -21.78% October 625,324 57,568 475,376 -23.98% November 692,090 66,766 514,141 -25.71% December 757,055 64,965 561,793 -25.79% City Clerk 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000, 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC � Current Yeaz Budget �Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 11 Packet Pg. 214 I 6.9.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Technology Rental Fund 2021 Technology Rental Fund Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 137,483 $ 137,483 $ 117,002 -14.90% February 292,131 154,648 168,294 -42.39% March 388,373 96,242 350,229 -9.82% April 456,353 67,980 404,389 -11.39% May 546,019 89,666 460,963 -15.58% June 637,860 91,841 519,736 -18.52% July 717,891 80,031 572,585 -20.24% August 811,102 93,211 642,362 -20.80% September 907,124 96,022 711,971 -21.51% October 990,844 83,720 944,850 -4.64% November 1,072,942 82,099 994,096 -7.35% December 1,264,909 191,967 1,061,528 -16.08% Finance City of'Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Administrative Services 2021 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 123,076 $ 123,076 $ 137,736 11.91% February 213,593 90,517 226,074 5.84% March 305,354 91,762 314,260 2.92% April 398,335 92,980 402,835 1.13% May 491,716 93,382 490,038 -0.34% June 607,431 115,714 625,371 2.95% July 706,168 98,737 766,314 8.52% August 796,996 90,828 875,083 9.80% September 899,375 102,379 990,749 10.16% October 994,272 94,897 1,115,329 12.18% November 1,085,877 91,605 1,229,187 13.20% December 1,178,545 92,668 1,349,689 14.52% Administrative Services 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 1 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC -0-- Current Yeaz Budget - Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 12 Packet Pg. 215 I 6.9.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -City Attorney 2021 City Attorney Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 78,040 $ 78,040 $ 69,941 -10.38% February 156,080 78,040 142,526 -8.68% March 234,120 78,040 212,467 -9.25% April 312,160 78,040 282,407 -9.53% May 390,200 78,040 352,348 -9.70% June 468,240 78,040 404,226 -13.67% July 546,280 78,040 492,368 -9.87% August 624,320 78,040 562,309 -9.93% September 702,360 78,040 632,249 -9.98% October 780,400 78,040 702,190 -10.02% November 858,440 78,040 772,130 -10.05% December 936,480 78,040 842,071 -10.08% Police City of'Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Police 2021 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 948,663 $ 948,663 $ 992,942 4.67% February 1,933,831 985,168 1,856,572 -4.00% March 2,901,114 967,283 2,871,535 -1.02% April 3,878,067 976,953 3,802,023 -1.96% May 4,844,411 966,345 4,751,092 -1.93% June 5,873,421 1,029,009 5,731,600 -2.41% July 6,905,785 1,032,364 6,626,850 -4.04% August 7,852,686 946,901 7,550,794 -3.84% September 8,847,063 994,377 8,445,438 -4.54% October 9,934,749 1,087,687 9,394,444 -5.44% November 11,184,244 1,249,495 10,536,637 -5.79% December 12,217,071 1,032,827 11,853,454 -2.98% Police 8,000,000 6,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC --"- Current Yeaz Budget �Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 13 Packet Pg. 216 I 6.9.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Development Services 2021 Development Services Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 258,603 $ 258,603 $ 219,157 -15.25% February 543,028 284,425 448,394 -17.43% March 826,331 283,303 690,769 -16.41% April 1,128,019 301,688 934,573 -17.15% May 1,433,846 305,827 1,185,423 -17.33% June 1,715,744 281,899 1,471,283 -14.25% July 2,020,389 304,645 1,730,845 -14.33% August 2,331,583 311,194 1,960,572 -15.91% September 2,632,785 301,202 2,183,294 -17.07% October 2,927,354 294,569 2,430,629 -16.97% November 3,269,474 342,120 2,677,707 -18.10% December 3,621,500 352,026 2,997,284 -17.24% Parks & Recreation Development Services 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC -0-- Current Yeaz Budget -d Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Parks & Recreation 2021 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals January $ 319,744 $ 319,744 $ 308,283 -3.58% February 651,727 331,983 655,977 0.65% March 1,004,599 352,872 971,861 -3.26% April 1,371,174 366,574 1,273,239 -7.14% May 1,749,534 378,360 1,604,251 -8.30% June 2,129,825 380,291 2,002,869 -5.96% July 2,608,624 478,799 2,366,948 -9.26% August 3,159,845 551,221 2,760,446 -12.64% September 3,607,041 447,196 3,252,343 -9.83% October 3,989,956 382,916 3,577,972 -10.33% November 4,323,317 333,361 3,939,689 -8.87% December 4,729,281 405,964 4,337,369 -8.29% Parks & Recreation 4,000,000 3,500,000 11500,000 1,000,000 500,000 I row'- JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC -*-- Current Yeaz Budget -0-- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 14 Packet Pg. 217 I 6.9.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Public Works Administration 2021 Public Works Administration Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 42,089 $ 42,089 $ 40,605 -3.53% February 84,997 42,908 81,720 -3.86% March 127,527 42,530 123,465 -3.19% April 170,261 42,734 170,658 0.23% May 213,078 42,817 212,461 -0.29% June 256,751 43,673 254,025 -1.06% July 300,611 43,860 297,102 -1.17% August 343,101 42,490 337,783 -1.55% September 385,406 42,305 378,963 -1.67% October 426,793 41,387 419,569 -1.69% November 468,729 41,936 521,987 11.36% December 512,253 43,524 545,230 6.44% Facilities Maintenance Public Works Administration 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Current Year Budget � Prior Year City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Facilities Maintenance 2021 Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals % January $ 167,724 $ 167,724 $ 142,909 -14.80% February 348,879 181,155 294,332 -15.63% March 533,264 184,385 528,741 -0.85% April 706,629 173,365 711,450 0.68% May 894,239 187,611 856,587 -4.21% June 1,043,804 149,565 989,625 -5.19% July 1,223,905 180,101 1,170,492 -4.36% August 1,414,941 191,036 1,445,505 2.16% September 1,622,246 207,305 1,840,452 13.45% October 1,898,737 276,491 2,031,188 6.98% November 2,125,911 227,174 2,237,161 5.23% December 2,442,899 316,988 2,566,698 5.07% 1,000,000 500,000 0 1— JAN Facilities Maintenance FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC -0-- Current Yeaz Budget -0-- Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 15 Packet Pg. 218 I 6.9.a I City of Edmonds, WA Monthly Expenditure Report -Engineering 2021 Engineering Cumulative Monthly Budget Forecast Budget Forecast YTD Actuals Variance % January $ 212,668 $ 212,668 $ 218,316 2.66% February 423,271 210,602 436,144 3.04% March 652,974 229,703 661,498 1.31% April 890,809 237,835 888,001 -0.32% May 1,130,883 240,074 1,122,224 -0.77% June 1,371,946 241,063 1,346,241 -1.87% July 1,617,159 245,213 1,560,038 -3.53% August 1,869,308 252,149 1,770,434 -5.29% September 2,101,156 231,848 1,985,684 -5.50% October 2,337,410 236,254 2,197,742 -5.98% November 2,559,700 222,290 2,422,908 -5.34% December 2,793,032 233,332 2,638,200 -5.54% Engine a ring 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC � Current Year Budget Prior Year *The monthly budget forecast columns are based on a five-year average. 16 Packet Pg. 219 I 6.9.a I INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY City of Edmonds Investment Portfolio Detail As of December 31, 2021 Years Agency/ Investment Purchase to Par Market Maturity Coupon Issuer Type Price Maturity Value Value Date Rate Grant Cnty WA Bonds 410,553 0.00 405,000 405,000 01/01/22 1.79% FFCB Bonds 1,998,548 0.45 2,000,000 2,015,958 06/14/22 1.88% Energy Northwest Bonds 1,466,077 0.50 1,345,000 1,377,320 07/01/22 5.00% Energy Northwest Bonds 260,748 0.50 250,000 253,238 07/01/22 2.95% Mason & Kitsap Cnty WA Bonds 948,084 0.92 855,000 891,979 12/01/22 5.00% Grant Cnty WA Bonds 1,517,955 1.00 1,500,000 1,514,640 01/01/23 1.54% Grant Cnty WA Bonds 576,332 1.00 520,000 544,612 01/01/23 5.00% Seattle WA Muni Bonds 2,224,500 1.09 2,000,000 2,103,680 02/01/23 5.00% FHLB Bonds 1,996,590 1.76 2,000,000 1,991,378 10/05/23 0.22% First Financial - ECA CD 2,803,516 1.87 2,803,516 2,803,516 11/15/23 2.08% Kent WA Bonds 286,648 1.92 250,000 272,193 12/01/23 5.00% Spokane County WA Bonds 259,075 2.92 250,000 N/A 12/01/24 2.10% First Financial - Waterfront Center CD 2,000,000 5.84 2,000,000 2,000,000 11/01/27 0.25% TOTAL SECURITIES 16,748,624 1.52 16,178,516 16,173,513 Washington State Local Gov't Investment Pool 19,272,242 19,272,242 Demand 0.09% Snohomish County Local Gov't Investment Pool 42,435,782 42,435,782 Demand 1.04% TOTAL PORTFOLIO $ 77,886,540 $ 77,881,537 Seattle WA Issuer Diversification KentM. 2% Mason & Kitsap Cnty First WA, 5% Financial - CD, 30% Grant Cnty — Spokane WA, 15% County FHLB, WA, 2% FFCB, 129/c Energy 12% Northwest, 10% Checking, Cash and Investment Balances $3.0 , 4%� (in $ Millions) CD's, $4.8, Bonds, 6% $11.4, 14% State LGIP, $19.3 , 24% County LGIP, 17 Packet Pg. 220 1 INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO SUMMARY I 6.9.a I 0 L L /may V r N O N L d E d V d E L a 0 Q. d c c� c ii L L ry� V r N O N L E d V d d C0. G 0 U c d E t u cv r Q m Packet Pg. 221 1 I 6.9.a I Page 1 of 1 C ITY O F IDMO NDS REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund 2021 Amended 12/31/2020 12/31/2021 Amount No. Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received 001 GENERAL FUND $ 42,615,777 $ 41,907,642 $ 44,051,822 $ (1,436,045) 1030 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 300,000 425,000 - 300,000 00 011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND 25,000 - 25,000 - 1000 012 CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND 2,620 13,287 - 2,620 00 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 5,010 5,092 5,0010 1000 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE FUND 4,417,908 - 4,417,907 1 1000 017 MARSH RESTORATION & PRES'ERVATION FUND - 125 150 (150) 04 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 165,370 64,590 2,198 163,172 14 Ill STREET FUND 1,722,910 1,910,028 1,889,789 (166,879) 1100 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 3 068 385 2035 799 2 134 522 933 863 700 117 MUNICIPAL ARTSACQUIS. FUND 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 1 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1 1 127 GIFT S CATALOG FUND 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 136 PARKS TRUSTFUND 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 141 AFFORDABLE AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FUND 142 EDMONDS RESCUE PLAN FUND Ilk 143 TREE FUND 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 332 PARKS CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUND 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 2 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 3 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 512 TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 165,595 86,617 64,666 100,929 390 270 444 406 (136) 1500 71,460 65,858 82,999 (11,539) 1160 25,240 20,812 22,528 2,712 890 1,390 685 904 486 650 24,000 22,178 29,540 (5,540) 1230 1,282,050 1,731,216 2,594,892 (1,312,842) 2020 1,285,240 1,725,398 2,581,282 (1,296,042) 2010 103,930 54,196 63,809 40,121 610 179,800 125,066 261,288 (81,488) 1450 2,200 3,659 4,924 (2,724) 2240 29,220 37,051 55,909 (26,689) 1910 10,120 251 5,336 4,784 530 79,239 75,746 76,648 2,591 970 65,000 71,633 80,276 (15,276) 1240 5,812,870 1,775,500 5,991,438 (178,568) 1030 20,487 - 20,653 (166) 1010 3,473,624 738,385 3,047,054 426,570 880 3,033,619 1,532,497 2,091,832 941,787 690 - - 12,585 (12,585) 00 10,299,357 10,228,177 15,462,723 (5,163,366) 1500 6,265,225 5,717,749 8,986,437 (2,721,212) 1430 31,131,580 32,886,005 25,695,956 5,435,624 830 1,985,870 1,988,096 1,985,845 25 1000 1,331,100 1,848,043 1,507,650 (176,550) 1130 1,211,880 1,273,265 1,221,765 (9,885) 1010 67,270 70,388 - 67,270 00 $ 120,280,616 $108,440,479 $ 124,475,732 $ (4,195,116) 1030 t 2021 REET revenues are $1,650,646 higher than 2020 revenues. 2 Difference primarily due to Debt Refunding in November of 2021. 3 Differences primarily due to WWTP partner billings in January 2021, and Proceeds of Long-term debt in November 2020. 19 Packet Pg. 222 I 6.9.a I Page 1 of 1 C ITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY Fund 2021 Amended 12/31/2020 12/31/2021 Amount No. Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent 001 GENERAL FUND $ 46,310,977 $ 44,177,377 $ 42,411,472 $ 3,899,505 920, 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 467,140 243,697 281,959 185,181 600 014 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND 5,900 - 5,767 133 980 016 BUILDING MAINTENANCE FUND 228,130 228,129 1 1000, 017 MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATION FUND 20,000 - 16,149 3,851 810 018 EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND 123,581 100,000 123,581 - 1000 019 EDMONDSOPIOID RESPONSE FUND 28,445 21,555 28,445 - 1000 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 45,800 30,332 - 45,800 00, III STREET FUND 2,187,980 2,099,715 2,073,539 114,441 950, 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2,862,297 1,388,044 2,406,548 455,749 840 117 MUNICIPAL ARTSACQUIS. FUND 236,880 37,779 86,505 150,375 370 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 20,487 - 20,487 - 1000, 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 87,150 92,677 84,111 3,039 970 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,880 25,732 1,266 25,614 50 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 3,000 450 225 2,775 80 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 29,900 14,224 14,621 15,279 490, 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 1,601,298 1,927,984 845,771 755,528 530 126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1 2,053,911 2,052,314 1,153,735 900,176 560 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 100,900 87,919 55,333 45,567 550 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 200,998 180,098 196,031 4,967 980, 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 50,000 - - 50,000 04 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND 25,000 - 19,211 5,789 770/ 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 11,900 11 - 11,900 00 140 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 76,340 68,141 66,071 10,269 870, 142 EDMONDS RESCUE PLAN FUND 5,812,870 1,775,500 1,077,204 4,735,666 190 231 2012 LT GO DEBT SERVICE FUND 3,473,614 738,385 3,047,054 426,560 880 332 PARKS CAP IT AL CONSTRUCTION FUND 5,559,142 1,986,915 3,676,487 1,882,655 660 421 WATER UTILITY FUND 10,760,050 11,216,064 14,124,823 (3,364,773) 1310, 422 STORM UTILITY FUND 7,294,425 7,942,255 7,633,952 (339,527) 1050, 423 SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 40,493,414 27,165,141 29,468,447 11,024,967 730 424 BOND RESERVE FUND 1,985,870 1,988,084 1,985,834 36 1000 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,429,954 2,945,789 1,197,799 232,155 840 512 TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND 1,264,909 1,052,893 1,061,528 203,381 840 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 136,167 82,005 98,498 37,669 720 $ 135,015,309 $ 109,441,081 $113,490,582 $ 219524,727 840, 20 Packet Pg. 223 6.9.a Page 1 of 3 C ITY O F EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2021 Amended 12/31/2020 12/31/2021 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received TAXES: 1 REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 4 $ 10,936,400 $ 10,456,907 $ 10,541,754 $ 394,646 960/ 2 EMSPROPERTYTAX4 4,137,031 4,083,288 4,157,377 (20,346) 1000/ 3 VOTED PROPERTY TAX 500 27 4 496 10/ 4 LOCAL RETAIL SALES(USE TAX 5 8,600,000 8,317,046 10,302,518 (1,702,518) 1200/ 5 NATURAL GAS USE TAX 7,600 7,657 12,176 (4,576) 1600r 6 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 828,500 810,408 956,081 (127,581) 11501 7 ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,710,000 1,668,430 1,687,180 22,820 990i 8 GAS UTILITY TAX 595,000 639,670 683,675 (88,675) 11501 9 SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 364,000 358,411 376,843 (12,843) 1040/ 10 WATERUTILITYTAX 1,153,000 1,091,647 929,859 223,141 810/ 11 SEWER UTILITYTAX 894,600 784,219 908,165 (13,565) 1020/ 12 STORMWATERUTFLIT YTAX 471,900 484,000 526,870 (54,970) 1120i 13 T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 722,000 804,704 814,766 (92,766) 1130r 14 TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 723,000 666,374 534,819 188,181 740/ 15 PULLTABSTAX 55,200 56,617 80,658 (25,458) 1460/ 16 AMUSEMENT GAMES 350 476 279 71 800r 17 LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 295,900 300,672 290,058 5,842 980/ 31,494,981 30,530,552 32,803,082 (1,308,101) 1040, LICENSES AND PERMITS: 18 FIRE PERMITS -SPECIAL USE 19 POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 20 VENDING MACHINE/CONCESSION 21 FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-COMCAST 22 FRANCHISE FEE-EDUCATION/GOVERNMENT 23 FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-ZIPLY FIBER 24 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE 25 GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 26 DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 27 RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 28 BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS i 29 ANIMAL LICENSES 30 STREET AND CURB PERMIT 31 OT R NON -BUS LIC/PERMIT S INTERGOVERNMENTAL: 32 DOCKSIDE DRILLS GRANT REIMBURSE 33 DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - BULLET PROOF VEST 34 TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT 35 HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT 36 CORONAVIRUS RELIEF FUND 37 CORONAVIRUS RELIEF FUND 2 38 WA STATE TRAFFIC COMM GRANT 39 DOC FAC ROOFING 40 WA STATE ART COMMISSION 2021-003-CD 41 STATE GRANTS- BUDGET ONLY 42 PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 43 2022-2023 BIENNIUM ONE-TIME ALLOCATION 44 ARCHIVES AND RECORDS MANAGEMENT 45 STATE GRANT FROM OTHER JUDICIAL AGENCIES 46 SCHOOL ZONE 47 CJ - POPULATION 48 TRIAL COURT IMPROVEMENT 49 CRIMINAL JUSTICE -SPECIAL PROGRAMS 50 MARIJUANA EXCISE TAX DISTRIBUTION 51 DUI - CITIES 52 FIRE INS PREMIUM TAX 53 LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 54 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 55 POLICE TRAINING CLASSES 56 FIRST RESPONDERS FLEX FUND 57 DISCOVERY PROGRAMS TECHNOLOGY ACQ. 58 INTERLOCAL GRANTS 59 VERDANT INTERLOCAL GRANTS 250 465 650 (400) 2600/ 700 80 - 700 00/ 50,000 13,083 64,249 (14,249) 1280/ 702,700 678,877 676,727 25,973 960/ 41,000 39,842 37,705 3,295 920/ 100,600 73,239 60,110 40,490 600/ 434,000 377,553 403,280 30,720 930/ 201,000 224,179 241,324 (40,324) 1200/ 58,700 75,040 91,665 (32,965) 1560/ 30,000 45,961 21,529 8,471 720/ 650,600 655,426 691,905 (41,305) 1060/ 22,000 24,485 18,460 3,540 840/ 50,000 55,495 118,580 (68,580) 2370r 20,000 16,657 18,167 1,833 910/ 2,361,550 29280,382 294449352 (82,802) 1040, - 559 - - 00/ 6,000 2,052 6,464 (464) 1080/ 4,000 - - 4,000 00/ 7,100 2,618 916 6,184 130/ 125,000 241,210 - 125,000 00/ - 5,310 3,947 (3,947) 00/ - - 9,777 (9,777) 00/ - - 379,270 (379,270) 00/ - - 6,000 (6,000) 00/ 198,000 - - 198,000 00/ 210,500 207,989 208,112 2,388 990r - - 168,950 (168,950) 00/ - 9,399 - - 00/ 140 - - 00/ - 825 - - 00/ 13,070 13,211 13,962 (892) 1070/ 16,740 16,152 16,140 600 960/ 45,600 47,280 49,717 (4,117) 1090/ 60,000 68,959 85,233 (25,233) 1420/ 4,500 6,129 6,950 (2,450) 1540/ - - 53,334 (53,334) 00/ 261,500 265,801 297,159 (35,659) 1140/ 343,200 338,497 335,549 7,651 980/ - 1,194 - - 00/ 2,000 4,001 522 1,478 260/ 550 - - 550 00/ - 7,774 66,520 (66,520) 00/ - - 66,000 (66,000) 00/ 1,297,760 1,239,098 1,774,522 (476,762) 1370/ 4 2021 Real Personal/Property Taxis $84,847 higher than 2020, and EMS Property Taxis$74,089 higher for a total of $158,936. 5 2021 Local Retail Sa/eslUse Tax revenues are $1,985,472 high er than 2020 revenues Please also see pages pages 3 & 4. Packet Pg. 224 1 6.9.a Page 2 of 3 C ITY O F IDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2021 Amended 12/31/2020 12/31/2021 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining %Received CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES: 1 RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMENTS $ 3,000 $ 5,204 $ 4,418 $ (1,418) 1470r 2 ATM SURCHARGE FEES 600 184 282 318 470/ 3 CREDIT CARD FEES 11,000 6,445 4,454 6,546 400r 4 COURT RECORD SERVICES 150 7 3 147 20/ 5 D/M COURT REC SER 300 97 - 300 00/ 6 DRE REIMBURSEABLE - 235 168 (168) 00/ 7 WARRANT PREPARATION FEE 4,000 2,358 98 3,902 20i 8 IT TIME PAY FEE 1,000 844 474 526 470i 9 MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN 50 66 232 (182) 4640/ 10 SALE MAPS & BOOKS 100 9 - 100 00/ 11 CLERKS TIME FOR SALE OF PARKINGPERMITS 25,100 25,100 - 25,100 00/ 12 BID SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT 600 530 - 600 00/ 13 PHOTOCOPIES 1,000 450 179 821 180/ 14 POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 500 - - 500 00/ 15 ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 200,000 248,564 212,870 (12,870) 1060/ 16 ELECTION CANDIDATE FILING FEES 1,400 - - 1,400 00/ 17 CUSTODIAL SERVICES(SNO-ISLE) 85,000 72,359 71,462 13,538 840/ 18 PASSPORTSANDNATURALIZATION FEES 10,000 5,795 420 9,580 40i 19 POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 30,000 - 18,118 11,882 600r 20 CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST. 76,800 36,753 11,139 65,661 1501 21 WOODWAY-LAW PROTECTION 195,000 198,859 257,567 (62,567) 1320i 22 MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES - 58 55 (55) 00/ 23 FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS 57,000 59,291 57,132 (132) 1000i 24 LEGAL SERVICES 1,050 2,005 592 458 560r 25 ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 38,000 39,663 27,639 10,361 730/ 26 BOOKING FEES 3,000 2,157 823 2,177 270i 27 FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 10,000 21,269 34,720 (24,720) 3470r 28 EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 3,500 4,000 2,020 1,480 580/ 29 EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 1,007,500 992,345 886,447 121,053 880/ 30 FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS 2,500 2,396 3,678 (1,178) 1470/ 31 ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 50 100 - 50 00/ 32 ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 65,600 78,222 106,233 (40,633) 1620/ 33 PLAN CHECKING FEES 350,900 263,376 567,550 (216,650) 1620/ 34 FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 4,000 17,046 15,607 (11,607) 3900i 35 PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE 500 - 158 342 320/ 36 S.E.P.A. REVIEW 3,000 4,440 5,180 (2,180) 1730/ 37 CRITICAL AREA STUDY 14,000 16,252 17,600 (3,600) 1260i 38 GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES 15,500 3,083 91 15,409 10/ 39 PROGRAM FEES 6 ` 900,662 98,503 460,728 439,934 5101 40 TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 1,300 - - 1,300 00/ 41 HOLIDAY MARKET REGISTRATION FEES 5,000 10,328 16,670 (11,670) 3330i 42 UPTOWN EVENING MARKET FEES - - 2,660 (2,660) 00/ 43 WINTER MARKET FEES - - 420 (420) 00/ 44 BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 800 - 680 120 850r 45 INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT -CONTRACT SVCS 2,892,106 3,291,802 2,948,093 (55,987) 1020/ 6,021,568 5,510,194 5,736,660 284,908 950, 6 2021 Parks & Recreation Program Revenues are $362,225 higher than 2020 revenues. 22 Packet Pg. 225 1 I 6.9.a I Page 3 of 3 C ITY O F EDMO NDS REVENUES - GENERAL FUND 2021 Amended 12/31/2020 12/31/2021 Amount Title Budget Revenues Revenues Remaining FINES AND PENALTIES: 1 PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 2 TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 3 NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 4 CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA) 5 NON -TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 6 OTHER INFRACTIONS'04 7 PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 8 PARK/INDDISZONE 9 DWI PENALTIES 10 DUI - DP ACCT 11 CRIM CNV FEE DUI 12 DUI - DP FEE 13 CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 14 CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CT 15 CRIM CONV FEE CT 16 OTHER NON-T RAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 17 OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 18 COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 19 CRIMINAL CONVICTION FEE CN 20 CRIM CONV FEE CN 21 PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 22 BANK CHARGE FOR CONY. DEFENDANT 23 COURT COST RECOUPMENT 24 BUS. LICENSE PERMIT PENALTY 25 MISC FINES AND PENALTIES MISCELLANEOUS : 26 INVESTMENT INTEREST 27 INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 28 INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 29 LOAN INTEREST 30 SPACE/FACILITIESRENTALS 14% 31 BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 32 LEASESLONG-TERM 33 DONATION/CONTRIBUTION 34 PARKS DONATIONS 35 BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 36 POLICE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PRIV SOURCES 37 SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 38 SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 39 CONFISCATED AND FORFEITED PROPERTY 40 OTHER JUDGEMENT/SETTLEMENT 41 POLICE JUDGMENTS✓RESTITUTION 42 CASHIERS OVERAGES✓SHORTAGES 43 OTHER MISC REVENUES 44 SMALL OVERPAYMENT 45 NSF FEES - PARKS & REC 46 NSF FEES -POLICE 47 NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 48 NSF FEES - DEVEL SERV DEPT 49 L&I STAY AT WORK PROGRAM 50 US BANK REBAT E TRANSFERS -IN: 51 INSURANCE RECOVERIES 52 OPERATING TRANSFER -IN 53 INTERFUND TRANSFER FROM FUND 018 54 INTERFUND TRANSFER FROM 511 55 TRANSFER FROM FUND 127 TO TAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE %Receive d $ 2,000 $ 1,202 $ 2,459 $ (459) 1230/ 230,000 120,087 153,146 76,854 670/ 18,000 13,683 9,604 8,396 530/ 10,000 10,557 11,327 (1,327) 1130/ 1,000 1,980 7,903 (6,903) 7900/ 1,500 1,320 1,663 (163) 1110/ 100,000 70,129 44,812 55,188 450/ 2,000 1,091 475 1,525 240/ 7,000 9,604 6,604 396 940/ 300 199 75 225 250/ 100 38 67 33 670/ 1,500 2,231 1,686 (186) 1120/ 25,000 20,820 14,078 10,922 560/ 2,000 2,278 1,853 147 930/ 700 551 102 598 1501 100 37 12 88 120/ 10,000 7,411 2,242 7,758 220/ 800 984 605 195 760/ 1,000 733 320 680 320/ 200 132 93 107 470/ 8,000 8,148 4,748 3,252 590/ 14,000 8,525 6,976 7,024 5001 3,000 4,512 1,265 1,735 420/ 10,100 - - 10,100 00/ 150 1,441 187 (37) 1250/ 448,450 287,693 272,301 176,149 610i 155,090 257,084 291,191 (136,101) 1880/ 9,980 14,293 6,998 2,982 700/ 3,400 8,326 7,939 (4,539) 2330/ - - 10,696 (10,696) 00/ 153,000 22,701 87,573 65,427 570/ 2,100 380 - 2,100 00/ 205,000 170,859 184,327 20,673 900/ 2,500 930 225 2,275 90/ 3,500 920 750 2,750 210/ 2,000 635 2,010 (10) 1010/ 5,000 1,766 3,503 1,497 700/ 300 487 859 (559) 2860/ 3,000 3,872 7,286 (4,286) 2430/ 2,000 - - 2,000 00/ 2,000 1,344 3,444 (1,444) 1720/ 200 268 773 (573) 3860/ - 16 31 (31) 00/ 5,000 14,232 5,584 (584) 1120/ 100 95 88 12 880/ 100 30 90 10 900/ - - 30 (30) 00/ 150 142 - 150 00/ - 30 - - 00/ - - 7,893 (7,893) 00/ 8,500 8,534 11,069 (2,569) 1300/ 562,920 506,946 632,357 (69,437) 1120, - 16,977 - - 00/ 278,667 - 238,667 40,000 860/ 123,581 - 123,581 - 1000/ - 1,500,000 - 1 00/ 26,300 35,800 26,300 - 1000/ 428,548 19552,777 388,548 40,001 910/ $ 42,615,777 $ 41,9079642 $ 44,0519822 $ (1,4369044) 10301 23 Packet Pg. 226 I 6.9.a I Page 1 of 6 CITY OF EDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2021 Amended 12/31/2020 12/31/2021 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES (001) 1 SALARIES AND WAGES $ 17,706,029 $ 16,528,199 $ 16,991,114 $ 714,915 960 2 OVERTIME 491,580 612,255 718,120 (226,540) 1460 3 HOLIDAY BUY BACK 281,329 233,372 209,640 71,689 754 4 BENEFITS 6,801,704 6,363,656 6,207,344 594,360 919 5 UNIFORMS 89,151 88,202 86,641 2,510 970 6 SUPPLIES 401,115 482,079 456,733 (55,618) 1140 7 FUEL CONSUMED - - 215 (215) 04 8 SMALL EQUIPMENT 108,603 175,853 257,563 (148,960) 2379 9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 15,162,824 13,958,478 12,284,175 2,878,649 810 10 COMMUNICATIONS 160,995 153,430 208,577 (47,582) 1309 11 TRAVEL 68,760 10,161 39,797 28,963 589 12 EXCISE TAXES 6,500 15,907 24,952 (18,452) 3840 13 RENTAL/LEASE 1,574,465 1,806,719 1,535,210 39,255 980 14 INSURANCE 403,973 393,746 405,121 (1,148) 1009 15 UTILITIES 536,762 499,415 559,686 (22,924) 1049 16 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 917,742 936,856 867,659 50,083 950 17 MISCELLANEOUS 507,715 331,383 413,249 94,466 810 18 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PAYMENTS 50,000 75,000 50,000 - 1009 19 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 957,880 1,206,990 657,870 300,010 690 20 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 23,120 9,053 143,103 (119,983) 6190 21 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 54,530 163,840 174,529 (119,999) 3209 22 OTHER INT EREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS 500 212 - 500 09 23 INTEREST ON LONGTERM EXTERNAL DEBT 5,700 132,572 120,174 (114,474) 21080 66,310,977 44,177,377 $ 42,411,472 3,899,505 920 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE(009) 24 BENEFITS $ 206,650 $ 143,716 $ 150,500 $ 56,150 7M 25 PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 252,990 94,189 114,459 138,531 450 26 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,000 5,793 17,000 (10,000) 24M 27 MISCELLANEOUS 500 - - 500 M 467,140 243,697 281,959 185,181 604 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFTFUND (014) 28 SUPPLIES $ 100 $ - $ - $ 100 0° 29 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200 - - 200 M 30 MISCELLANEOUS 5,600 - 5,767 (167) 1030 5,900 - 5,767 133 9M BUILDING MAINTENANCEFUND (016) 31 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES ` $ 210,222 $ - $ 210,222 $ 10M 32 DEBT ISSUE COSTS 17,908 17,907 1 1004 228,130 S 228,129 1 100° MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATRN FUND (017) 33 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 20,000 $ - $ 16,149 $ 3,851 814 20,000 - 16,149 3,851 810 EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSEFUND (018) 34 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ - M 35 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 123,581 - 123,581 1000 123,581 100,000 123,581 1004 EDMONDS OPIOID RESPONSEFUND (019) 36 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ - $ 21,555 $ - $ M 37 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 28,445 - 28,445 100° 28,445 21,555 28,445 100° DRUG INFO RC EMENT FUND (104) 38 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 45,000 $ $ - $ 45,000 04 39 REPAIR/MAINT 800 800 04 40 MISCELLANEOUS - 30,332 - 0° 45,800 30,332 S 45,800 0° 24 Packet Pg. 227 I 6.9.a I Page 2 of 6 CITY OFEDMONDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2021 Amended 12/31/2020 12/31/2021 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining 'yo Spent STREETFUND (111) 1 SALARIES AND WAGES $ 728,690 $ 662,902 $ 706,903 $ 21,787 974 2 OVERTIME 18,400 45,506 66,900 (48,500) 3644 3 BENEFITS 381,336 328,778 354,366 26,970 939 4 UNIFORMS 6,000 4,079 5,432 568 914 5 SUPPLIES 263,550 198,414 166,810 96,740 6M 6 SMALL EQUIPMENT 20,000 1,082 13,978 6,022 709 7 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 23,210 4,642 9,383 13,827 4M 8 COMMUNICATIONS 4,500 7,901 6,878 (2,378) 15M 9 TRAVEL 1,000 - - 1,000 09 10 RENTAL/LEASE 247,270 231,006 247,814 (544) 10M 11 INSURANCE 148,436 156,937 148,533 (97) 10M 12 UTILITIES 280,918 276,907 267,364 13,554 959 13 REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 52,000 70,694 62,125 (10,125) 1199 14 MISCELLANEOUS 8,000 8,435 12,399 (4,399) 1554 15 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - 97,761 - 09 16 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 4,220 4,161 4,214 6 1009 17 INTEREST 450 510 440 10 989 COMBINED STREErCONST/IMPROVE(112) 18 SALARIES AND WAGES 19 BENEFIT S 20 SUPPLIES 21 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 22 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 23 MISCELLANEOUS 24 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 25 LAND 26 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 27 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 28 INTEREST MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND (117) 29 SUPPLIES 30 SMALL EQUIPMENT 31 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 32 TRAVEL 33 RENTAL/LEASE 34 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 35 MISCELLANEOUS MEMO RIAL S TREEf TREE (118) 36 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES HO TEL/MO TEL TAX REVENUE FUND (120) 37 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 38 MISCELLANEOUS 39 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES EMPLOYEE PARIGNG PERMIT FUND (121) 40 SUPPLIES 41 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND (122) 42 MISCELLANEOUS TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS (123) 43 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 2,187,980 $ 2,099,715 $ 2,073,539 $ 114,441 954 $ - $ 10,567 $ - $ M - 6,613 - 09 - 10,123 - M 1,581,847 620,425 1,427,700 154,147 9M 103,670 470,674 160,087 (56,417) 1544 - 8 - 0a 114,950 40,121 39,925 75,025 359 33,000 4,678 20,269 12,731 614 955,000 150,680 684,775 270,225 729 72,220 72,201 72,201 19 10M 1,610 1,952 1,591 19 994 $ 2,862,297 $ 1,388,044 $ 2,406,548 $ 455,749 849 $ 4,700 $ 302 $ 2,144 $ 2,556 464 1,700 116 - 1,700 M 221,500 34,345 80,588 140,912 364 80 16 - 80 09 2,000 - - 2,000 M 300 - - 300 M 6,600 3,000 3,774 2,826 574 $ 236,880 $ 37,779 $ 86,505 $ 150,375 379 $ 20,487 $ - $ 20,487 $ 1004 $ 20,487 $ - $ 20,487 $ 1009 $ 83,150 $ 88,066 $ 80,111 $ 3,039 964 - 612 - - M 4,000 4,000 4,000 - 1004 $ 87,150 $ 92,677 $ 84,111 $ 3,039 974 $ 1,790 $ 632 $ 1,266 $ 524 714 25,090 25,100 - 25,090 04 $ 26,880 $ 25,732 $ 1,266 $ 25,614 59 $ 3,000 $ 450 $ 225 $ 2,775 84 $ 3,000 $ 450 $ 225 $ 2,775 89 $ 29,900 $ 14,224 $ 14,621 $ 15,279 494 $ 29,900 $ 14,224 $ 14,621 $ 15,279 499 25 Packet Pg. 228 I 6.9.a I Page 3 of 6 C ITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2021 Amended 12/31/2020 12/31/2021 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent REAL ESTATE EXC ISE TAX 2 (125) 1 SUPPLIES $ 121,000 $ 18,697 $ 66,065 $ 54,935 550 2 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 195,626 386,077 453,715 (258,089) 2329 3 REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 105,000 360,046 265,601 (160,601) 25M 4 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 190 430 - 190 09 5 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,179,482 1,162,734 60,390 1,119,092 59 $ 1,601,298 $ 1,927,984 $ 845,771 $ 755,528 539 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAXI (126) 6 SUPPLIES 7 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 8 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 9 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 10 LAND 11 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 12 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 13 INTEREST 14 OTHER INT EREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS GIFTS CATALOG FUND (127) 15 SUPPLIES 16 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 17 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 18 MISCELLANEOUS 19 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES CEMETERY MAINTINANCE!IMPRO VEMENT (130) 20 SALARIES AND WAGES 21 OVERTIME 22 BENEFIT S 23 UNIFORMS 24 SUPPLIES 25 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 26 SMALL EQUIPMENT 27 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 28 COMMUNICATIONS 29 TRAVEL 30 RENTAL/LEASE 31 UTILITIES 32 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 33 MISCELLANEOUS 34 PARKS TRUSTFUND (136) 35 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CEMETERY MAINTENANC E TRUS T FUND (137) 36 SMALL EQUIPMENT 37 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT SISTER CITY COMMISSION (138) 38 SUPPLIES 39 TRAVEL 40 MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS IMPROVEMENTDISTRICTFUND (140) 39 SUPPLIES 40 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 41 MISCELLANEOUS EDMONDS RESCUEPLAN FUND (142) 42 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2012 LTGO DEBT SERVIC FUND (231) 43 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 44 INTEREST 45 DEBT ISSUE COSTS $ - $ 4,439 $ - $ - 09 573,234 701,703 369,648 203,586 649 97,050 292,084 210,207 (113,157) 2179 138,910 142,731 138,725 185 1009 - - 49,859 (49,859) 09 983,137 883,596 358,204 624,933 369 144,530 24,219 24,529 120,001 179 117,050 2,968 2,564 114,487 29 - 575 - - 09 $ 2,053,911 $ 2,052,314 $ 1,153,735 $ 900,176 560 $ 67,500 $ 39,033 $ 29,033 $ 38,467 4M 6,500 5,400 - 6,500 09 - 7,183 - - 09 600 503 - 600 09 26,300 35,800 26,300 - 1009 $ 100,900 $ 87,919 $ 55,333 $ 45,567 559 $ 95,824 $ 93,344 $ 97,374 $ (1,550) 1029 3,500 729 841 2,659 249 40,472 40,160 38,946 1,526 969 1,000 230 490 510 499 7,000 2,972 2,904 4,096 419 20,000 18,196 27,786 (7,786) 1399 - 1,184 - - 09 4,200 1,835 1,445 2,755 349 1,700 1,682 1,683 17 999 500 - - 500 09 16,650 8,230 16,650 - 1009 5,652 4,928 5,195 457 929 500 - - 500 09 4,000 6,610 2,717 1,283 689 $ 200,998 $ 180,098 $ 196,031 $ 4,967 989 $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ 50,000 M $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ 50,000 09 $ 25,000 $ - $ - $ 25,000 09 - - 19,211 (19,211) 09 $ 25,000 $ - $ 19,211 $ 5,789 779 $ 1,500 $ 11 $ - $ 1,500 09 4,500 - 4,500 09 5,900 - 5,900 09 $ 11,900 $ 11 $ - $ 11,900 09 $ 2,050 $ 10,388 $ 715 $ 1,335 359 70,035 53,747 61,823 8,212 889 4,255 4,006 3,533 722 839 76,340 68,141 66,071 10,269 879 $ 5,812,870 $ 1,775,500 $ 1,077,204 $ 4,735,666 199 5,812,870 1,775,500 1,077,204 4,735,666 199 $ 3,331,448 $ 643,802 $ 2,931,438 $ 400,010 889 81,710 94,583 55,161 26,549 689 60,456 - 60,455 1 1009 $ 3,473,614 $ 738,385 $ 3,047,054 $ 426,560 889 26 Packet Pg. 229 I 6.9.a I Page 4 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2021 Amended 12/31/2020 12/31/2021 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND (332) 1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 113,453 $ 461,438 $ 3,501,870 $ (3,388,417) 30879 2 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 44,000 20,316 - 44,000 M 3 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 5,395,037 1,505,161 167,965 5,227,072 39 4 DEBT ISSUE COSTS 6,652 - 6,652 0 1009 $ 5,559,142 $ 1,986,915 $ 3,676,487 $ 1,882,655 660 WATER FUND (421) 5 SALARIES AND WAGES 6 OVERTIME 7 BENEFIT S 8 UNIFORMS 9 SUPPLIES 10 WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE 11 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 12 SMALL EQUIPMENT 13 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 14 COMMUNICATIONS 15 TRAVEL 16 EXCISE TAXES 17 RENTAL/LEASE 18 INSURANCE 19 UTILITIES 20 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 21 MISCELLANEOUS 22 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 23 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 24 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 25 REVENUE BONDS 26 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 27 INTEREST 28 DEBT ISSUE COSTS 29 OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS STORM FUND (422) 30 SALARIES AND WAGES 31 OVERTIME 32 BENEFIT S 33 UNIFORMS 34 SUPPLIES 35 SMALL EQUIPMENT 36 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 37 COMMUNICATIONS 38 TRAVEL 39 EXCISE TAXES 40 RENTAL/LEASE 41INSURANCE 42 UTILITES 43 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE 44 MISCELLANEOUS 45 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 46 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 47 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 48 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 49 REVENUE BONDS 50 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 51 INTEREST 52 DEBT ISSUE COSTS 53 OTHER INT EREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS $ 793,475 $ 796,988 $ 643,756 $ 149,719 819 24,000 21,118 22,779 1,221 959 328,865 309,245 276,016 52,849 849 4,000 4,371 3,559 441 890 150,000 107,441 127,034 22,966 859 2,170,000 2,049,587 2,084,898 85,102 969 170,000 172,203 179,256 (9,256) 1059 11,000 6,927 4,437 6,563 400 1,558,701 1,351,899 1,187,768 370,933 769 30,000 30,043 30,795 (795) 10M 200 - - 200 09 1,649,700 1,571,444 1,440,800 208,900 879 124,630 130,244 124,791 (161) 1000 97,844 52,541 98,196 (352) 1009 35,775 32,670 33,755 2,020 949 258,130 20,613 168,718 89,412 659 123,600 138,785 176,391 (52,791) 1439 644,130 648,597 644,116 14 1009 1,976,050 3,160,207 1,321,534 654,516 679 2,840 2,794 4,881,315 (4,878,475) 1718770 385,100 370,959 385,096 5 1009 25,840 25,839 25,839 1 1009 196,170 211,169 203,111 (6,941) 1049 - - 60,864 (60,864) 09 - 378 - 09 $ 10,760,050 $ 11,216,064 $ 14,124,823 $ (3,364,773) 1319 $ 723,700 $ 643,183 $ 671,440 $ 52,260 9M 6,000 13,321 38,296 (32,296) 63M 318,735 293,573 289,585 29,150 919 6,500 8,407 7,784 (1,284) 12M 46,000 25,331 36,190 9,810 799 4,000 2,464 304 3,696 89 2,728,016 1,854,360 1,568,053 1,159,963 579 3,200 6,187 6,267 (3,067) 1969 4,300 - 510 3,790 129 470,100 562,212 613,142 (143,042) 1300 267,778 269,789 263,357 4,421 989 66,216 116,576 66,228 (12) 1000 11,025 12,102 12,979 (1,954) 1189 64,130 19,839 90,109 (25,979) 1419 255,300 180,359 274,215 (18,915) 1079 282,345 282,545 282,330 15 1009 - 5,023 - - 09 1,581,000 3,192,545 590,386 990,614 379 103,340 102,029 2,437,703 (2,334,363) 23590 188,240 181,205 188,235 5 1009 53,590 53,576 53,576 14 1009 110,910 117,467 114,142 (3,232) 1039 - - 29,124 (29,124) 09 - 165 - 09 $ 7,294,425 $ 7,942,255 $ 7,633,952 $ (339,527) 1059 27 Packet Pg. 230 I 6.9.a I Page 5 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2021 Amended 12/31/2020 12/31/2021 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent SEWER FUND (423) 1 SALARIES AND WAGES $ 2,027,508 $ 1,865,904 $ 1,778,973 $ 248,535 8M 2 OVERTIME 95,000 106,756 135,661 (40,661) 1430 3 BENEFITS 871,564 804,842 764,129 107,435 880 4 UNIFORMS 8,500 7,967 8,924 (424) 1050 5 SUPPLIES 404,000 397,447 373,294 30,706 920 6 FUEL CONSUMED 30,000 24,125 55,215 (25,215) 1840 7 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INV OR RESALE 4,000 - - 4,000 M 8 SMALL EQUIPMENT 35,000 42,890 230,852 (195,852) 6600 9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,141,848 4,683,143 4,730,059 (2,588,211) 2210 10 COMMUNICATIONS 44,130 42,785 44,819 (689) 1020 11 TRAVEL 5,000 - 4,390 610 880 12 EXCISE TAXES 968,000 978,545 1,115,815 (147,815) 1154 13 RENTAL/LEASE 329,898 320,207 412,235 (82,337) 1259 14INSURANCE 160,967 175,867 162,851 (1,884) 101° 15 UTILITIES 1,979,985 983,600 1,762,327 217,658 894 16 REPAIR&MAINTENANCE 520,630 252,808 505,142 15,488 974 17 MISCELLANEOUS 129,350 90,819 122,482 6,868 9M 18 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 10,180,936 117,784 6,011,703 4,169,233 594 19 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - 5,782,824 63,773 (63,773) 04 20 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 19,756,808 9,739,124 9,547,918 10,208,890 4M 21 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS 157,060 154,652 982,167 (825,107) 62M 22 REVENUE BONDS 86,670 244,944 86,670 0 10W 23 INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 173,900 173,200 173,888 12 10W 24INTEREST 382,660 63,506 378,917 3,743 994 25 DEBT ISSUE COSTS - 106,318 11,812 (11,812) W 26 OTHER INTEREST & DEBT SERVICE COSTS - 5,085 4,430 (4,430) M $ 40,493,414 $ 27,165,141 $ 29,468,447 $ 11,024,967 7M BOND RESERVE FUND (424) 27 REVENUE BONDS $ 785,020 $ 755,000 $ 785,000 $ 20 1000 28 INTEREST 1,200,850 1,233,084 1,200,834 16 1000 $ 1,985,870 $ 1,988,084 $ 1,985,834 $ 36 1000 28 Packet Pg. 231 I 6.9.a I Page 6 of 6 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL 2021 Amended 12/31/2020 12/31/2021 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent EQ UIPMENT RENTAL FUND (511) 1 SALARIES AND WAGES $ 272,384 $ 269,774 $ 274,696 $ (2,312) 1019 2 OVERTIME 2,000 1,406 6,986 (4,986) 3499 3 BENEFITS 116,481 112,088 112,581 3,900 979 4 UNIFORMS 1,000 1,186 1,344 (344) 1349 5 SUPPLIES 120,000 80,285 76,444 43,556 649 6 FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 - - 1,000 09 7 SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 258,000 178,940 150,503 107,497 589 8 SMALL EQUIPMENT 58,000 3,487 6,129 51,871 119 9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 46,750 24,688 1,742 45,008 49 10 COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 2,303 2,280 * 720 769 11 TRAVEL 1,000 - - 1,000 09 12 RENTAL/LEASE 12,790 12,348 12,232 558 969 13 INSURANCE 40,910 43,001 39,334 1,576 969 14 UTILITIES 14,500 15,444 16,153 (1,653) 1119 15 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 60,000 44,848 44,400 15,600 749 16 MISCELLANEOUS 12,000 11,784 12,995 (995) 1089 17 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES - 1,500,000 - - 09 18 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 410,139 644,206 439,980 (29,841) 1079 $ 1,429,954 $ 2,945,789 $ 1,197,799 $ 232,155 849 TECHNOLOGY RENTAL FUND (512) 19 SALARIES AND WAGES $ 379,162 $ 290,526 $ 328,973 $ 50,189 879 20 OVERTIME 2,000 165 2,781 (781) 1399 21 BENEFITS 127,657 97,528 104,020 23,637 819 22 SUPPLIES 5,000 9,580 5,107 (107) 1029 23 SMALL EQUIPMENT 148,300 123,180 59,655 88,645 409 24 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 171,460 73,569 34,631 136,829 209 25 COMMUNICATIONS 58,770 61,351 66,568 (7,798) 11M 26 TRAVEL 1,500 - - 1,500 09 27 RENTAL/LEASE 7,400 7,271 7,181 219 979 28 REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 302,660 360,311 448,409 (145,749) 1489 29 MISCELLANEOUS 5,000 11,748 4,202 798 849 30 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 56,000 17,664 - 56,000 09 $ 1,264,909 $ 1,052,893 $ 1,061,528 $ 203,381 849 FH2IIVIEN'S PENSION FUND (617) 31 BENEFITS $ 24,560 $ 19,258 $ 21,287 $ 3,273 879 32 PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 70,407 61,740 65,711 4,696 939 33 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,200 1,007 11,500 (10,300) 95M 34 INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 40,000 - - 40,000 09 $ 136,167 $ 82,005 $ 98,498 $ 37,669 729 TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS $ 135,015,309 $ 109,441,081 $ 113,490,582 $ 21,524,727 849 29 Packet Pg. 232 6.9.a Page 1 of 1 C ITY O F IDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY 2021 Amended 12/31/2020 12/31/2021 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent CITY COUNCIL OFFICE OF MAYOR HUMAN RESOURCES MUNICIPAL COURT CITY CLERK ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CITY ATTORNEY NON -DEPARTMENTAL POLICE SERVICES SATELLITE OFFICE COMMUNITY SERVICES✓ECONOMIC DEV DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAM PARKS & RECREATION PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES MAINTENANCE $ 432,478 $ 322,555 $ 333,112 $ 99,366 77% 345,501 331,095 337,753 7,748 98% 837,176 692,901 694,985 142,191 83% 1,252,513 1,072,252 1,197,713 54,800 96% 757,055 726,790 561,793 195,262 74% 1,178,545 1,306,188 1,349,689 (171,144) 115% 936,480 860,435 842,071 94,409 90% 13,031,593 12,914,933 11,373,477 1,658,116 87% 12,217,071 11,835,142 11,853,454 363,617 97% - - 8,908 (8,908) 0% 624,198 599,693 663,128 (38,930) 106% 3,621,500 2,814,664 2,997,284 624,216 83% 599,402 - 110,607 488,795 18% 4,729,281 3,669,440 4,337,369 391,912 92% 3,305,285 3,125,159 3,183,430 121,855 96% 2,442,899 3,906,130 2,566,698 (123,799) 105% $ 46,310,977 $ 44,177,377 $ 42,411,472 $ 3,899,505 92% C ITY O F E DMO NDS EXPENDITURES - UTILITY- BY FUND IN SUMMARY Title 2021 Amended Budget 12/31/2020 Expenditures 12/31/2021 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent WATER UTILITYFUND $ 10,760,050 $ 11,216,064 $ 14,124,823 $ (3,364,773) 131% STORM UTILITY FUND 7,294,425 7,942,255 7,633,952 (339,527) 105% SEWER/WWTP UTILITY FUND 40,493,414 27,165,141 29,468,447 11,024,967 73% BOND RESERVE FUND 1,985,870 1,988,084 1,985,834 36 100% $ 60,533,759 $ 48,311,545 $ 53,213,055 $ 7,320,704 88% 30 Packet Pg. 233 I 6.9.a I Page 1 of 2 CITY OF EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL Title 2021 Amended Budget 12/31/2020 Expenditures 12/31/2021 Expenditures Amount Remaining %Spent CITY COUNCIL SALARIES AND WAGES $ 200,052 $ 190,990 $ 202,316 $ (2,264) 101% BENEFITS 118,713 99,057 103,142 15,571 87% SUPPLIES 2,000 2,430 3,874 (1,874) 194% SERVICES 111,713 30,078 23,780 87,933 21% $ 432,478 $ 322,555 $ 333,112 $ 99,366 77% O FFIC E O F MAYO R SALARIES AND WAGES $ 229,512 $ 223,427 $ 229,798 $ (286) 100% BENEFITS 85,243 83,989 80,210 5,033 94% SUPPLIES 1,500 5,334 463 1,037 31% SERVICES 29,246 18,344 27,282 1,964 93% $ 345,501 $ 331,095 $ 337,753 $ 7,748 98% HUMAN RESOURCES SALARIES AND WAGES $ 387,048 $ 362,430 $ 367,627 $ 19,421 95% BENEFIT S 154,430 143,222 136,696 17,734 89% SUPPLIES 13,600 8,276 2,647 10,953 19% SERVICES 282,098 178,972 188,015 94,083 67% $ 837,176 $ 692,901 $ 694,985 $ 142,191 83% MUNICIPAL C O URT SALARIES AND WAGES $ 738,297 $ 649,807 $ 699,369 $ 38,928 95% BENEFITS 243,859 231,355 224,191 19,668 92% SUPPLIES 11,600 25,224 11,448 152 99% SERVICES 235,637 165,867 239,585 (3,948) 102% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 23,120 23,120 100% $ 1,252,513 $ 1,072,252 $ 1,197,713 $ 54,800 96% C TTY CLERK SALARIES AND WAGES $ 397,226 $ 399,460 $ 252,938 $ 144,288 64% BENEFITS 169,669 163,468 101,724 67,945 60% SUPPLIES 7,000 6,288 4,199 2,801 60% SERVICES 183,160 157,574 202,933 (19,773) 111% $ 757,055 $ 726,790 $ 561,793 $ 195,262 74% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SALARIES AND WAGES $ 795,289 $ 929,623 $ 931,685 $ (136,396) 117% BENEFITS 253,850 260,112 293,965 (40,115) 116% SUPPLIES 10,000 5,968 6,605 3,395 66% SERVICES 119,406 110,485 117,434 1,972 98% $ 1,178,545 $ 1,306,188 $ 1,349,689 $ (171,144) 115% C TTY ATTO RNEY SERVICES $ 936,480 $ 860,435 $ 842,071 $ 94,409 90% $ 936,480 $ 860,435 $ 842,071 $ 94,409 90% NON -DEPARTMENTAL SALARIES AND WAGES $ 101,750 $ - $ - $ 101,750 0% BENEFITS 50,000 16,254 26,878 23,122 54% SUPPLIES 5,000 5,151 1,467 3,533 29% SERVICES 11,806,233 11,314,914 10,342,558 1,463,675 88% INTERFUND SUBSIDIES 1,007,880 1,281,990 707,870 300,010 70% DEBT SERVICE - PRINCIPAL 54,530 163,840 174,529 (119,999) 320% DEBT SERVICE - INTEREST 6,200 132,783 120,174 (113,974) 1938% $ 13,031,593 $ 12,914,933 $ 11,373,477 $ 1,658,116 87% PO LIC E SE RVIC ES SALARIES AND WAGES $ 8,149,422 $ 7,683,874 $ 7,825,456 $ 323,966 96% BENEFITS 2,979,421 2,830,377 2,675,737 303,684 90% SUPPLIES 169,453 202,744 274,125 (104,672) 162% SERVICES 918,775 1,118,147 958,154 (39,379) 104% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - - 119,983 (119,983) 0% $ 12,217,071 $ 11,835,142 $ 11,853,454 $ 363,617 97% SATELLITE O FFIC E SERVICES $ - $ - $ 8,908 $ (8,908) 0% $ - $ - $ 8,908 $ (8,908) 0% 31 Packet Pg. 234 1 I 6.9.a I Page 2 of 2 C ITY O F EDMO NDS EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL 2021 Amended 12/31/2020 12/31/2021 Amount Title Budget Expenditures Expenditures Remaining %Spent COMMUNITY SERVICES/ECON DEV. SALARIES AND WAGES $ 312,977 $ 350,244 $ 359,240 $ (46,263) 115% BENEFITS 91,455 94,536 93,105 (1,650) 102% SUPPLIES 3,075 10,377 999 2,076 32% SERVICES 216,691 144,537 209,785 6,906 97% $ 624,198 $ 599,693 $ 663,128 $ (38,930) 106% DEVELO PMEVT S ERVIC ES /PLANNING SALARIES AND WAGES $ 1,875,514 $ 1,722,294 $ 1,835,248 $ 40,266 98% BENEFITS 693,217 620,001 636,524 56,693 92% SUPPLIES 19,400 10,607 13,983 5,417 72% SERVICES 1,033,369 461,763 511,530 521,839 50% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 0% $ 3,621,500 $ 2,814,664 $ 2,997,284 $ 624,216 83% HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAM SALARIES AND WAGES $ 79,510 $ - $ 42,518 $ 36,992 53% BENEFITS 18,392 - 9,139 9,253 50% SUPPLIES 1,500 - 22,025 (20,525) 1468% SERVICES 500,000 - 36,925 463,075 7% 599,402 110,607 488,795 18% PARKS & REC REATIO N SALARIES AND WAGES $ 2,329,689 $ 2,034,056 $ 2,271,903 $ 57,786 98% BENEFITS 828,746 754,296 798,005 30,741 96% SUPPLIES 138,790 158,081 179,518 (40,728) 129% SERVICES 1,432,056 713,954 1,087,942 344,114 76% MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - 9,053 - - 0% $ 4,729,281 $ 3,669,440 $ 4,337,369 $ 391,912 92% PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND WAGES $ 300,162 $ 296,910 $ 349,234 $ (49,072) 116% BENEFITS 106,903 104,236 98,660 8,244 92% SUPPLIES 9,600 4,252 8,669 931 90% SERVICES 95,588 101,554 88,667 6,921 93% $ 512,253 $ 506,952 $ 545,230 $ (32,977) 106% FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SALARIES AND WAGES 791,470 796,106 800,997 (9,527) 101% BENEFITS 360,720 353,361 336,792 23,928 93% SUPPLIES 115,000 212,333 182,551 (67,551) 159% SERVICES 1,175,709 2,544,330 1,246,358 (70,649) 106% $ 2,442,899 $ 3,906,130 $ 2,566,698 $ (123,799) 105% ENGINEERING SALARIES AND WAGES $ 1,791,020 $ 1,734,605 $ 1,750,547 $ 40,473 98% BENEFITS 736,237 697,594 679,218 57,019 92% SUPPLIES 2,200 868 1,937 263 88% SERVICES 263,575 185,140 206,498 57,077 78% $ 2,793,032 $ 2,618,207 $ 2,638,200 $ 154,832 94% TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES $ 46,310,977 $ 44,177,377 $ 42,411,472 $ 3,899,505 92% 32 Packet Pg. 235 6.9.a GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES GENERAL FUND ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- Q & SUBFUNDS 12/31 /2021 12/31 /2021 Q4 YTD Fund Balance Cash Balance c 001-General Fund ' $ 15,509,095 $ 9,960,856 $ 2,685,685 $ 1,640,349 c 009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 255,217 269,466 (76,389) (281,959 011-Risk Management Reserve Fund 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 y 012-Contingency Reserve Fund 1,782,149 1,782,150 - - 014-Historic Preservation Gift Fund 16,421 16,421 (3,267) (767 CY 016-Building Maintenance 4,399,999 4,399,999 4,189,778 4,189,778 c 017 - Marsh Restoration & Preservation 848,617 848,616 - (15,999 m Total General Fund & Subfunds $ 22,836,498 $ 17,302,509 $ 6,820,807 $ 5,556,402 *$2,000,000 of the General Fund Balance has been assigned by management for the development of Civic Field. m *$7,267,031of the fund balance in Fund 001 added to the $1,768,863 balance in Fund 012, represent the required 20% operating reserve. E There are no interfund loans outstanding at this time. L ♦Z GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS OVERVIEW 0 BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ii ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- >+ GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS 12/31 /2021 12/31 /2021 Q4 YTD Fund Balance Cash Balance CY General Fund & Subfunds $ 22,836,498 $ 17,302,509 $ 6,820,807 $ 5,556,402 Special Revenue 18,853,550 18,460,487 0 (1,113,399) 7,863,348 L Capital Projects 4,568,856 5,537,160 m (1,722,350) (1,584,654 Total Governmental Funds $ 46,258,904 $ 41,300,157 $ 3,985,058 $ 11,835,096 c0i m m m Q. E 0 U c E t U *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. a This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 33 Packet Pg. 236 6.9.a SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS OVERVIEW BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES GOVERNMENTAL ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- a SPECIAL REVENUE 12/31/2021 12/31/2021 Q4 YTD Fund Balance Cash Balance .v c 104 - Drug Enforcement Fund $ 76,500 $ 76,113 $ 329 $ 2,198 111 - Street Fund 954,661 867,785 73,070 (183,749 ii 112- Combined Street Const/Improve 1,809,637 1,847,844 (683,276) (272,027 i 117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 660,887 676,768 (19,281) (21,839 118 - Memorial Street Tree 137 - (20,589) (20,081 120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 65,810 79,305 (15,483) (1,111 CY 121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund 103,260 102,538 10,163 21,262 c 122 -Youth Scholarship Fund 14,506 14,414 217 679 N 123-Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 95,257 94,316 (4,942) 14,919 125 - Real Estate Tax2 4,321,103 4,127,775 254,611 1,749,121 E 126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1 3,737,714 3,456,875 183,840 1,427,546 u 127 - Gifts Catalog Fund 306,540 310,717 (7,842) 8,476 0 130- Cemetery Mai ntenance/Improvement 270,385 271,113 18,108 65,257 136 - Parks Trust Fund 171,562 170,437 736 4,924 137 - CemeteryMaintenance Trust Fund 1,126,559 1,119,210 9,303 36,698 . 138 - Sister City Commission 15,699 15,629 2,560 5,336 140 -Business Improvement Disrict 29,729 36,669 (13,562) 10,577 d 141 - Affordable and Supportive Housing I'd 158,717 152,021 24,447 80,276 0 142 - Edmonds Rescue Plan Fund 4,914,234 5,020,306 (946,459) 4,914,234 143 -Tree Fund 20,653 20,653 20,653 20,653 Total Special Revenue $ 18,853,550 $ 18,460,487 $ (1,113,399) $ 7,863,348 .� *$200,000 of the fund balance in Fund 126 has been reserved for Marsh Restoration Funding, as well as $500,000 for a the purchase of Open Space. ii ENTERPRISE FUNDS OVERVIEW r N O N BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES ENTERPRISE ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- y FUNDS 12/31/2021 12/31/2021 Q4 YTD Fund Balance Cash Balance m 421 -Water Utility Fund $ 27,037,551 $ 6,682,569 $ (228,289) $ 1,337,900 422-Storm Utility Fund" 14,943,174 5,888,278 (664,586) 1,352,485 U 423 - Sewer/WWTP Utility Fund 48,625,937 16,559,491 (4,161,858) (3,772,491 424 - Bond Reserve Fund 843,972 843,972 3 11 E E 411 -Combined Utility Operation 12,585 42,666 6,705 12,585 u Total Enterprise Funds $ 91,463,220 $ 30,016,977 $ (5,048,025) $ (1,069,510 Q *$250,000 of the Storm Utility Fund Balance has been reserved for Marsh Restoration Funding. *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 34 Packet Pg. 237 6.9.a SUMMARY OVERVIEW BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES r_ ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- Q CITY-WIDE 12/31/2021 12/31/2021 Q4 YTD Fund Balance Cash Balance c Governmental Funds $ 46,258,904 $ 41,300,157 $ 3,985,058 $ 11,835,096 f° c Enterprise Funds 91,463,220 30,016,977 (5,048,025) (1,069,510 - Internal Services Fund 10,424,508 5,925,018 82,304 470,088 y Agency Funds 36,617 38,133 (23,399) (98,498 Total City-wide Total $ 148,183,248 $ 77,280,285 $ (1,004,063) $ 11,137,176 Cy r N O N L d E INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS OVERVIEW d 0 E L BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES 0 INTERNAL SERVICE ---- ACTUAL ---- ---- ACTUAL ---- m FUNDS 12/31/2021 12/31/2021 Q4 YTD E Fund Balance Cash Balance c 0 c 511 - Equipment Rental Fund $ 9,413,646 $ 5,007,857 $ 128,352 $ 309,851 ii 512 -Technology Rental Fund 1,010,861 917,161 (46,048) 160,238 `m Total Internal Service Funds $ 10,424,508 $ 5,925,018 $ 82,304 $ 470,088 CY r N O N L d E d d d d Q E 0 U c E t U Q *Please note that these revenues and expenses occur within annual cycles. This Interim Report is not adjusted for accruals or those annual cycles. 35 Packet Pg. 238 6.9.b GENERAL FUND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 (Preliminary) Beginning Fund Balance 9,359,435 9,841,718 10,273,343 11,233,278 15,552,187 13,868,746 Revenue Taxes 29,403,794 29,572,203 30,755,578 30,846,665 30,738,451 32,803,082 Licenses and permits 2,269,313 2,506,800 2,401,855 2,299,972 2,276,861 2,444,352 Intergovernmental 1,261,998 890,572 1,014,434 1,008,432 1,633,633 1,774,522 Charges for services 5,403,786 5,463,913 5,810,961 6,419,836 5,412,044 5,736,660 Fines and forfeitures 522,051 459,929 616,783 496,093 287,693 272,301 Investment earnings (26,712) 154,739 273,226 573,806 265,631 316,823 Miscellaneous 441,432 471,675 931,495 587,882 322,816 315,534 Operating Revenues 39,275,661 39,519,831 41,804,331 42,232,687 40,937,130 43,663,274 Nononeratina Revenues Transfers in 82,695 26,300 75,884 4,793,650 1,535,800 388,548 Debt proceeds 549,095 - - - - Sale of capital assets 58,451 7,143 5,273 - Insurance recoveries - - 15,570 - 16,977 - - Total Revenue 39,965,902 39,553,274 41,901,058 47,026,337 42,489,907 44,051,822 0. Expenditures m General government 9,969,187 9 714 867 , , 10 288 694 , , 11 565 563 , , 12 302 936 , , 12 040 024 , , •5 Public safety 20,128,896 22,228,871 22,585,212 23,036,185 23,760,951 22,810,442 r- Transportation 3,600 3,600 4,779 5,012 5,012 1,671 E Economic environment 1,313,430 1,551,152 1,460,763 1,562,702 1,675,334 1,991,622 ii >, Mental and physical health 70,814 126,791 178,859 164,888 357,808 84,641 `m Culture and recreation 3,773,633 3,959,731 4,331,806 4,158,397 3,732,644 4,387,396 Debt service 196,663 198,361 197,694 197,967 296,624 294,703 0 CJ Capital outlay 56,662 90,573 93,105 110,935 835,049 143,103 N 0 Operating Expenditures 35,512,885 37,873,946 39,140,912 40,801,649 42,966,358 41,753,602 N Nonoperating Expenditures m Transfers out 3,414,141 1,247,703 1,800,212 1,905,778 1,206,990 657,870 Debt refunding 556,593 - - - Total Expenditures 39,483,619 39,121,649 40,941,124 42,707,427 44,173,348 42,411,472 Prior Period Adjustments - - - - E Change in position 482,283 431,625 959,934 4,318,910 (1,683,442) 1,640,349 L- a Ending Fund Balance 9,841,718 10,273,343 11,233,278 15,552,187 13,868,746 15,509,095 06 a R:\Finance Committee\2021\Jan-Dec 2021 P&L 1/25/2022 Packet Pg. 239 6.10 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/15/2022 Ordinance amending ECC 1.02 Public Records Requests Staff Lead: Scott Passey Department: City Clerk's Office Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History On May 18, 2021, the City Council approved the reorganization and job description changes of the City Clerk's Office and Administrative Services Department. The reorganization resulted in the creation of the job title "Public Records Officer," which position is solely responsible for responding to public records requests. Staff Recommendation Passage of an ordinance amending ECC 1.20 Public Records Requests on the consent agenda. Narrative Because the city clerk is no longer responsible for public records requests, it is proposed that ECC 1.20 be amended to reflect this change. The attached ordinance replaces all instances of "city clerk" with "public records officer." The ordinance also transfers responsibility for modifications to fees and changes to the administrative services director or designee (ECC 1.20.070). This ordinance was presented in the PSPP Committee on February 8, 2022. The committee recommended the ordinance be placed on a future consent agenda for passage. Attachments: Draft Ordinance ECC 1.20 Public Records Requests Packet Pg. 240 6.10.a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 1.20 ECC, ENTITLED "PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS," TO ALIGN WITH THE REORGANIZATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, on May 18, 2021, the City Council approved the reorganization and job description changes of the City Clerk's Office and Administrative Services Department; and WHEREAS, the reorganization resulted in the creation of the job title "Public Records Officer," which position is solely responsible for responding to public records requests; and WHEREAS, because the city clerk is no longer the designated Public Records Officer, the city council would like to amend Chapter 1.20 to reflect this change; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 1.20 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled "Public Records Requests," is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike thr-,,,g ). Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an administrative function of the city council, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR MIKE NELSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED : Packet Pg. 241 6.10.a CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: February 11, 2022 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: February 15, 2022 PUBLISHED: February 18, 2022 EFFECTIVE DATE: February 23, 2022 ORDINANCE NO. 2 Packet Pg. 242 6.10.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the 15th day of February, 2022, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. . A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 1.20 ECC, ENTITLED "PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS," TO ALIGN WITH THE REORGANIZATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this 15th day of February, 2022. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY 3 Packet Pg. 243 6.10.a Chapter 1.20 PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS Sections: 1.20.005 Authority and purpose. 1.20.010 City cler-k as public records offiser Form for request. 1.20.020 Processing of public records requests. 1.20.025 Providing records to requestor. 1.20.030 Exemptions. 1.20.040 Copying fees. 1.20.045 Index of public records — Findings and order. 1.20.050 Transcriptions. 1.20.060 Certification fees. 1.20.070 Modifications to fees and charges. 1.20.080 Repealed. 1.20.005 Authority and purpose. A. RCW 42.56.070(1) requires each agency to make available for inspection and copying nonexempt "public records" in accordance with published rules. The Act, RCW 42.56.010(3), defines "public record" to include any "writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained" by the agency regardless of physical form or characteristics and specifically excludes records that are not otherwise required to be retained by the agency. RCW 42.56.070(2) requires each agency to set forth "for informational purposes" every law, in addition to the Public Records Act, that exempts or prohibits the disclosure of public records held by that agency. B. The purpose of this chapter is to establish the procedures the city of Edmonds will follow in order to provide full access to public records. These rules provide information to persons wishing to request access to public records of the city of Edmonds and establish processes for both requestors and city of Edmonds staff that are designed to best assist members of the public in obtaining such access. C. The purpose of the Act is to provide the public full access to information concerning the conduct of government, mindful of individuals' privacy rights and the desirability of the efficient administration of government. The Act and these rules will be interpreted in favor of disclosure. In carrying out its responsibilities under the Act, the city of Edmonds will be guided by the provisions of the Act describing its purposes and interpretation. D. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to court case records and administrative records maintained by the Edmonds municipal court in connection to judicial proceedings and records related to the management, supervision, or administration of the court. Access to these records is governed by Washington State Court Rules General Rule 31.1 and case law. E. The provisions of this chapter shall not be construed to create any additional legal obligations upon the city or an independent cause of action against the city. [Ord. 4095 § 1, 2018]. 1.20.010 City elerk as public records offieer Form for request. A13. All persons desiring to inspect or receive a copy of any public record of the city must make their request to the "public records officer, or designee, by submitting an online records request via the public records request web portal on the city of Edmonds website. M Packet Pg. 244 6.10.a BE. A requestor without access to the online portal may submit a request to the ^public records officer via mail or in person on the forms specified by the city public records officer at City Hall. The "public records officer will then enter the request in the city's public records request portal for purposes of tracking, processing and providing responses to such records requests. [Ord. 4095 § 1, 2018; Ord. 3641 § 1, 2007; Ord. 3011 § 1, 1995]. 1.20.020 Processing of public records requests. A. Prompt Responses. Responses to requests for public records shall be made promptly and pursuant to guidelines established in Chapter 42.56 RCW. B. Acknowledging Receipt of Request. Within five business days of receiving a written public record request, not including the date on which the "public records officer receives the request, the city must acknowledge the request in one of the ways provided in this subsection: 1. Provide the record; 2. Provide an internet address or link on the city's website to the specific records requested, except that if the requester notifies the city that he or she cannot access the records through the internet, then the city will provide access to copies. If copies are requested, provide the copies to the requestor after payment for the copies has been made by the requestor, or, if copies are being released in installments, after payment of a deposit is made pursuant to ECC 1.20.040(A); 3. Acknowledge that the city has received the request and provide a reasonable estimate of the time the city will require to respond to the request. This estimate will take into consideration the large number or volume of records requested, the complexity of the request, the time it will take to coordinate departments to locate and assemble the requested records, third -party notice, review of records for exemption and review of exemptions and records by legal staff, 4. If the request is unclear or does not sufficiently identify the requested records, the city will request clarification from the requestor. Such clarification may be requested and provided by telephone. The ^public records officer or designee may revise the estimate of when records will be available based on the clarification from the requestor. If the requestor fails to respond to the request to clarify and the entire request is unclear, the city of Edmonds need not respond to the request. Otherwise the city will respond to the portions of the request that are clear; 5. Deny the public record request. Denials must be accompanied by a written statement of specific reasons therefor. C. Identifiable Record. A public records request must be for identifiable records. A request for all, or substantially all, records prepared, owned, used or retained by the city is not a valid request for identifiable records; provided, that a request for all records regarding a particular topic or containing a particular keyword or name shall not be considered a request for all of the city's records. D. Automated Requests. The city may deny an automated or "hot" request that is one of multiple requests from the requestor within a 24-hour period. `Bot request" means a request for public records that the city reasonably believes was automatically generated by a computer program or script. E. Protecting Rights of Others. In the event that the requested records contain information that may affect the rights of others and may be exempt from disclosure, the "public record officer may, prior to providing the records, give notice to such others whose rights may be affected by the disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56.580. Such notice should be given so as to make it possible for those other persons to seek an order from a court to prevent or limit the disclosure. The notice to the affected persons will include a copy of the request and shall allow the affected person no more than 10 business days to prevent or limit the disclosure of the record. F. Records Exempt from Disclosure. Some records are exempt from disclosure, in whole or in part. If the city believes that a record is exempt from disclosure and should be withheld, thety eler-kpublic records 5 Packet Pg. 245 6.10.a officer will state the specific exemption and provide a brief explanation of why the record or a portion of the record is being withheld. If only a portion of a record is exempt from disclosure, but the remainder is not exempt, the ^public records officer will redact the exempt portions, provide the nonexempt portions, and indicate to the requestor why portions of the record are being redacted. G. Privilege Log. If the city determines that a record is exempt and should be withheld, in whole or in part, the city will prepare and maintain a privilege log of those records. The privilege log will identify: the type of record withheld; the date of record; the number of pages withheld; the author and/or recipient; the exemption invoked; and a brief explanation of how the exemption applies to the withheld record. A copy of the privilege log will be provided to the records requestor. H. No Duty to Create Records. The city is not obligated to create a new record in order to satisfy a request for records. I. Request for Information. The city may deny a request for information as the request is not a request for a public "record" as required under Chapter 42.56 RCW. [Ord. 4095 § 1, 2018; Ord. 3812 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3641 § 1, 2007; Ord. 3011 § 1, 1995]. 1.20.025 Providing records to requestor. A. Receiving Records. The requestor may indicate to the cty clerkpublic records officer whether he or she wishes to inspect records, have the records copied, or have the records uploaded to the city's online records request web portal. B. Inspection of Records. If a requestor seeks an opportunity to inspect public records, the " up blic records officer shall make the records available for inspection at City Hall during regular business hours. The eity eleApublic records officer, or designee, shall be present or otherwise monitor when records are being inspected. The requestor shall indicate which documents he or she wishes the agency to copy and the "public records officer will notify the requestor when the requested documents will be available to claim. C. Providing Records in Installments. Public records may be made available on a partial or installment basis as records that are part of a larger set of requested records are assembled or made ready for public inspection or disclosure. D. Revised Estimate of Time. At any time while processing a request, the ^public records officer may provide the requestor with a revised reasonable estimate of time within which the city will respond to the request. A revised estimate of time will be based on the factors detailed in ECC 1.20.020(B)(3). In addition, a revised estimate may be based upon any unexpected or unforeseen delays encountered during the request processing, additional requests submitted by the same requestor while the initial request is pending, and changed circumstances or other considerations ascertained during processing. E. Providing Electronic Records. When a requestor requests records in an electronic format, if technically feasible, the "public records officer will provide the nonexempt records or portions of such records that are reasonably locatable in an electronic format that is used by the city of Edmonds and is generally commercially available; or will provide the records in a format that is reasonably translatable from the format in which the agency keeps the record. The requestor may also opt to have the records provided to them on digital storage media or device. F. Withdrawn or Abandoned Requests. The city may consider a request abandoned and close a request when the requestor either withdraws their request or fails to fulfill their obligations in the processing of the request. The city may consider a request abandoned in the following circumstances: 1. If an entire request is unclear, and the requestor fails to clarify the request within 30 days of the city's request for clarification; 2. If the requestor fails to inspect records within 30 days of being notified that records are available for inspection; T Packet Pg. 246 6.10.a 3. If the requestor misses an appointment to inspect records and fails to contact the city within 30 days of the missed appointment; 4. If the requestor fails to view records within 30 days of being notified that records are available for electronic inspection; 5. If the requestor fails to pick up records at City Hall within 30 days of being notified that the records are available for in -person pick-up; or 6. If the requestor fails to pay a deposit or the final payment for the requested copies of records within 30 days of receiving an invoice from the city for payment thereof. G. Closing a Request. After the ^public records officer has completed a request for disclosure by providing the requestor with responsive documents and a redaction log, if applicable, the e up blic records officer will close the request and inform the requestor of this status. The closure of a request shall signify that the request has been completed and is considered determinative. [Ord. 4095 § 1, 2018]. 1.20.030 Exemptions. The city adopts by reference the exemptions from public disclosure contained in Chapter 42.56 RCW, including any future amendments thereto or recodification thereof, along with any other exemption provided by law, including but not limited to those exemptions set forth in Exhibit C to "Public Records Act for Washington Cities and Counties," Municipal Research and Services Center, Report No. 61, July 2006, a copy of which shall be maintained in the office of the city clerk. [Ord. 4095 § 1, 2018; Ord. 3641 § 1, 2007; Ord. 3011 § 1, 1995]. 1.20.040 Copying fees. A. The city of Edmonds finds that calculating the actual cost to charge the requestor is unduly burdensome and would interfere with city of Edmonds operations. The city employs over 100 employees who earn different salaries and different rates of pay. City public records officer would be required to maintain a record of all employees who contributed to each part of a public record request and potentially charge different amounts for multiple scanned pages. The response time to a public records request may also be delayed in order to calculate scanning costs and create invoices with different rates of scanning charges. The amount of work involved in calculating the cost in providing copies for all separate requests would require a significant portion of one employee's time. The performance of the city of Edmonds overall mission does not allow for the addition to, or the revision or reassignment of, duties for existing personnel so that these calculations can be done without hiring additional staff. Anticipated revenue, along with adopted priorities for expenditures, does not allow for the hiring of an additional employee for this purpose. Based on the findings above, the city will charge the requestor for photocopies or electronically produced copies of public records in accordance with the charges set forth in RCW 42.56.120(2). Pursuant to that statute, the city will provide, upon request, a summary of the applicable charges before any copies are made to allow the requestor to revise the request to reduce the number of copies to be made and reduce the applicable charges. If a request requires the use of a commercial copy service, including but not limited to large -copy projects, color copies, and oversized copies, the costs for copies will be the actual cost of the copies charged by such outside vendor. The "public records officer may require a deposit in an amount not to exceed 10 percent of the estimated cost of providing copies for a request, including customized service charges. If public records are made available on a partial or installment basis, the applicable fees shall be due and payable for each part of the request as it is provided. B. Costs for Electronic Records. The cost of providing electronic copies of records on digital storage media or device will be the actual cost. If electronically produced copies are being provided by email or through the public records portal, cost for the records will be in accordance with RCW 42.56.120. There will be no charge for transmitting electronic records to a requestor, unless another cost applies such as a scanning fee. 7 Packet Pg. 247 6.10.a C. Costs of Mailing. The city of Edmonds may also charge actual costs of mailing, including the cost of a shipping container; and the actual cost of long-distance fax transmission. D. Payment. Payment for the costs of records may be made by cash, check, Mastercard, or Visa, made payable to the city of Edmonds. E. Other statutes govern charges for particular kinds of records. As examples, RCW 46.52.085 (charges for traffic accident reports); RCW 10.97.100 (copies of criminal histories); RCW 3.62.060 and 3.62.065 (charges for certain records maintained by courts). F. The requestor may challenge the city's fee estimate when the requestor believes the city has not made a "reasonable estimate of the charges to produce the copies of records" by seeking judicial review of the city's action by filing a motion within Snohomish County superior court pursuant to the provisions of RCW 42.56.550. G. The city of Edmonds has the discretion to waive copying charges for photocopies or electronically produced copies of public records. The city may also enter into a contract, memorandum of understanding, or other agreement with a requestor that provides an alternative fee arrangement to the charges authorized in RCW 42.56.120, or in response to a voluminous or frequently occurring request. For administrative convenience, the city will waive copying charges for photocopies or electronically produced copies of public records, if the total charges are less than $1.00 per request. [Ord. 4095 § 1, 2018; Ord. 3641 § 1, 2007; Ord. 3011 § 1, 19951. 1.20.045 Index of public records — Findings and order. A. Findings. 1. The Public Records Act requires all cities and public agencies to maintain and make available a current index of all public records. 2. RCW 42.56.070(4) provides that an agency need not maintain such an index if to do so would be unduly burdensome, but it must issue and publish a formal order specifying the reasons why and the extent to which compliance would be unduly burdensome or would interfere with agency operations. 3. The city is comprised of numerous departments, their divisions and subdivisions, many if not all of which maintain separate databases and/or systems for the indexing of records and information. 4. Because the city has records which are diverse, complex and stored in multiple locations and in multiple computer systems, formats and/or databases, it is unduly burdensome, if not physically impossible, to maintain a current index of all records. B. Order. Based upon the findings set forth in subsection (A) of this section, and pursuant to RCW 42.56.070(4), the city council orders the following: 1. The city is not required to maintain an all-inclusive index of public records due to the undue burden and near -impossibility of maintaining such an index. 2. The city will make available for inspection and/or copying all public records, including any indexes that are maintained by the city, except to the extent that such records are exempt from public disclosure. [Ord. 4095 § 1, 2018; Ord. 3641 § 2, 2007]. 1.20.050 Transcriptions. The following procedures shall apply unless inconsistent with an order of the Snohomish County superior court: A. When the city is required to prepare a verbatim written transcript of any proceeding of the city in response to a writ of review or other action filed in the superior court or any other state or federal court, the cost of preparing the same shall be borne by the party filing the action pursuant to rates and charges as proposed by the city clerk and approved by the city council. The party filing such action shall pay to the Packet Pg. 248 6.10.a city clerk the estimated costs, as determined by the city clerk, of the preparation of the transcript based on the aforementioned rates and charges, including copying costs, and the city clerk shall thereafter have the transcript prepared. B. Should the actual cost incurred by the city in the preparation of the transcript exceed the amount deposited with the city clerk, the party making such deposit shall be required to reimburse the city for such additional amount within 10 days of notification that such amount is due or prior to the time the transcript is required to be filed with the court, whichever occurs first. Should the actual cost incurred by the city be less than the estimated cost deposited, such credit due shall be reimbursed by the city to the party making the deposit. [Ord. 4095 § 1, 2018; Ord. 3011 § 1, 1995]. 1.20.060 Certification fees. The city clerk shall establish fees for the certification of public records and such fees shall be approved by resolution by the city council. The city clerk shall determine the manner in which, as consistent with applicable law, records and groups of records are to be certified. [Ord. 4095 § 1, 2018; Ord. 3011 § 1, 1995]. 1.20.070 Modifications to fees and charges. All fees and charges identified in this chapter may be modified by the ^administrative services director or designee, as approved by resolution of the city council from time to time as deemed necessary by the eiPf eler-k to reflect increases in the costs of providing the services identified in this chapter. All fees and charges established pursuant to this chapter shall reflect the actual costs of the services provided. [Ord. 4095 § 1, 2018; Ord. 3011 § 1, 1995]. 1.20.080 Public disclosure forms. Repealed by Ord. 4095. [Ord. 3489 § 2, 2004]. 0 Packet Pg. 249 6.11 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/15/2022 Approval of Wastewater Treatment, Disposal, and Transport Contract Extension Staff Lead: Pamela Randolph Department: Public Works & Utilities Preparer: Royce Napolitino Background/History A 2-year Wastewater Treatment, Disposal and Transport Contract Extension (Addendum [1]) was before City Council on April 18, 2017 (ID# 1966). Due to ongoing litigation and the potential changes to the City WWTP NPDES Permit, staff requested a 3-month contract extension which was before City Council on May 5, 2020 (ID# 4602). This extension was signed on May 15, 2020. Due to ongoing litigation staff requested an eighteen (18) month extension which was before City Council on August 4, 2021 and signed on August 14, 2021 (ID# 4815). On February 8, 2022, staff presented this item to the Parks and Public Works Committee and it was placed on the February 15th consent agenda for approval. Staff Recommendation Approve the Wastewater Treatment, Disposal and Transport Contract Extension. Narrative In 1988 the City of Edmonds entered into an Agreement with Olympic View Water and Sewer District, Ronald Sewer District, and the City of Mountlake Terrace to upgrade the WWTP to Secondary Treatment. The Agreement focused on financing and building the new plant; it determined the ownership interest of each Partner and their capital contribution rate; it defined a process to ensure the Partners pay their share of operating expenses based on their annual measured flows to the facility; and it defined the role and responsibility of the Oversight Committee that is composed of one member from each Partner organization. The Agreement expired in May 2018 but was extended for two (2) years by means of the "Wastewater Treatment, Disposal and Transport Contract Extension." Due to on -going litigation and the potential changes to the City WWTP NPDES Permit, staff requested a 3-month contract extension which was before City Council on May 5, 2020 (ID# 4602). This extension was signed on May 15, 2020. Due to continued litigation at the time, staff requested an eighteen (18) month extension which was before City Council on August 4, 2020 and signed on August 14, 2020 (ID# 4815). The Clean Water Act and federal rules require wastewater treatment plants that contribute to water quality impairments by discharging excess nutrients to take action to prevent this pollution. The Washington State Department of Ecology Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit, effective January 1, 2022, applies to the Edmonds WWTP since it discharges to marine and estuarine waters of Washington. Monitoring of the operations of the Edmonds WWTP Is necessary to determine what capital or operational changes Packet Pg. 250 6.11 may be required to ensure compliance with the Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit. Therefore, because of these requirements and the need to study the impacts of the requirements, staff is requesting a twenty-four (24) month extension (Addendum #4) to the Contract Extension. The Oversight Committee has worked diligently over the past few years to develop new Contract language that addresses a variety of issues that have changed during the last 30 years. These include new regulatory requirements, improved pre-treatment processes, holding each Partner responsible for their own conveyance system upgrades and repairs, and clarification of some past ambiguities within the original Agreement. As the Oversight Committee entered into the final stages of Contract review concerns arose among the Parties regarding the City of Shoreline's assumption of Ronald Wastewater District and the City's intention to take over the Pt. Wells area (currently within the service area of Olympic View Water and Sewer District). These concerns have brought the parties to an impasse on the development of the new Contract. The Department of Ecology has issued an NPDES permit that contains requirements for nutrient removal. These requirements are of great concern because of the potential adverse impact on future growth in the area and the WWTP's ability to provide the quality of treatment outlined in the NPDES permit. A general agreement has been reached among the Parties regarding the new Contract. However due to the potential nutrient removal impacts we believe it prudent to extend the current Wastewater Treatment, Disposal and Transport Agreement until such time that the NPDES concerns are better understood. Attachments: Addendum 4 to Partnership Agreement - Wastewater Treatment, Disposal, and Transport Packet Pg. 251 ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO AGREEMENT 6.11.a Wastewater Treatment, Disposal and Transport WHEREAS, the City of Mountlake Terrace, Olympic View Water and Sewer District, and the Ronald Sewer District (the "Participants") and the City of Edmonds (the "City"), (collectively the "Parties"), all municipal corporations of the State of Washington, entered into a Professional Services Agreement for Wastewater Treatment, Disposal, and Transport ("Agreement"), for a term of thirty (30) years, from May 17, 1988 to May 17, 2018; and WHEREAS, in May 2017, the Parties entered into an Addendum to the Agreement to extend the term of the Agreement for two (2) years, through May 17, 2020, to allow time for issues between the Parties to be resolved; and WHEREAS, in April 2020, the Parties entered into Addendum No. 2 to the Agreement to extend the term of the Agreement for an additional three (3) months, through August 17, 2020, to allow additional time for issues between the Parties to be resolved; and WHEREAS, in August 2020, the Parties entered into Addendum No. 3 to the Agreement to extend the term of the Agreement for an additional eighteen (18) months, through February 17, 2022, to allow additional time for issues between the Parties to be resolved; and WHEREAS, on April 30, 2021, pursuant to chapter 35.13A RCW, the City of Shoreline assumed full and complete management and control of the Ronald Wastewater District (formerly Ronald Sewer District); and WHEREAS, the City of Mountlake Terrace, Olympic View Sewer and Water District, and the City of Edmonds recognize the City of Shoreline's assumption and its acceptance of the contractual obligations previously agreed to by the Ronald Wastewater District and desire to amend the Agreement to reflect this assumption; and WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to further extend the term of the Agreement for an additional twenty-four (24) months, through February 17, 2024 allow additional time for issues between the Parties to be resolved; WHEREAS, the Clean Water Act and federal rules require wastewater treatment plants that contribute to water quality impairments by discharging excess nutrients to take action to prevent this pollution. The Washington State Department of Ecology Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit, effective January 1, 2022, applies to the Edmonds WWTP since it discharges to marine and estuarine waters of Washington. Monitoring of the operations of the Edmonds WWTP is necessary to determine what capital or operational changes may be required to ensure compliance with the Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and among the Parties hereto as follows: Page 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 252 ADDENDUM NO.4 TO AGREEMENT 6.11.a Wastewater Treatment, Disposal and Transport 1. The Agreement of May 17, 1988, among the Parties, the term of which has been extended on three (3) previous occasions, is further amended in, but only in, the following respects: A. By executing this Agreement, the City of Mountlake Terrace, Olympic View Water and Sewer District, and the City of Edmonds accept the City of Shoreline as a Participant and as a Party to the Agreement. All rights, responsibilities, and obligations of the Ronald Wastewater District, formerly the Ronald Sewer District, shall be the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of the City of Shoreline. B. Term of Agreement: To extend this Agreement to February 17, 2024. 2. In all other respects, the underlying Agreement among the Parties and all extensions thereto, shall remain in full force and effect and unchanged. DATED this day of CITY OF EDMONDS Michael Nelson, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney OLYMPIC VIEW WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT 20_ CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE By: Title: ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED : By: Title: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Title: CITY OF SHORELINE By: Title: Title: Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 253 ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO AGREEMENT 6.11.a Wastewater Treatment, Disposal and Transport ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: By:_ Title: By: _ Title: APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ME Title: Title: Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 254 6.12 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/15/2022 Public pedestrian and water meter vault easements at 21200 72nd Ave W Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Public Works & Utilities Preparer: Rob English Background/History On January 11, 2022, staff presented this item to the Parks and Public Works Committee and the committee agreed to have the item placed on a future consent agenda when the documents were ready for approval. Staff Recommendation Approve easements. Narrative The City is currently reviewing a proposed senior living facility, Anthology Senior Living, at 21200 72nd Ave W. Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 16.60 - General Commercial Zone, requires specific streetscape (planting) and pedestrian (sidewalk) zones to be created along the property frontage. In meeting these requirements, a portion of the sidewalk will be located on private property (on both 72nd Ave W and 2121" St SW) and therefore, public pedestrian easements shall be provided to the City. In addition, the water meter proposed for the subject development requires a vault that is too large to fit entirely within public property and therefore, a public water meter vault easement shall be provided to the City for the encroachment onto private property. Subsequent to City Council approval of the public easements, the easement documents will be recorded against the subject property. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map Attachment 2 - Pedestrian Easement (West Sidewalk) Legal Description Attachment 3 - Pedestrian Easement (North Sidewalk) Legal Description Attachment 4 - Water Meter Vault Easement Legal Description Attachment 5 - Site Improvement Plan Packet Pg. 255 . City of Edmonds Anthology Senior Living 9 S7 r� W SHT 73 S30 T27N R4E DMONOS s FERANC, w ^� LU a H 00 ko SHT 10 S20 T27N C 208TH ST SW 204TH ST SW J L---] L I I I I I I Y I I I I I I I I I � � JOV gP,( I a I SHT 14 = S29 T27.A' R4E 220TH ST SW i 3 ILU JIJ _a 1: 12,125 0 1,010.38 2,020.8 Feet 1,504.7 This ma Is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is foi 18,056 p B p pp B reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate WGS_1984_Web _Mercator _Auxiliary -Sphere current, or otherwise reliable © City of Edmonds THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION I Legend Notes Vicinity Map 21200 72nd Ave W 1 6.12.a I CD Q 04 M M M a) r 3 M L N a �9 to CL a CL M 2 C a) t v Q t a Packet Pg. 256 1 6.12.b Return Address: City Clerk City of Edmonds 121 - 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT Property Address: 21200 72°a Avenue W, Edmonds, Washington 98026 Assessor's Property Tax Parcel No.: 005807-000-004-01 IN CONSIDERATION of benefits to accrue to the grantors herein, the undersigned, CA SENIOR EDMONDS WA PROPERTY OWNER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("GRANTORS") hereby grant to the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington Municipal Corporation ("GRANTEE"), a permanent public pedestrian easement for the location and operation of a sidewalk and necessary appurtenances, over, across, through, and below the following described property, together with the right of access to the easement at any time for the stated purposes. The easement hereby granted is located on the parcel legally described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, in the COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON, and is more particularly described and depicted in Exhibits B and C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. GRANTOR understands and agrees for itself and its successors and assigns not to cause or allow the construction or maintenance of any building or other structure in or upon the area conveyed without the prior written consent of GRANTEE, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. GRANTOR understands and agrees that GRANTEE may cause the summary removal of any such building or structure so placed without GRANTOR's consent and that GRANTOR shall make no claim for and shall hold GRANTEE harmless from any claim by a third person for damage to or destruction of the property so removed. GRANTEE agrees to indemnify, defend and hold GRANTOR harmless from any and all liability or damage, including attorneys' fees and costs, incurred or arising directly from GRANTEE's use of the easement as stated above, except those arising from any of GRANTOR's acts, omissions or negligence. GRANTORS expressly reserve all rights not inconsistent with those granted to GRANTEE herein. (Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank) FINAL DRAFT - Pedestrian Easement-Anthology-(80050826v3)-c 80050826.3 Packet Pg. 257 6.12.b DATED THIS DAY OF 2022. CA SENIOR EDMONDS WA PROPERTY OWNER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: Name: Title: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) On this day personally appeared before me , the of CA Senior Edmonds WA Property Owner, LLC, Delaware limited liability company, and to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that (s)he signed the same as free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS DAY OF ,20 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at (Signatures Continue on Following Page) FINAL DRAFT - Pedestrian Easement-Anthology-(80050826v3)-c 80050826.3 Packet Pg. 258 6.12.b Accepted by the City Council dated CITY OF EDMONDS Michael Nelson, Mayor day of 202_. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney FINAL DRAFT - Pedestrian Easement-Anthology-(80050826v3)-c 80050826.3 Packet Pg. 259 6.12.b EXHIBIT A PARCEL LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE NORTH 159 FEET OF TRACT 4, SOLNER'S FIVE ACRE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 7 OF PLATS, PAGE 25, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. EXCEPT THE WEST 100 FEET THEREOF. (ALSO KNOWN AS LOT 4 OF CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT NO. S-20-77, RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 7705310298). SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. NW 1/4, NW 1/4, SEC. 29, TWP. 27N., RGE. 4E., W.M. CITY OF EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON ��aanee �O D AxisREDMOND, Survey & Mapping 15241 NE 90TH ST WA 98052 TEL. 425.823-5700 FAX 425.823-6700 www.axismap.com JOB NO, 18.210 DATE 9/7/21 DRAWN BY ERM CHECKED BY WTB SCALE N/A SHEET IOF3 FINAL DRAFT - Pedestrian Easement-Anthology-(80050826v3)-c 80050826.3 Packet Pg. 260 6.12.b EXHIBIT B PUBLIC SIDEWALK EASEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE EAST 1.00 FOOT OF THE SOUTH 126.50 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND; THE NORTH 159 FEET OF TRACT 4, SOLNER'S FIVE ACRE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 7 OF PLATS, PAGE 25, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. EXCEPT THE WEST 100 FEET THEREOF. (ALSO KNOWN AS LOT 4 OF CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT NO. S-20-77, RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 7705310298). SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. CONTAINING AN AREA OF ±126 Sp. FT. MORE OR LESS. TRAVIS �Q 44FWA v ti L4 1 0 46372 NW 1/4, NW 1/4, SEC. 29, TWP. 27N., RGE. 4E., W.M. CITY OF EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON O� AxisREDMOND, Survey & Mapping 15241 NE 90TH ST WA 98052 TEL. 425.823-5700 FAX 425.823-6700 www.axismap.com 103 NO. 18 210 DATE 9/7/21 DRAWN BY ERM CHECKED BY WTB SCALE N/A SHEET 2OF3 FINAL DRAFT - Pedestrian Easement-Anthology-(80050826v3)-c 80050826.3 Packet Pg. 261 6.12.b EXHIBIT C PUBLIC SIDEWALK EASEMENT LEGAL DEPICTION N89.52'54"W 1374.51' — 212TH ST SW o M 213.54' LOT 4 A7[IS ' 1'x126.5' GRAPHIC SCALE PUBLIC ' SIDEWALK i EASEMENT � ® i i 0 15. 30' io N 1"=30' 1O THIS EXHIBIT HAS BEEN PREPARED TO ASSIST IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ACCOMPANYING LEGAL DESCRIPTION. IF THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE WRITTEN LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND THIS SKETCH, THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION SHALL PREVAIL. SoZ( of v)--7 G� t 0-AZ�p298 Soo?-5 N89'52'53"W 213.20' ®�-3 NW 1/4, NW 1/4, SEC. 29, TWP. 27N., RGE. 4E., W.M. CITY OF EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON �ODaaaae`�� Axis.ED15241MOND,E WA 98052 TEL. 425.823-5700 Survey & Mapping FAX 425.823-6700 i� 30' in www.axismap.com JOB NO. DATE 18-210 9/7/21 DRAWN BY CHECKED BY ERM WTB SCALE SHEET 1"=30' 3OF3 FINAL DRAFT - Pedestrian Easement-Anthology-(80050826v3)-c 80050826.3 Packet Pg. 262 6.12.c Return Address: City Clerk City of Edmonds 121 - 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT Property Address: 21200 72°d Avenue W, Edmonds, Washington 98026 Assessor's Property Tax Parcel No.: 005807-000-004-01 IN CONSIDERATION of benefits to accrue to the grantors herein, the undersigned, CA SENIOR EDMONDS WA PROPERTY OWNER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("GRANTORS") hereby grant to the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington Municipal Corporation ("GRANTEE"), a permanent public pedestrian easement for the location and operation of a sidewalk and necessary appurtenances, over, across, through, and below the following described property, together with the right of access to the easement at any time for the stated purposes. The easement hereby granted is located on the parcel legally described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, in the COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON, and is more particularly described and depicted in Exhibits B and C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. GRANTOR understands and agrees for itself and its successors and assigns not to cause or allow the construction or maintenance of any building or other structure in or upon the area conveyed without the prior written consent of GRANTEE, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. GRANTOR understands and agrees that GRANTEE may cause the summary removal of any such building or structure so placed without GRANTOR's consent and that GRANTOR shall make no claim for and shall hold GRANTEE harmless from any claim by a third person for damage to or destruction of the property so removed. GRANTEE agrees to indemnify, defend and hold GRANTOR harmless from any and all liability or damage, including attorneys' fees and costs, incurred or arising directly from GRANTEE's use of the easement as stated above, except those arising from any of GRANTOR's acts, omissions or negligence. GRANTORS expressly reserve all rights not inconsistent with those granted to GRANTEE herein. (Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank) FINAL DRAFT - Pedestrian Easement (North Sidewalk)-Anthology-(81410721v1)-c 81410721.1 Packet Pg. 263 6.12.c DATED THIS DAY OF 2022. CA SENIOR EDMONDS WA PROPERTY OWNER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: Name: Title: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) On this day personally appeared before me , the of CA Senior Edmonds WA Property Owner, LLC, Delaware limited liability company, and to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that (s)he signed the same as free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS DAY OF ,20 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at (Signatures Continue on Following Page) FINAL DRAFT - Pedestrian Easement (North Sidewalk)-Anthology-(81410721v1)-c 81410721.1 Packet Pg. 264 6.12.c Accepted by the City Council dated CITY OF EDMONDS Michael Nelson, Mayor day of 202_. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney FINAL DRAFT - Pedestrian Easement (North Sidewalk)-Anthology-(81410721v1)-c 81410721.1 Packet Pg. 265 6.12.c EXHIBIT A PARCEL LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE NORTH 159 FEET OF TRACT 4, SOLNER'S FIVE ACRE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 7 OF PLATS, PAGE 25, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. EXCEPT THE WEST 100 FEET THEREOF. (ALSO KNOWN AS LOT 4 OF CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT NO. S-20-77, RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 7705310298). SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON, NW 1/4, NW 1/4, SEC. 29, TWP. 27N., RGE. 4E., W.M. CITY OF EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON www.axismap.com JOB NO. DATE pOoa��DD 18 210 9/7/21 O 15241 NE 90TH ST Axis REDMOND, WA 98052 DRAWN BY CHECKED BY TEL. 425.823-5700 ERM WTB Survey & Mapping FAX 425.823-6700 SCALE SHEET N/A 1OF3 FINAL DRAFT - Pedestrian Easement (North Sidewalk)-Anthology-(81410721vl)-c 81410721.1 Packet Pg. 266 6.12.c EXHIBIT B PUBLIC SIDEWALK EASEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE NORTH 8.00 FEET OF THE WEST 196.00 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND; THE NORTH 159 FEET OF TRACT 4, SOLNER'S FIVE ACRE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 7 OF PLATS, PAGE 25, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. EXCEPT THE WEST 100 FEET THEREOF. (ALSO KNOWN AS LOT 4 OF CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT NO. S-20-77, RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 7705310298). SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. CONTAINING AN AREA OF t1,568 SO. FT. MORE OR LESS, NW 1/4, NW 1/4, SEC. 29, TWP. 27N., RGE. 4E., W.M. CITY OF EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON va �pQQ�e� Axis Survey & Mapping 15241 NE 90TH ST REDMOND, WA 98052 TEL. 425.823-5700 FAX 425.823-6700 www.axlsmap.com JOB NO. 18 DATE 9/7/21 DRAWNWN B BY ERM CHECKED BY WTB SCALE N/A SHEET 2OF3 FINAL DRAFT - Pedestrian Easement (North Sidewalk)-Anthology-(81410721vl)-c 81410721.1 Packet Pg. 267 6.12.c EXHIBIT C PUBLIC SIDEWALK EASEMENT LEGAL DEPICTION THIS EXHIBIT HAS BEEN PREPARED TO — Q — ASSIST IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ACCOMPANYING LEGAL DESCRIPTION. IF eoo THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE w v WRITTEN LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND THIS cis SKETCH, THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION SHALL PREVAIL. GRAPHIC SCALE 0 30' 60' 212TH ST SW 1° = 60, N89-52'54"W 1374.51' 0 0 M � 8.0, 213.54' 196.0' 30' 1 B'xl96' PUBLIC iv SIDEWALK EASEMENT N9 o c LO LOT 4 N 1® 3 0 00 �3 M � � Q o EDMOZps"j1 ? N o n z SNOR�1"1p531029$ O z N89'52'53"W 213.20' 30' Jo 3 NW 1/4, NW 1/4, SEC. 29, TWP. 27N., RGE. 4E., W.M. CITY OF EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON www.axismap.com �pQQ�ee JOB NO, DATE 18-210 9/7/21 15241 NE 90TH ST AxisREDM..D, WA 98052 DRAWN BY CHECKED BY TEL. 425.823 5700 ERM WTB Survey & Mapping FAX 425.823-6700 SCALE SHEET 1"=603OF3 FINAL DRAFT - Pedestrian Easement (North Sidewalk)-Anthology-(8141072Iv1)-c 81410721.1 Packet Pg. 268 6.12.d Return Address: City Clerk City of Edmonds 121 - 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 WATER METER VAULT EASEMENT Grantor: CA SENIOR EDMONDS WA PROPERTY OWNER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company Grantee: CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington Municipal Corporation Property Address: 21200 72°a Avenue W, Edmonds, Washington 98026 Assessor's Property Tax Parcel No.: 005807-000-004-01 IN CONSIDERATION of benefits to accrue to the grantors herein, the undersigned, CA SENIOR EDMONDS WA PROPERTY OWNER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("GRANTORS") hereby grant to the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington Municipal Corporation ("GRANTEE"), a permanent easement for the installation, construction, operation, maintenance, repair, reconstruction and/or replacement of a water meter vault and necessary appurtenances, over, across, through, and below the following described property, and the further right, at GRANTEE's sole expense, to remove trees, bushes, undergrowth and other obstructions thereon interfering with the location, construction, operation, maintenance, repair, reconstruction and/or replacement of said water meter vault and necessary appurtenances, together with the right of access to the easement at any time for the stated purposes. The easement hereby granted is located on the parcel legally described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, in the COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON, and the easement area (the "EASEMENT AREA") is more particularly described and depicted in Exhibits B and C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. GRANTEE shall, at GRANTEE'S sole expense, be responsible for the maintenance, repair, replacement, removal, relocation and reconstruction of the water meter vault and necessary appurtenances. Further, GRANTEE agrees to restore to substantially the original condition such improvements as are disturbed during the construction, maintenance, and repair of said utility or utilities; provided, however, GRANTOR shall not construct any permanent structures over, upon or below, within the EASEMENT AREA. Notwithstanding the foregoing, (a) GRANTEE acknowledges that a certain storm sewer line, storm sewer drain or other facilities (collectively, the "EXISTING FACILITIES") may be located in the Easement Area by virtue of that certain Storm Sewer Easement Agreement recorded May 16, 2018 as Recording Number 201805160124, as modified by that certain Partial Release and First Amendment to Storm Sewer Easement Agreement recorded February 14, 2019 as Recording Number 201902140157 (as amended, the "EXISTING EASEMENT"), (b) GRANTOR shall be solely responsible for any repairs or restoration of the EXISTING FACILITIES necessitated by GRANTEE's use of the EASEMENT AREA in accordance with this water meter vault easement agreement, and (c) GRANTOR shall be solely responsible for any damage to the water meter vault and necessary appurtenances arising in connection with the maintenance, repair, reconstruction or replacement of the EXISTING FACILITIES. Nothing set forth herein shall be construed as a revocation of the rights of the grantee set forth in the Existing Easement. Except as expressly provided to the contrary in this agreement, GRANTEE agrees to indemnify, defend and hold GRANTOR harmless from any and all liability or damage, including attorneys' fees and costs, incurred or arising directly from GRANTEE's use, maintenance, repair, replacement, removal, relocation and reconstruction of and access to the systems, except those arising from any of GRANTOR'S acts, omissions or negligence. GRANTORS expressly reserve all rights not inconsistent with those granted to GRANTEE herein. (Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank) FINAL DRAFT - Water Meter Vault Easement-Anthology-(81296584v2)-c 81296584.2 Packet Pg. 269 6.12.d DATED THIS DAY OF 2022. CA SENIOR EDMONDS WA PROPERTY OWNER, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: Name: Title: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) On this day personally appeared before me , the of CA Senior Edmonds WA Property Owner, LLC, Delaware limited liability company, and to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that (s)he signed the same as free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS DAY OF ,20 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at (Signatures Continue on Following Page) FINAL DRAFT - Water Meter Vault Easement-Anthology-(81296584v2)-c 81296584.2 Packet Pg. 270 6.12.d Accepted by the City Council dated CITY OF EDMONDS Michael Nelson, Mayor day of 202_. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney FINAL DRAFT - Water Meter Vault Easement-Anthology-(81296584v2)-c 81296584.2 Packet Pg. 271 6.12.d EXHIBIT A ENCUMBERED PARCEL THE NORTH 159 FEET OF TRACT 4, SOLNER'S FIVE ACRE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 7 OF PLATS, PAGE 25, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON EXCEPT THE WEST 100 FEET THEREOF. (ALSO KNOWN AS LOT 4 OF CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT NO. S-20-77, RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE N0. 7705310298). SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. NW 1/4, NW 1/4, SEC. 29, TWP. 27N., RGE. 4E., W.M. CITY OF EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON www.axismap.com JOB N0. DATE Axis 15241 NE 90TH ST, 18-210 12/27/21 SUITE 100 REDMOND, WA 98052 Survey &Mapping TEL. 425.823-5700 FAX 425.823-6700 DRAWN 8Y ARH CHECKED 8Y WTB SCALE N/A SHEET 1 OF 3 FINAL DRAFT - Water Meter Vault Easement-Anthology-(81296584v2)-c 81296584.2 Packet Pg. 272 6.12.d EXHIBIT B EASEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH 159 FEET OF TRACT 4, SOLNER'S FIVE ACRE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 7 OF PLATS, PAGE 25, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. EXCEPT THE WEST 100 FEET THEREOF. (ALSO KNOWN AS LOT 4 OF CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT NO. S-20-77, RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 7705310298). SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMiSH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THE SAID LOT 4; THENCE SOUTH 89'52'54" EAST, ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE THEREOF, 14.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 00'03'46" WEST 7.73 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89'52'54" EAST 16.67 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00'03'46" EAST 7.73 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 4; THENCE NORTH 89'52'54" WEST 16.67 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINING AN AREA OF f128,9 SQ. FT, NW 1/4, NW 1/4, SEC. 29, TWP, 27N., RGE. 4E., W.M. CITY OF EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON Axis 15241 NE 90TH ST, SUITE 100 REDMOND, WA 98052 Survey &Mapping TEL. 425,823-5700 FAX 425.823-6700 www.axismap.com JOB NO. 1$-210 DATE 12/27/21 DRAWN BY ARH CHECKED BY WTB SCALE N/A SHEET 2 OF 3 FINAL DRAFT - Water Meter Vault Easement-Anthology-(81296584v2)-c 81296584.2 Packet Pg. 273 6.12.d EXHIBIT C EASEMENT DEPICTION a. Is GRAPHIC SCALE 0 5' 10, 212TH ST SW S89"52'54'E POINT OF 14.50' BEGINNING POINT OF N89'52'54"W COMMENCEMEMT 0 16.67' n S89'52'54"E r� o 16.67' j o z LOT 4 THIS EXHIBIT HAS BEEN PREPARED TO ASSIST IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ACCOMPANYING LEGAL DESCRIPTION. IF THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE WRITTEN LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND THIS SKETCH, THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION SMALL PREVAIL. NW 1/4, NW 1/4, SEC. 29, TWP. 27N., RGE. 4E., W.M. CITY OF EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON www.axismap.com JOB NO. DATE � Axis 15241 NE 90TH ST, SUITE 100 REDMOND, WA 98052 Survey &Mapping TEL. 425.823-5700 FAX 425.823-6700 18-210 12/27/21 PRAWN BY ARH CHECKED BY WTB SCALE 1"=10' SHEET 3 OF 3 FINAL DRAFT - Water Meter Vault Easement-Anthology-(81296584v2)-c 81296584.2 Packet Pg. 274 6.12.e 212TH STREET SW 3' 12 6? ACRNTY ZONE WDRI VARIES MIN. }'/MAIL Y D5 CONCRETE CURB m Y IMpE LANDSCAPE WDM IrEASTINU 2121H 51RE SDFWALK VARIES MIN. 8 SW nIPROVEMEN75 ZIM STREET SW - SECTION A SCALE: NTS A s� lT. �- 1 5 LANDSCAPE ? WDIH YARICS I m SCREEN WALL DVCONCRETE CURB 9 rRASN 5' MI I RN AVE SrgpNG AREA SIDEWALK RDTH VARIES- WROVDIENRS MN. 5 EM. GAS `�/��i LT i0 , PEMAIN 72ND AVE W - SECTION B SCALE NTS DRAFT — PARTIAL SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN - r N"IX SITE I CIVIL Z S 11235 8.9. 611$11 8W1e 1. (� DRIlevue, wR 98004 r L: 425.459.950111: 42b453-W C —na ng.-. C CLIENT1 WNER 0 C ANTHOLOGY ANTHOLOG' OF EDMOND I NAVIX PRWECI NUMBER: 6961 PROJECT ADDRESS i c Sc 21200 72ND AVE W { EDMONDS, WA 98026 y c r STAMP Z s y7ZA •y — 1 c "�srw.• �',� osrzs�roz! c s c REVI$IDNS s Eir ISSUED FOR: 0 DESAC,N REVIEW SUaAxTTAI Q a DESIGN REVIEW RESUBMRTM1L 3 DESIGN RENEW RESVEMRTK s i 6 CIVIL Pi PERMIT REWRMInK IX 6 PERYR RDSURYRIK Q r RERYNI.WRYRTK 8 DESIGN REVIEW RES.-- 9 DESIGN REVIEW RESUSMRTLL ` RESUE IiiAL c s SECTION, TOWNSHIP, RANG xw ua xw+raas0 zarux,RAx PROJECT TEAM Y REYIEWEADY'. j. GI + DESIGNED Rv_ - s c MEET NAME S BLDE0116 i IMPROVE PLA Ju10121 �r SHEET NUMBEA��r ` C-1.0 Packet Pg. 275 6.13 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/15/2022 Approval of Right of Way Acquisition Documents for 22921 Highway 99 Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Public Works & Utilities Preparer: Rob English Background/History On February 8, 2022, this item was presented to the Parks and Public Works Committee and it was forwarded to the February 15th consent agenda for approval. Staff Recommendation Authorize Mayor to sign right of way documents. Narrative As part of the Highway 99 Revitalization & Gateway project - Stage 2, land acquisition and easements from three property owners are needed for the installation of the HAWK signal approximately 600' north of 234t" St. SW and curb ramp upgrade on the NE corner of Hwy 99 @ 2301" St. SW. The City has reached agreement with the property owner of the Brentwood Plaza. Below is a summary for this property: Brentwood Plaza (22921 Highway 99 / NE corner of Highway 99 @ 230t" St. SW): 447 SF of right of way and 390 square feet of temporary construction easement for ADA curb ramp upgrade. The final agreement has been reached with the property owner for a total compensation of $25,000 for the land value acquisition and temporary construction easement. This right of way cost will be funded by Connecting Washington transportation funds (State funds). The design phase is close to being completed and the project is currently scheduled to be advertised in March with construction starting in Spring. Attachments: ROW documents for Brentwood Plaza Packet Pg. 276 6.13.a After recording return document to: City of Edmonds 121 51' Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Document Title: Warranty Deed Reference Number of Related Document: NA Grantor(s): Five CR, LLC Grantee(s): City of Edmonds Legal Description: PTN Parcel 2, SP NO. S-39-77, REC. 7709140278, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, BEING A PTN OF TRACT 2, SKELTON'S LAKE MCALEER FIVE ACRE TRACTS, VOL. 6, P. 21 Additional Legal Description is on Page 4 of Document. Assessor's Tax Parcel Number: 005767-000-002-05 Highway 99 Gateway —Revitalization Stage 2 Project The Grantor: FIVE CR, LLC, A WASHINGTON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN AND NO/100 ($10.00) Dollars, and other valuable consideration, hereby conveys and warrants to the City of Edmonds, a Municipal Corporation, Grantee, the following described real property situated in Snohomish County, in the State of Washington, under the imminent threat of the Grantee's exercise of its rights of Eminent Domain: For legal description and additional conditions See Exhibit A and Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof. LPA-302 Page 1 of 6 Pages Parcel No. 0057670000205 10/2014 No Packet Pg. 277 6.13.a WARRANTY DEED It is understood and agreed that delivery of this deed is hereby tendered and that the terms and obligations hereof shall not become binding upon the City of Edmonds unless and until accepted and approved hereon in writing for the City of Edmonds by its authorized agent. i Date: By:t- Cody Ryu, Governor Five CR, LLC LPA-302 10/2014 Cindy Ryu; "Gove nor Five CR, LLC ., Accepted and Approved City of Edmonds By: Title Authorized Agent Date: Page 2 of 6 Pages Parcel No. 0057670000025 Packet Pg. 278 6.13.a WARRANTY DEED STATE OF WASHINGTON ss County of SNOHOMISH On this day of f= ^ ; .� k• ,�' 20 -2"Z before me personally appeared Cody Ryu and Cindy Ryu to me known to be the Governors of FIVE CR, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company, that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said Limited Liability Company, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that they are authorized to execute said instrument. (SEAL) _ SHARp ,t t, + O 3 u 'la�6 c, 50 OF`441 S LPA-302 10/2014 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at My commission expires Page 3 of 6 Pages Parcel No. 0057670000025 No Packet Pg. 279 6.13.a EXHIBIT `A' RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION A PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: THAT PORTION OF TRACT 2, SKELTON'S LAKE MCALEER FIVE ACRE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 6 OF PLATS, PAGE 21, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1 AND LYING SOUTH OF A LINE WHICH BEGINS AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT 2, SOUTH 2°28'02" EAST 317.34 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF SAID EAST LINE WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID STATE HIGHWAY AND EXTENDS SOUTH 87056'01" WEST, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 2, A DISTANCE OF 157.53 FEET TO SAID SOUTHEASTERLY HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY LINE; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 10 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR ROAD BY QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 7709140277, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; (ALSO KNOWN AS PARCEL 2 AS DELINEATED ON SHORT PLAT NO. S-39-77 RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 7709140278, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON). EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 9712170397; SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. SAID PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF 76TH AVENUE WEST AND 230TH STREET SOUTHWEST; THENCE NORTH 89005'45" WEST, ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF 230TH STREET SOUTHWEST, A DISTANCE OF 578.78 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00054' 15" EAST, PERPENDICULAR TO SAID CENTERLINE, A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN OF 230TH STREET SOUTHWEST AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 00054' 15" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 10.98 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 23.16 FEET, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 09000'03" EAST; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 107048'39" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 43.58 FEET; THENCE NORTH 27000'50" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 5.53 FEET; THENCE NORTH 62059' 10" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN OF STATE HIGHWAY 99 (FORMERLY STATE HIGHWAY 1); Page 4 of 6 Packet Pg. 280 6.13.a THENCE SOUTH 27000'50" WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY MARGIN, A DISTANCE OF 21.51 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 26.90 FEET, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH Cn 77019' 14" EAST; ca THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID MARGIN, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 78003'22" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 36.65 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN OF 230TH STREET SOUTHWEST; N THENCE SOUTH 89005'45" EAST, ALONG SAID NORTH MARGIN, A DISTANCE OF N 9.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. L CONTAINING 447 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS. of VA a� o q !Y x a 46878 9fo13T V.?. ' �oNAL LP"O Page 5 of 6 Packet Pg. 281 6.13.a m EXHIBIT 'B' NE 1/4, SEC. 31, T. 27 N., R. 4 E., W.M. SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WA 60, �T �-Z' / (R)S77°19 '14 "E S27°00'50"W 21.51' ATCOA=107°48'39" R=23.16' A�v L=43.58' / A=78°03'22" R=26.90' L=36.65' / S89°05'45"E 9.99, J / N00°54'15"E 20.00' / O NORTH N62°59'10"W 1.00, N27°00'50"E 5.53' (R)N09°00'03"E ¢O O 40 SCALE /N FEET AREA OF ROW ACQUISITION = 447± SQ. FT. (R)=RADIAL BEARING HIGHWAY 99 GATEWAY REV. PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION PARCEL 00576700000205 Page 6 of 6 EDMONDS, WA DRAWN BY: R. BRAND DATE: 08-04-2021 N00°54'15" E 10.98, POINT OF POINT OF COMMENCEMENT BEGINNING w _ 578.78'"W Q 9 ° N805'45 230TH ST SW I = � �co r` NOTE: IF A DISCREPANCY IS FOUND BETWEEN THIS EXHIBIT AND THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION, THE DESCRIPTION SHALL HOLD. 1 ALLIANCE O GEOMATICS SURVEYING & MAPPING 1261A 120TH AVE NE Ph: (425) 598-2200 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Fax: (425) 502-8067 g Packet Pg. 282 6.13.a City of Edmonds TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT E Highway SR99 Gateway Revitalization Stage 2 Project Property Address: 22921 Hwy 99 S, Edmonds, WA 98026 Assessor's Property Tax Parcel No.: 005767-000-002-05 Property Owner: Five CR, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company The undersigned, FIVE CR, LLC, A WASHINGTON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, for itself and for its heirs, successors and assigns, hereafter together referred to as "GRANTOR", for and in consideration of the promises set forth below and the improvements to the City's Highway 99 Gateway - Revitalization Stage 2 Project, hereby conveys and grants to the City of Edmonds, a Municipal Corporation, and its successors and assigns, hereafter together referred to as "the City", a temporary, non-exclusive easement (the "Temporary Construction Easement") over, under, in, along, across and upon the GRANTOR(S)' property as described in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof (the "Temporary Easement Area"), for the purpose of installing a mid -block pedestrian crossing and associated signal devises. The GRANTOR further grants the use of the property immediately adjacent to the Temporary Easement Area for the purpose of performing this work. Work will also include incidental items necessary to restore the property to a condition similar to its previous state. All costs of this work shall be completely borne by the City. The GRANTOR and the City, by accepting and signing this document, mutually covenant and agree as follows: 1. The City shall upon completion of the work, remove all construction debris and restore the surface of the above -described property to substantially its original condition, except as modified by the subject project. 2. Access to the GRANTOR(S)' property shall be maintained at all times during the City's Highway 99 Gateway -Revitalization Stage 2. 3. This Temporary Construction Easement shall commence upon the date this Agreement is signed by both parties and shall terminate and expire upon the City's final acceptance of this project by the Edmonds City Council. 4. This Temporary Construction Easement is valid for 12-month(s) from the start of construction and shall not be revoked by GRANTOR without giving the City forty-five (45) days' advance written notice. 5. Upon the expiration of the term of this Temporary Construction Easement, all of the rights and benefits of the City in, to and under this Agreement with respect to the Temporary Construction Easement shall automatically terminate and be of no further force and effect. Page 1 of 5 Packet Pg. 283 6.13.a DATED this 5 ' day of , 20-z 7- Cody Ryu, Governor Cindy Ryu, Governor Five CR, LLC Five CR, LLC ACCEPTED BY: City of Edmonds Printed Name: Title: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss County of SNOHOMISH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT GRANTOR Date On this day of ,L 20 a i, before me personally appeared Cody Ryu and Cindy Ryu to me known to be the Governors of FIVE CR, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company, that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said Limited Liability Company, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that they are authorized to execute said instrument. (SEAL)5----�- `������������������ Notary Public in and for the State of SHAD Washington, residing at s 01�psoNa�X My commission expires i v 205� £ i 0 Op WAg���� Page 2 of 5 .. Packet Pg. 284 6.13.a EXHIBIT `A' TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT A PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: THAT PORTION OF TRACT 2, SKELTON'S LAKE MCALEER FIVE ACRE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 6 OF PLATS, PAGE 21, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1 AND LYING SOUTH OF A LINE WHICH BEGINS AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT 2, SOUTH 2°28'02" EAST 317.34 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF SAID EAST LINE WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID STATE HIGHWAY AND EXTENDS SOUTH 87056'01" WEST, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 2, A DISTANCE OF 157.53 FEET TO SAID SOUTHEASTERLY HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY LINE; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 10 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR ROAD BY QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 7709140277, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; (ALSO KNOWN AS PARCEL 2 AS DELINEATED ON SHORT PLAT NO. S-39-77 RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 7709140278, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON). EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 9712170397; SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. SAID PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF 76TH AVENUE WEST AND 230TH STREET SOUTHWEST; THENCE NORTH 89005'45" WEST, ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF 230TH STREET SOUTHWEST, A DISTANCE OF 578.78 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00054' 15" EAST, PERPENDICULAR TO SAID CENTERLINE, A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN OF 230TH STREET SOUTHWEST; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 00054' 15" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 10.98 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 23.16 FEET, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 09000'03" EAST AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 107048'39" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 43.58 FEET; THENCE NORTH 27000'50" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 5.53 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 62059' 10" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET; Page 3 of 5 Packet Pg. 285 6.13.a THENCE SOUTH 27000'50" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 5.53 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 13.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 102023'37" AND AN ARC LENGTH OF 23.23 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00054' 15" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 10.30 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 390 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS. 4gb VA 8� O 466)6� n�eCI ST£R�O -SAL LAND Page 4 of 5 Packet Pg. 286 6.13.a EXHIBIT 'B' NE 1/4, SEC. 31, T. 27 N., R. 4 E., W.M. SNOHOMISH COUNTY. WA 50, / S62°59'10"E N27°00'50"E 10.00' 5.53' / S27°00'50"W -zz 5.53' /r A=102°23'37" <C/ R= A=107°48'39' L=23' R=23.16' .23.23 Al: �v / L=43.58' \/ AREA OF 1 00°54'15"W ROW ACO 0 30' I m 0 m m 0 m 0 m 0 m ;1 SCALE /N FEET POINT OF N00°54'15" E POINT OF COMMENCEMENT / 10.98, BEGINNING Ud J _ 578.78' _ Q N89°05'45'W / N00°54'15"E 230TH ST SW 20.00' I� ti AREA OF TCE = 390± SO. FT. (R)=RADIAL BEARING HIGHWAY 99 GATEWAY REV. PROJECT RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION PARCEL 00576700000205 EDMONDS, WA Page 5 of 5 DRAWN BY: R. BRAND DATE: 08— 04— 2021 NOTE: IF A DISCREPANCY IS FOUND BETWEEN THIS EXHIBIT AND THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION, THE DESCRIPTION SHALL HOLD. 1 ALLIANCE GEOMATICS SURVEYING & MAPPING 1261A 120TH AVE NE Ph: (425) 598-2200 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Fax: (425) 502-8067 Packet Pg. 287 6.13.a -� City of Edmonds Real Property Voucher Highway SR99 Gateway Revitalization Stage 2 Project Claimant(s) Five CR, LLC PO Box 33548 Seattle, WA 98133-0548 Project Parcel No. 005767-000-002-05 A full, complete, and final payment for settlement for the title or interest conveyed or released as fully set forth in the Warranty Deed and Temporary Construction Easement, dated Land Conveyed Fee: 447 SF $15,645 Temporary Easement: 390 SF $ 1,092 Improvements: Sidewalk $ 2,620 Administrative Settlement $ 5,600 Total Amount Rounded $25,000 We have been informed that if there is a mortgage or lien on the property, the mortgage company or lienholder may require that all or a portion of the proceeds from this transaction be applied towards principal reduction of the outstanding lien balance. If necessary, the City of Edmonds will deposit the funds from this transaction into escrow for the purpose of clearing title of the purchased land. The escrow company will disburse the funds according to the requirements of the Mortgage Company or lienholder. We hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the items and amounts listed herein are proper charges against the City of Edmonds, that the same or any part thereof has not been paid, and that we are authorized to sign for the claimant. Five CR, LLC By. �..r G' L Printed Name: c 7Z a Ine Title: G Cc'' , r/!rh Date: i c�i �✓�,� Ron Sharp, Right -of -Way Consultant Date: Z i v .z Place Signed: Printed Name:.-e.i X. v Title: (5-1 KEN Date: - City of Edmonds Printed Name: Title: Date: Place Signed: rn 3 ME Packet Pg. 288 6.14 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/15/2022 Public Defense Contract Renewal Staff Lead: Emily Wagener for Sharon Cates Department: Human Resources Preparer: Emily Wagener Background/History The City has contracted for public defense services with the Snohomish County Public Defender Association (SCPDA) since 2016. The public defense contract that expired on 12/31/2021 was extended through 3/31/2022 in November 2021 to allow time to negotiate a successor agreement. Staff Recommendation Per Finance committee on 2/8, staff recommends approval on the consent agenda. Narrative Please see the attached proposed contract, previous contract and amendment. Attachments: SPCDA Fully Executed Contract 7.2020 Amendment No. 1 to SCPDA PSA_SIGNED DRAFT 2022-2023 SCPDA Agreement for Indigent Defense Services 1.25.2022 Packet Pg. 289 6.14.a CITY OF EDMONDS CONTRACT NO. AGREEMENT FOR INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES This Agreement is entered into between the City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal corporation, ("City") and the Snohomish County Public Defender Association ("Contractor"). 1. DEFINITIONS A. Attorney. Attorneys shall mean attorneys working for the Snohomish County Public Defender Association, and where appropriate, shall include Rule 9 interns. B. Case. A Case shall mean the filing of a document with the court naming a person as defendant or respondent, to which an Attorney is appointed in order to provide representation. In courts of limited jurisdiction multiple citations from the same incident can be counted as one case. C. Contractor. Contractor shall mean the Snohomish County Public Defender Association, and shall mean each attorney working for the Contractor. D. Defendant. Defendant shall mean a person charged with a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offense that is filed by the City into the Edmonds Municipal Court, and for whom the Contractor must provide services pursuant to Section III of this Agreement. 1I. DURATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall terminate on December 31, 2021, unless extended or terminated earlier in a manner permitted by this Agreement. III. SCOPE OF WORK AND DUTIES OF CONTRACTOR A. Criminal Defense Representation - To Whom Provided. Except in cases in which a conflict of interest exists, Contractor shall provide criminal defense representation to the following: 1. All Defendants for which the Contractor has been appointed by the Edmonds Municipal Court or City as attorney of record pursuant to the Court's or City's determination of indigence of the defendant. 2. All suspects who are permitted access to a public defender while detained pursuant to an investigation for any gross or simple misdemeanor being investigated by the City of Edmonds Police Department, including, but not limited to: the offenses of driving under the influence (RCW 46.61.502), driving under twenty-one consuming alcohol (RCW 46.61.503) or physical control of a vehicle under the influence (RCW 46.61.504) for the purposes of consulting with the Contractor prior to deciding whether to provide a sample of breath or blood. 3. All persons who are not represented by private counsel and who appear for arraignment in the Edmonds Municipal Court shall be entitled to an explanation of the rights, information regarding maximum and minimum penalties if convicted and information regarding the process and handling of the matter by the Edmonds Municipal Court. Packet Pg. 290 6.14.a 4. All Defendants who, while in the custody of the Snohomish County Jail or City of Lynnwood Jail who are not represented by private or conflict counsel, who appear in court on charges filed by the City of Edmonds, shall be entitled to the same level of contact as described above in subsection 3. B. Provisional and Temporary Appointments. Contractor shall be available to provide limited representation on behalf of otherwise unrepresented Defendants at arraignments and during in - custody hearings despite said Defendant not being appointed pursuant to a determination of indigence. If Contractor is appointed to a case pursuant to determination of indigence at an arraignment or in -custody hearing, Contractor should not recommend a Defendant plead guilty without first having reviewed discovery from the prosecuting attorney and adequately discussed the case in private with the Defendant and any witnesses the Contractor deems necessary to make such recommendation. C. Representation provided to Defendants Investigated for Gross Misdemeanor or Mi demeanor Crimes. Current contractor shall be available 24 hours per day, seven days per week, by telephone for the purposes of providing representation to otherwise unrepresented suspects or Defendants who are in custody and under investigation for any gross or simple misdemeanor being investigated by the City of Edmonds Police Department, including, but not limited to: driving under the influence (RCW 46.61.502), driving under twenty-one consuming alcohol (RCW 46.61.503), physical control of a vehicle under the influence (RCW 46.61.504) or any other misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor. Contractor shall provide the Edmonds Police Department with telephone numbers of its attorneys that provide direct access to the attorneys, and shall keep such telephone numbers up to date. Contractor may designate times in which specific attorneys may be reached, and shall provide the numbers of alternate attorneys if the designated attorney cannot be reached. D. Duration of Representation of Defendant. In cases in which the Contractor is appointed as attorney of record, and unless Contractor is permitted by the court to withdraw at an earlier time, Contractor shall represent the defendant at all stages of the criminal process, from the time of appointment as attorney of record through the appeals process (provided that funding for appeals beyond superior court shall be pursuant to the terms of Title 15 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure), as well as during any period in which the court retains jurisdiction over the terms and conditions of any sentence or deferral. E. Anticipated Attorney Caseload. The parties anticipate that 650 cases will be assigned to Contractor annually and that one and three quarter attorney positions be assigned to these cases. F. Fundraising. Contractor will assist the City in raising funds to assist with the costs of its public defense services. Such assistance will include, but may not be limited to, applying for State grant funds. The City will make all reasonable efforts necessary to assist Contractor in this regard. IV. APPEARANCE AT HEARINGS Contractor shall appear at all hearings scheduled by the Edmonds Municipal Court in which it represents Defendants, as well as all arraignment calendars and all in -custody calendars. Contractor shall provide a sufficient number of attorneys at the various court calendars to ensure that Defendants have a sufficient amount of time to consult with the Contractor's attorneys prior to each defendant's case being heard, and to ensure that the court calendars are not delayed due to insufficient staffing of Contractor's attorneys at the calendars. 7 Packet Pg. 291 6.14.a V. REPRESENTATION OF DEFENDANTS WHILE ON THE RECORD Contractor shall be with and actively representing an appointed Defendant at all times while the appointed Defendant's case is considered on the court record, and shall adequately inform the Defendant of the developments in his or her case such that the Defendant proceeds during any court hearing in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary manner. VI. DEFENDANT ACCESS TO CONTRACTOR A. Contact Prior to Court Hearings. Contractor shall be available to appointed Defendants to ensure that appointed Defendants are provided with effective assistance of counsel. Defendant access to the Contractor prior to court hearings is paramount. Contractor shall endeavor to confer with appointed Defendants about cases prior to court hearings. B. Toll Free Calls. Appointed Defendants shall be provided access to the Contractor by means of a toll -free local call made available by the Contractor. C. Time to Respond. Contractor shall respond to defendant inquiries within a reasonable time to ensure the effective assistance of counsel, whether such inquiries are received by letter, telephone, email, or otherwise. D. Local Office Required. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall maintain an office at its current location or within 5 miles of either the Edmonds Municipal Court or the City of Edmonds. The office of the Contractor shall accommodate confidential meetings with Defendants, shall be equipped with telephone, facsimile, and internet services, shall receive adequate cellular telephone service, and shall be the location at which mail and service of process is received. E. Availability for and Contact with In -Custody Defendants. Contractor shall evaluate the cases of all appointed Defendants in the custody of the Snohomish County Jail or City of Lynnwood Jail prior to the time of the Defendant's trial, and shall meet with such in -custody Defendants as the Contractor deems appropriate for providing effective assistance of counsel. At a minimum, Contractor shall meet with all appointed misdemeanant Defendants who are in -custody within two (2) business days of the Contractor being notified of its appointment as that defendant's legal representative. In addition, Contractor shall schedule no less than two periods of time each week in which to meet with appointed Defendants who are in the custody of the Snohomish County Jail or City of Lynnwood Jail. These two periods of time shall be for the purposes of responding to inmate requests, responding to letters and telephone calls, and preparing for the defense of the jailed Defendants. These two periods shall be separate in time, not necessarily in days, from court hearings held at the Snohomish County Jail or City of Lynnwood Jail. VII. QUALITY OF REPRESENTATION Contractor shall provide services in a professional and skilled manner consistent with Washington's Rules of Professional Conduct, applicable case law, the Constitutions of the United States and Washington, and the court rules that define the duties of counsel and the rights of defendants. Contractor shall be familiar with and comply with the New Standards for Indigent Defense as adopted by the Washington State Supreme Court on June 15, 2012, and as thereafter amended (hereafter "the Indigent Defense Standards"). At all times during the representation of a defendant, the Contractor's primary responsibility shall be to protect the interests of the defendant. Packet Pg. 292 6.14.a VIII. QUALIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTOR ATTORNEYS - TRAINING A. Qualifications. All attorneys employed by Contractor for the purposes of providing the services called for in this contract shall, at a minimum, satisfy the minimum qualifications to practice law as established by the Washington Supreme Court; be familiar with and follow the statutes, court rules, case law and constitutional law applicable to misdemeanor criminal defense work in the state of Washington; be familiar with and abide by Washington's Rules of Professional Conduct; be familiar with and abide by the Indigent Defense Standards; be familiar with the consequences to each particular defendant of any conviction or adjudication including but not limited to jail time, financial penalties, restitution, mental health or drug and alcohol treatment obligations, license suspensions, and immigration or civil commitment implications; be familiar with mental health and substance abuse issues applicable to each defendant; be able to recognize the need for expert services including but not limited to investigators; and be able to satisfy the terms and conditions of this Agreement. B. Trailli'n . For each attorney of the Contractor providing services under this Agreement, a minimum of seven (7) hours of reportable continuing legal education credits per year shall be in the areas of criminal defense law, criminal process, trial advocacy, legal writing, appellate work, law practice management, or any other subject that, in the opinion of the Contractor, is applicable to providing criminal defense services. If Contractor employs more than seven (7) attorneys, Contractor shall conduct in house training pursuant to the Indigent Defense Standards. IX. USE OF RULE 9 INTERNS A. Workload of Rule 9 Interns. Contractor may employ interns qualified under Admission to Practice Rule 9 who perform work pursuant to this Agreement. Rule 9 interns shall remain under the supervision of the Contractor, and an attorney for Contractor shall remain responsible for the cases for which the Rule 9 provides services. Any applicable case load limits for full time Rule 9 Interns who have not graduated from law school shall be one quarter (1 /4) of the case load limit of an Attorney working the same number of hours. B. Qualifications of Rule 9 Intems. Rule 9 interns shall be required to abide by Sections VII and VIII except that Rule 9 interns shall not be required to complete the training requirements of Section VIII, and in place of the requirement to satisfy the minimum qualifications to practice law as established by the Washington Supreme Court, the Rule 9 intern must comply with the provisions of APR 9. Rule 9 interns shall be closely monitored by the more senior attorneys of the Contractor. X. DISCOVERY TO BE PROVIDED The City's Prosecuting Attorney's Office shall provide Contractor one (1) copy of all discoverable material concerning each assigned case pursuant to the rules of discovery and without charge as soon as possible after appointment. For those individuals who are held in custody, discovery shall be provided within one (1) business day. XI. NUMBER OF ATTORNEYS EMPLOYED Contractor shall employ a sufficient number of Attorneys to comply with caseload limits. 4 Packet Pg. 293 6.14.a XII. CASELOAD LIMITS PER FULLTIME EQUIVALENT POSITION A. Caseload Limits in General. Contractor shall maintain a caseload such that it can provide each and every Defendant effective assistance of counsel as required by this Agreement. Subject to the remaining subsections of this section, a fulltime equivalent attorney position should be appointed to no more than 400 unweighted cases per year. B. Case Defined. For the purposes of this section, the term "case" shall mean a group of criminal charges related to a single incident filed against a Defendant to which an Attorney is appointed pursuant to a finding of indigence. C. Caseload Limit Reduction. Each Attorney's caseload limit shall be reduced by the approximate percentage of time the Attorney spends representing private clients or defendants that have not been formally appointed pursuant to a finding of indigence. D. Alternative Caseload limits and Case Wei htin . In the event the City or Contractor determine that it is necessary or advisable to use a caseload limit that differs from the case load limits specified in this section, either party may propose to the other an alternative standard for caseload limits so long as such standard is fully consistent with the Indigent Defense Standards. If the parties agree the proposed alternative standard is fully consistent with the Indigent Defense Standards and such alternative standards do not create an undue administrative burden on either party, the alternative standard shall be formally approved by the Contractor and the City's Mayor and incorporated within this Agreement. E. Post -Sentence Representation. All post -sentencing hearings will be counted as part of Contractor's continuing representation of Defendants as set forth in Section III, above. All new clients appointed to Contractor at post sentencing -review hearings will be counted as one case. F. RALJ and Writ „Representation. Each RALJ appeal shall count as six (b) cases. Each writ shall count as three (3) cases. XIII. COMPLIANCE WITH INDIGENT DEFENSE STANDARDS A. Caseload Monitoring. Contractor shall continually monitor the caseload and performance of Contractor as a whole and each attorney providing services pursuant to this Agreement. Contractor shall provide projections at least three months in advance regarding the caseload limits based upon the number of attorneys employed by Contractor and trends in case filings. B. Caseload Level Shifting. In the event an attorney is handling a caseload such that the attorney is unable to provide effective assistance of counsel to each and every defendant or is otherwise on track to exceed his/her caseload limit, Contractor shall reduce the caseload of that attorney, and shift the reduced portion of the caseload to another Attorney employed by the Contractor. C. Certification of Compliance. Each Attorney shall be in compliance with and shall certify compliance with the Indigent Defense Standards to the Snohomish County South District Court and the Edmonds Municipal Court on a quarterly basis or more frequently as required by the Indigent Defense Standards and in the form required by the Indigent Defense Standards. Packet Pg. 294 6.14.a XIV. EXPERTS AND INVESTIGATORS Contractor may retain experts and investigators of the Contractor's choosing as deemed necessary to the effective defense of the defendant, and may apply to the court for such services pursuant to applicable court rules. The fees for expert witnesses shall be included in the costs that the City pays Contractor except as ordered by the Court pursuant to CrRLJ 3.1(f j. The Contractor shall retain an investigator of its choosing as deemed necessary for the effective defense of the defendant, this cost shall be part of the flat fee set forth in this agreement. XV. COSTS OF TRANSCRIPTION The City agrees to reimburse the Contractor for all reasonable costs associated with obtaining and transcribing trial court records for appeal purposes if such costs have not been waived. XVI. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Contractor shall maintain a database of client information sufficient for the Contractor to determine the existence of any conflicts of interest. In the event representation of a defendant would constitute a conflict of interest, Contractor shall take such action as is appropriate pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct. In the event the Contractor is disqualified or excused as counsel of record due to a conflict of interest, Contractor shall not be required to pay any compensation to another attorney assigned to represent the defendant. XVII. INTERNAL PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND ATTORNEY SUPERVISION Contractor shall establish a program for managing the performance of attorneys who provide the services called for in this Agreement. The performance monitoring program shall have the purpose of ensuring that each defendant receives effective assistance of counsel, and the terms and conditions of this Agreement are met. Contractor shall provide the City with a blank copy of the performance evaluation form used and report to the City on an annual basis whether it has conducted annual evaluations of attorneys who provide services under this Agreement. XVIII. REMOVAL OF ATTORNEY A. Removal by Contractor. In the event Contractor determines, through its internal performance monitoring and attorney supervision program that an Attorney or Rule 9 intern working for Contractor fails to comply with the terms of this Agreement, then Contractor shall immediately take action to prevent that Attorney or Rule 9 intern from providing the services called for in this Agreement. B. Recommendation of Removal bv_Cit . In the event the City determines that an attorney working for the Contractor has breached this Agreement, the City may, at its sole discretion and as an alternative to termination of this Agreement, require Contractor to take action to prevent that attorney from providing the services called for in this Agreement or otherwise cure the breach. f Packet Pg. 295 6.14.a XIX. CITY CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR — CONTRACT OVERSIGHT The City intends to engage the services of a Public Defense Assessor to manage and monitor this Agreement. All reports or certifications required by this Agreement shall be delivered to the Public Defense Assessor at the address set forth in Section XXXIII below. To assist the Public Defense Assessor in managing and monitoring this Agreement, Contractor shall, in addition to providing the reports set forth in Section XX below, report to the Public Defense Assessor any disciplinary action by the Washington State Bar Association against an attorney providing services under this Agreement, and any finding by a court that any such attorney has provided ineffective assistance of counsel. XX. REPORTS OF CONTRACTOR Contractor shall maintain a case reporting and case management information system, and shall submit reports to the City's Public Defense Assessor as follows: A. Reports shall be submitted on a no less than a quarterly basis and shall be a condition of payment pursuant to Section XXVII. B. Reports shall contain the following information: 1. The names of defendants to which Contractor was appointed during the reporting period, the charges, and the associated case numbers; 2. The date of appointment; 3. The case weight assigned to the case if a case weighting system has been approved and implemented; 4. The number of appellate level cases pending; 5. Copies of the most recent Indigent Defense Standards Certifications filed with the Court by each Attorney providing services under this Agreement; 6. Information on Contractor's caseload distribution; 7. Information on Contractor's case supervision; 8. The number of pending trials and the type(s) of charges to be addressed in each; 9. The number of substantive motions undertaken; 10. The number of hours spent by each attorney on each of their cases; 11. Information on the use of investigators; 12. Information on the use of expert witnesses; 13. Information on consultations with the Washington Defender Association immigration staff or with a similar immigration expert; and 14. Information on the disposition of concluded cases. C. Contractor shall not be required to compromise any attorney -client privilege (RCW 5.60.060) or Client Confidentiality (R.PC 1.6) when providing these reports. However, because it is necessary for the effective management and monitoring of this Agreement, it is understood that the Public Defense Assessor is intended to be part of the confidential relationship with the Contractor and the clients it represents. The Public Defense Assessor's communications with the City in relation to the monitoring and reporting obligations of this Agreement shall comply with the requirements of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including RPC 1.6. 7 Packet Pg. 296 6.14.a XXI. COMPLAINTS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION A. Com laints Directed to Public Defense Assessor. Any unresolved complaints regarding Contractor or an attorney or Rule 9 intern providing services pursuant to this Agreement, whether received by the City, the Contractor, or the Court, shall be directed to the Public Defense Assessor. B. Investigaliora. In the event a complaint is received by or directed to the Public Defense Assessor and is not timely resolved by the Contractor to the satisfaction of the complainant, the Public Defense Assessor will investigate the complaint by reviewing the complaint, discussing the matter with the complaining party, discussing the matter with the Contractor, and determining whether a violation of this Agreement has occurred. The Public Defense Assessor may consult with legal counsel or another expert as deemed necessary in order to resolve the complaint. In addition, the Public Defense Assessor may consult with the Washington State Bar Association when appropriate. C. Corrective Action flan or Termination. In the event the Public Defense Assessor determines that a violation has occurred, he or she may develop a corrective action plan or terminate this Agreement in the event it is determined that termination is appropriate. Contractor shall cooperate in any investigation of a complaint, and any corrective action plan developed by the Public Defense Assessor. XXII. TERMINATION A. For Cause. The City or the Contractor may terminate this Agreement immediately in the event the other party breaches the Agreement and such breach is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the injured party in a timely manner after notice of breach has been provided to the other party. Each and every term of this Agreement is material. The failure of any party to comply with any term of this Agreement shall constitute a breach of this Agreement. B. For Reasons Beyond Control of Parties. Either party may terminate this Agreement without recourse by the other where performance is rendered impossible or impracticable for reasons beyond such party's reasonable control such as, but not limited to, acts of nature; war or warlike operations; civil commotion; riot; labor dispute including strike, walkout, or lockout; sabotage; or superior governmental regulation or control. C. Without Cause. Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time without cause upon giving the non -terminating party not less than one hundred twenty (120) days prior written notice. XXIII. CONTINUATION OF REPRESENTATION AFTER TERMINATION In the event of termination of this Agreement, Contractor shall continue representation of Defendants to whom Contractor was assigned prior to the termination until such time as another defense attorney has been appointed to represent such Defendants. Upon reassignment of such Defendants to another defense attorney, Contractor shall promptly deliver all related client files to such defense attorney. Except in cases in which the Contractor is unable to provide services in conformance with this Agreement, Contractor shall not submit to the court a motion to withdraw from representing defendants to which the Contractor was assigned until such time as new counsel has submitted a motion to substitute counsel. For each case in which Contractor makes one or more in -court appearances with a Defendant, not including appearances that consist solely of successful continuance motions, the City shall pay Contractor a one time payment of one hundred and fifty dollars for all post termination services provided in the case. 8 Packet Pg. 297 6.14.a XXIV. NON-DISCRIMINATION Contractor shall not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, nationality, sexual orientation, color, creed, disability, age, religion or any other state or federal protected category in the hiring of employees or the provision of services pursuant to a contract with the City. XXV. PROOF OF LIABILITY INSURANCE Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance of the types and in the amounts described in Exhibit A attached and incorporated by this reference. XXVI. INDEMNIFICATION Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City, its elected officials, officers, and employees harmless from any and all claims whatsoever related to or arising from the performance of the Contractor's obligations pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to claims arising out of the errors and omissions of the Contractor relating to the representation or lack of representation of clients, and/or by reason of accident, injury, or death caused to any persons or property of any kind occurring during the performance or lack thereof of the work required by this Agreement, or traveling to or from any place to perform the work required by this Agreement, except to the extent they are caused by the sole negligence of the City. The failure of Contractor to carry insurance in a quantity sufficient to defend a claim or lawsuit, or cover any judgment that results, shall not operate to limit Contractor's indemnification or defense of the City. This indemnification section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. XXVII. COMPENSATION A. Payment for Services. a. July — December 2020. The City shall provide to Contractor for services rendered under this Agreement the sum of TWENTY-NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-EIGHT DOLLARS AND FORTY-TWO CENTS ($29,548.42) per month from July 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020. Of this sum, SIXTEEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX DOLLARS AND SIXTY-SEVEN CENTS ($16,666.67) is paid for attorney compensation, THREE THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS AND NO CENTS ($3,250.00) is paid for the provision of investigator services, and NINE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED THIRTY-ONE DOLLARS AND SEVENTY-FIVE CENTS ($9,631.75) is paid for administrative expenses. b. 2021. The City shall provide to Contractor an increase of 7.5% for 2021 for services rendered under this Agreement. This includes the sum of THIRTY-ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED SIXTY-FOUR DOLLARS AND FIFTY-SIX CENTS ($31,764.56) per month from January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. Of this sum, SEVENTEEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIXTEEN DOLLARS AND SIXTY-SEVEN CENTS ($17,916.67) is paid for attorney compensation, THREE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED NINETY-THREE DOLLARS AND SEVENTY-FIVE CENTS ($3,493.75) is paid for the provision of investigator services, and TEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FIFTY-FOUR DOLLARS AND FOURTEEN CENTS ($10,354.14) is paid for administrative expenses. 9 Packet Pg. 298 6.14.a These payments shall be full compensation for all services and material necessary to accomplish the objectives of this Agreement, including but not limited to administrative costs associated with providing legal representation. These administrative costs include, but are not limited to: travel, telephones, law library, including electronic legal research; financial accounting; case management systems; computers and software; office space and supplies; training; meeting the reporting requirements imposed by this Agreement; and other costs necessarily incurred in the day-to-day management of this Agreement. Contractor shall bill the City each month for services rendered herein. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the Contractor's compensation shall be prorated based upon the days which have elapsed between the effective date of the termination and the first day of the month after termination. B. Billing. Contractor shall bill the City, in care of the Mayor or designee, on the first day of the month, or the first workday thereafter for the monthly installment set forth in subsection A of this section, and any transcription costs as permitted by this Agreement. C. Payment. The City shall make payments within 30 days of receipt of Contractor's bill. Except as provided elsewhere in this Agreement, the payment set forth in this section shall be inclusive of administrative costs, support costs, and all costs associated with the conduct of the Contractor's business. D. Caseload Adiustments: The following formula protects the City and the Association from having individual attorney caseloads exceed the mandatory maximum of 400 cases as set by the Supreme Court in the Criminal Rule for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction 3.1 (CrRLJ 3.1), adopting Standard for Indigent Defense 3.4. Its application would keep individual attorney caseloads almost uniformly within the 300 to 400 range. In addition it keeps the City and Association in compliance with the Washington State Bar Association standards. Standard Three calls for a misdemeanor caseload of 300 cases. A misdemeanor caseload may adjusted to no more than 400 cases, depending upon: w The caseload distribution between simple misdemeanors and complex misdemeanors; or Jurisdictional policies such as post -filing diversion and opportunity to negotiate resolution of large number of cases as non -criminal violations; • Other court administrative procedures that permit a defense lawyer to handle more cases. The attorney caseloads will be adjusted at the end of each calendar quarter in accordance with the following formula, and the attorney compensation shall be adjusted as indicated: Case Referrals Prior Quarter 75 Case Referrals 100 Case Referrals 125 Case Referrals 150 Case Referrals _ _175 Case Referrals 200 Case Referrals w 225 Case Referrals 250 Case Referrals 275 Case Referrals Attorney Caseloads T torney Compensation _ ustment 1.00 Attorney Caseload .25% 1.25 Attorney Caseloads _71.5% 1.50 Attomey Caseloads 85.75% 1.75 Attorney Caseloads Remains 2.00 Attorney Caseloads 2.25 Attarne_ Caseloads 2.50 Attorney Caseloads 2.75 Attorney Caseloads 3.00 Attorney Caseloads 157.25% 171.5% 10 Packet Pg. 299 6.14.a XXVIII. SUBCONTRACTING PROHIBITED Except in extraordinary circumstances or as temporarily necessary to avoid violation of the Indigent Defense Standards, Contractor shall not subcontract with another attorney or law firm to provide the services required herein. Contractor shall remain directly involved in and responsible for the representation of all assigned defendants. XXIX. ASSIGNMENT PROHIBITED No assignment or transfer of this Agreement or of any interest in this Agreement shall be made by either of the parties, without prior written consent of the non -assigning party. XXX. AGREEMENT APPLICABLE TO ALL EMPLOYEES AND VOLUNTEERS The terms of this Agreement shall apply to all persons who are employed by, or who volunteer for, the Contractor, including but not limited to attorneys, interns, paralegals, office assistants, secretaries, and investigators. XXXI. STATUS OF CONTRACTOR AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AND NOT EMPLOYEE This Agreement calls for the performance of the services of Contractor as an independent contractor and Contractor will not be considered an employee of the City for any purpose. Contractor shall secure at its own expense and be responsible for any and all payment of income tax, social security, state disability insurance compensation, unemployment compensation, worker's compensation, and all other payroll deductions for the Contractor and its officers, agents, and employees and the costs of all professional or business licenses in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. Contractor shall be solely responsible for any and all claims or lawsuits filed against Contractor by personnel employed by the Attorney related to the conditions or terms of employment by the Contractor, and the Contractor shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its employees and officers from any such claims or lawsuits. Contractor further agrees that its employees are not considered employees of the City for the purposes of participating in any state or federal program, including but not limited to the retirement program provided by the Washington Department of Retirement Services, and in the event that a claim is made to the contrary by any employee or volunteer of the Contractor, Contractor shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its employees and officers from any such claims or lawsuits and shall pay all awards ordered against the City for such claims or lawsuits. XXXII. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Contractor may be requested to perform additional services beyond the original scope of services as defined in Section III of this Agreement. Such work will be undertaken only upon written authorization of the City based upon an agreed amount of compensation. XXXIII. NOTICES All notices and other written documentation shall be sent to the parties at the following addresses unless otherwise requested in writing: Packet Pg. 300 6.14.a City of Edmonds: Contractor: Public Defense Assessor Snohomish County Public Defender Association c/o Mayor's Office 2722 Colby Avenue, Suite 200 121 Fifth Ave. N Everett, WA 98201 Edmonds, WA 98020 XXXIV. ENTIRE AGREEMENT — AMENDMENTS This instrument contains the entire Agreement between the parties for the contemplated work and services to commence July 1, 2020, and it may not be enlarged, modified, altered, or amended except in writing signed and endorsed by the parties. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to preclude any party from seeking modification of any term contained herein should an unforeseen and material circumstance arise. Any proposed modification shall be first presented to the other party for review and approval. Any agreement between the parties sequent to this Agreement must be executed with identical formality as this Agreement, otherwise the same shall not be enforceable. XXXV. DUPLICATE ORIGINALS This Agreement is executed in duplicate originals. XXXVI. EFFECTIVE DATE The terms of this Agreement shall take effect on July 1, 2020. WHEREFORE, the parties agree to be bound by the terms and conditions set forth above - DATED this 30th day of June CITY OF EDMONDS Michael Nelson, Mayor A EST7AUT CAT E; cots Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney 2020. SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER S CIATION KathleenKyle, anaging irector 12 Packet Pg. 301 6.14.a EXHIBIT A INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICES AGREEMENTS Insurance Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by Contractor, their agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. A. Minimum Scope of Insurance Contractor shall obtain insurance of the types described below: 1. Professional Liability insurance appropriate to Contractor's profession. B. Minimum Amounts of Insurance Contractor shall maintain the following insurance limits: 1. Professional Liabili insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 per claim and $1,000,000 policy aggregate limit. C. Other Insurance Provisions The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Automobile Liability and Commercial General Liability insurance: 1. Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance naming the City as an additional insured. Any Insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 2. Contractor's insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled by either party, except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. 3. City of Edmonds shall be named as an additional insured on all policies (except Professional Liability) as respects work performed by or on behalf of the Contractor and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The City reserves the right to receive a certified copy of all required insurance policies. The Contractor's Commercial General Liability insurance shall also contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer's liability. 13 Packet Pg. 302 6.14.a EXHIBIT A (Continued) D. Acceptability of Insurers Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than ANIL E. Verification of Coverage Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Contractor before commencement of the work. F. Subcontractors Contractor shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverage for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the same insurance requirements as stated herein for Contractor. 14 Packet Pg. 303 6.14.b of E LrarO " Michael Nelson -� City of Edmonds Mayor 121 FIFTH AvENUE N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 ■ 425-771-0251 -Qvc i $9fl AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal corporation (the "City"), and the Snohomish County Public Defender Association (the "Consultant"), entered into an underlying agreement for the provision of public defense services dated June 30, 2020 ("Underlying Agreement"); and WHEREAS, Sections I1 and XXXIV of the Underlying Agreement provide for the extension of the term of the agreement with a written amendment signed and endorsed by the parties; and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to extend the Underlying Agreement for three (3) months to allow sufficient time for the negotiation of a successor agreement; and WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to maintain the 2021 rates of compensation for the work to be performed pursuant to the Underlying Agreement for the duration of this extension; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and between the parties to the Underlying Agreement as follows: 1. The Underlying Agreement, incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, is hereby amended in, but only in, the following respect: i 1.1 Extension. Section II ("Duration of Agreement") of the Underlying Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: This Agreement shall terminate on March 31, 2022, unless-extetfdrd dtVrminated earlier in a manner permitted by this Agreement. 2. In all other respects, the Underlying Agreement between theparvies +11 remain in full force and effect, amended as set forth herein, but only as seeforth he ein. ' Packet Pg. 304 6.14.b DATED this 4 ' `� day of 1Q0v2-,�be(- CITY OF EDMONDS , 2021. SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOCIATION Mi hael Nelson, Mayor Kathleen yle, Managing Director ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: cat assey, City C APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF 5110bOk"'CIt' ) On this day of 2021, before me, the under -signed, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Kathleen Kyle, Managing Director of the Snohomish County Public Defender Association, and executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be her free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that she was authorized to execute said instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. RN _-` RF�S �t►ij ZZ .�gIN �p •,••ss`ON�'''ry,�WZ NOTARY PUBLI . 182758 My coxnmissidn expires: 'a, p9.2a A0. _w �►� �W►liA.-P WA5►'��_ .� 0 w z 0 in i a cn a. a 0 a. U in 0 r Packet Pg. 305 6.14.c CITY OF EDMONDS CONTRACT NO. AGREEMENT FOR INDIGENT DEFENSE SERVICES This Agreement is entered into between the City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal corporation, ("City") and the Snohomish County Public Defender Association ("Contractor"). I. DEFINITIONS A. Attorney. Attorneys shall mean attorneys working for the Snohomish County Public Defender Association, and where appropriate, shall include Rule 9 interns. B. Case. A Case shall mean the filing of a document with the court naming a person as defendant or respondent, to which an Attorney is appointed in order to provide representation. In courts of limited jurisdiction multiple citations from the same incident can be counted as one case. C. Contractor. Contractor shall mean the Snohomish County Public Defender Association, and shall mean each attorney working for the Contractor. D. Defendant. Defendant shall mean a person charged with a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offense that is filed by the City into the Edmonds Municipal Court, and for whom the Contractor must provide services pursuant to Section III of this Agreement. II. DURATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall be effective April 1, 2022 and shall terminate on December 31, 2023, unless extended or terminated earlier in a manner permitted by this Agreement. III. SCOPE OF WORK AND DUTIES OF CONTRACTOR A. Criminal Defense Representation — To Whom Provided. Except in cases in which a conflict of interest exists, Contractor shall provide criminal defense representation to the following: 1. All Defendants for which the Contractor has been appointed by the Edmonds Municipal Court or City as attorney of record pursuant to the Court's or City's determination of indigence of the defendant. 2. All suspects who are permitted access to a public defender while detained pursuant to an investigation for any gross or simple misdemeanor being investigated by the City of Edmonds Police Department, including, but not limited to: the offenses of driving under the influence (RCW 46.61.502), driving under twenty-one consuming alcohol (RCW 46.61.503) or physical control of a vehicle under the influence (RCW 46.61.504) for the purposes of consulting with the Contractor prior to deciding whether to provide a sample of breath or blood. 3. All persons who are not represented by private counsel and who appear for arraignment in the Edmonds Municipal Court shall be entitled to an explanation of the rights, information regarding maximum and minimum penalties if convicted and information regarding the process and handling of the matter by the Edmonds Municipal Court. 1 Packet Pg. 306 6.14.c 4. All Defendants who, while in the custody of the Snohomish County Jail or City of Lynnwood Jail who are not represented by private or conflict counsel, who appear in court on charges filed by the City of Edmonds, shall be entitled to the same level of contact as described above in subsection 3. B. Provisional and Temporary Appointments. Contractor shall be available to provide limited representation on behalf of otherwise unrepresented Defendants at arraignments and during in - custody hearings despite said Defendant not being appointed pursuant to a determination of indigence. If Contractor is appointed to a case pursuant to determination of indigence at an arraignment or in -custody hearing, Contractor should not recommend a Defendant plead guilty without first having reviewed discovery from the prosecuting attorney and adequately discussed the case in private with the Defendant and any witnesses the Contractor deems necessary to make such recommendation. C. Representation Provided to Defendants Investigated for Gross Misdemeanor or Misdemeanor Crimes. Current contractor shall be available 24 hours per day, seven days per week, by telephone for the purposes of providing representation to otherwise unrepresented suspects or Defendants who are in custody and under investigation for any gross or simple misdemeanor being investigated by the City of Edmonds Police Department, including, but not limited to: driving under the influence (RCW 46.61.502), driving under twenty-one consuming alcohol (RCW 46.61.503), physical control of a vehicle under the influence (RCW 46.61.504) or any other misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor. Contractor shall provide the Edmonds Police Department with telephone numbers of its attorneys that provide direct access to the attorneys, and shall keep such telephone numbers up to date. Contractor may designate times in which specific attorneys may be reached, and shall provide the numbers of alternate attorneys if the designated attorney cannot be reached. D. Duration of Representation of Defendant. In cases in which the Contractor is appointed as attorney of record, and unless Contractor is permitted by the court to withdraw at an earlier time, Contractor shall represent the defendant at all stages of the criminal process, from the time of appointment as attorney of record through the appeals process (provided that funding for appeals beyond superior court shall be pursuant to the terms of Title 15 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure), as well as during any period in which the court retains jurisdiction over the terms and conditions of any sentence or deferral. E. Anticipated Attorney Caseload. The parties anticipate that 650 cases will be assigned to Contractor annually and that one and three quarter attorney positions be assigned to these cases. F. Fundraising. Contractor will assist the City in raising funds to assist with the costs of its public defense services. Such assistance will include, but may not be limited to, applying for State grant funds. The City will make all reasonable efforts necessary to assist Contractor in this regard. IV. APPEARANCE AT HEARINGS Contractor shall appear at all hearings scheduled by the Edmonds Municipal Court in which it represents Defendants, as well as all arraignment calendars and all in -custody calendars. Contractor shall provide a sufficient number of attorneys at the various court calendars to ensure that Defendants have a sufficient amount of time to consult with the Contractor's attorneys prior to each defendant's case being heard, and to ensure that the court calendars are not delayed due to insufficient staffing of Contractor's attorneys at the calendars. 2 Packet Pg. 307 V. REPRESENTATION OF DEFENDANTS WHILE ON THE RECORD 6.14.c Contractor shall be with and actively representing an appointed Defendant at all times while the appointed Defendant's case is considered on the court record, and shall adequately inform the Defendant of the developments in his or her case such that the Defendant proceeds during any court hearing in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary manner. VI. DEFENDANT ACCESS TO CONTRACTOR A. Contact Prior to Court Hearings. Contractor shall be available to appointed Defendants to ensure that appointed Defendants are provided with effective assistance of counsel. Defendant access to the Contractor prior to court hearings is paramount. Contractor shall endeavor to confer with appointed Defendants about cases prior to court hearings. B. Toll Free Calls. Appointed Defendants shall be provided access to the Contractor by means of a toll -free local call made available by the Contractor. C. Time to Respond. Contractor shall respond to defendant inquiries within a reasonable time to ensure the effective assistance of counsel, whether such inquiries are received by letter, telephone, email, or otherwise. D. Local Office Required. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall maintain an office at its current location or within 5 miles of either the Edmonds Municipal Court or the City of Edmonds. The office of the Contractor shall accommodate confidential meetings with Defendants, shall be equipped with telephone, facsimile, and internet services, shall receive adequate cellular telephone service, and shall be the location at which mail and service of process is received. E. Availability for and Contact with In -Custody Defendants. Contractor shall evaluate the cases of all appointed Defendants in the custody of the Snohomish County Jail or City of Lynnwood Jail prior to the time of the Defendant's trial, and shall meet with such in -custody Defendants as the Contractor deems appropriate for providing effective assistance of counsel. At a minimum, Contractor shall meet with all appointed misdemeanant Defendants who are in -custody within two (2) business days of the Contractor being notified of its appointment as that defendant's legal representative. In addition, Contractor shall schedule no less than two periods of time each week in which to meet with appointed Defendants who are in the custody of the Snohomish County Jail or City of Lynnwood Jail. These two periods of time shall be for the purposes of responding to inmate requests, responding to letters and telephone calls, and preparing for the defense of the jailed Defendants. These two periods shall be separate in time, not necessarily in days, from court hearings held at the Snohomish County Jail or City of Lynnwood Jail. VII. QUALITY OF REPRESENTATION Contractor shall provide services in a professional and skilled manner consistent with Washington's Rules of Professional Conduct, applicable case law, the Constitutions of the United States and Washington, and the court rules that define the duties of counsel and the rights of defendants. Contractor shall be familiar with and comply with the New Standards for Indigent Defense as adopted by the Washington State Supreme Court on June 15, 2012, and as thereafter amended (hereafter "the Indigent Defense Standards"). At all times during the representation of a defendant, the Contractor's primary responsibility shall be to protect the interests of the defendant. 3 Packet Pg. 308 6.14.c VIII. QUALIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTOR ATTORNEYS - TRAINING A. Qualifications. All attorneys employed by Contractor for the purposes of providing the services called for in this contract shall, at a minimum, satisfy the minimum qualifications to practice law as established by the Washington Supreme Court; be familiar with and follow the statutes, court rules, case law and constitutional law applicable to misdemeanor criminal defense work in the state of Washington; be familiar with and abide by Washington's Rules of Professional Conduct; be familiar with and abide by the Indigent Defense Standards; be familiar with the consequences to each particular defendant of any conviction or adjudication including but not limited to jail time, financial penalties, restitution, mental health or drug and alcohol treatment obligations, license suspensions, and immigration or civil commitment implications; be familiar with mental health and substance abuse issues applicable to each defendant; be able to recognize the need for expert services including but not limited to investigators; and be able to satisfy the terms and conditions of this Agreement. B. Training. For each attorney of the Contractor providing services under this Agreement, a minimum of seven (7) hours of reportable continuing legal education credits per year shall be in the areas of criminal defense law, criminal process, trial advocacy, legal writing, appellate work, law practice management, or any other subject that, in the opinion of the Contractor, is applicable to providing criminal defense services. If Contractor employs more than seven (7) attorneys, Contractor shall conduct in house training pursuant to the Indigent Defense Standards. IX. USE OF RULE 9 INTERNS A. Workload of Rule 9 Interns. Contractor may employ interns qualified under Admission to Practice Rule 9 who perform work pursuant to this Agreement. Rule 9 interns shall remain under the supervision of the Contractor, and an attorney for Contractor shall remain responsible for the cases for which the Rule 9 provides services. Any applicable case load limits for full time Rule 9 Interns who have not graduated from law school shall be one quarter (1/4) of the case load limit of an Attorney working the same number of hours. B. Qualifications of Rule 9 Interns. Rule 9 interns shall be required to abide by Sections VII and VIII except that Rule 9 interns shall not be required to complete the training requirements of Section VIII, and in place of the requirement to satisfy the minimum qualifications to practice law as established by the Washington Supreme Court, the Rule 9 intern must comply with the provisions of APR 9. Rule 9 interns shall be closely monitored by the more senior attorneys of the Contractor. X. DISCOVERY TO BE PROVIDED The City's Prosecuting Attorney's Office shall provide Contractor one (1) copy of all discoverable material concerning each assigned case pursuant to the rules of discovery and without charge as soon as possible after appointment. For those individuals who are held in custody, discovery shall be provided within one (1) business day. XI. NUMBER OF ATTORNEYS EMPLOYED Contractor shall employ a sufficient number of Attorneys to comply with caseload limits. M Packet Pg. 309 6.14.c XII. CASELOAD LIMITS PER FULLTIME EQUIVALENT POSITION A. Caseload Limits in General. Contractor shall maintain a caseload such that it can provide each and every Defendant effective assistance of counsel as required by this Agreement. Subject to the remaining subsections of this section, a fulltime equivalent attorney position should be appointed to no more than 400 unweighted cases per year. B. Case Defined. For the purposes of this section, the term "case" shall mean a group of criminal charges related to a single incident filed against a Defendant to which an Attorney is appointed pursuant to a finding of indigence. C. Caseload Limit Reduction. Each Attorney's caseload limit shall be reduced by the approximate percentage of time the Attorney spends representing private clients or defendants that have not been formally appointed pursuant to a finding of indigence. D. Alternative Caseload limits and Case Weighting. In the event the City or Contractor determine that it is necessary or advisable to use a caseload limit that differs from the case load limits specified in this section, either party may propose to the other an alternative standard for caseload limits so long as such standard is fully consistent with the Indigent Defense Standards. If the parties agree the proposed alternative standard is fully consistent with the Indigent Defense Standards and such alternative standards do not create an undue administrative burden on either party, the alternative standard shall be formally approved by the Contractor and the City's Mayor and incorporated within this Agreement. E. Post -Sentence Representation. All post -sentencing hearings will be counted as part of Contractor's continuing representation of Defendants as set forth in Section III, above. All new clients appointed to Contractor at post sentencing -review hearings will be counted as one case. F. RALJ and Writ Representation. Each RALJ appeal shall count as six (6) cases. Each writ shall count as three (3) cases. XIII. COMPLIANCE WITH INDIGENT DEFENSE STANDARDS A. Caseload Monitoring. Contractor shall continually monitor the caseload and performance of Contractor as a whole and each attorney providing services pursuant to this Agreement. Contractor shall provide projections at least three months in advance regarding the caseload limits based upon the number of attorneys employed by Contractor and trends in case filings. B. Caseload Level Shifting. In the event an attorney is handling a caseload such that the attorney is unable to provide effective assistance of counsel to each and every defendant or is otherwise on track to exceed his/her caseload limit, Contractor shall reduce the caseload of that attorney, and shift the reduced portion of the caseload to another Attorney employed by the Contractor. C. Certification of Compliance. Each Attorney shall be in compliance with and shall certify compliance with the Indigent Defense Standards to the Snohomish County South District Court and the Edmonds Municipal Court on a quarterly basis or more frequently as required by the Indigent Defense Standards and in the form required by the Indigent Defense Standards. 5 Packet Pg. 310 XIV. EXPERTS AND INVESTIGATORS 6.14.c Contractor may retain experts and investigators of the Contractor's choosing as deemed necessary to the effective defense of the defendant, and may apply to the court for such services pursuant to applicable court rules. The fees for expert witnesses shall be included in the costs that the City pays Contractor except as ordered by the Court pursuant to CrRLJ 3.1(f). The Contractor shall retain an investigator of its choosing as deemed necessary for the effective defense of the defendant, this cost shall be part of the flat fee set forth in this agreement. XV. COSTS OF TRANSCRIPTION The City agrees to reimburse the Contractor for all reasonable costs associated with obtaining and transcribing trial court records for appeal purposes if such costs have not been waived. XVI. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Contractor shall maintain a database of client information sufficient for the Contractor to determine the existence of any conflicts of interest. In the event representation of a defendant would constitute a conflict of interest, Contractor shall take such action as is appropriate pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct. In the event the Contractor is disqualified or excused as counsel of record due to a conflict of interest, Contractor shall not be required to pay any compensation to another attorney assigned to represent the defendant. XVII. INTERNAL PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND ATTORNEY SUPERVISION Contractor shall establish a program for managing the performance of attorneys who provide the services called for in this Agreement. The performance monitoring program shall have the purpose of ensuring that each defendant receives effective assistance of counsel, and the terms and conditions of this Agreement are met. Contractor shall provide the City with a blank copy of the performance evaluation form used and report to the City on an annual basis whether it has conducted annual evaluations of attorneys who provide services under this Agreement. XVIII. REMOVAL OF ATTORNEY A. Removal by Contractor. In the event Contractor determines, through its internal performance monitoring and attorney supervision program that an Attorney or Rule 9 intern working for Contractor fails to comply with the terms of this Agreement, then Contractor shall immediately take action to prevent that Attorney or Rule 9 intern from providing the services called for in this Agreement. B. Recommendation of Removal by City. In the event the City determines that an attorney working for the Contractor has breached this Agreement, the City may, at its sole discretion and as an alternative to termination of this Agreement, require Contractor to take action to prevent that attorney from providing the services called for in this Agreement or otherwise cure the breach. n Packet Pg. 311 XIX. CITY CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR — CONTRACT OVERSIGHT 6.14.c The City intends to engage the services of a Public Defense Assessor to manage and monitor this Agreement. All reports or certifications required by this Agreement shall be delivered to the Public Defense Assessor at the address set forth in Section XXXIII below. To assist the Public Defense Assessor in managing and monitoring this Agreement, Contractor shall, in addition to providing the reports set forth in Section XX below, report to the Public Defense Assessor any disciplinary action by the Washington State Bar Association against an attorney providing services under this Agreement, and any finding by a court that any such attorney has provided ineffective assistance of counsel. XX. REPORTS OF CONTRACTOR Contractor shall maintain a case reporting and case management information system, and shall submit reports to the City's Public Defense Assessor as follows: A. Reports shall be submitted on a no less than a quarterly basis and shall be a condition of payment pursuant to Section XXVII. B. Reports shall contain the following information: 1. The names of defendants to which Contractor was appointed during the reporting period, the charges, and the associated case numbers; 2. The date of appointment; 3. The case weight assigned to the case if a case weighting system has been approved and implemented; 4. The number of appellate level cases pending; 5. Copies of the most recent Indigent Defense Standards Certifications filed with the Court by each Attorney providing services under this Agreement; 6. Information on Contractor's caseload distribution; 7. Information on Contractor's case supervision; 8. The number of pending trials and the type(s) of charges to be addressed in each; 9. The number of substantive motions undertaken; 10. The number of hours spent by each attorney on each of their cases; 11. Information on the use of investigators; 12. Information on the use of expert witnesses; 13. Information on consultations with the Washington Defender Association immigration staff or with a similar immigration expert; and 14. Information on the disposition of concluded cases. C. Contractor shall not be required to compromise any attorney -client privilege (RCW 5.60.060) or Client Confidentiality (RPC 1.6) when providing these reports. However, because it is necessary for the effective management and monitoring of this Agreement, it is understood that the Public Defense Assessor is intended to be part of the confidential relationship with the Contractor and the clients it represents. The Public Defense Assessor's communications with the City in relation to the monitoring and reporting obligations of this Agreement shall comply with the requirements of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including RPC 1.6. 7 Packet Pg. 312 XXI. COMPLAINTS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION 6.14.c A. Complaints Directed to Public Defense Assessor. Any unresolved complaints regarding Contractor or an attorney or Rule 9 intern providing services pursuant to this Agreement, whether received by the City, the Contractor, or the Court, shall be directed to the Public Defense Assessor. B. Investigation. In the event a complaint is received by or directed to the Public Defense Assessor and is not timely resolved by the Contractor to the satisfaction of the complainant, the Public Defense Assessor will investigate the complaint by reviewing the complaint, discussing the matter with the complaining parry, discussing the matter with the Contractor, and determining whether a violation of this Agreement has occurred. The Public Defense Assessor may consult with legal counsel or another expert as deemed necessary in order to resolve the complaint. In addition, the Public Defense Assessor may consult with the Washington State Bar Association when appropriate. C. Corrective Action Plan or Termination. In the event the Public Defense Assessor determines that a violation has occurred, he or she may develop a corrective action plan or terminate this Agreement in the event it is determined that termination is appropriate. Contractor shall cooperate in any investigation of a complaint, and any corrective action plan developed by the Public Defense Assessor. XXII. TERMINATION A. For Cause. The City or the Contractor may terminate this Agreement immediately in the event the other party breaches the Agreement and such breach is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the injured party in a timely manner after notice of breach has been provided to the other party. Each and every term of this Agreement is material. The failure of any party to comply with any term of this Agreement shall constitute a breach of this Agreement. B. For Reasons Beyond Control of Parties. Either party may terminate this Agreement without recourse by the other where performance is rendered impossible or impracticable for reasons beyond such party's reasonable control such as, but not limited to, acts of nature; war or warlike operations; civil commotion; riot; labor dispute including strike, walkout, or lockout; sabotage; or superior governmental regulation or control. C. Without Cause. Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time without cause upon giving the non -terminating party not less than one hundred twenty (120) days prior written notice. XXIII. CONTINUATION OF REPRESENTATION AFTER TERMINATION In the event of termination of this Agreement, Contractor shall continue representation of Defendants to whom Contractor was assigned prior to the termination until such time as another defense attorney has been appointed to represent such Defendants. Upon reassignment of such Defendants to another defense attorney, Contractor shall promptly deliver all related client files to such defense attorney. Except in cases in which the Contractor is unable to provide services in conformance with this Agreement, Contractor shall not submit to the court a motion to withdraw from representing defendants to which the Contractor was assigned until such time as new counsel has submitted a motion to substitute counsel. For each case in which Contractor makes one or more in -court appearances with a Defendant, not including appearances that consist solely of successful continuance motions, the City shall pay Contractor a one time payment of one hundred and fifty dollars for all post termination services provided in the case. �3 Packet Pg. 313 6.14.c XXIV. NON-DISCRIMINATION Contractor shall not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, nationality, sexual orientation, color, creed, disability, age, religion or any other state or federal protected category in the hiring of employees or the provision of services pursuant to a contract with the City. XXV. PROOF OF LIABILITY INSURANCE Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance of the types and in the amounts described in Exhibit A attached and incorporated by this reference. XXVI. INDEMNIFICATION Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City, its elected officials, officers, and employees harmless from any and all claims whatsoever related to or arising from the performance of the Contractor's obligations pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to claims arising out of the errors and omissions of the Contractor relating to the representation or lack of representation of clients, and/or by reason of accident, injury, or death caused to any persons or property of any kind occurring during the performance or lack thereof of the work required by this Agreement, or traveling to or from any place to perform the work required by this Agreement, except to the extent they are caused by the sole negligence of the City. The failure of Contractor to carry insurance in a quantity sufficient to defend a claim or lawsuit, or cover any judgment that results, shall not operate to limit Contractor's indemnification or defense of the City. This indemnification section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. XXVII. COMPENSATION A. Payment for Services. a. 2022. The City shall provide to Contractor for services rendered under this Agreement the sum of THIRTY-THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE DOLLARS ($33,545.00) per month from April 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022. Of this sum, SIXTEEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS ($16,600.00) is paid for attorney compensation, EIGHT THOUSAND, SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS ($8,600.00) is paid for provision of investigator and social worker services, and EIGHT THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FORTY-FIVE DOLLARS ($8,345.00) is paid for administrative expenses. b. 2023. The City shall provide to Contractor for services rendered under this Agreement the sum of THIRTY-SIX THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED NINETY DOLLARS ($36,290.00) per month from January 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023. Of this sum, SEVENTEEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($17,300.00) is paid for attorney compensation, NINE THOUSAND, THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($9,300.00) is paid for provision of investigator and social worker services, and NINE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED NINETY DOLLARS ($9,690.00) is paid for administrative expenses. These payments shall be full compensation for all services and material necessary to accomplish the objectives of this Agreement, including but not limited to administrative costs associated with providing legal representation. These administrative costs include, but are not limited to: travel, telephones, law library, including electronic legal research; financial accounting; case management systems; computers and software; office space and supplies; training; meeting the reporting requirements imposed by this Agreement; and other costs necessarily incurred in the 9 Packet Pg. 314 6.14.c day-to-day management of this Agreement. Contractor shall bill the City each month for services rendered herein. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the Contractor's compensation shall be prorated based upon the days which have elapsed between the effective date of the termination and the first day of the month after termination. B. Billing. Contractor shall bill the City, in care of the Mayor or designee, on the first day of the month, or the first workday thereafter for the monthly installment set forth in subsection A of this section, and any transcription costs as permitted by this Agreement. C. Pae. The City shall make payments within 30 days of receipt of Contractor's bill. Except as provided elsewhere in this Agreement, the payment set forth in this section shall be inclusive of administrative costs, support costs, and all costs associated with the conduct of the Contractor's business. D. Caseload Adjustments: The following formula protects the City and the Association from having individual attorney caseloads exceed the mandatory maximum of 400 cases as set by the Supreme Court in the Criminal Rule for Courts of Limited Jurisdiction 3.1 (CrRLJ 3.1), adopting Standard for Indigent Defense 3.4. Its application would keep individual attorney caseloads almost uniformly within the 300 to 400 range. In addition it keeps the City and Association in compliance with the Washington State Bar Association standards. Standard Three calls for a misdemeanor caseload of 300 cases. A misdemeanor caseload may adjusted to no more than 400 cases, depending upon: • The caseload distribution between simple misdemeanors and complex misdemeanors; or • Jurisdictional policies such as post -filing diversion and opportunity to negotiate resolution of large number of cases as non -criminal violations; • Other court administrative procedures that permit a defense lawyer to handle more cases. The attorney caseloads will be adjusted at the end of each calendar quarter in accordance with the following formula, and the attorney compensation shall be adjusted as indicated: Case Referrals Prior Quarter Attorney Caseloads Attorney Compensation Adjustment 75 Case Referrals 1.00 Attorney Caseload 57.25% 100 Case Referrals 1.25 Attorney Caseloads 71.5% 125 Case Referrals 1.50 Attorney Caseloads 85.75% 150 Case Referrals 1.75 Attorney Caseloads Remains 175 Case Referrals 2.00 Attorney Caseloads 114.3% 200 Case Referrals 2.25 Attorney Caseloads 128.6% 225 Case Referrals 2.50 Attorney Caseloads 143% 250 Case Referrals 2.75 Attorney Caseloads 157.25% 275 Case Referrals 3.00 Attorney Caseloads 1 171.5% 10 Packet Pg. 315 XXVIII. SUBCONTRACTING PROHIBITED 6.14.c Except in extraordinary circumstances or as temporarily necessary to avoid violation of the Indigent Defense Standards, Contractor shall not subcontract with another attorney or law firm to provide the services required herein. Contractor shall remain directly involved in and responsible for the representation of all assigned defendants. XXIX. ASSIGNMENT PROHIBITED No assignment or transfer of this Agreement or of any interest in this Agreement shall be made by either of the parties, without prior written consent of the non -assigning party. XXX. AGREEMENT APPLICABLE TO ALL EMPLOYEES AND VOLUNTEERS The terms of this Agreement shall apply to all persons who are employed by, or who volunteer for, the Contractor, including but not limited to attorneys, interns, paralegals, office assistants, secretaries, and investigators. XXXI. STATUS OF CONTRACTOR AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AND NOT EMPLOYEE This Agreement calls for the performance of the services of Contractor as an independent contractor and Contractor will not be considered an employee of the City for any purpose. Contractor shall secure at its own expense and be responsible for any and all payment of income tax, social security, state disability insurance compensation, unemployment compensation, worker's compensation, and all other payroll deductions for the Contractor and its officers, agents, and employees and the costs of all professional or business licenses in connection with the services to be performed hereunder. Contractor shall be solely responsible for any and all claims or lawsuits filed against Contractor by personnel employed by the Attorney related to the conditions or terms of employment by the Contractor, and the Contractor shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its employees and officers from any such claims or lawsuits. Contractor further agrees that its employees are not considered employees of the City for the purposes of participating in any state or federal program, including but not limited to the retirement program provided by the Washington Department of Retirement Services, and in the event that a claim is made to the contrary by any employee or volunteer of the Contractor, Contractor shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its employees and officers from any such claims or lawsuits and shall pay all awards ordered against the City for such claims or lawsuits. XXXII. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Contractor may be requested to perform additional services beyond the original scope of services as defined in Section III of this Agreement. Such work will be undertaken only upon written authorization of the City based upon an agreed amount of compensation. XXXIIL NOTICES All notices and other written documentation shall be sent to the parties at the following addresses unless otherwise requested in writing: 11 Packet Pg. 316 6.14.c City of Edmonds: Contractor: Public Defense Assessor Snohomish County Public Defender Association c/o Mayor's Office 2722 Colby Avenue, Suite 200 121 Fifth Ave. N Everett, WA 98201 Edmonds, WA 98020 XXXIV. ENTIRE AGREEMENT — AMENDMENTS This instrument contains the entire Agreement between the parties for the contemplated work and services to commence April 1, 2022, and it may not be enlarged, modified, altered, or amended except in writing signed and endorsed by the parties. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to preclude any party from seeking modification of any term contained herein should an unforeseen and material circumstance arise. Any proposed modification shall be first presented to the other party for review and approval. Any agreement between the parties sequent to this Agreement must be executed with identical formality as this Agreement, otherwise the same shall not be enforceable. XXXV. DUPLICATE ORIGINALS This Agreement is executed in duplicate originals. XXXVI. EFFECTIVE DATE The terms of this Agreement shall take effect on April 1, 2022. WHEREFORE, the parties agree to be bound by the terms and conditions set forth above. DATED this day of 2022. CITY OF EDMONDS SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER ASSOCIATION Michael Nelson, Mayor Kathleen Kyle, Managing Director ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: Scott Passey, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of the City Attorney 12 Packet Pg. 317 6.14.c EXHIBIT A INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICES AGREEMENTS Insurance Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by Contractor, their agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. A. Minimum Scope of Insurance Contractor shall obtain insurance of the types described below: Professional Liability insurance appropriate to Contractor's profession. B. Minimum Amounts of Insurance Contractor shall maintain the following insurance limits: 1. Professional Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 per claim and $1,000,000 policy aggregate limit. C. Other Insurance Provisions The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Automobile Liability and Commercial General Liability insurance: Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance naming the City as an additional insured. Any Insurance, self-insurance, or insurance pool coverage maintained by the City shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 2. Contractor's insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be cancelled by either party, except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. 3. City of Edmonds shall be named as an additional insured on all policies (except Professional Liability) as respects work performed by or on behalf of the Contractor and a copy of the endorsement naming the City as additional insured shall be attached to the Certificate of Insurance. The City reserves the right to receive a certified copy of all required insurance policies. The Contractor's Commercial General Liability insurance shall also contain a clause stating that coverage shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respects to the limits of the insurer's liability. 13 Packet Pg. 318 6.14.c EXHIBIT A (Continued) D. Acceptability of Insurers Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of not less than A:VII. E. Verification of Coverage Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and a copy of the amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Contractor before commencement of the work. F. Subcontractors Contractor shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverage for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the same insurance requirements as stated herein for Contractor. W Packet Pg. 319 6.15 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/15/2022 Ordinance Authorizing Employee Premium Payments and Vacation Days for Essential Workers Staff Lead: Emily Wagener Department: Human Resources Preparer: Emily Wagener Background/History WHEREAS, SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) disease is caused by a virus that spreads easily from person to person and may result in serious illness or death, and is classified by the World Health Organization as a worldwide pandemic; and WHEREAS, COVID-19 has broadly spread throughout Washington State and remains a significant health risk to the community, especially members of our most vulnerable populations; and WHEREAS, on February 29, 2020, Washington Governor Jay Inslee issued proclamation 20-05, proclaiming a state of emergency throughout the state of Washington in response to new cases of COVID-19, and directing state agencies to use all resources necessary to prepare for and respond to the outbreak; and WHEREAS, on March 5, 2020, the Mayor of the City of Edmonds declared an emergency of the city due to the COVID-19 crisis; and WHEREAS, on March 23, 2020, Governor Inslee issued Proclamation 20-25, a "Stay Home - Stay Healthy" order closing non -essential workplaces, requiring people to stay home except to participate in essential activities or to provide essential business services, and banning all gatherings for social, spiritual, and recreational purposes. This order was extended multiple times. Under the "Stay Home - Stay Healthy" proclamation, certain City employees have been deemed "Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers" performing work to protect the community and ensure continuity of functions critical to public health and safety; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that multiple COVID-19 variants are circulating globally. Scientists are working to learn more about these variants to better understand how easily they might be transmitted and the effectiveness of currently authorized vaccines against them; and WHEREAS, on March 8, 2021, the CDC stated that preliminary evidence suggests that the currently authorized COVID-19 vaccines may provide some protection against a variety of strains. The CDC further stated, however, that the risks of COVID-19 infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated as long as there is continued community transmission of the virus. Recent reports have shown that vaccinated people can still contract COVID-19 through "breakthrough infections," and may be able to spread it to others; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Health's COVID-19 vaccine timeline made some City employees eligible for vaccination starting on March 17, 2021 and all remaining City employees Packet Pg. 320 6.15 eligible starting on April 15, 2021. While many City employees may now be vaccinated, the risks of COVID-19 infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated as long as there is continued community transmission; and WHEREAS, since March 2020, the City has been responding to the pandemic by providing essential government services, and many City employees have been required to be on the front lines to ensure citizen access to these government services since the beginning of the pandemic despite facing the danger of workplace exposure to COVID-19; and WHEREAS, throughout the entirety of the COVID-19 emergency, citizens of Edmonds have been relying upon the work of City employees who face the risk of exposure to COVID-19 to maintain government services; and WHEREAS, many City employees cannot choose to work from home and must come to work to perform their jobs, which can involve substantial interaction with customers and co-workers that could potentially spread the virus. They are wearing masks, socially distancing as much as is possible, performing safety protocols, and learning new skills to decrease transmission of the virus to protect themselves and the public; and WHEREAS, eligible City employees who must come to work to perform their jobs during the COVID-19 emergency are entitled to premium pay and additional vacation days because they are required to continue to perform duties involving additional risk of exposure to the COVID-19 virus. Many City employees have been working under such conditions since the beginning of the pandemic; and WHEREAS, providing a COVID-19 premium pay bonus and additional vacation days to eligible City employees for frontline work performed for the citizens of Edmonds during the COVID-19 emergency will promote job retention, compensate for the risks of working on the frontlines of a global pandemic, improve financial ability to access resources for protecting themselves and their families from catching or spreading the virus or coping with illness caused by the virus, and support the access to government services for the greater community; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 2021, the United States Congress passed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 ("ARPA"), providing direct relief to units of local government through the United States Department of Treasury; and WHEREAS, the Department of Treasury has issued guidance for the allowable uses of the direct relief funds, and one permissible use of ARPA funds is to provide premium pay to eligible local government workers facing increased risk due to COVID-19; and WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges the value of employees whose continued employment during this COVID-19 pandemic resulted in continuous, excellent service to the community and performance of the added responsibilities undertaken and the City Council therefore desires to incentivize their retention as employees;and WHEREAS, the City Council chooses to use funding under the American Rescue Plan Act to provide premium pay to its essential employees for work they continue to perform due to the COVID-19 pandemic; and WHEREAS, the City Council will provide premium pay to all eligible City employees, which do not include Elected Officials and employees who do not meet American Rescue Plan Act eligibility; and WHEREAS, the City Council chooses to provide additional vacation days to all eligible City employees in recognition of the fact that such employees were or are unable to work remotely and had to or will have to use their personal leave for COVID-19 related impacts; Packet Pg. 321 6.15 Staff Recommendation Per PSPP committee on 2/8, staff recommends approval on the consent agenda. Narrative The City has set aside $750,000 of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds for City expenses related to Covid-19. At this time a total of $90,474 has been requested to be spent and of that $79,985 has been approved. The cost to provide Covid Premium payments to essential workers as outline in the ordinance is estimated to be approximately $180,000. Please see the attached ordinance for information on how eligibility for the Covid Premium and additional vacation days will be determined. The dates in Section 4 of the attached ordinance have been revised from "February 1, 2022 and April 30, 2022" to "March 1, 2022 and May 31, 2022" in order to give eligible employees an equivalent amount of time to claim the premium pay. PSPP committee verbally approved this change to the ordinance. Attachments: Ordinance Authorizing Employee Premium Payments and Vacation Days (clean) 2022-0210 Packet Pg. 322 6.15.a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING ALLOCATION OF AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING COVID PREMIUM PAY TO ELIGIBLE CITY EMPLOYEES AND AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL VACATION DAYS FOR SUCH EMPLOYEES. WHEREAS, SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) disease is caused by a virus that spreads easily from person to person and may result in serious illness or death, and is classified by the World Health Organization as a worldwide pandemic; and WHEREAS, COVID-19 has broadly spread throughout Washington State and remains a significant health risk to the community, especially members of our most vulnerable populations; and WHEREAS, on February 29, 2020, Washington Governor Jay Inslee issued proclamation 20-05, proclaiming a state of emergency throughout the state of Washington in response to new cases of COVID-19, and directing state agencies to use all resources necessary to prepare for and respond to the outbreak; and WHEREAS, on March 5, 2020, the Mayor of the City of Edmonds declared an emergency of the city due to the COVID-19 crisis; and WHEREAS, on March 23, 2020, Governor Inslee issued Proclamation 20-25, a "Stay Home — Stay Healthy" order closing non -essential workplaces, requiring people to stay home except to participate in essential activities or to provide essential business services, and banning all gatherings for social, spiritual, and recreational purposes. This order was extended multiple times. Under the "Stay Home — Stay Healthy" proclamation, certain City employees have been deemed "Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers" performing work to protect the community and ensure continuity of functions critical to public health and safety; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that multiple COVID-19 variants are circulating globally. Scientists are working to learn more about these variants to better understand how easily they might be transmitted and the effectiveness of currently authorized vaccines against them; and WHEREAS, on March 8, 2021, the CDC stated that preliminary evidence suggests that the currently authorized COVID-19 vaccines may provide some protection against a variety of strains. The CDC further stated, however, that the risks of COVID-19 infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated as long as there is continued community transmission of the virus. Recent reports have shown that vaccinated people can still contract COVID-19 through "breakthrough infections," and may be able to spread it to others; and Packet Pg. 323 6.15.a WHEREAS, the Washington State Department of Health's COVID-19 vaccine timeline made some City employees eligible for vaccination starting on March 17, 2021 and all remaining City employees eligible starting on April 15, 2021. While many City employees may now be vaccinated, the risks of COVID-19 infection in fully vaccinated people cannot be completely eliminated as long as there is continued community transmission; and WHEREAS, since March 2020, the City has been responding to the pandemic by providing essential government services, and many City employees have been required to be on the front lines to ensure citizen access to these government services since the beginning of the pandemic despite facing the danger of workplace exposure to COVID-19; and WHEREAS, throughout the entirety of the COVID-19 emergency, citizens of Edmonds have been relying upon the work of City employees who face the risk of exposure to COVID-19 to maintain government services; and WHEREAS, many City employees cannot choose to work from home and must come to work to perform their jobs, which can involve substantial interaction with customers and co- workers that could potentially spread the virus. They are wearing masks, socially distancing as much as is possible, performing safety protocols, and learning new skills to decrease transmission of the virus to protect themselves and the public; and WHEREAS, eligible City employees who must come to work to perform their jobs during the COVID-19 emergency are entitled to premium pay and additional vacation days because they are required to continue to perform duties involving additional risk of exposure to the COVID-19 virus. Many City employees have been working under such conditions since the beginning of the pandemic; and WHEREAS, providing a COVID-19 premium pay bonus and additional vacation days to eligible City employees for frontline work performed for the citizens of Edmonds during the COVID-19 emergency will promote job retention, compensate for the risks of working on the frontlines of a global pandemic, improve financial ability to access resources for protecting themselves and their families from catching or spreading the virus or coping with illness caused by the virus, and support the access to government services for the greater community; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 2021, the United States Congress passed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 ("ARPA"), providing direct relief to units of local government through the United States Department of Treasury; and WHEREAS, the Department of Treasury has issued guidance for the allowable uses of the direct relief funds, and one permissible use of ARPA funds is to provide premium pay to eligible local government workers facing increased risk due to COVID-19; and WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges the value of employees whose continued employment during this COVID-19 pandemic resulted in continuous, excellent service to the community and performance of the added responsibilities undertaken and the City Council therefore desires to incentivize their retention as employees; and Packet Pg. 324 6.15.a WHEREAS, the City Council chooses to use funding under the American Rescue Plan Act to provide premium pay to its essential employees for work they continue to perform due to the COVID-19 pandemic; and WHEREAS, the City Council will provide premium pay to all eligible City employees, which do not include Elected Officials and employees who do not meet American Rescue Plan Act eligibility; and WHEREAS, the City Council chooses to provide additional vacation days to all eligible City employees in recognition of the fact that such employees were or are unable to work remotely and had to or will have to use their personal leave for COVID-19 related impacts; NOW THEREFORE; THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City Council adopts the above recitals as findings in support of this Ordinance. Section 2. Eligible Employees. An eligible employee is an employee that meets all the following criteria and is not excluded under Section 5: A. Employed by the City of Edmonds in a regular full- or part-time position, budgeted for at least twenty (20) hours per week; and B. Employed in the position and assigned regular duties within the job description for at least six (6) months between March 23, 2020 and December 31, 2021; and C. During the six (6) qualifying months, was required by a supervisor or manager to perform job duties on -site (as opposed to remote telework) for at least four (4) days per week or a total of one hundred four (104) days during that time period which placed the employee in a potential situation of exposure to COVID-19; and D. Was performing job duties in an on -site work location where the employee must interact in person with members of the public for a cumulative total of at least fifteen (15) minutes in a twenty-four (24) hour period or with co-workers that in the same day interacted with members of the public for a cumulative total of at least fifteen (15) minutes in a twenty-four (24) hour period. Section 3. Eligibility Determination. Eligibility shall be conclusively determined by the Human Resources Director, in consultation with the employee's supervising Department Head or Elected Official. Such determination shall be final and not be subject to any grievance or appeal Packet Pg. 325 6.15.a process. The determination shall be documented and include written justification of how the premium pay responds to eligible employee needs in performing essential work. Section 4. Premium Pay. Each eligible employee shall receive premium pay for hours scheduled, up to a maximum total of One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($1,250.00), at the rate of Five Dollars ($5.00) per hour for up to forty (40) hours scheduled per week for each week between March 1, 2022 and May 31, 2022. Section 5. Vacation Days. Each eligible employee shall receive two (2) additional vacation days added to their vacation bank. Section 6. Exclusions. The following employees are excluded from eligibility: Elected Officials, Department Directors and Deputy Department Directors. Section 7. Savings. With respect to the subject matter of this Ordinance, the City will retain status quo working conditions of employees covered by existing collective bargaining agreements or a dynamic status quo until such time as the working conditions of such employees are changed in accordance with law. Section 8. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this Ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 9. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published by an approved summary consisting of the title. Section 10. Effective Date. This ordinance, being exempt under RCW 35A.11.090(4), as an ordinance appropriating money, is not subject to referendum and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR MIKE NELSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 326 6.15.a APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 327 6.15.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of 2022, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING ALLOCATION OF AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING COVID PREMIUM PAY TO ELIGIBLE CITY EMPLOYEES AND AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL VACATION DAYS FOR SUCH EMPLOYEES. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of 2022. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 328 6.16 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/15/2022 Neighborhood City Office Administrative Assistant Job Description Staff Lead: Emily Wagener Department: Human Resources Preparer: Emily Wagener Background/History City Council approved a .50 FTE Admin position as part of the Neighborhood City Office in the 2022 budget. HR determined that a new job description was needed to for the position. Staff Recommendation Per PSPP committee on 2/8, staff recommends approval on the consent agenda. Narrative The attached Job Description for a General Administrative Assistant was developed by using similar existing job descriptions with collaboration from HR and the Community Services/Economic Development Department. Attachments: Administrative Assistant - General Packet Pg. 329 6.16.a City of EDMONDS Washington Administrative Assistant — General Community Services/Economic Department: Development Pay Grade: NE-9 Bargaining Unit: AFSCME Council 2 FLSA Status: Non -Exempt Community Services/Economic Revised Date: 1/20/2022 Reports To: Development Director POSITION PURPOSE: Under general supervision, plans and performs complex administrative office coordination to assure smooth, timely and efficient office operations for the department or assigned office; relieves supervisor of technical clerical and administrative duties having department -wide impact; researches, collects, analyzes and compiles data and information for inclusion in reports; maintains complex financial records, files and budgets related to departmental operations, programs and expenditures. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES: The following duties ARE NOT intended to serve as a comprehensive list of all duties performed by all employees in this classification, only a representative summary of the primary duties and responsibilities. Incumbent(s) may not be required to perform all duties listed and may be required to perform additional, position -specific duties. • Performs various administrative duties including answering telephones and greeting visitors; provides information in person or on the telephone or refers to appropriate department personnel; opens, screens and routes mail. • Develops, prepares, reconciles, and maintains computerized records, inventories, maintenance management systems, lists, logs, and files related to office and field activities, customer service and other data specific to the assignment. • Composes, prepares, and types a variety of correspondence, memos, reports, and other materials specific to the assignment; proofreads materials to assure accuracy and completeness. • Plans and performs complex administrative office coordination; Organizes and coordinates office functions, activities, and communications; assures efficient workflow and office operations. • Develops and maintains a filing and record system as needed for assignment. • Researches, summarizes, and prepares information as directed on a variety of department topics for dissemination to the public through media and presentations, community meetings and City literature. • Provides staff support and administrative assistance to boards and committees; prepares reports, minutes, agendas, correspondence, and other materials as appropriate and according to decisions and approved actions. • Maintains up-to-date department information on the City's website. • Composes, prepares, and types a variety of correspondence, memos, reports, and other materials and proofreads materials to assure accuracy and completeness. • Operates office machines including computers, printers, scanners, copiers, calculators, and other related equipment as assigned. • Performs a variety of special duties, projects or activities of assigned department or office as assigned. Required Knowledge of: • City organization, procedures, federal and state laws. Administrative Assistant - General Last Reviewe Last Revise Packet Pg. 330 6.16.a 2 of 3 JOB DESCRIPTION Administrative Assistant - General • Administrative functions and operations of a City government. • Research methods, data collection and statistical analysis. • Accurate, lawful, and efficient record -keeping techniques. • Budget monitoring and control including proficient skills in mathematics. • Interpersonal skills using tact, patience, and courtesy. • Principles of customer service and public relations. • Proper telephone etiquette. • Effective oral and written communication principles and practices. • Modern office procedures, methods, and equipment including computers and computer applications sufficient to perform assigned work. • Effective communication in English, spelling, grammar, and punctuation. • Principles of business letter writing. Required Skill in: • Performing technical clerical and administrative duties having department -wide impact. • Planning and performing technical administrative office coordination duties. • Maintaining records, files, and information in compliance with laws, policies, and procedures. • Interpreting, applying, and explaining rules, regulations, policies, procedures, and laws. • Successfully meeting schedules and timelines. • Preparing a variety of reports, logs, records, and files related to assigned activities. • Maintaining confidentiality of sensitive information; working confidentially with discretion. • Being flexible and able to work with diverse personalities. • Researching a variety of subjects and presenting information in an efficient, accurate manner. • Utilizing personal computer software programs and other relevant software affecting assigned work. • Establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with staff, management, vendors, outside agencies, community groups and the general public. • Meeting schedules and timelines and ability to work independently. • Communicating effectively verbally and in writing including public relations and customer service. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: Education and Experience: High School Diploma or equivalent supplemented by course work in business administration, office management, office administration or related field and three years of increasingly responsible administrative office support experience. An equivalent combination of education, training and experience that will allow the incumbent to successfully perform the essential functions of the position may also be considered. Required Licenses or Certifications: • Valid State of Washington Driver's License. A driver's abstract is required and will be reviewed according to the City's insurance requirements. • A background check is required. Criminal history is not an automatic employment disqualifier. Results are r reviewed on a case -by case basis. Q Administrative Assistant - General Last Reviewe Last Revise Packet Pg. 331 6.16.a 3 of 3 JOB DESCRIPTION Administrative Assistant - General WORKING CONDITIONS: Environment: • Office environment. • Constant interruptions. Physical Abilities: • Hearing, speaking or otherwise communicating to exchange information in person or on the phone. • Reading and understanding a variety of materials. • Operating/using a computer keyboard and other office equipment. • Sitting, standing, or otherwise remaining in a stationary position for extended periods of time. • Bending at the waist, kneeling, or crouching, reaching above shoulders, and horizontally or otherwise positioning oneself to accomplish tasks. • Lifting/carrying or otherwise moving or transporting up to 20 lbs. Hazards: • Contact with dissatisfied or abusive individuals. Incumbent Signature: Department Head: Date: Date: Administrative Assistant - General Last Reviewe Last Revise Packet Pg. 332 7.1 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/15/2022 Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure Code Amendment Staff Lead: Eric Engmann, Planning Department: Planning Division Preparer: Eric Engmann Background/History This code amendment was initiated to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by supporting the growing demand for electric vehicle (EV) usage. The Planning Board reviewed the EV charging infrastructure code amendment (AMD2021-0002) at the June 9, June 23, July 14, and August 25, 2021 meetings. They held a public hearing and recommended City Council consider approval of this item at the September 8, 2021 Planning Board meeting. A SEPA Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) on the proposed amendments was issued on September 17, 2021. Staff Recommendation Listen to the introduction, ask questions, and schedule a public hearing on the proposed code amendment. Narrative The City of Edmonds is proposing a new Chapter to Title 17 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) related to EV charging infrastructure. These standards cover a variety of topics important to regulating this infrastructure for new and significantly updated development. As electric vehicles continue to increase in number and market share, it is important to plan for future growth of this technology. Electric Vehicle usage has tripled in Edmonds over the last five years and this growth is expected to increase as more automobile companies are either increasing or switching entirely to EV production. This amendment directly supports specific city, state, and national goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and become carbon neutral by 2050. From a user level, these regulations are important to promote EVs and help reduce the added cost of retrofitting to accommodate this technology. Installing these EV components at the time of new construction can be about five times cheaper than adding them during a retrofit. Furthermore, one of the main concerns listed for people with switching to EVs, is the concern about finding places to charge their EVs (Deloitte Insights, Global Auto Consumer Study, 2020). The key elements of this amendment are: 1) differentiating between the three EV charging staging types and, 2) the percentages of parking spaces that must accommodate each of these types. Requiring a variety of these stages for parking allows a development to accommodate existing EV charging needs and be prepared for future usage levels. The three staging types are listed below. Packet Pg. 333 7.1 EV Capable- Contains electrical panel capacity and conduit for future EV usage. EV Ready - Contains EV Capable elements plus circuits to allow plug-in EV charging. EV Installed- Contains EV Ready elements plus specialized equipment for efficient EV charging. These standards would apply to all new and significantly altered development. When these thresholds for improvements occur, Table 17.115.040 would determine the percentage of parking spaces that would require EV capable, EV ready, and EV installed charging infrastructure by the development use type. Research for the draft recommendations come from review of other municipality regulations (local and national), best practices from industry and non-profit organizations, and review of state regulations. Many components of the draft, such as definitions and installation requirements, come from industry standards and are similar to many codes and best practices observed across the country. However, the regulations are tailored specifically to Edmonds. The specific standards have been developed over several meetings with the Planning Board and in discussions with the public and development professionals. The entire draft code amendment is included as Exhibit 1. The meeting minutes from the Planning Board discussions are included as Exhibit 2. The SEPA Determination and Checklist are included as Exhibit 3. Attachments: Exhibit 1- Planning Board Recommended Code Language Exhibit 2- Planning Board Except Minutes Exhibit 3- SEPA Determination and Checklist Packet Pg. 334 7.1.a Chapter 17.115 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE 17.115.010 Intent and purpose. 17.115.020 Definitions. 17.115.030 Permitted locations. 17.115.040 Required facilities. 17.115.050 General station requirements. 17.115.060 Signage. 17.115.010 Intent and purpose. It is the intent of these development regulations to encourage the use and viability of electric vehicles as they have been identified as a solution to energy independence, cleaner air, and significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure the effective installation of electric vehicle charging stations and to expedite the establishment of a convenient, cost-effective electric vehicle charging infrastructure that such a transition necessitates 17.115.020 Definitions. A. Battery charging station- means an electrical component assembly or cluster of component assemblies designed specifically to charge batteries within electric vehicles, which meet or exceed any standards, codes, and regulations set forth by Chapter 19.28 RCW and RCW 19.27.540. B. Battery exchange station- means a facility that will enable an electric vehicle with a swappable battery to enter a drive lane and exchange the depleted battery with a fully charged battery, which meets or exceeds any standards, codes, and regulations set forth by Chapter 19.27 RCW and RCW 19.27.540. C. Charging level- means the standardized indicators of electrical force, or voltage, at which an electric vehicle's battery is recharged. Levels I, II, and III are defined by the electrical output, per the following specifications: 1. Level I- considered slow charging and operates on a fifteen to twenty amp breaker on a one hundred twenty volt AC circuit. 2. Level II- considered medium charging and operates on a forty to one hundred amp breaker on a two hundred eight or two hundred forty volt AC circuit. 9/9/2021 As Passed by Planning Board Page 1 of 7 Packet Pg. 335 7.1.a 3. Level III- considered fast or rapid charging and operates on a sixty amp or higher breaker on a four hundred eighty volt or higher three phase circuit with special grounding equipment. D. Designated accessible parking space- means an accessible parking space required by WAC 51-50- 005 and designated for the exclusive use of parking vehicles with a State Disabled Parking Permit. E. Electric vehicle or "EV"- means any vehicle that operates, either partially or exclusively, on electrical energy from the grid, or an off -board source, that is stored on board for motive purpose. F. Electric vehicle capable or "EV capable"- means a parking space that has listed an install panel capacity and conduit (raceway) and electrical capacity (breaker space) allocated to accommodate the future build -out of an electric vehicle charging station with Level II or Level III charging circuits G. Electric vehicle charging station- means a public or private parking space that is served by EV ready or EV installed forms of Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure that has as its primary purpose the transfer of electric energy (by conductive or inductive means) to a battery or other energy storage device in an electric vehicle. H. Electric vehicle charging infrastructure- means structures, machinery, and equipment necessary and integral to support an electric vehicle, including but not limited to battery charging stations, rapid charging stations, and battery exchange stations. I. Electric vehicle installed or "EV installed"- means a fully installed electric vehicle charging station for Level II or Level III charging levels. J. Electric vehicle parking space- means any marked parking space that identifies the use to be exclusively for the parking of an electric vehicle. K. Electric vehicle ready or "EV ready"- means a parking space that is designed and constructed to include a fully -wired circuit with a Level II or Level III electric vehicle charging receptacle outlet or termination point, including conduit and wiring and the electrical service capacity necessary to serve the receptable, that allows for future installation of an electrical vehicle charging station. L. Electric vehicle supply equipment or "EVSE"- see electric vehicle charging station. M. Non-residential use- for the purposes of this chapter 17.115 ECDC, a non-residential use means any primary use that is not a residential use such as, but not limited to, business uses, commercial uses, industrial uses, or public facility uses. N. Rapid charging station- means a Level III electric vehicle charging station that allows for faster recharging of electric vehicle batteries through higher power levels. O. Substantial damage — for the purposes of this chapter 17.115 ECDC, substantial damage means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its 9/9/2021 As Passed by Planning Board Page 2 of 7 Packet Pg. 336 7.1.a before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the replacement cost of the structure before the damage occurred. P. Substantial improvement- for the purposes of this chapter 17.115 ECDC, substantial improvement means any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a primary structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the primary structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. 17.115.030 Permitted locations. Electric vehicle charging stations and battery exchange stations are permitted as listed below: A. Level I, Level II, and Level III electric vehicle charging stations. An electric vehicle charging station equipped with Level I, Level II, or Level III charging equipment is allowed as an accessory use in all zoning districts. B. Battery exchange stations. Battery exchange stations are considered a primary or accessory use as part of an automobile service station as defined in ECDC 21.90.12 and an accessory use to an automotive sales use. Battery exchange stations are allowed in all zoning districts where automotive sales and automobile service stations are permitted and according to the regulations for those uses set forth in the specific zoning district. 17.115.040 Required facilities. A. Applicability. Development for each of the land uses identified in Table 17.115.040 shall be required to provide electric vehicle charging infrastructure when one of the following occurs. 1. A new development or new off-street parking facility; 2. Substantial damage or substantial improvements to an existing development is made within a one-year period as determined by the Building Official; or 3. The parking capacity of an existing development or parking facility is increased by 50 percent or more of the total parking spaces provided. B. Standards. Table 17.115.040 lists the minimum number or percentage of electric vehicle charging infrastructure required by type of use. 9/9/2021 As Passed by Planning Board Page 3 of 7 Packet Pg. 337 7.1.a Table 17.115.040: Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Requirements Type of Use Number of EV Capable Parking Spaces Number of EV Ready Parking Spaces Number of EV Installed Parking Spaces Single family dwelling units' N/A 1 per dwelling unit N/A Multiple dwelling units' 40% of parking spaces 40% of parking spaces 10% of parking spaces Non-residential uses 40% of parking spaces 0% of parking spaces 10% of parking spaces Footnote 1: For the purposes of this section, those multiple dwelling units with individual garages will follow the requirements for single family dwelling units. C. Calculations. 1. Fractions. For the purposes of this chapter 17.115 ECDC, calculations will be rounded up to the nearest whole number. 2. Inclusion in Parking Calculations. All EV installed, EV ready, and EV capable spaces are to be included in the calculation for the number of parking spaces, as provided by the applicable chapter of the Edmonds Community Development Code. 3. Uses Not Specified. Any use not listed in Table 17.115.040 must meet the requirements of the most similar listed use, as determined by the Development Services Director. 4. Different Uses on the Same Development Site. The requirement for different uses on the same development site is calculated as the sum of all requirements for the individual uses. For cases where a building on a larger development site requires EV charging infrastructure per this Chapter 17.115 ECDC but the remainder of the development site does not, only the parking for that specific building or improved area will require compliance with this Chapter 17.115 ECDC. 5. For the purposes of Table 17.115.040, a portion or all of a lesser requirement for EV charging infrastructure can be substituted with one of a higher requirement (e.g. EV capable replaced with EV ready, EV ready replaced with EV installed, or EV capable replaced with EV installed) so long at the total minimum number of EV parking spaces required in Table 17.115.040 remains the same. For example, a non-residential use could increase the amount of EV ready parking spaces from 20% to 30%, reduce the amount of EV capable parking spaces from 20% to 10%, and keep the same amount of EV installed spaces (10%). This example would be permitted because a portion of the lower requirement (EV capable) was substituted for a higher requirement (EV ready), and the overall minimum number of EV parking spaces (50%) would remain the same. D. Load Management. Electric -vehicle load management system technology is permitted to be used to support EV charging infrastructure. 9/9/2021 As Passed by Planning Board Page 4 of 7 Packet Pg. 338 7.1.a E. Reductions. The Director may reduce the requirements of Table 17.115.040 when there is substantial evidence that the added electrical load, that results from meeting these requirements, will significantly alter the local utility infrastructure design requirement. However, in no case shall the overall number of EV parking spaces required in Table 17.115.040 be reduced. In reducing the requirements, the Director may: 1. Reduce the type of EV charging infrastructure required (EV ready or EV installed to EV capable); or 2. Reduce the EV charging level required (Level II or Level III to Level 1). 17.115.050 General station requirements. A. Size. A standard size parking space or reduced width, "compact," parking space as permitted in Chapter 18.95 ECDC will be used for an electric vehicle charging station where such a station is required or planned, except for required accessible electric vehicle parking spaces as listed in ECDC 17.115.60. Installation and Equipment. The charging station installation and equipment will be consistent with rules and regulations adopted pursuant to RCW 19.27.540 and electric vehicle charging infrastructure requirements, and with applicable regulations under the City's building code and fire code, Title 19. C. Location, Design, and Maintenance. Where provided, parking for electric vehicle charging purposes will meet the following standards: 1. Clearance. Charging station equipment mounted on pedestals, light posts, bollards or other devices shall be a minimum of 24 inches clear from the face of curb. 2. Charging Station Equipment. Charging station outlets and connector devices will be no less than 36 inches or no higher than 48 inches from the top of surface where mounted, and will contain a retraction device or a place to hang permanent cords and connectors sufficiently above the ground or paved surface. 3. Charging Station Equipment Protection. When the electric vehicle charging station space is perpendicular or at an angle to curb face and charging equipment, adequate equipment protection such as wheel stops or bollards can be used. 4. Maintenance. Charging station equipment will be maintained, including the functioning of the charging equipment. A phone number or other contact information will be provided on the charging station equipment for reporting when the equipment is not functioning, or other problems are encountered. 9/9/2021 As Passed by Planning Board Page 5 of 7 Packet Pg. 339 7.1.a D. Data to be available. To allow for maintenance and notification, the owners of any private new electric vehicle infrastructure station that will be publicly available shall provide information on the station's geographic location, date of installation, equipment type and model, and owner contact information. E. Time limits. Time limits maybe placed on the number of hours that an electric vehicle is allowed to charge, prohibiting indefinite charging or parking. If applicable, warnings will be posted to alert charging station users about hours of use and possible actions affecting electric vehicle charging stations that are not being used according to posted rules. F. Location. Placement of a single electric vehicle charging station is preferred at the beginning or end parking space on a row of parking. 1 G. Reserved EV Parking Spaces. Electric vehicle charging stations, where provided for public use, are reserved for parking and charging of electric vehicles only, except as otherwise provided by this chapter. 17.115.060 Signage. Signage for each EV installed charging station space will comply th the following: A. Electric vehicle signage must be posted in a clear and conspicuous manner, pursuant to RCW 46.08.185; and B. Signage must be posted that indic a space is *onlyo#eused for electric vehicle charging purposes. Days and hours of operatio t be included if time limits or tow -away provisions are to be enforced. 16.60.030 Site development standards — Design. (CG Zoning District) 5. Electric vehicle charging stations. See Chapter 17.115 ECDC for parking standards relating to electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. One OF ^'^rU*"ar %•^hiele chaFgang statiens m st "^ pFevided f9F all Rew development that includdes heusing. RequiFed charging stations shall hp te serve at least 10 pereeRt of the FequiFed Fesidential parking stalls. IR additiOR, either ad-ditie-pal statiORS er shall be provided. ForthiS Subsect.*A_R, "planned capacity" means site design -a.np-I P_A_.nStr1_1r_-tien that 9/9/2021 As Passed by Planning Board Page 6 of 7 Packet Pg. 340 7.1.a 16.110.020 Site development standards. (Westgate Mixed -Use Zone District) F. Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure Parking Standards. See Chapter 17.115 ECDC for parkine standards relatine to electric vehicle (EV) ch 17.50.010 Off-street parking required. D. Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure Parking Standards. See Chapter 17.115 ECDC for parkine standards relatine to electric vehicle (EV) ch 97 En /17A Parking space requirements. D. Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure Parking Standards. infrastructure infrastructure See Chapter 17.115 ECDC for parking standards relating to electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. -111 nn n 111 Service Station, Automobiles. An automobile station means a business that provides for any or all of the following: A. The sale of gasoline, diesel or other fuels used for the propulsion of motor vehicles, when such products are delivered directly into the fuel tanks of automobiles. Battery exchange stations that enable electric vehicles to swap batteries as defined in ECDC 17.115.020 are also considered an automobile service station. 9/9/2021 As Passed by Planning Board Page 7 of 7 c m E c m E Q m 0 U M c z U W Packet Pg. 341 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom September 8, 2021 Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 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. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Chair Alicia Crank, Vice Chair Judi Gladstone Richard Kuehn Roger Pence Todd Cloutier Matt Cheung STAFF PRESENT Eric Engmann, Planning Division BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Nathan Monroe (Excused) Mike Rosen: Calls the Planning Board meeting to order. Asks Judi to read the land Judi Gladstone: acknowledgement. Reads the Land Acknowledgement for Indigenous Peoples Mike Rosen: Asks Eric Engmann to do the roll call. Eric Engmann: Does roll call. Mike Rosen: Nathan Monroe is an excused absence today. Announces the agenda. Packet Pg. 342 therefore do not persist in the urban environment and in the City of Edmonds are fundamentally inequitable placing the cost and penalties for trees on communities outside the bowl. And when the city yields to the concerns to not cite growth in the bowl and keep Edmonds, Edmonds, all you will be doing is quite literally harvesting wealth from communities that are already underserved by the city. I continue to ask the city to seek partnership with tree property owners. It is only through that partnership, not penalties, that the private urban forest will thrive. Do not throw away "right tree, right place" guiding principle of the Urban Forest Management Plan. Use a normal planning process, i.e., the planning board, and undertake the public engagement necessary to determine if a changing course is supported. The city should, at a minimum, strive to do no harm. So, don't do this in secret. The city can absolutely harm the existing and regeneration of the private urban forest by undertaking further emergency actions much more so than doing nothing. Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments. Asks if there is anyone else in attendance. (no one el Opens the Public hearing. Mike Rosen: Goes over the pubic hearing agenda: review the reasons for the amendment, the Eric Engmann: proposed code amendment itself, finalize the remaining standards, and then decide if it's ready for transmittal to city council. Reiterates the feedbackfrom several different organizations, developers, builders, people in the industry, people that are working with EV charging itself. Reviews the reasons for the amendment and how it ties into the city's major sustainability goals. Especially the city's goal to be climate neutral by 2050. Talks about the greenhouse gas emissions, and how the transportation sector is the largest sector contributor. Shows the current and future goals for the number of EVs in the City. Mentions how manufacturers are switching to EV production. Also discusses the major reluctance for people to switch to EVs: the fear of not having places to charge their vehicles. Then discusses the main components of the code: • the staging types: capable ready, installed. • the different charging levels: I, II, or III? • appropriate ratios for single family, multi -family, and non-residential. Mentions the prior topics of discussions: • pros and cons of each staging type • cost estimates • definitions • applicability (50% rule) • proposed standards for multifamily and non-residential Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 343 Discusses the two remaining issues. The first one is about the accessible EV standardsThis is one that's been really tough because we want everyone to have access to these chargers regardless of your ability. Discusses the three options. The first one is having a standard space based on the number of EV spaces. The second one would be to have a percentage of all ADA spaces be EV. The third one is kind of a two -fold one. It's either requiring a minimum of one orjust not specifying it at all. The first option would be based on a set standard. It's proportionate of the EV ready and EV installed spaces. The second one is just a simple percentage. So, we could pick what percentage that could be, but it's also easier to understand. The third one, there's two ways of doing this. The first one is that we would require a minimum of one EV ready or EV installed space. Just set the bottom standard for it so that it can go up above that and allow really other codes to dictate how much of that goes into place. But having at least one would ensure that at least one space would be EV ready or EV installed. The other option is to not put it in the code at all. It allows our state building code council to take the lead on this topic. There are things that have to do with national standards, building code standards. It's almost something that's above what our code typically handles. So, if we don't put it in there, it would still be covered because the state requires a certain percentage of them to be EV charging. This topic isn't covered in all zoning codes. Then shows the City's table for required ADA spaces for regular (non-EV) parking spaces. Then provides a large and small development example for multifamily and non-residential development. Shows how many EV accessible spaces would be required, for each option, in these scenarios. After going back and forth, staff is leaning towards that third option. There's so many national codes and national standards that it's difficult for us to put our extra standards on top of that. The next item is for utility upgrades. Last time we talked about it, there were concerns raised by Snohomish County PUD, our utility district. They talked about how utility upgrades can be very expensive, and it depends on the power level available in that area. And they mention that Highway 99 is an area of concern. So, they suggested an exception to reduce the requirements when cost upgrades would be prohibitive. Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 344 Shows and explains graph of how power gets from power station to individual properties. Mentions, if there would be a problem, it would be at the point of the distribution substation or the transformers. Another scenario for an issue is a house at the end of a cul-de-sac. Let's say the power source serves 10 of those homes on that cul-de-sac and it's right about near its limit. Potentially, when someone is doing renovations and needing that extra power for their EV ready station, it could potentially make them have to upgrade that transformer. So, a lot of it is hypothetical, but it could be an issue. And it could be something in the end that could be very expensive. Mentions the options: • No exception in code, • An exception with some minimum thresholds in place, • Or have an exception in there with no thresholds in place. If we decide to not put this exception in, we would ensure that our adopted standards are met in all cases. We would ensure that there is maximum potential to reduce greenhouse gases. It's consistent standards across the board, so it's equitable. The con of that is it doesn't account for all real -world scenarios that we talked about. It could lead to a development project being abandoned including affordable housing. Another option is an exception with minimum thresholds. We can have an exception, where the director could reduce the requirements when certain circumstances are in place and there is evidence of an added electrical load. So, they'd have to prove to us the electrical loading issue and it can be attributed to meeting the EV requirements. And it significantly alters local infrastructure design. For minimums, they could reduce the type of EV charging infrastructure, EV ready or EV installed down to EV capable. They could also reduce that charging level, Level II or III down to a Level I. But we would say that they cannot reduce the overall number of EV spaces. Provides an example in the presentation. The other option would be to not have minimum thresholds. They'd still have to prove to us that it's an issue, but we would let them change the EV station type, the EV charging level, or the overall number of spaces. Staff prefers option 2, where we would have those minimum thresholds in place Ends by highlighting the four decisions needed by the Board. • Accessible EV Recommendatinos • Exceptions for Electrical Loading • Reviewing the overall code amendment • Possible transmittal to City Council Mike Rosen: Opens the public hearing for anybody who wishes to address us. Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 345 Eric Engmann: States Natalie Seitz wishes to speak. Natalie Seitz: I'm basing my comments based on what I've been hearing at times on the planning board. I haven't had the opportunity to read the code as proposed, but there were some points that I wanted to make. So, first, we recently personally undertook some electrical work on our house. And as part of that work, we changed out an existing 220 plug for one that could accommodate an EV. I learned that there are about six different types of 220 plugs. I bring this up say that I hope that the regulations have an exception for properties that have an existing 220 plug for me to do a separate upgrade for EV since changing out a plug would be relatively cheap. It's less than $500. And it could preclude an existing use. And the change to EV could be undertaken at a later date when an EV car is purchased. Switches apparently are now getting so that they can accommodate multiple uses. So, it maybe a little bit later that would be available. So, I wanna make that point. I was unable to stay for the discussion about SR-99 and the limitations of the electric system last meeting. I hope that instead of creating exceptions so that businesses don't have to pay for upgrades to the electric system, the city considers partnerships to help alleviate the costs so that the fundamental electric system upgrades do occur. The city has long helped downtown businesses pay for things like hanging baskets and other events to boost those businesses. The city can use this as a way to pay for rather retroactively for the lack of city investment in the SR-99 businesses for the past 60 years since this area was incorporated. I think that the future will certainly include subscription electric car and bike services, especially for low-income residents, ensuring that the SR-99 corridor commercial areas and commercial areas throughout the city have the capabilities to meet this need is vital and should be prioritized by the city. With regard to what was presented tonight, just in listening to it with option one and the potential for it to be prohibitive to low-income housing, I think my gut reaction to that is that I'd really appreciate the city and planning board to imagine siting low-income in someplace other than the SR-99 corridor. I've commented about park resources and investment in this area, and they keep siting more and more people here. And I'm happy for it if it comes with the city investment, but itjust doesn't seem to. So, I really think that the investment needs to start happening from the city. Because I feel that vehicle subscription services are going to be part of our future, I do not think that every single low square footage residents would have to be low square footage. Retrofit needs to be EV capable. The question is not whether people will have an old classic car. It's whether people will have a car. Low square footage dwelling units that Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 346 do not provide parking or car accessible garages or driveways should be consider for an exception or a lower requirement. Mike Rosen: Thanks Natalie. Asks if there is anyone else. Eric Engmann: States there are none. Mike Rosen: Closes the public hearing. Asks to address the request in the order they were presented. So, taking the accessible question first. And, again, we were provided three options. And staff is recommending option three. Anybody wish to jump in? Todd Cloutier: I'd just like to say that I concur with the staff that option three seems to make the most sense. And we do the same thing with a lot of our options to try to make sure we're consistent with the communities around us. Judi Gladstone: Actually, I think that option three does make sense to me. But I do have two questions for you, Eric. 1.) Is there a state code that covers EV charging in general? And then my second question — I think you said it, but I need clarification — are the ADA requirements a subset of the overall or in addition to? Eric Engmann: So, for the first part of that, yes. A couple years ago, the state put in regulations for basic EV charging requirements. They put it into the building code. So, they've been updating it since then, but there are minimum standards in the building code itself for EV charging. Judi Gladstone: So, did you send those to us? And I'm not remembering it? Eric Engmann: We did talk about it early on, one of the first meetings. It talked about that it's 10 percent of the overall spaces, but it's a very broad, not a well-defined term in my opinion. So, we're going above and beyond that standard. And it doesn't cover single family. For the second part of that with the ADA, it would normally be a space above. When people do parking standards for these, it's typically a separate standard for ADA spaces. Mike Rosen: So, we have a couple people suggesting that they concur with staff with option No. 3 Does anybody wanna push back on that? Eric Engmann: Mentions option three is almost like an A or a B. It's either a minimum of one or just taking an out altogether. Alicia Crank: If I have to weigh in on one, I would say do not specify. And I'm leaning on that because I think my overall thought about this whole thing is that I would like this to be somewhat of a living document that can be updated and upgraded because it's such kind of a newish area. And I wouldn't want us to put ourselves in a position to have something super hardcoded in that we couldn't make that adjustment and almost to the point that you made about the different areas when you might run into something unforeseen that might require some type of adjustment if it's hardcoded in. So, that's really my mindset Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 347 around option three and do not specify. It will probably inform any other opinions on the other three as well. Mike Rosen: Thanks, Alicia. Judi, it looked like you might've been ready to say something. Judi Gladstone: Well, I was actually going to go and look at something in the packet. So, I'll come back to you after I look it up. Mike Rosen: Does anybody want to push back on using the do not specify? Richard Kuehn: I didn't hear until Alicia finished up her comment. Not to ask for an update but just a quick maybe Cliff Notes version would be great. Mike Rosen: So, there was consensus around going with option three, which was also staff's recommendation. But it's a two-part question. One option is to not specify, which would default to state regulations. But, also, as Alicia was sort of saying, provides sort of future maneuvering opportunities for us as the real -world sort of informs us as opposed to the other option being just set a minimum of No. 1. So, we have consensus around option three. Now, we're deciding, do we set the minimum or do not specify. Judi Gladstone: So, Eric, I think the question I have is — does the international building code — it applies within the City of Edmonds, right? Eric Engmann: Yes, that is what the city uses for their building code. Judi Gladstone: So, does it have a minimum number? Does it speak to that? Or is it silent as well? Eric Engmann: It is in the State Building Code Council. So, it's at least the state language. Judi Gladstone: So, it would apply regardless of whatever we put in here. Eric Engmann: Right. Judi Gladstone: All right. So, then I would go with do not specify. Mike Rosen: Just to then validate again, is there anybody who does not agree with do not specify on option three? Richard Kuehn: The only question that I have and I think I mentioned this before and was trying to look for it, as long as the EV capable ADA space doesn't take away from what the current Washington State or whatever the regulations are for current regular ADA spaces, then I'm all for it. I think that's great. Chair Rosen: And, Eric, can you validate that that's the case? Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 348 Eric Engmann: I didn't see anything about that. I didn't see any other codes that had a standard that mentioned this one way or the other. So, I would assume in that case, it would be okay. Mike Rosen: Are you good, Richard? Richard Kuehn: Yes, I think so. CHair Rosen: So, Eric, we do have consensus on option three with do not specify. Eric Engmann: Then, I would be removing that section from the draft. Chair Rosen: That's how you would execute it, right? So, now we're moving to the exception for utility upgrades —three options. And, again, as a reminder, staff was recommending option No. 2. Anybody want to jump in? Todd Cloutier: I've got a question for Eric. This might be hard to answer because it's not your agency. But as Natalie brought up, if 99's the problem, are there plans already to increase capacity on 99? Eric Engmann: So, it's not just 99. It's an area that they've listed as an example. So, it could be lots of different ones. The way it typically works, it's improvements as the user needs it. It's really up to that increased usage and that increased demand that would then have to pay for that upgrade. They do upgrade sometimes, but I don't think that they have one specifically picked for Highway 99, not last time I saw. Judi Gladstone: So, Eric, could you go back to the slide where you had the diagram? I don't know power particularly well. So, in the water and wastewater world, the general philosophy is growth pays for growth. So, what that would mean, the equivalent of is these transformers would be what growth would pay for. But the utility might have a connection charge that might incorporate some of these facilities but not necessarily all of them. I think the equivalent on water and wastewater, there would be a connection charge that would be calculated based on some of this. But some of it would be attributed to the existing as well. I want to say that it concerns me that Highway 99 is the area where if you look at the planning, it seems like there's a desire to put a lot of multi -family there. And if that's the case, then where's the multi -family going to go if it's in these places where they haven't upgraded? And I think that if they've got an issue with these big towers or all the way to the plant, I think there probably needs to be some partnership. And I would necessarily want to see that be standing in the way of the EV chargers. I would be concerned, the extent to which, that they would load up those costs onto the developers. Todd Cloutier: Judi and I were getting to the same point. If the PUD doesn't have a plan to proactively push changes from their own coffers, then the cost would be unbearable for the lower - level people to pay for it all per project. And we're going to end up with projects not Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 349 getting done, multi -family housing not getting constructed because they can meet parking requirements with EVs. And that doesn't seem to make any sense. So, I think it makes sense to let the infrastructure come of its own accord. As the demand rises, the infrastructure will come, and more spaces will get built. And like Alicia said, we can revisit that as things change, and there's great capacity and that's not considered a limit anymore. Judi Gladstone: Let me also add that I know there are some jurisdictions where they contribute to the connection charges, as that can be the form of the partnership that can occur. So, if the City's really vested in trying to meet these goals for EV, they may need to put some money in that pot. Mike Rosen: So, does somebody want to offer up their specific recommendation? Judi Gladstone: So, I have to say, despite what I've said here, I'm torn between no exceptions and with exceptions with a high bar. Could you go to the slide that lists what the exceptions would be? I think it's going to be really easy for them to have evidence of added electrical load. So, they can come up with that information pretty easily and parse it in such a way frankly that it looks like it's the cause of the problem. But if you keep going to those thresholds — go to the one with the table. If they were required to keep the 18 spaces, I think the question is — what kind of flexibility could be allowed as long as they had the 18 spaces? And I would be concerned on some level, as I've read more about Level I, do we end up with a second tier of service if you've got multi- family at level I and single family at Level 11. And do you start getting inequities of service? So, I'm still wrestling with it to be honest with you. Todd Cloutier: I'm agreeing with Judi because that's exactly the concern I had. And I know we just used Highway 99 as an example. So, as Eric said, it's not necessarily that Highway 99 is the vulnerable area. It was just an example brought up. But that's the one that's going to stick in my head. I just couldn't go with removing all minimums. So, I think that having at least option two reserves the spaces that can be upgraded later where option three throws it all out or gives the option to throw it all out. And option one makes it so that it could be cost prohibitive. And it could eliminate the building of the number of units we want in the first place. So, it seems to be that option two gives us some director's discretion to try to keep those spaces reserved at the very least and push for the amount of infrastructure that makes sense at that time for that project, which I think seems to be the most flexible position for us to be in. So, I vote for option two. Mike Rosen: Anybody want to argue for something other than two? So, can you go back to then what those thresholds might be? So, the question I have is as we've been talking about it and Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 10 Packet Pg. 350 I've been hearing people express what they don't want, it seems to me that hardship is one of them. And different structures and people's abilities will be at different levels. So, this does not reflect any cause of hardship on the individual. Some people are going to be in a much better position to write that check than others. And it seems to me that somebody could benefit on the high end. So, we're giving them an exception where the entire development is a very high -ticket item and money isn't a problem, and we just gave them an out whereas what we're trying to do is protect the people where hardship is an issue. So, if that's our concern, I don't think this addresses it. And notice I didn't offer an alternative. Alicia Crank: I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I also think that, again, if we approach this with a sense of, again, as this kind of living breathing document that we can go back and tweak as we get more information that comes in that we could revisit that piece? So, I don't know if we'll be able to address all of the concerns in this sitting. Mike Rosen: It could be too loose. But I'm wondering if it was an option where in addition to these things it created financial hardship, and it was sort of the burden of the applicant to sort of argue what that means and allow the city some discretion in that? I'm not a big fan of vagueness, but I do wonder if it opens the door. Eric Engmann: From the practicality of enforcing the hardship, that would be hard to enforce or even get to what that would entail. It would be so hard to weigh what that would be for a hardship without opening their books and looking at those things. Mike Rosen: I'm convinced. But in the three minutes that you've had to think about it, do you have any thoughts on how we might address hardship? Eric Engmann: I guess it would depend on if we're talking about affordable housing or not. That's the only one I can think of, that we would make that a separate standard. We could say two different standards. We could make it only for affordable housing. I think with the way that we had it on the left side that it makes it a little bit easier to kind of try to find that. They'd have to prove to us that it's the EV that's causing this. They can't just say that it's everything else. But I don't know how we go past that, other than just putting in something about affordable housing. Mike Rosen: That addresses the price tag. I'll stop there. All of our concerns were about impact, and I don't believe we've addressed it. But I'm cool with option two. Judi Gladstone: So, affordable housing to me is challenging in itself because what is affordable housing? How is it defined? Who does it apply to? I think it's always a question. But here's a question that comes from my lack of knowledge around code and policy connection. Can there be policy guidance for the director that isn't necessarily put in code that allows for that flexibility but sets out some standards for those considerations that are not Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 11 Packet Pg. 351 7.1.b necessarily code because I get the sense code is much more rigid in its application and much more black and white. Policy — you can have goals; you can have guidance. It's mushier. And I don't know if that's something that can somehow intersect with the code? It might be out of our purview to do, but that's just a thought that came to my mind that might be able to start to address the differences in the type of development that we're talking about here that have the potential to be impacted differently. Eric Engmann: A lot of times, when something's not codified like a procedure, we can make a rule on it. And they can list out what's included in that rule to making those decisions. Usually, it's for a process that's not in the code itself. Because what a developer would say is that, no, the code tells you what you can and can't do. We have this list of these three criteria. It's in the code right now. That's how we would handle it. But, yes, there are plenty of cases when it's something that's not codified but it's a policy that we can put it into a rule form. But it's usually something that's not codified. Mike Rosen: So, at this point, I see us having consensus on option two. Anybody? Going, going, going. All right, Eric, there is our second decision. So, our third question to us is — okay, back to the balcony. Is there anything else overall? Right, Eric, is that the question? Eric Engmann: That's it. Alicia Crank: I have a situational question. And I apologize as it comes off as silly. So, when we put together this code amendment and it happens, are the spaces that would be EV — are they open to anyone? Or is it for the multi -family properties? Is it restricted to whoever lives there? And the nature of my question comes from someone who asked me this today, and I didn't have an answer. What if they currently live in a condo? Condo doesn't have an EV space. That's currently their situation right now. Where would they with this in place be permitted to be able to charge their vehicle? Would it have to be at a public place? If there's one next door in a multi -family unit that has them available, would they be permitted to be able to utilize that? Or is it just restricted to who lives there? Eric Engmann: That's a great question. So, it would really depend on the situation, just like with other parking spots. If the parking garage is restricted, those are private spaces. If it's available for public use, that would be considered a public use, and there are state laws about public usage for a a public use space. So, anything on the nonresidential, outside of a grocery store, or one that's just available for regular public use, that's considered public use. And there are some state laws that do give some benefits to people using those, not just in the development itself. But if it is a private development and it is only accessible to the residents, then it doesn't have those same points. Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 12 Packet Pg. 352 7.1.b Alicia Crank: It makes sense. I guess maybe the foundation of that question was — if we as a city are creating a code around this, does the city have any type of responsibility to identify that within all this that other residents should be able to use particular ones if a resident lives in a multi -family unit or even a single family unit to be able to utilize it? Or is that even a thing? If the city creates a code around something, does the city have a responsibility to identify its use? Eric Engmann: The state takes care of that for the public use side. They have their standards. We can maybe come up with a guide, or we can take people on our webpage to where the state laws talk about it. Something so the public can know about it. But the state has started to get a good grasp. And, again, this is one of those codes that keeps changing. Alicia Crank: Got it. Thank you. Chair Rosen: It's an observation that I just wanted to sort of put out there. And it goes way back. Part of this is to help get us to the 50,000 goal — 50,000 electric vehicles. And the last data I saw about total number of vehicles in Edmonds currently is just shy of 17,000. So, understandably, there will be growth, but there will also potentially be other vehicles. And as Natalie pointed out, the hope and the trend currently has been fewer vehicles per household. And some of those vehicles are going to be other kinds. Or some people aren't going to give up because of collections and those kinds of things. So, I guess I am questioning sort of the reality of that number as a goal to aim for given all those things that I just said. So, no action or response. I just sort of wanted to say that out loud. Because I know you didn't create, nor did we create that goal. Judi Gladstone: Can I jump in because I have something that I want to go back to if that's okay, Mike? Chair Rosen: Absolutely, this is the time. Judi Gladstone: I know we reached consensus on the utility upgrades. But I was feeling some reluctance, and I think I figured out why. And I want to ask you a question about the language in the code, Eric. Because I think what was troubling me is the language says, "When there is substantial evidence that the added electrical load that can be attributed to meeting these requirements will significantly alter the local utility infrastructure design requirement." I think that's really good it says local utility infrastructure because I think that should narrow it to not include necessarily all the really big infrastructure. But I'm wondering if that bar can be a little bit tighter? Instead of saying "that can be attributed to," it says "that results from." And they have to prove that it results from it rather than attributed. Eric Engmann: We can change that. That was our point, to make sure. So, what are you recommending? Judi Gladstone: That results from meeting these requirements. Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 13 Packet Pg. 353 Mike Rosen: Anybody have any other overall code amendments before we move to our next question? All right. So, the next question before us — are we ready with the decisions we just made and the one change recommended by Judi to transmit it to City Council for their review? Anybody have any concerns about that? Nope? All right. Eric, please send it on with our recommendation. Roger Pence: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I think it might be helpful at this point to take a formal vote to recommend transmitting these amendments to this code section to City Council for their consideration. Mike Rosen: Understood. And I agree with the purpose. All in favor of transmitting the code amendment as revised this evening, please signify by saying "aye" or raising your hand. (All say aye) Is there anybody opposed? Is there anybody abstaining? It is passed unanimously Thank you, Eric, again for all of the work and how you walked us through it. Discusses the extended agenda. I will share with you that I did receive outreach from a local media source asking about —on September 22nd, item No. 2, discussion of veterans' memorial sculpture donation. And they did receive a response from staff indicating that there is another donation of a sculpture being — the opportunity presented to the city. And because it would go into the veterans' area — that is a park, and we serve in a park capacity. So, that's why it's coming to us. And that's a little bit of the headline behind it, so if you were wondering why are we talking about sculptures. Eric Engmann: I just wanted to talk about the buildable lands report. I believe Steve Toy is going to be available for October 13th. He can never do it on the second one of the month. So, I think we're going to put that back for the first meeting in October. Roger Pence: Just so we get there eventually. Mike Rosen: As you can see, as Alicia had predicted at the last meeting, trees will be coming to us shortly. So, any other comments related to the extended agenda? We will now go to comments for the good of the order. Asks the Board members for anything for the good of the order. Roger Pence: Well, I took a keen interest in the article in My Edmonds News about the decision by the railroad to finally tell us about their plans to double track the section through the City of Edmonds. And this may not be a thing that affects our code amendment responsibilities, Planning Board Minutes September 8, 2021 Page 14 Packet Pg. 354 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom August 25, 2021 Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 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. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Chair Alicia Crank, Vice Chair Judi Gladstone Richard Kuehn Roger Pence BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Nathan Monroe (Excused) Todd Cloutier (Excused) Matt Cheung (Excused) STAFF PRESENT Eric Engmann, Planning Division Mike Rosen: Calls meeting to order and asks Roger Pence to read Land Roger Pence: Acknowledgement. Reads Land Acknowledgement for Indigenous Peoples Mike Rosen: Asks Eric Engmann to call roll. Eric Engmann: Calls roll. Packet Pg. 355 Mike Rosen: Opens the Unfinished Business portion of the meeting to discuss Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure. Eric Engmann: Mentions there is a Public Hearing scheduled for the September 8t" Planning Board meeting. States that this meeting with be to discussion a few more issues before the public hearing. There are five things to talk about or think about with this. The first two are probably the ones we talked about the most. It's finalizing the multi -family and non- residential standards that we have going forward. The next three are things that've either come up in discussions or we've marginally talked about. The first one is about the accessible parking standards. The next one are some options for load management. Then the last one is something that came about in discussions with our public utility board about reductions when electrical load capacity becomes an issue. Mentions those that staff has spoken with. My summary of it is basically for the most part, we didn't get any negative comments on what we're proposing. Reiterates some of the prior issues staff has discussed with the board about the differences between EV capable, EV ready, and EV installed. Mike Rosen: Mentions Judi Gladstone has her hand up. Judi Gladstone: Asks about how Charging level 1 and level 2 play in terms of the definitions. Eric Engmann: Mentions Level 1 and 2 have to do with the power supply; how powerful it is. So, really theoretically, each one of these could be a different level of supply. You could have a Level 2 power as capable, ready or installed. That's how that fits into that case. Talks about the pros and cons foe each stage type. For EV capable, the pro is that the initial wiring is complete, and the panel room is sized correctly. The cons, there is skilled work required. You still have a physically go into the wall, pull it out, have the panel put in at the end. So, there is still some work left to do for that. And at that point, you can't actually charge EV. The next one is EV ready. At that point they can plug into the wall and get a charge. One of the cons when we talked about it was lack of the charging awareness. So, if someone isn't familiar with that plug being ready for an electric vehicle, they may not know to use that. Then when you get to the last stage, to EV install, that's the one that most people think about. It's easier to control and monitor that usage. And it provides clear indication at that point, that this space is for EV charging. The cons are at that point, it's the most expensive to install. And since it's reserved specifically for EVs, you can't use that space for anything else. Talks about the cost projections made by staff and shown on the slide. Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 356 Discusses the standards table for multifamily development. Mentions it is a pretty progressive standard; • 70 percent of the overall spaces would have some level of EV capacity. • Twenty percent EV capable, • 40 percent EV ready and • 10 percent EV installed. These are some of the most progressive standards in the county. Staff felt that 100 percent capacity may be too much for those who don't choose to use the technology. But notes there are some cities that have done 100 percent. In non-residential, staff made 40 percent EV capable. So, that means 40 percent would be ready to go at some point when they will need this technology, and 10 percent EV installed. The reason why staff took out EV ready was because it doesn't seem to work well for commercial spaces, to just have a random EV plug available. Having the plug without the EV installed doesn't seem to make sense for non-residential. It would either be one or the other. Discusses the differences between staffs proposal and Planning Board's suggestions from the July 281h meeting. For multifamily, the Board has two suggestions: • Lower the EV installed from 10 percent to five percent. Realizing development might not be ready for 10 percent. • Increase to 100 percent overall capacity. Thinking it's better to put it in now and need it later For non-residential, it needed more interpretation on the suggestions. For anything with those asterisks, there was not specific standards suggested. But this is where it was leading to. One was to a tiered system based off the number of parking spaces. What I heard was basically, a large shopping center or an Ace Hardware, might have different needs than a smaller development there. And so, it could be a higher percentage for those smaller spaces, the smaller parking lot, for the first 20 spaces. Then the percentage would reduce as the number of parking spaces increases. Asks Judi Gladstone if she has a question? Judi Gladstone: Asks if the Planning Board's discussion were included in discussions with the stakeholders. Eric Engmann: States he mentioned it to them. Not the specific standards — because we didn't have a specific planning board recommendation. But talked to them about the 100 percent. None of them thought 100 percent would be necessary. Obviously, the builders didn't think that 100 percent was necessary. The other municipalities that we spoke with, King County and Issaquah, theirs were lower than 100 percent. Then SWEEP, Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, their code guidance was lower than 100 percent too. Judi Gladstone: It does. It would be great, and I don't know if this is the right time for it or not, to hear what their thinking was around that. Because I think not being necessary and costing too Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 357 much, for what period are they planning for, for the next five years, the next 10 years or the next 15 years, is what's going through my mind. Eric Engmann: Mentions he set up the discussion so that the Board can talk about it at the end and go through each one of these issues, one by one. The next issue was about accessible EV standards. Looking at different codes, there's not a set standard. None that are prevalent across the board. A lot of them have an overall percentage, say five percent overall. But my problem with that, is that it doesn't really pencil out well. For instance, if you have five spaces and five percent of those are required to be EV accessible. That would end up being one accessible space. It just doesn't work well for smaller developments with just the overall percentage. So, what I took a look at what other codes have done. I modeled it after what is required for Washington State for overall EV. Explains his system based on the number of overall EV spaces. I thought that works a little bit better. I think it fits real world scenarios better and it would be easier for my staff and for the developer to understand. And like I said, it's simplified from the model that Denver had. Theirs was even larger. Theirs was five to 50 as the first one and then 50 to 100 was the second one. I thought it should be a little bit tighter than that, especially since we see less parking spaces. The next one is about load management technology. And this is something that's starting to become more and more interesting, and more and more people are talking about it in this field with it. I'm not an expert on this, but basically, the way you can see it is on the left and the right. So, without load management, the power for each outlet is equal. Each outlet is dedicated for each individual plug, with the same amount of power. What load management does, is it allows that to be a smart distribution system for it. So, it splits it out amongst the outlets for the power. The way that I like to think it is if you go to a gas station, each one has a separate nozzle to fill up your tank, but it's shared amongst all of them. So, it's more efficient. It allows for electricity to flow between them as needed and on a smart timing. But it draws less energy at that peak time. That's what the cons are with it would be that it would reduce peak charging performance. So, if everyone is charging at the same time, it'll take a little bit longer. And then what happens too is that there could be some possible upgrade costs, some extra smart technology that goes into that. But the way that we have in our code, the way that you'll see it in that draft is now, it would be an option. The last one came about after a discussion I had with the Snohomish Power and Utility District. They raised some concerns about how this could affect the power supply. So, right now, let's say there's a project on Highway 99, and they are asking for their utilities to come in. Right now, power, the supply in that area, the amount of power that's available in can be running low. When that happens, when there's not enough to supply a development, the development must make the improvement themselves. This has a large associated cost. So, what the Snohomish Power Utility District suggested having a code section to reduce some of those requirements when these would be prohibited. Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 358 7.1.b What they said is, sometimes these could be a seven -figure improvement that is needed for improvement. I see there's three real options that we could choose from this, and we could discuss it. Option 1 would be to continue our code with no exceptions. Basically, just say that's something that they have to figure out when they go through it. Load management could possibly help with that. Option 2 would be an exception, but without any threshold. Just allowing for an exception. And then Option 3 would be to allow an exception but have a minimum threshold in place. That could at least have EV capable, rather than EV installed or EV ready. So, for instance, if we're talking about multi -family, we have 70 percent overall EV capability. Discusses some of the possible options. Judi Gladstone: Asks if the concern differs as to whether or not the requirement would be Level 1 or Level 2. Eric Engmann: That is something we could do. We could also lower it down to be a Level 1 option. Just remember though, with Level 1, it takes a lot longer to charge but that could be an option for minimum thresholds. Finishes the presentation and shows the board the five decisions staff is hoping the Board can make. Selecting the multi -family EV charging standards. Selecting the non-residential EV standards. If you are comfortable or have other suggestions for the accessible EV recommendations, whether we wanna allow for load management technology. And how we feel about those utility upgrades. Whether we should have an exception or not. And with that, turnover for discussion. Mike Rosen: Asks to take the decision points one at a time. Starts with multifamily standards Eric Engmann: Sure. So again, on the left is what staffs proposing. This is what we felt was a very progressive standard looking nationally, talking with others. But we thought that's one we're comfortable with and we think that we could get this approved and get the development committee behind for the most part. Unfortunately, the two people that made the recommendations for A and B aren't here, but everyone else can help them with that. But these were specific recommendations from them. For Component A, 10 percent down to five percent for EV installed. And then Component B, raising the overall capacity up to 100 percent. They were less specific about how it could break down, but up to 100 percent is what they prefer. Mike Rosen: Correct. And part of the logic I believe for multi -family and non-residential was the argument of, 1.) The cost and putting conduit in the wall doesn't necessarily mean that it will be used but that is the time to do it and putting conduit in the floor actually, even in both those categories. So, that's why I think the group felt comfortable about 100 percent at the time. So, what're people thinking in terms of these two and either staff's proposal, our previous consensus and/or an alternative? Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 359 Roger Pence: I have a brief questions about the difference between EV capable and EV ready. The cost difference, it jumps from $300.00 to $1,300.00 and I'm trying to get a grasp of what is involved in that because, based on my very limited understanding, EV capable, the conduit and the wire are in the wall or in the floor and to go from EV capable to EV ready means pulling that wire out and attaching a dryer socket onto the end of it and mounting that dryer socket on the place where it's accessible to EVs. Doesn't seem like a jump from 300 to 1,300. Doesn't seem like $1,000.00 worth of work to do that task. Eric Engmann: That's a great point. These are Denver's calculation numbers and if I were to guess what it was for was, that the wires aren't' necessarily going to run directly behind the space itself. Those rooms, especially for larger buildings, could be pretty far away from where the spaces end up, so it could be the wiring to get from Point A to Point B. Roger Pence: So, EV capable just means there's a conduit from a panel to somewhere in the parking garage? Eric Engmann: Basically. There's wiring somewhere behind the walls. Roger Pence: Okay. But not necessarily to each space. Eric Engmann: Right. Roger Pence: Thank you for that clarification. Mike Rosen: Recognizes Alicia Crank has question or a comment. Alicia Crank: I have a cost related question as well. I'm presuming that an EV capable could be upgraded to EV ready if somebody wanted to do that. So, would you happen to know if there's a certain cost associated with that upgrade. Do we have any idea what that would look like from a cost perspective? Eric Engmann: I don't. Generally the discussion goes from that's going from nothing to EV ready. I haven't seen good numbers on that. Alicia Crank: When I think about the breakdown best case scenario, people start moving to more EVs and we're trying to get rid of the traditional cars. So, if the situation was oh, my god. We need more of these, or we need to upgrade certain ones, what would that look like from a planning and cost perspective and trying to plot out for future, what those costs would potentially be. Eric Engmann: Agrees to take a look at the issue. Talks about the equity of having EV ready spaces so people won't have to rely on a property or apartment owner to decide to upgrade from EV capable to EV ready. Alicia Crank: And that's where I'm thinking too. But I was curious to know if you offhand had any idea. Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 360 7.1.b Mike Rosen: Thanks, Alicia. Recognizes Judi Gladstone. Judi Gladstone: I like the idea of there being 100 percent EV capable. And that's why when I asked about the stakeholders, I was wondering when they say they don't think they need it. Well, in what time period? And what's the life span of the buildings and given that we don't know how it's going to grow, I think that it would be better. But I still have in my mind here, does the capable make a difference if it's Level 1 or Level 2 or is capable just to cross the word? So, it's like you could have a certain percentage of whatever EV capable at 45 percent, could be Level 1. 1 don't know, I just don't know what those combinations could be. But I would lean more towards, have as much ready as possible for the future because we need to be planning here for well beyond 10 years. Mike Rosen: Suggests as a process, that the Board takes each of these columns one at a time. So, staff's proposal for EV ready, looking at the middle first. For EV ready in our discussion, we saw eye to eye. So, does anyone wanna push back on 40 percent for EV ready? Okay, so I think we've got closure on that one. Let's go to EV installed. The staff is actually more aggressive than us. So, does anybody wanna push back on that? Alicia Crank: I prefer staff's recommendation. Mike Rosen: Anybody wanna push back? Richard Kuehn: Agrees. Judi Gladstone: What's the difference in the overall cost between the 10 percent and five percent if you increase the EV capable? If you're doing 10 percent of the EV installed and 20 percent capable, you obviously have more of the EVs installed, which costs more. Drop that EV installed to five percent, and you increase the EV capable, then what happens to your total cost? Eric Engmann: Great question. So, we did the analysis based on staffs proposals, versus the overall proposal for the planning board's recommendation and discuss it in the supplemental narrative. But to begin with, if you start doing smaller developments, it ends up being that the staff proposal is cheaper. When you start talking about larger developments, 200 or 300 units, planning board's recommendation is cheaper. Planning Board's suggestion becomes cheaper because those EV installed are so much more expensive. Mike Rosen: So, Judi it looks like there was starting to build some consensus towards the 10 percent. Do you wanna push back on that at all? Judi Gladstone: Well, so only in that, how does that affect the EV capable and the 100 percent? So, looking at it separately is fine, but I need to understand it in terms of the overall picture. Because yeah, it would be great to have more EV installed. But the balance of trying to get more capability within a building, if you need to give somewhere in order to keep the cost manageable, where does that come from. Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 361 Mike Rosen: So, let's reserve our right to go back and revisit it after we talk about EV capable and then see if we have unintended consequence, how's that? So, now let's go to EV capable. Let's have the conversation in the context of the overall, because I think that forces that capable number. So, philosophically we say, we're gonna give you the ratios but we want it to add up to 100 percent, which means you can make it up at the capable, but you have to have it at 100 percent or are we more comfortable at the 70 percent? Richard Kuehn: I just personally think 70 is a little low. If we're looking at trying to plan out for like Judi said, whether it's 10 years out, right? To Eric's point, in smaller instances, in smaller projects, the staff's proposal of keeping the 10 percent EV installed versus five percent EV installed is gonna be cheaper. I'm much happier with that versus the 70 percent. Mike Rosen: So, thank you Richard. That impact and I should have said, I guess that is a third alternative is, we were at 100 percent in consensus at the last meeting. Eric, before we continue this conversation, I'd personally like to hear from you, what is your one, if not top three, biggest concerns with going to 100 percent? So, why is that a fatal flaw for you? Eric Engmann: I wouldn't wanna say that it's a fatal flaw. There are other codes that are 100 percent. I think there's probably three or four in the country, so it is not uncharted to go to 100 percent for multi -family. I think my main thing is thinking about logically, is there going to be a point where everyone goes EV? Or is there always going to be with an old classic muscle car or something that they just won't get rid of. Is it really worth it to make it 100 percent? Mike Rosen: Thanks for that. I guess in my simple mind, by saying capable, we aren't saying that all cars have to be electric. What we're saying is, any car in that space or that the building owner or manager could then convert it, but he doesn't have to convert it if there's no market need. If we're reserving the biggest hunk for only when it's needed. We're just saying you can if you need to. But that would be my counter to that. Richard Kuehn: I was going to make the exact same point that you just made. I think that having those capable at a higher percentage and getting us to the 100 or whatever that number is doesn't mean that just because it's capable doesn't mean that it's installed, right? If somebody has a diesel pickup that they're still utilizing because they can't get what they need in an EV vehicle at that time, whether it's four years down the road, seven years down the road, as for that unit, they can still utilize either that muscle car or that diesel pickup, whatever it might be. Mike Rosen: We now have the option of staff's recommendation, the 100 percent option, or something in the middle. So, after hearing Eric's concerns and sharing of what others in the country are doing, would somebody like to throw out a number and use that as our starting place? Judi Gladstone: I would throw out maybe 85 or 90 percent overall. And either reduce the overall capable or allow for some or all of it to be a lower level. Because I think that, and I don't know if you can mix and match, Eric. So, I may be totally out of line here. so, this is my lack of Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 10 Packet Pg. 362 knowledge showing through. But while yes, it takes longer to charge on the Level 1, at least one of the articles you provided I thought was very informative, in terms of how there is the potential use. That people tend to not drive far, top off. So, they may not need that much power. And if there are some EV installed places or, yeah. EV places installed that are higher power, then if they needed to, they could use those. I just think there's an overall picture here of use that's important to keep in mind. Mike Rosen: So, to try to understand that. So, are you suggesting that if they have X of Level 1 or X of Level 2, that that buys them a reduction in one of the other areas? Judi Gladstone: Or that it helps to meet the EV capable, if that saves money. Aren't they gonna need to know if the EV ready is supposed to be at Level 1 or Level 2? Eric Engmann: They will, the draft code requires it to be a Level 2 or Level 3 to count for these percentages. That's what most codes require. Richard Kuehn: I like the idea of being progressive in this whole idea. I understand what Eric said before. Is there gonna be fluid option in 10 years or X or whatever we're looking to plan for, right? I think we should always look out further than we think, right? And just because we're looking at again, overall, 100 percent doesn't mean that all the spaces are going to be installed at 100 percent. But I like having that number at least at 90 for me. That's my minimum, personally. Mike Rosen: At some point we won't need wires for electricity. Alicia, what number are you? Alicia Crank: I'm in line with Richard. Mike Rosen: You like the 100? Alicia Crank: Yeah. Mike Rosen: Roger? Roger Pence: Well, I think Judi said 85 to 90, that was taking words right out of my mouth. Mike Rosen: Well, I'm liking 90. Alicia Crank: Okay, we can just split the baby and say 90. Mike Rosen: All right. So, let's take a vote. So, all in favor of using 90 as our recommendation? (all raise hands) Anybody opposed? (none) So, we have a recommendation. So, how do I feel about that installed number, does that change my opinion. So, if we were gonna do 40 and 10, that gets us to 50 which would make capable 40. So, we good with that mix? So, it would be 40, 40, 10. Richard. Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 11 Packet Pg. 363 7.1.b Richard Kuehn: That's exactly what I was thinking when we were looking gat numbers. I mean, I think that's pretty clean. Mike Rosen: And not seeing any shaking heads from the members of the board. Eric, are you gonna lose sleep? Eric Engmann: No. Mike Rosen: All right. Let's move to No. 2 of 5. Eric Engmann: This is one where staff is a little bit stronger feelings about keeping the percentages closer to our recommendation. The highest standards in the country for non-residential are 50 percent overall capacity. So, if we think about where the country is now, the highest standards now are at 50 percent. We could go higher, but where do we draw that line? I think that's where we felt more comfortable with it, at that number. If we think about all the different uses that're non-residential, there's many, many different uses, like shopping centers or restaurants. Those will be top off fueling locations. There are some codes that have tiered standards, usually the smaller properties have lower standards versus larger properties. It's usually giving breaks to smaller properties, not make them have higher percentages, as Planning Board suggested. But then, on larger properties, does 100 percent make sense? We don't feel like it would. Mike Rosen: Thanks, Eric. Roger, it looks like you've got a comment or a question. Roger Pence: Yeah. I guess in my mind, I would make a distinction between office parks and similar places where people come and park all day. They are far more likely to plug in and charge up than somebody stopping at Ace Hardware for a package of LED bulbs, like I did the other day. I was in and out in 12,14 minutes. Had I been driving an electric vehicle; I would not have bothered plugging in for such a short time. And fast-food restaurants. What's the likelihood of plugging in for the time it takes to go in and buy your Big Mac and eat it on the bench? I don't know. If I'm missing something here, let me know. I don't drive an electric vehicle. I look forward to living long enough to do that. But I always assumed that I would be looking for the longer charge up points, i.e., home and parking for a long visit at Overlook Mall or a movie theater and not for the incidental stops that people make at many, if not most of our retail establishments. Mike Rosen: I had a comment and a question, then Judi. My comment on that Roger is, I think one of the concerns that Eric expressed in terms of doing it by tenant is, that tenants change. So, what might be an office building, might become a retail building, might become another use and you can't always count on what the building use is. Foreseeing a case on what it was may not necessarily apply to the future. The other argument I might make to the thought process and it's more just a test of the concept is, you have employees who are there for a long period of time. So, the client base might turn over, but the net number of people actually using the chargers might be the same based on that. So, I'm not sure if — Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 12 Packet Pg. 364 Roger Pence: Good point, good point. Mike Rosen: Judi? Judi Gladstone: Yeah. So, I support staff's proposal because I think especially with the recommendation for the multi -family to be at 90 percent and that, from what I've read, really is the primary place where people tend to charge. It just seems as though there should be emphasis on the dwelling units and not so much on the business units. So, I would support staff's proposal. Mike Rosen: So, using that as our starting place, let me as one question first before we go to that, and it would be the idea of splitting based on number of spaces. Asks for additional feedback. (Board agrees to the non-residential standard) Eric Engmann: Mentions non-residential businesses will be a good place for people to charge their EVs when there are no chargers where they live. Mike Rosen: I did hear of a study not too long ago that in retail establishments that did install chargers, that people in fact, as a result of that, specifically stayed and spent mor money. So, the retailers were in fact using it as a revenue generator. And because of the cost of EV cars, it was a very desirable market segment. Roger Pence: I was talking with the owner of a Tesla Model 3, and he lives here in Edmonds in a place with no charging at home. But his employer provides free electricity for charging at work. So, he's not paid a dime for power to run his car. So, yeah. I would think that a lot of employers may be offering things like that as an incentive or a benefit for their employees. Judi Gladstone: Yeah, to follow on that, it seems to be, or we don't know yet how the private sector is gonna jump into this market and that could really be a game changer. Eric Engmann: (Briefly highlights the accessible standards proposed) Mike Rosen: A question that popped into my head and there should be any math involved. But in terms of ADA requirements, spaces to total spaces. It would seem to me that a similar ratio would make sense. Whatever those numbers are. So, I like your thought about making a number and not a percentage. Suggests that our standards reflect a similar commitment, if that makes sense. Eric Engmann: It does make sense. Richard Kuehn: If you have X number of parking spots and Y number of parking spots needs to be ADA accessible. And then we're saying okay, well five to 25, you need to have one of those be EV accessible. That EV accessible does not take away from having an actual regular ADA accessible unit, correct? Eric Engmann: Correct, that's absolutely right. Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 13 Packet Pg. 365 7.1.b Mike Rosen: So, we aren't saying, of your 88 spaces, this is how many have to be electrified. You're saying you have to add spaces? Eric Engmann: No, let's say for instance it's 100 parking spaces. Under the Washington rules, let's just say it's about four ADA spaces, a certain percentage of those that were required to be accessible spaces, have power to them for this. Mike Rosen: So, that's different than what Richard just described because he was describing that we would require an additional space that would then have power. And what you're saying is, one of those spaces must have power. Richard Kuehn: That's what I'm saying is, we're taking away, with my understanding of what you just said, Eric is, we're taking away from one of those ADA spaces because ADA non-EV vehicle, we have a Toyota Sienna minivan, right? It's not a plug in EV vehicle, so we couldn't park in one of those EV ADA accessible spaces. That's why I was asking that question. So, the last thing I wanna do is take away a regular ADA space, because a lot of EV vehicles are not gonna be necessarily ADA ready. Or available. I mean, that's not always gonna be true. Eric Engmann: We will want to keep those spaces available. I would think we would keep those spaces available for ADA, whether they're charging or not. So, that it wouldn't be just restricted to ADA spaces that are charging. Mike Rosen: Does that have to be explicit? Because there isn't current protocols, right? So, cars that take less to charge don't get to cut in line for cars that take longer. There is no protocol like that. So, as long as it's protocol or kindness would say, use that space last. Judi Gladstone: Right. Eric Engmann: These ratios, this topic, is not something that's covered well in most codes. So, that topic you just brought up, Richard, is not something that's generally talked about. It's generally just percentage of spaces that need to be set aside for this. Judi Gladstone: So, I think part of my questions were answered, that these are in addition to, I'm not sure we know for sure, but they're in addition to the already ADA. But I wanted to go back to the proportion of ADA. So, if you have four EV installed requirements for ADA, how many other — what's the ratio that's required just for regular ADA for that same number of parking spaces? Eric Engmann: I'm pretty sure it's similar to the table above. For the next meeting, I'll have a little bit more topic on this. I'm hearing we need a little more information on this. Judi Gladstone: I think that would be helpful. Mike Rosen: So, Eric, the public hearing will be in front of us or council? Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 14 Packet Pg. 366 Eric Engmann: Here, in front of you all. Mike Rosen: So, another option that we would have as well is, because we're gonna then get another shot at this after the public hearing. So, what we could do is say, let's put it in like this for the purposes of the public hearing with an asterisk that we wanna revisit, reserve the right to change our minds afterwards based on Eric's study, as opposed to necessarily continuing to push this back. Would that be acceptable? Judi, would you be okay with that? I know you were looking for more clarity. Judi Gladstone: Yeah, being I don't really know how that process works. So, as long as it's really clear that we're still unsettled on it and looking for input on it, I think I would be comfortable with that. Mike Rosen: All right. So, I guess the request is that you do that research so we're comfortable with the ratios and the impact. Also, as your conversation with Richard was going, with one potential alternative to clarifying how that space can be used if it's not an electric, so we aren't taking away. Okay. Eric Engmann: The benefit is, we might be setting the tone for a lot of other cities on this issue Mike Rosen: And again, thank you very much for being bold and helping Edmonds go where everybody else who's done this should have gone before us. All right. So, now No. 4 of 5. Eric Engmann: This would allow the option of load management technology. It allows a builder to work with it, to see what works best for them, what works best for the power supply. And possibly finding efficiencies for this. Up to this current draft, it was silent on it. Whereas, what we've talked about is just having a simple statement saying it's a possibility to look at. And that's our current proposal Mike Rosen: Thanks. Does anybody have any pushback to his recommendation? (no comments) Sounds like you convinced us. So, we'll go with your recommendation. Eric Engmann: This results from a talk with people on the technical side from Snohomish County Power Utility District. What they're saying is that there could be some situations where the extra power draw could lead to a bigger power box on the property, essentially. And that could cost a lot of money. They're asking for an exception for us to look at each one of those cases and, if it looks like it's going to cost a lot of money for that extra increase in power on the property, that we could then lower some of the standards. I'm not a power person, so I don't quite get it 100 percent, as far as the technology behind it. But I know how we could craft it in the code. I always like to think about are scenarios. Let's say there's a new 100-unit project proposed on Highway 99. They've asked for a certain amount of power, they're ready to follow our recommendation s for our EV charging requirements. They go to Snohomish PUD, and they say oh, there's not enough power available to you on this property. Here's how much it's gonna cost you to upgrade and have enough power to your property. It Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 15 Packet Pg. 367 could be a seven -figure number. That's where they would like to have some exception that says, in those instances, when that happens, that we could reduce some of our thresholds that we just created to lower that impact. Mike Rosen: Let's talk about it conceptually first. Roger. Roger Pence: That seven figure cost that you mentioned, is that paid for by the developer or is that paid for by PUD? Eric Engmann: It's paid for by the developer. They have to pay for those upgrades. Roger Pence: Because I don't know power either, even though I grew up in a public power home. But it seems to me that PUD is in the business to supplying electric power to the customers who need it. And it's going to grow in that corridor over time anyway, regardless of how we tweak the code for EVs in the future. We're coming down, we're beginning to come down as a society on natural gas as a heating source. That means more electric power over time. It just grates on my sensibilities I guess to hear suggestions that PUD wants to dial back on the coming supply of power in a corridor where they ought to know, it's going to grow. Mike Rosen: I would echo Roger's concerns. I have a hard time, I have never heard a situation where they came to us and said yeah, we don't want Edmonds to allow anymore car dealerships because all that lighting is gonna, right? Cost too much to bring in a car dealer, or a bakery or a restaurant. There are lots of industries that suck a lot of power. And I guess, yeah. So, I'm having a real hard time understanding — go ahead. Eric Engmann: I think the difference is the increased impact. So, they have enough supply for what's there, but it's almost a concurrency use. You are now adding another 100 units to the grid that a developer is creating. Like with roads, they have certain capacities and if certain developments go beyond that, then they have to pay for what impacts they have on them. I think that's where it comes from. Judi Gladstone: As a utility person, now I'm not power but water and sewer. It's pretty standard in the utility world that the developers pay for improvements that are required above and beyond what is there, even on waterlines if the line has to be enlarged, it goes to the developer. And it's standard utility practice. I know it sounds really awful, but that being said, it sounds like this has to do with the specific development, not their overall infrastructure coming to that development, am I right? Eric Engmann: Right, it would be the power coming on to their property. Judi Gladstone: Now, I will say that I have heard of jurisdictions, cities, that on water and sewer side, I don't know about on the water side. That have provided some local subsidy where that occurs, as a way to incentivize it. So, that I do believe is probably an option on power, as it has been done with water, that I'm aware of. But it would be really unusual for the — because what you're doing then, is you're spreading the cost to all the other non -users if Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 16 Packet Pg. 368 7.1.b you have the public utility district pick up that cost. And they aren't supposed to be there now. Mike Rosen: Richard, Alicia. We haven't heard from either of you. Alicia Crank: I'm interested in the write up that Eric will do on this then give my opinion on it during public hearing. Richard Kuehn: I tend to agree with what Alicia said. I'd like to see a little more info. Mike Rosen: So, what would we put in front of people for the public hearing? Eric Engmann: If you'd like, I can put together one that includes the minimum threshold options. It's easier to put everything and then you can take away portions of it. My last question to them was, how would we know how much of the power is coming from the EV charging itself. Is it two percent, is it five percent? Is this what puts them over that threshold? Mike Rosen: That was a great question because if it was basically dirt to start with. Richard Kuehn: And that was my question too. If they're building a 100-unit, 200-unit place, how do we know that's not getting them over the threshold to where they need? I don't like the idea of a developer being able to skirt something they would have to be paying for anyways. Roger Pence: We need to know the increment for the EVs that puts them over the threshold that requires the more expensive box and that may be a very hard test to actually make in reality. Judi Gladstone: So, I feel like we need more information. Because I have some concerns that we start having an impact on affordable housing. And that's a real concern. So, if you have a potential building on Highway 99 that could produce some good multi -family affordable housing and it puts it into this million dollar change in power, is that enough to put it over the edge so it's oh, never mind. Mike Rosen: So, I guess so that Eric is — I'd like for everybody to have the information they need to make a decision. So, if you could be really specific, that this is an actionable question. Judi Gladstone: I think we need to have information that's more solid about what the potential cost is to the developer, first of all. I realize there could be a range and a range, but it may also have to do with the size of the building that I think is important. Second is, what minimum thresholds could there be and are there ways to mitigate that so that we're allowing other opportunities for similar housing going in. Those are the ones that come to my mind immediately. Alicia Crank: I would just say, I'm looking for if then for each of those options. Just to have more information going into the public hearing, also leaving room for those that might be at the public hearing to then add something additional to that. So, I just wanna make sure Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 17 Packet Pg. 369 that there's some tangible examples to be able to discuss and look at side to side, to prepare us to make final recommendations to council. Richard Kuehn: There's gonna be a lot of variables. I mean, I'm just thinking about this right now and the variable I'm writing down are the size of the project like we talked about. The effect of the size of the project, versus the effect of the EV part of the project, or what the code is saying. Alicia Crank: I was gonna say, we know we can't plot out every if then, but just ones that can be looked at side to side and give people an idea of what the other one's could potentially look like. Judi Gladstone: One other piece of information, if you can get it Eric from the PUD and that is, what planning are the PUDs doing in the areas where they're likely to have the development. Particular I'm thinking about Highway 99 where they've identified that as a problem. And as a result of redevelopment or are they already planning for the power supply that needs to be there? I personally need a little bit more from them about what it is that would be needed to understand that. Mike Rosen: So, Eric. Do you have any concerns over any of those specific requests? Eric Engmann: I think they all seem reasonable. Some might be a little bit harder to get than others, but I will try my best. Mike Rosen: And just looking for consensus that we are okay making that a part of the presentation for the hearing that we are not asking that to come back to us first. Is everyone good with that? Richard Kuehn: Yes. Mike Rosen: Great. All right, I think you got five out of five. Eric Engmann: I do. Thank you for the thoughts. Mike Rosen: . hanks very much, Eric. Well, done. So, we now move to the other unfinished business, which was furthering our discussion about outreach. So, at the last meeting we had a robust discussion from the first draft that was offered to the crown. And then I sent out through Rob and Eric a redraft which hopefully reflected everybody's comments. We have requested that any comments you have be sent in, that those did not get sent back out. I'm not sure Eric, did we not receive any written comments? Eric Engmann: I don't think I received them. So, I'm not sure about that. Mike Rosen: Did anybody send any in, because then I will apologize. All right. So then based on that, we'll just talk in real time. Hopefully you reviewed the draft, and I will now ask for concerns as to that, that you would like to see. If any. Planning Board Minutes August 25, 2021 Page 18 Packet Pg. 370 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom July 14, 2021 Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 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. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Chair Matt Cheung Nathan Monroe Roger Pence BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Alicia Crank, Vice Chair (excused) Todd Cloutier (excused) Judi Gladstone (excused) Richard Kuehn (excused) STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Eric Engmann, Planning Division Mike Rosen: Calls meeting to order and reads Land Acknowledgement for Indigenous Peoples. Asks Rob Chave for roll call. Rob Chave: Does roll call. Mike Rosen: States Judi Gladstone, Richard Kuehn, Alicia Crank, and Todd Cloutier have excused absences. Mike Rosen: Mentions two past meeting minutes to approve. Starts with June 9. Asks for changes or Packet Pg. 371 Eric Engmann: Mentions that was it. Mike Rosen: Asks if there is anything else to add or change. States that he thinks the Board is looking for a motion to send to Council. Nathan Monroe: Confirms that the update includes the electrical outlet distance component and removing the senior living exception. Mike Rosen: Agrees and mentions the two additions by staff. Nathan Moves that this, with those modifications, be sent to Council. Monroe: Matt Seconds. Cheung: Mike Asks for any discussion. Asks for all those in favor say aye. Rosen: Group: Aye. Mike Rosen: Asks if anybody is opposed. States that hearing none, the motion passes unanimously. Eric Engmann: Introduces continuation of EV charging infrastructure potential code amendment. States it will be focused on the changes from the last draft which are • The mix of EV charging standards in the table. • The applicability standard. Also mentions that there are a few changes to the draft since the last meeting. They are: • Included Level 3 charging into the definition for EV capable and EV ready- for the sake of flexibility • Updated the 50% rule language- now uses substantial damage and substantial improvement in the definitions • Clarifies parking restrictions will only apply to EV Installed spaces • Minor clarifications and corrections States one of the big topics from the last meeting had to do with the mix of standards that were proposed. Highlights (and reads slides) of the pros and cons for each of the EV staging types (EV Capable, EV Ready, EV Installed. Highlights the specific proposal. Mentions Board seemed comfortable with single family proposal, which also includes multifamily with individual garages. Discusses multiple dwelling unit (Multifamily) proposal. 20% EV capable, 40% EV ready, Planning Board Minutes July 14, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 372 and 10% EV installed. Discusses nonresidential proposal. 20% EV capable, 20% EV ready, and 10% EV installed. Mentions, for multifamily, basically, 70% of the spaces would have to have some level of capability and then, for nonresidential, it would be 50%. Mentions that the list of many different standards was shown. Mentions that, at the last meeting, the Board was talking about 100% and if 100% (total requirement) is appropriate. Discusses comparisons between Denver, San Jose and staff's proposals. Mentions that requiring more EV ready would allow a building to transition easier to EV installed at a later date. Highlights that Denver and San Jose have a higher overall standard, 100%, but staffs proposal would require a higher percentage of EV ready and EV installed spaces. Mentions this would have a higher upfront cost but would be cheaper than later retrofits. Mentions staff feels that the multifamily proposal from the last meeting is still appropriate. For non-residential, staff shows the comparisons for the same cities (Denver and San Jose). Mentions that they have much less EV ready requirements. Mentions staff took a look at this again and changed their recommendation from the last meeting. It would now require 40% EV capable and 10% installed. Stated that EV ready may be difficult to accommodate in a nonresidential parking lot. Mentions the updates to the 50% rule that was also discussed in the bike parking public hearing. States that for existing buildings, substantial damage and substantial improvement would apply. Also states that this standard would apply if it occurs within a one-year period and it's determined by the building official. Mentions the 50% requirement would be pretty sizable and gives examples. Also mentions that it would be very difficult for EV upgrades to be made at the time of electrical permits. States that the electrical permits are contracted outside of the city. States that there still might be wall work to run wires through the ceiling or floors. States that this was a great idea but staff is not recommending making that change. States that staff would like to hear more about the Board's thoughts on the multifamily standards, the nonresidential standards, and those applicability standards. Mike Rosen: States that the Board should take these issues one at a time and opens discussion Eric Engmann: Reiterates the proposed multifamily standards but acknowledges that there are different options. Mike Rosen: States that staff mentioned many buildings in Edmonds are smaller but mentions the Apollo Project, which is 251 units. Asks if the proposal means 175 out of the 251 spaces would need some level of EV infrastructure. Eric Engmann: Affirms Mike Rosen: Asks the other Board members about their thoughts. Planning Board Minutes July 14, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 373 Matt Cheung: Asks to look at the multifamily presentation slide of other cities. States that San Jose has 10% installed but the others are 5% or below. Eric Engmann: States that these are just a few of the cities, but agrees that those are the ones listed on the slide. Matt Cheung: States that EV ready should be sufficient for most people, especially residential when charging overnight. States that it seems like EV installed for residential isn't as important compared to commercial where maybe EV installed is more important. Also says for non- residential, it seems like EVC installed is more important that EV ready. Mike Rosen: Asks to take the issue in order. Asks Matt Cheung Cheung if the would like the board to consider as alternatives to the current proposal. Matt Cheung: States he would probably say EV installed at 5% and then, EV ready, feels 40% is pretty high. Mentions the current proposal has one of the highest EV installed and EV ready percentages. States that if Edmonds wants to stand out, then the EV ready percentages make sense. Mike Rosen: Asks Matt Cheung what numbers is he recommending, 20/40/5. Matt Cheung: States he doesn't have much opinion on EV capable but that number could go up. States that the EV ready numbers proposed are higher than other cities. Summarizes that he would probabably just lean on dropping the 10% to 5% on the EV installed and keep the other ones the same or increasing EV capable. Mike Rosen: Asks for other Board members feelings about changing the EV installed percentages. Nathan Monroe: Asks to confirm multiple development means multifamily. Eric Engmann: Confirms, states this is how it is defined in the code. Nathan Monroe: States that he doesn't see why we should build any parking space that doesn't have at least EV capable. States he is in favor of bringing the EV capable up enough to sum it out to 100% and there is no situation in the future by which electric vehicles don't have a role to play. Mike Rosen: Restates this to mean 55% EV capable, 45% EV ready, and 5% EV installed to get to 100%. Nathan Monroe: States that he'd prefer higher percentages on the higher end, but he'll accept it. Mike Rosen: Asks for Roger Pence's opinion. Roger Pence: Asks about the EV capable pros and cons from the presentation. States he doesn't think EV capable will require invasive work. States that it will only require cutting a hole in the Planning Board Minutes July 14, 2021 Page 10 Packet Pg. 374 7.1.b wall and put a box on it. Asks for clarification. Eric Engmann: States that is his personal summary of it and mentions the raceway wiring could be further away from the wall to get to the outlet. Roger Pence: States that he envisions EV capable meaning that there's wire in the wall that goes to the individual parking spot and then, dead ends in a box on the wall with a blank cover on it. And then, to upgrade that to EV ready, an electrician comes out, unscrews the blank, puts in a socket. States he thinks we should define EV capable as meaning the wire goes to the parking spots and then, blanks off. Eric Engmann: Mentions that he is worried about creating a definition that is unique to Edmonds for this type of technology. States that the definition is set up in state law and international building code. Rob Chave: States that the City would want to use industry standards as much as possible. Nathan Monroe: Asks for clarification about the EV capable definition. Eric Engmann: States that the definitions does not define where the wiring stops but that it does require raceway wiring. Nathan Monroe: States that they're not going to run a 5-foot wire out of the panel and stop. They're going to take to about where they think it should go and it doesn't cost any more money. States that he doesn't think it's invasive to go from EV capable to EV ready. Mike Rosen: Asks if Roger Pence wants to discuss this further. Roger Pence: Sates that he made his point and happy to let it go at that. Mike Rosen: States there are two parts of the discussion, but unsure if they are reliant on the other. Nathan Monroe recommends going to 100% for total percentage. Asks Matt Cheung for his thoughts. Matt Cheung: States that he likes this in principle. Provides a scenarios and states that doesn't know if 100% is realistic. Also asks if the EV installed infrastructure would only work for one space. Eric Engmann: States that there are multiple options available, they also work for two spaces. Matt Cheung: Asks if the max would be two spaces, could there be one serving four spaces. Eric Engmann: States that he hasn't seen one like that, but that technology could change. Matt Cheung: Asks about the cost of EV installed. Eric Engmann: States that staffs analysis showed it would be about $4,300. Planning Board Minutes July 14, 2021 Page 11 Packet Pg. 375 Matt Cheung: States that he feels having an outlet (EV ready) should suffice. States that he is converned about EV installed in multifamily and likes EV ready. Mike Rosen: Asks to take the issues one at a time. Checks to see if 100% for multifamily is appropriate and states that Matt Cheung Cheung's pushback is that it might not be possible and that an alternative would be to go to a lower number. Nathan Monroe: States that he has built some parking garages and that it is possible. States that you could run conduit anywhere and that it isn't that expensive. Mike Rosen: States that he hears the majority consensus is to change the overall multifamily number to 100%. Asks for the Board to raise their hand to confirm. (Mike Rosen and Nathan Monroe raise their hands). States that they are split. Roger Pence: States that he is split too. Nathan Monroe: Mentions he'll bring it up again at the next meeting and it can be discussed in a bigger group. Mike Rosen: Asks Eric Engmann to reflect this as an option. Eric Engmann: Confirms. Mike Rosen: Mentions that the second point is the one raised by Matt Cheung. That he would prefer the EV installed percentage reduced to 5%. States that Nathan Monroe would like to see it kept at 10% and asks Roger Pence Pence's opinion. Roger Pence: States that he would like to hear from developers, contractors, and people that build this stuff. States that he would like to invite one or more to the public hearing to have some input from people with real world working knowledge of the subject. Mike Rosen: Asks Eric Engmann to make this 5% EV installed proposal a discussion item. Asks if he could reach out to people in the industry and ask them to participate; if nothing else, report on what they said. Roger Pence: States that he feels he needs more information. Mike Rosen: Asks Eric Engmann if there is more information needed. Eric Engmann: Thanks the Board and asks how the Board felt about amending the nonresidential standards to 40% EV capable and 10% EV installed. Planning Board Minutes July 14, 2021 Page 12 Packet Pg. 376 7.1.b Mike Rosen: Asks if Matt Cheung would like to finish his thought on this subject. Matt Cheung: Discusses it out loud then states the more EV capable makes sense. States that it may allow the spaces to go directly from EV capable to EV installed and thinks that commercial units may not want the exposed outlets in EV ready. Thinks that the EV capable number could be higher. Mike Rosen: Summarizes that Matt Cheung would like the EV capable number to be higher. Matt Cheung: States that if there was one to change, he would probably increase capable. Mike Rosen: Asks if anyone else has a preference. Nathan Monroe: States that he would like it to be 100% and once you build it, you don't unbuild it. States that it would be such a small amount of money to spend now to future proof everything down the road. Doesn't see why you wouldn't at least put the conduit in the ground and pull the wire and get it ready for eventual use. Mike Rosen: Asks about a scenario: if a Home Depot goes up, would we want wire underneath all of the spaces? Nathan Monroe: Reiterates that it is better to have the ability to wire every space without having to tear up the parking lot. Mike Rosen: Asks if the rest of the Board feels the number should add up to 100 percent, mostly from EV capable. Matt Cheung: States he doesn't feel it has to be set at 100% and discusses a hesitancy with requiring every spot to have EV charging infrastructure. Mentions it may be nice to hear from others in the industry. Mike Rosen: Summarizes Matt Cheung's discussion and that he would like to hear from the industry. Asks Eric Engmann to reach out to people in the industry for guidance and encourage people to talk with the Board. Asks Matt Cheung if he would like to pencil in 100 percent for now. Matt Cheung: Agrees. Mike Rosen: Asks Nathan Monroe for clarification on the term wire or conduit, whether that should be called out. Nathan Monroe: States that builders will put conduit in surface parking lots. Surmises that it would be up to the Building Official. Asks if Eric Engmann has a feeling on this. Eric Engmann: Pulls up the definition in the draft. Mentions the definition is fairly broad. Planning Board Minutes July 14, 2021 Page 13 Packet Pg. 377 7.1.b Nathan Monroe: States caution with the comments from developers. Mentions they would probably not want to do it. Asks to be clear what the Board is asking. Would like to ask them about the costs of installing it now verses the later cost. Eric Engmann: Refers back to the EV capacity question, states that it talks about the capacity and conduit, raceway, and breaker space. Reiterates that the language is rather broad. Mike Rosen: States that the Board has a tentative recommendation for staff. Eric Engmann: States that previous discussion also covered separating different nonresidential categories. Mentions staff felt it would be better to keep the category broader and that most other codes also merge non-residential into one category. Mike Rosen: Asks if the Board has any push back to staff's recommendation. Nathan Monroe: Asks if the other cities previously discussed, San Jose and Denver, make a qualification for mega shopping centers. Agrees that it could be difficult for them to meet higher standards. Eric Engmann: States that larger development is why the percentages are lower. States that he doesn't think any non-residential standards exceeded 50% for total EV charging infrastructure. Nathan Monroe: Mentions he was considering office space with 15 or 20 parking spaces. States that a different number for big commercial spaces may be needed. Eric Engmann: Asked if the Board would like to see options for different non-residential sizes. Nathan Monroe: Agrees. Mike Rosen: Asks if the Board would like to have further discussions on this during the hearing meeting. Rob Chave: States that staff usually puts the options out there, advertise, and let people come and give feedback. Mentions that the Board can't insist that people come ahead of time. Mike Rosen: Summarizes that Rob Chave's recommendation would be to move forward, book the hearing, and have the things discussed tonight as options. Rob Chave: Agrees and mentions the hearing won't happen for another month. Mike Rosen: Agrees. Rob Chave: Mentions staff is already reaching outto people in the development community, including the Master Builders, to make them away of what the city is considering. States that if they are concerned, they will show up. Planning Board Minutes July 14, 2021 Page 14 Packet Pg. 378 Mike Rosen: Eric Asks Eric Engmann if there is anything else he would like the Board to consider. Engmann: Mike Asks if the Board is comfortable with the updates to the applicability 50% rule. Rosen: Eric Checks with the Board and mentions that everyone is good with those standards. Engmann: Thanks the Board and mentions that the next meeting will focus on the standards and what the appropriate numbers should be. Mike Rosen: States that there is no new business and that the Board will discuss the extended c as agenda. Talks about upcoming vacations of the Board members. Asks Rob Chave if he E will miss the July 28th and August 11th meetings. E Rob Chave: Mike States he will be gone for the August 25th meeting. 0 Rosen: Roger Mentions Roger Pence will miss the September 8th meeting. U 0 c Pence: Mike States he could be available by Zoom. U Rosen: Nathan Asks if the Board wants to take one of those meetings off. w Monroe: Rob States he's not sure how good they're going to do without Rob Chave here. Chave: Mike States Eric Engmann will do fine. Rosen: Nathan Asks the Board if there is any feeling about taking a meeting off or keep going. Monroe: States that he thinks the Board has a lot on their plate and doesn't want to lose rhythm. Mentions missed meetings may throw things off but that he could also appreciate a summer break. Mike Rosen: States that he is good moving forward and asks Roger Pence if he is too. Roger Pence: Agrees. Mike Rosen: Matt Asks Matt Cheung his opinion. Cheung: Mike States he can go either way. Rosen: Rob States that, unless Rob Chave has any concerns, that the Board would just keep going Chave: States that there may be a time going forward where staff isn't ready to present and that may be the time to take the meeting off. Mike Rosen: Agrees and discusses the extended agenda. Asks if there are any concerns. Planning Board Minutes July 14, 2021 Page 15 Packet Pg. 379 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom June 23, 2021 Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 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. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Chair Matt Cheung Todd Cloutier Judi Gladstone Richard Kuehn Roger Pence BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Alicia Crank, Vice Chair (Excused) Nathan Monroe (Unexcused) Mike Rosen: Calls meeting to order. STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Kernen Lien, Planning Division Eric Engmann, Planning Division Richard Kuehn: Reads Land Acknowledgement for Indigenous Peoples Rob Chave: Mike Calls roll. (Planning Board responds) Rosen: Mentions Alicia Crank has an excused absence and unless Nathan Monroe joins, it will be an unexcused absence. Packet Pg. 380 Mike Rosen: Suggests removal of those 15% of the sample size. Strongly suggests emphasizing wellbeing of future generations which, from experience, has always tested number one. Asks if staff provided the list of choices for level of support. Kernen Lien: Confirms that the list of choices is made up of those that the city is tracking. Mike Rosen: Supports and talks about the benefits of telecommuting as an option. Also suggests going directly to employers to provide bus passes or transit passes for employees as incentives. Provides examples and talks about providing incentives to make these actions easy and accessible to people. Thinks of (the solutions) through the filters of behavior and equipment and also likelihood. Would add a filter for likelihood. Kernen Lien: Talks about incentives and discusses the increase in solar installation after incentives were announced. Saw this as an example of incentives working well. Mike Rosen: States that incentives are also a good opportunity for public/private partnerships. Mentions electric mowers as an example. States that government incentives and private incentives could be in place to benefit everybody. Asks if there are any other questions. Thanks Kernen Lien for his time. Mike Rosen: Introduces Eric Engmann to talk about EV charging infrastructure. Eric Engmann: Mentions that this code amendment transitions well from the climate action plan topic. Mentions that the articles and studies in the packet are great sources for information about EV charging infrastructure and how to regulate it in City code. Recaps the last presentation • EV charging infrastructure supports sustainability goals • Demand is growing and manufacturers are switching to EV • Cheaper to install in new development instead of costly retrofits • Three staging levels: EV capable, EV ready, and EV installed • Three charging levels: Level I, Level II (typical for residential), and Level III (rapid charging) • Land uses needed: single-family, multifamily, and non-residential Recaps Planning Board comments at last meeting • Discuss cost implications • Equity considerations • Ease in technology usage • Allowing flexible standards • Future technology considerations • Connections to larger environmental impacts Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 381 7.1.b Highlights the components of the proposed amendment. Would entail a new chapter in Title 17 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Discusses definitions and the charging levels allowed under each stage type. States that the charging levels will be allowed in all zoning districts and that, based on PB comments, battery exchange stations will be treated as an automotive service station and allowed where they are permitted. Discusses the applicability standards for EV charging infrastructure. States that it would be required as part of new development, additions to existing buildings over 50% improvement, or 50% increase in parking capacity to a building. Highlights the differences between the proposed 50% rule verses the existing non- conformity standards for existing buildings. States that staff recommends using the 50% rule as a simpler and more effective way to ensure existing buildings meet these standards during major renovations or expansion. Provides examples about the differences between the two standards. Introduces the specific standards and how they work. Indicates that multiple dwelling units (multifamily) with individual garages would follow the single-family standards. The standards for multifamily and non-residential development would be based on a percentage of the overall parking provided. Provides a comparative chart for standards in other cities. Talks about some of the differences. Discusses and notes the differences between the recent State Legislative Requirements enacted in 2019 and 2021. Also discusses the standards for accessible EV spaces and highlights from other sections of the code. Runs through cost analysis to evaluate the financial impact for implementing these proposed amendments based on analysis done for the City of Denver. Shows costs evaluations for different sized multifamily and non-residential development. Mentions the key decisions that will need to be made: • Charging level definitions • Permitted locations • Applicability (non -conforming criteria) • Specific standards for Edmonds • Review of the other components Completes the presentation and asks for Board questions. Mike Rosen: Opens up questions to the Board. Recognizes Roger Pence. Roger Pence: States that there is a difference between employment centers and short-term parking, like a grocery store. States that people might not plug in for short periods of time. Asks for staff's reaction. Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 382 Eric Engmann: Mentions most cities have one standard for nonresidential uses but not all. Agrees that office uses may need more EV charging but does not want to go too low for other non- residential uses. Refers to the need for top -off locations and that demand may change very soon and increase for other non-residential uses. Mentions Edmonds doesn't have too many large buildings so the proposed requirements would, in many cases, only require a few EV installed spaces. Roger Pence: Also suggests that it may be better to have these standards address employee parking first and others later. Judi Gladstone: Likes Roger Pence's point. Asks if the code requirements could be based on number of workers rather than parking spaces. Eric Engmann: States it will need to be based on something more specific. Provides an example of the difference in the number of employees that two businesses of the same use can have. States that these standards are typically done by square footage or number of parking spaces. Judi Gladstone: Asks to confirm if the standards can differentiate between different non-residential use types, like retail vs. office. Eric Engmann: Confirms this is possible. Rob Chave: States it would be extremely difficult to vary according to retail vs. office. Says there can be different types of non-residential uses moving in and out of a space. Judi Gladstone: Asks about the table provided for the cost analysis. Asks if there is alternative analysis, other than the one being presented. Eric Engmann: States that staff reviewed many other options and standards. Selected standards that staff felt would be appropriate in Edmonds. Mentions it would be difficult to conduct analysis for several different alternatives. Staff relies heavily on analysis conducted in larger cities as part of their adoption process. Mike Rosen: Recognizes Matt Cheung. Matt Cheung: Asks if a non -electric vehicle can park in an EV spot or if it would be ticketed or towed Eric Engmann: States the EV installed spaces would be restricted to EV cars. Matt Cheung: Asks if the code is written so tickets will be issued or if it is a business's choice. Eric Engmann: Provides an example of EV parking in a residential building. The signs will say the spaces are only for EV parking but the enforcement will most likely rely on the building owners. Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 383 Matt Cheung: Mentions that the city can ticket in an ADA space regardless of whether the business enforces it. Asks if the city code has these restrictions for EV spaces. Eric Engmann: States that the draft EV charging infrastructure code relies on state code for this. It requires specific signage that restricts the EV spaces. Unsure of implications beyond that. Matt Cheung: Asks if parking in an EV space without vehicle charging is a ticketable offense. Eric Engmann: Unsure, but believes this is the case. Mike Rosen: Asks about the term for new buildings on Packet Page 47. States that using the term new building sounds very vague. Eric Engmann: Asks for clarification on the section. States that staff will look at this again. States that simplicity is important in code writing, but it also needs to be understandable. Mike Rosen: States that a shed could be a new building and provides another example. Eric Engmann: Agrees that staff will look at the language. Mike Rosen: Asks about the equity and burden between smaller and larger units. Eric Engmann: Notes that duplexes or others with individual garages would follow the single-family standards so this should account for many small developments. Mentions that there are other codes with multiple tiers for standards, and staff can look at that. Mike Rosen: Asks other Board members if they are struggling with the concept of retrofits. Talks about retrofits, potentially, being driven by market demand and sees them differently. Judi Gladstone: Mentions a recent upgrade to electrical as part of a kitchen remodel. States that it makes sense for EV capable at the same time as the electrical box upgrades. Finds that it is a lot of extra cost if the improvements have nothing to do with the electrical. States the added cost could prevent somebody from retrofitting their house, possibly for someone to age in place or create multigenerational living. Rob Chave: Talks about the high levels of retrofit, 50% or 75%. Mentions they are big projects not simple additions. Richard Kuehn: Mentions these higher retrofit standards are not going to be all encompassing. Is also thinking about scenarios such as aging in place or a younger family. States that the 50% number might be appropriate. Mike Rosen: Concerned with imposing those standards on current homeowners. Wonders if it should be left to market demand. Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 9 Packet Pg. 384 Judi Gladstone: Wonders if the upgrades should be done based on the right opportunity, like a kitchen remodel, and it would be a shame to miss it. Asks if an electrical permit is required to update the electric box. Rob Chave: States that the city contracts out its electrical permitting in the city so it would be difficult to implement. Eric Engmann: Talked with the Building Official about the types of retrofits that would warrant 50% improvements. Mentioned that it would take substantial work to meet this applicability requirement and a major improvement might be a good time to install it. Mentions that since Edmonds is mostly built out, retrofitting will be extremely important. Things like complete renovations or "gutting" of houses would be a good time to require these improvements so they will be available for the next owner. Reminds the Board that a major barrier to EV adoption is charging availability. Roger Pence: Asks if the 50% threshold is necessary if an electrical permit is pulled. States that it could be an add on to a project. Matt Cheung: Agrees that it seems like it should be market driven and not burden the current property owner. But asks if it is safe to assume that anyone reaching 50% is making significant improvements. Asks if the 50% improvements would have to be done at one time to count. Eric Engmann: States that adding a timeframe will be in the next version of the code draft, most likely a one-year period. Provides an example that in a 1 million dollar home, there would need to be $500,000 worth of improvements to qualify as a retrofit. Matt Cheung: Mentions that kitchen improvements won't likely cost 50% of the house value. 50% would need to be several renovation projects or involve flipping a house. Eric Engmann: States there could be many scenarios, but it would probably be more than a kitchen renovation. Matt Cheung: Asks if the permits would all be combined. Eric Engmann: States that permits are typically applied for close together, but it depends on the situation. Judi Gladstone: States that 50% doesn't appear to be that much renovation. Reiterates that with many improvements, older electrical boxes need to be replaced. Wonders how much will be caught with the 50% or 75% current definition. Asks if it would be more effective if tied to electrical permits. Rob Chave: States that staff will need to talk with the Building Official since electrical code is not part of city code, but done through the state. Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 10 Packet Pg. 385 Judi Gladstone: Agrees and states that it seems like the city is relinquishing a really important piece of the construction. Mike Rosen: Recognized Richard Kuehn. Richard Kuehn: Agrees with Judi Gladstone about lost opportunity. Talks about how the key objective of this amendment is to help achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. Talks about different scenarios for improvements but asks Board to think back to the objective at hand. Mike Rosen: Mentions Linda has comments in the Q&A. Asks Eric to discuss the staff's questions for the Board. Eric Engmann: States that he hears a few main components that need to be readdressed at the next meeting. Some of the other issues don't seem to be as controversial. Asks if there are any issues with the specific charging levels listed in the EV capable, EV ready, and EV installed definitions. States that they are pretty typical from other cities. Mike Rosen: Asks if any Board members take exception to this or move on. Eric Engmann: Asks if there is any issue allowing all charging levels (Levels I, II, or III) to be allowed citywide. Also mentions that battery exchange stations would be considered an automotive repair use and allowed where they are allowed. Mike Rosen: Asks if battery exchange stations should be allowed at auto dealers. Rob Chave: States that this is a good idea for staff to review. Judi Gladstone: Agrees that planning for battery exchange stations is a good idea for the purposes of flexibility and future trends. Eric Engmann: Asks if there is anything else with the specific standards, besides more about separating non-residential uses, that the Board wants to see at the next meeting. Judi Gladstone: Talks about the comparison with the Denver scenarios, which has 80% EV capable, and believes it would be cheaper. Would like to know more about the difference between EV ready vs. EV capable, including the costs. States that aiming for 100% total EV infrastructure down the road might be more efficient. Eric Engmann: Mentions that EV ready still lets vehicles charge from a portable charger so it gives more flexibility. Agrees that there is a trade off with cost and will provide more information at the next meeting. Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 11 Packet Pg. 386 Rob Chave: States that part of the concern is ownership, especially for multifamily buildings. Would be hard for a tenant to get a building owner to make that investment of an upgrade from EV capable to EV ready. Judi Gladstone: Asks for clarification, that EV capable does not have an outlet. Eric Engmann: Confirms that EV capable only has the behind the wall wiring, no outlet. Rob Chave: Mentions many EVs have portable charging devices that can work with EV ready. EV capable still needs significant steps to charge vehicles. Eric Engmann: States that many cities require 10% of EV spaces to be accessible spaces. Staff may need to create more scenarios to determine the best percentage. Mentions that the draft code language and terminology is similar to the surrounding cities. Much of the language comes from best practices and other codes. Mike Rosen: Thanks staff. Asks if it makes sense for this item to come back one more time before scheduling a public hearing. Roger Pence: Agrees. Mike Rosen: Asks if staff has any issue with presenting this one more time before a public hearing. Rob Chave: Agrees to this. Mike Rosen: Introduces the bicycle parking code amendment. Eric Engmann: States that staff will be discussing the goals of this amendment and look at the proposed draft. States the closest goal is in the Climate Action Plan, Transportation Goal 3. Which seeks to reduce vehicle miles traveled by promoting active transportation. Having access to bicycles, places to park them, places to use them, sidewalks, all of this is part of this metric. Discusses the difference between short-term and long-term bicycle parking standards. Difference is based on how long they function for and (usually) where they are located. Short-term parking is typically for short trips, located at the front of a building, and is intended for parking less than 4 hours. This is the typical bike parking standard found in most zoning codes. States that long-term parking is important for biking as an alternative form of transportation. It occurs for parking of more than 4 hours and is typically located in a secure location within a building. This standard is seen more often in multifamily residential developments. Employees riding bikes to work also rely on this option. Planning Board Minutes June 23, 2021 Page 12 Packet Pg. 387 CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom June 9, 2021 Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 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. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Chair Alicia Crank, Vice Chair Matt Cheung Todd Cloutier Judi Gladstone Richard Kuen Nathan Monroe Roger Pence BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Eric Engmann, Planning Division Mike Rosen: Discusses the meeting's agenda. Rob Chave: States Natalie Seitz is in the audience for public comment. Natalie Seitz: Discusses city's intent to regulate the maintenance of trees on private property. Addresses some of the statements the Council made during the Stage 2 Tree Issues discussion on June 1't, and the memorandum/information developed by the city in support of the Stage 3 Issues discussion. Encourages Planning Board to review comments made at the City Council meetings. Packet Pg. 388 House Bills 1236 and 1277 apply to tenant situations and protects people who are renting. House Bill 1287 is about zero emission vehicles and sets goals for having all new vehicles be electric vehicles (EV) by 2030. Also provides for the Building Code Council to increase their rules about providing EV charging stations. Senate Bill 5022 limits plastic bags and non-compostable containers from restaurants. Senate Bill 5126 addresses ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It includes a cap and invest program and provides for ways that incentivize the reduction fossil fuels. Senate Bill 5235 addresses emergency shelters and housing. Prevents local governments from regulating the number of unrelated persons that could occupy a household. Senate Bill 5253 establishes new programs for ensuring the health of bees and other pollinators and is an educational program. Senate Bill 5287 deals with the multi -family tax incentive program and allows additional years to use it. As a summary there was little change with growth management bills, modest changes Roger Pence: to housing laws, and climate bills are gaining momentum. Shane Hope: Asked for a copy of the presentation. Nathan Monroe: Agrees to send presentation. Thanks Shane for 10+ years of service then asked about Tax Increment Financing and whether the funds would be restricted within certain areas. Shane Hope: Confirms it would be limited to specific areas. Mike Rosen: States there are no public hearings and introduces the Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure item. Rob Chave: Introduces Eric Engmann as the new planner working on code updates. Eric Engmann: Introduces himself and provides background experience in planning and code drafting. Introduces the Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure topic. States that the meeting will be an introductory look into the components needed for the code and to connect this initiative to the City's larger sustainability efforts. Planning Board Minutes June 9, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 389 Discusses the connections between this code amendment and specific Comprehensive Plan, Climate Action Plan, and New Energy Cities Action Plan goals. Most notably the goal for the city to be carbon neutral by 2050. Talks about the sources for greenhouse gases within the City of Edmonds and identified the transportation section as the largest single localized contributor. Talks about the connection between reduced greenhouse gases produced by EVs and the City's future EV goals. He then talks about how vehicle manufacturers are producing more electric vehicle models and mentions the years that many will start producing only electric vehicles. Talks about the fear of not being able to charge vehicles as a key factor limiting EV adoption and indicates 80% of EVs are charged at home or at work. Also, mentions that it is much cheaper to install EV charging infrastructure in new development rather than in retrofits. Provides examples. Discusses key elements needed for the code amendment. The first one is the charging level, how much power goes into this infrastructure. Then the stages or types of infrastructure. Finally, how different uses will have different EV charging infrastructure needs. Talks about the difference between the EV stages: EV capable, EV ready and EV installed. • EV Capable means that the electric panel has the capacity to handle the charging voltage needed and has the initial wiring. Mentions EV Capable does not allow for current EV charging, but means it will be ready for future use. • EV Ready has the panel capacity, the conduit lines, and a plug in the wall. The circuitry is in place to physically charge the car with a portable charger. • EV Installed has the panels in place, conduit lines, circuit lines, and the specialized equipment geared specifically for electric vehicles. It deals with the voltage and shut- off times. It is considered the full, complete package for charging infrastructure. Then talks about the charging levels: Level I, Level II and Level III or fast chargers. • Level I is a 120-volt circuit, similar to what is seen on a typical household outlet. Can charge an EV but takes a long time, average charging time can be from eight to 20 hours. • Level II is the most common charging level, especially for residential use. It runs on a 240-volt circuit which is similar to an oven or dryer outlet. It can fully charge an EV battery in four to eight hours. • Level III, also known as rapid charging, has a 480-volt circuit. This is considered too much for current home usage. It can fully charge an EV battery in 20 to 60 minutes. They are typically found at large commercial sites, electric vehicle dealerships, and along major highways. Mentions the need to separate uses into three categories: single-family, multi -family, and nonresidential uses. Also mentions staff has done a lot of research on other cities and Planning Board Minutes June 9, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 390 explains how the standards vary. Reiterates the specific items that will be discussed at the next meeting including a draft code amendment and development scenarios. Mike Rosen: Thanks Eric and asked for Planning Board questions Roger Pence: Mentions load management and if that is applicable here. Eric Engmann: Is unsure of the implications. Roger Pence: Asks how people will be charged for the electricity used in multifamily buildings. Eric Engmann: Mentions several options, specifically credit card readers on EV installed infrastructure. Alicia Crank: Asks about the types of costs based on the charging level and whether a consumer should have a preference. Eric Engmann: Mentions the major cost difference are between the stages themselves e.g. ready vs. capable. The cost of the electricity should be relatively similar amongst charging levels. Alicia Crank: Talks about the importance in charging levels across the city. Asks if the ones downtown are Level III. Eric Engmann: Unsure of downtown but mentions that most are Level II. Rob Chave: Believes city -sponsored ones are Level II. Nathan Monroe: Asks for staff to keep some flexibility in the code because technology is still advancing. Mentions that, since Edmonds is mostly built out, retrofitting standards will be important as part of remodel work. Asks for staff to consider how this ordinance will apply to retrofits. Matt Cheung: Asks how much it generally costs to charge an EV battery. Eric Engmann: States that it generally takes about $4.00 to fully charge an EV battery based on current Washington kilowatt hour costs. Matt Cheung: Asks if the city tracks how often the charging stations are being used. Rob Chave: Mentions that the city would only know about the 5 or 6 public ones and is unsure if that information is tracked. Todd Cloutier: Talks about how this amendment should be "future focused" and not just looking at the technology around today. Wants to be careful not to try to legislate too hard and keep the metrics more flexible. Planning Board Minutes June 9, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 391 7.1.b Judi Gladstone: Also discusses flexibility and understanding what the future trends are. Asks about analysis for different scenarios and mentions examples such as if Level III chargers become preferred. Would like to know what information staff can provide to look at upcoming technology. Eric Engmann: Offers to provide more information on future technology. Mentions the difficulty in assessing future technology trends in the code. States that an option would be to revise the code if the technology does change. Judi Gladstone: Clarifies the desire for different scenarios based on the charging types and levels. Asks if scenarios can account for financial, environmental, and social costs to address equity. Eric Engmann: Agrees to provide more scenarios and to have more conversation about the other topics Mike Rosen: Agrees with others' statements. Asks for more information about how this effort will tie directly into the city's climate strategy; if there is a specific target for this amendment. Asks about the effectiveness of this amendment since new development will represent a small amount of Edmonds' future growth. Eric Engmann: Mentions the Climate Action Plan updates and the effort to find items to "close the gap" for carbon neutrality. Also acknowledges that Edmonds is mostly built -out but mentions that this amendment will still have an impact. Mike Rosen: Sees no other questions and asks if this item will come back to the June 23rd Planning Board meeting. Eric Engmann: States that this will be back on June 23rd. Thanks the Board. Mike Rosen: Discusses the extended agenda and asks for any comments by Board members. juai vladstone: Mentions that there are several meetings where she will unfortunately be on vacation Matt Cheung: In looking at the extended agenda, asks if EV charging regulations will be ready for public hearing in two meetings as proposed. Rob Chave: States that this is tentative and can change based on what happens at the next Planning Board meeting. Roger Pence: Asks when the Planning Board will go back to live meetings. Mike Rosen: States there will probably be a hybrid or combination model after the City Council tries it first. Roger Pence: Expresses desire to go back to in -person meetings. Alicia Crank: Asks if there will be a break in Planning Board meetings at some point this summer. Planning Board Minutes June 9, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 392 7.1.c of EDA, CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Amendment to establish electric vehicle charging infrastructure standards in a new chapter, 17.115, of the Edmonds Community Development Code. These standards would require a percentage of parking spaces to accommodate the infrastructure needed to charge electric vehicles in new or substantially improved development. It also amends other ECDC sections to be consistent with the new regulations. Proponent: City of Edmonds Location of proposal, including street address if any: City Wide. Lead agency: City of Edmonds The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. The City of Edmonds has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. There is no comment period for this DNS. This DNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355. There is no further comment period on the DNS. XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by October 1, 2021. Project Planner: Eric Engmann, Senior Planner Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 1 425-771-0220 Date: September 17, 2021 Signature: xee6 rza4l-e, XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than October 8, 2021. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on September 17, 2021, at City Hall, Edmonds Public Library, and the Edmonds Public Safety Building. Published in the Everett Herald. Emailed to the Department of Ecology SEPA Center (SEPAunit@ecy.wa.gov). XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies below. The SEPA Checklist, DNS, and associated documents can be obtained online at https://www.edmondswa.gov/services/public involvement/public notices/development notices under permit number AMD2021-0002, by emailing the project planner (eric.engmann@edmondswa.gov), or by calling the City of Edmonds at 425-771-0220. Page 1 of 2 SEPA DETERMINATION EV CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE CODE AMENDMENT AMD02021-0002.DOCX 9i10i21.SEPA Packet Pg. 393 7.1.c Distribution List: This DNS and SEPA checklist were distributed to the following: ❑X Applicant ❑ Parties of Record ❑ US Army Corps of Engineers ❑ US Fish and Wildlife ❑X Puget Sound Energy ❑X Snohomish PUD ❑ Olympic View Water & Sewer ❑ Alderwood Water District ❑ Edmonds School District ❑X Port of Edmonds ❑ South County Fire ❑ Swedish Hospital ❑X Community Transit pc: File No. SEPA Notebook ❑X Dept. of Ecology ❑ Dept. of Ecology - Shorelands ❑ Dept. of Natural Resources ❑N Dept. of Commerce ❑ WSDOT ❑ WSDOT — Ferries ❑ Dept. of Fish & Wildlife ❑ Dept. of Health — Drinking Water ❑ Dept. of Arch. & Historic Pres. ❑ Dept. of Parks and Rec. Commission ❑X Puget Sound Clean Air Agency ❑ Puget Sound Regional Council ❑ Puget Sound Partnership ❑X Tulalip Tribe ❑X City of Everett ❑N City of Lynnwood ❑N City of Mountlake Terrace ❑N City of Mukilteo ❑N City of Shoreline ❑N Town of Woodway ❑ Snohomish Co. Public Works ❑X Snohomish Co. PDS ❑ Snohomish Co. Health Dist. ❑ King County -Transit ❑ King County— Environ. Planning ❑ Other Page 2 of 2 SEPA DETERMINATION EV CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE CODE AMENDMENT AMD02021-0002.DOCX 9i10i21.SEPA Packet Pg. 394 F ED O �a ##P71 Vt.,gCITY OF EDMONDS g ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist. Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use "not applicable" or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision -making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for Lead Agencies: Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non -projects) questions in Part B - Environmental Elements — that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. A. Background 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Code Amendment 2. Name of applicant: City of Edmonds 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Eric Engmann, Senior Planner City of Edmonds 121 5"' Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 WAC 197-11-960 Environmental checklist guidance updated June 2011 Packet Pg. 395 7.1.c 4. Date checklist prepared: September 3, 2021 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The city sponsored amendment has been reviewed by the local Planning Board and is intended for review by the City Council in Fall 2021. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No further activity is planned at this time. Staff will monitor the outcomes of the proposed amendment and any new state legislation to see if any future amendments are necessary. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. No direct environmental information has been prepared for this proposed amendment. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No pendind applications or approvals would be affected. Once adopted, the proposed EV charging infrastructure regulations would apply to any new or significantly improved development within the City of Edmonds. Permit applications within the City of Edmonds would be processed according to the regulations and procedures in effect at the time the application was determined to be complete. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. 1) Review and determinations under the State Environmental Policy Act for non -project actions; and 2) Adoption by the Edmonds City Council. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) This is a non -project action for an amendment to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). The proposal would establish citywide electric vehicle charging infrastructure standards to power electric vehciles. This amendment (AMD2021-0002) would apply to all new or substantially improved multifamily and non-residential developments. It estastablished the number or percentages of parking spaces required to install this charging infrastructure. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. This is a citywide non -project action that will affect development throughout the City of Edmonds. B. Environmental Elements SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 2 of 15 Packet Pg. 396 7.1.c 1. Earth a. General description of the site: (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long- term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildi ngs)? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. This proposed amendment would help as part of the solution to reduce emissions, by promoting EV usage. Specifically, the proposed amendment supports more EV usage by reducing a major barrier, the number and availability of the charging infrastructure. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 3 of 15 Packet Pg. 397 7.1.c c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 3. Water a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The City of Edmonds sits along the western shores of the Puget Sound and contains a number of relatively small streams including Willow Creek, Shellabarger Creek, Shell Creek, Hindley Creek, Northstream, Frutidale Creek, Perinville Creek, Meadowdale Creek and a number of smaller unnamed creeks. Portions of Lake Ballinger are also located within the City of Edmonds' jurisdiction. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. The 100-year flood plain is mapped for the City of Edmonds on the Snohomish County Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate maps. Within Edmonds, the 100-year flood plain is shown around the Edmonds Marsh, the Port of Edmonds, near the mouths of Shell Creek and Perrinville Creeks. The flood plan is also mapped around the shoreline of Lake Ballinger. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. b. Ground Water: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 4 of 15 Packet Pg. 398 7.1.c 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 4. Plants a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other _other types of vegetation N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 5 of 15 Packet Pg. 399 7.1.c d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. Not applicable to a non -project action. S. Animals a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other Numerous fish and wildlife species depend on the Edmonds shoreline and adjacent shoreland habitats for either part or all of a life stage. Shellfish resources include clams, mussels, crab, and shrimp. Eight species of salmonids use nearshore areas of Puget Sound at some point in their life cycle. These include Chinook, chum, coho, sockeye, and pink salmon and sea -run cutthroat, steelhead, and bull trout. Birds with priority habitats that occur within the City include bald eagle, purple martin, and great blue heron. b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. Several federally listed threatened or endangered species that may inhabit marine waters or adjacent habitats within the City are identified in the State database The threatened marbled murelet are observed intermittently in inland Puget Sound waters; winter and summer surveys by WDFW conducted near Edmonds found no murrelets in winter and only a few birds in the Edmonds area in summer. Federally listed threatened fish species that may occur in or in the vicinity of Edmonds, including Puget Sound Chinook salmon and bull trout. Federally listed marine mammals (Steller sea lion and Puget Sound orcas) may be present in the Edmonds shore zone, but are not commonly observed. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The shoreline of Puget Sound provides a migratory route for salmon and the City of Edmonds is located within the Pacific Flyway, which is a flight corridor for migrating waterfowl and other birds. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 6 of 15 Packet Pg. 400 7.1.c The proposed amendment would require electricity to power the EVs. This will be used as an alternative fuel source to fossil fuels, which have a significant climate impact caused by their emissions. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. However, the intent of these regulations are to promote EV usage by providing adequate locations for EVs to charge. This will result in a switch from fossil fuel burning traditional vehicles to EVs that use electricity. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 7 of 15 Packet Pg. 401 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indi- cate what hours noise would come from the site. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. Noise from the charging infrastructure itself would be minimal. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. r c 8. Land and Shoreline Use m E a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. Q No. The proposed non -project, non -site -specific action would not affect current land uses or nearby or adjacent m o properties. U ZM c Single-family residential uses are relatively evenly dispersed throughout the city and occupy the majority of the M city's land use base. Approximately 3,100 acres, or 55 percent of the City's area is developed for single-family z residential uses. Higher density residential development (including apartments and condominiums) is primarily U located south and north of the downtown; in the vicinity of the Edmonds-Woodway High School site and w Stevens Hospital; and adjacent to 196th Street, 76th Avenue and Highway 99. Together, single-family and -- multi-family residential units comprise approximately 3,400 acres (nearly 60 percent of the total land in the w city). Commercial activity is concentrated in two principal areas -- the Downtown/Waterfront and the Highway 99 corridor (which includes the retail and medical development in the vicinity of Swedish Hospital). Smaller commercial nodes that primarily serve adjacent neighborhoods are located at the intersection of Edmonds Way U (SR104) and 100th Avenue/9th Avenue (Westgate) and at212th Street/84th Avenue (5 Corners). The Port of Edmonds is located in the southern portion of the city's waterfront. The Port owns and manages 33 upland acres as well as a small boat harbor and marina, with space for 1,000 boats (approximately I I acres). The Port's c property is occupied by approximately 80 businesses including office uses located in Harbor Square. c Approximately 258 acres of parks and open space lands are owned or operated by the City, while there are E another 229 acres of County -owned parks and open space land in the Edmonds area. Regional parks and beaches figure prominently in the City, including Brackett's Landing North and South, the Edmonds Fishing Pier, Edmonds Memorial Cemetery, Edmonds Underwater Park, Marina Beach Park, Olympic Beach Park, local a tidelands, and the South County Senior Center. The Edmonds Marsh is a significant City -owned open space (23 w acres), while Yost Memorial Park is the largest community park owned by the City (4S acres). The largest Cn County resources are Southwest County Park (120 acres) and Meadowdale Beach County Park (95 acres). M Overall, approximately 96 percent of the city is developed. z x w b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? M Q No. 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 8 of 15 Packet Pg. 402 7.1.c c. Describe any structures on the site. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 9 of 15 Packet Pg. 403 7.1.c 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid- dle, or low-income housing. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 10 of 15 Packet Pg. 404 7.1.c 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The City of Edmonds has a number of recreational opportunities within its jurisdiction. The City of Edmonds Park Recreation and Open Space Plan identifies 9 neighborhood parks (24.85 acres),2 Community Parks (58.10 acres), 6 Regional Parks (17.05 acres), 15 Special Use Parks (19.77 acres), and 12 Open Space sites (69.21 acres). b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers ? If so, specifically describe. There are numerous buildings through the City of Edmonds that are over 45 years. The City of Edmonds has a local historic register with 20 sites on the register. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. None known. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Edmonds is served by a series ofstate and local roads. SR 104 runs from the east at Interstate 5 through the southern part of Edmonds, ending at the State of Washington Ferry Terminal. SR 524 begins in Lynnwood at Interstate 5 and runs west through the center of Edmonds from the crest ofthe hill and down into the city center. Local roads provide access throughout Edmonds. These roads provide access for Community Transit, the SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 11 of 15 Packet Pg. 405 7.1.c commuter bus service for South Snohomish County. Commuter Park and Ride lots are located throughout Edmonds and are served by Community Transit bus service. The rail lines along the Edmonds' shoreline are primarily used by BNSF for freight service, but also provide Amtrak passenger train service through Edmonds. Sound Transit provides daily commuter service to and from Seattle. Washington State Ferries operates ferry service from Edmonds to Kingston providing access to the Olympic Peninsula. This is one of the busiest commuter ferry terminals in Puget Sound, as well as one of the major access points from the east side of Puget Sound to the west. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The City of Edmonds is served by Community Transit bus service, Washington State ferries, Sound Transit commuter rail and Amtrak passenger train service. c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non -project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. This amendment would not reduce the number of vehicle trips but would make it easier to switch from fossil fuel to electric vehicles. g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The proposed amendment, for bicycle parking requirements, is a measure to reduce transporation impacts. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 12 of 15 Packet Pg. 406 7.1.c No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other The City of Edmonds is served by all the utilities identified above. While a few septic systems may still be in service in Edmonds, that vast majority of the City's residences are connected to a sanitary sewer system. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. N/A - The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would take effect City-wide. The City may, in the future, seek to increase the amount of publically available EV charging stations. However, that is not covered in this amendment. C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Name of signee Eric Engmann, AICP Position and Agency/Organization Senior Planner, City of Edmonds Date Submitted: 9/13/2021 D. Supplemental sheet for nonproject actions Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; pro-duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposal would not directly increase discharges to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise. The proposed amendment would support increased electric vehicle usage by providing sufficient numbers and locations to charge the EVs. More cars switching to EV usage will help to reduce greenhouse gases (ghg) and other pollutants.. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 13 of 15 Packet Pg. 407 7.1.c All development and redevelopment within the City of Edmonds would be subject to applicable local, state and federal regulatory requirements, including building code, fire code, and storm water, in addition to the provisions of critical area regulations (where applicable). Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: The City has a variety of environmental policies and regulations governing these potential impacts, including SEPA, critical areas, Shorelines, and public works standards. Specific projects, whether public or private, must comply with the applicable environmental regulations and review processes. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The proposed amendment would have a neutral to positive affect on plants, animals, fish, and marine life. The amendment would promote EV usage as an alternative to fossil fuels. Reducing the usage of fossil fuels will have a benefit for the entire environment, including flora and fauna. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: The City has a variety of environmental policies and regulations governing these potential impacts, including SEPA, critical areas, Shorelines, and public works standards. Specific projects, whether public or private, must comply with the applicable environmental regulations and review processes. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposed amendment will not deplete energy or natural resources. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: This amendment is part of a larger strategy in the City's Climate Action Plan. The results of which will be measured and adjusted to conserve energy, reduce pollution, and protect natural resources. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The proposed EV charging infrastructure amendment will not likely use or affect environmentally sensitive areas. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: The City has a variety of environmental policies and regulations governing these potential impacts, including SEPA, critical areas, Shorelines, and public works standards. Specific projects, whether public or private, must comply with the applicable environmental regulations and review processes. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposed EV charging infrastructure amendment will not likely affect land and shoreline uses. It will not allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 14 of 15 Packet Pg. 408 The City has adopted a Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) that guides development within shoreline jurisdiction. The SMP allows most uses that are allowed by the underlying zoning provided they are developed consistent with the SMP's development standards. The SMP would not allow any new uses in the shoreline that are not currently allowed. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposed amendment will not likely increase transportation demand but will shift the mode of powering vehicles from fossil fuels to electrification. This will provide a cleaner, more environmentally friendly option rather than affecting the demand on transportation. The resulting EV charging could have a mnor impact on a building's electrical consumption. Based on the requirements, these impacts would be proportionate to the increased sizes of new development: small for single-family development, minor for smaller multifamily or non-residential development, and larger for large scale developments. The City has been in contact with Snohomish County Power Utility District to review and comment on the proposed amendment. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Snohomish County Power Utility District has reviewed and provided comments on the proposed amendment. An exception or reduction of the EV charging infrastructure has been added to the amendment in cases where the added electrical load capacity could significantly increase demands on the power utilities. This ability to adjust these standards, when warranted for lack of sufficient public services (power), responds to such a possible demand. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. This proposed EV charging infrastructure amendment will not likely conflict with laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The addition of this infrastructure will take place as part of developments. These developments will be subject to all applicable laws and regulations to protect the environment. None of the provisions of this code amendment would allow a development to avoid or reduce environmental regulations. The very nature of this proposed amendment will aide in the much larger effort to reduce greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions and help protect the environment as part of the City's larger Climate Action Plan strategies. . SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 15 of 15 Packet Pg. 409 7.2 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/15/2022 Presentation of Washington Department of Commerce Energy Retrofit Grant for Public Safety Solar Plant Staff Lead: Rob English Department: Public Works & Utilities Preparer: Royce Napolitino Background/History The City of Edmonds purchased its first solar plant in 2021 from the Edmonds Solar Cooperative. The Solar Cooperative had installed and maintained a solar array with a 23 Kilowatt capacity on building roofs at the Anderson Center through the course of its ten year lease with the City, beginning in April, 2011. During Council discussion of the purchase and sale of this Frances Anderson Center solar plant, Council expressed their support for solar and other alternative sources of energy. Projects and efforts like this aligned with the City's goals for clean energy and to combat the effects of global climate change. After the completion of the purchase of the solar plant at the Frances Anderson Center, Director Phil Williams instructed our Facilities Division to enlist MLA Structural Engineering to write a simple analysis of structural viability of large City owned buildings for future solar installations. Once this information was received, the Public Safety Complex was the City's most viable location identified for a solar power plant. In early 2021, the Department of Commerce announced a grant opportunity totaling $3.5 million to support the installation of solar on public buildings as part of their on -going Energy Retrofits for Public Buildings Program. With a short grant application process for this opportunity, an initial energy and viability audit was commissioned to support the City's application for the Department of Commerce grant. In January 2022, The Washington State Department of Commerce announced grants awarded to state and local government agencies to install solar panels at public buildings in communities throughout the state. On February 8, 2022, the Finance and Parks and Public Works Committees reviewed this item and scheduled it for a presentation and action at the February 15th City Council meeting. Packet Pg. 410 7.2 Staff Recommendation Accept the State of Washington's Department of Commerce Energy Retrofit Grant for the construction and installation of a proposed 100kW solar plant on the West Roof of the Public Safety Complex. Narrative The City of Edmonds was awarded a Washington State Department of Commerce grant for the installation of a 100kW solar plant (100kW maximum kW size allowed by grant program) at the Public Safety Complex West roof elevation. This solar plant furthers the City's clean energy goals while helping to offset electrical consumption by $10,000 annually. The grant award of $119,645 amounts to 25-30% of the total cost of the proposed project. Our intent is to team with the Department of Commerce ESCO program to build this project. The total project audit and estimation was delivered after the 2022 Decision Package #72 was submitted. Additional funding of approximately $120,000 will be requested in 2023 for completion of the bi-annual grant cycle, to make up the short fall in funding requested in the 2022 budget. Should the City accept this grant award the City will commit to the Grant program qualifications and the project total project cost of $469,645. The Washington State Department of Commerce funding of the 29 projects will provide over 2.2 megawatts of solar and will produce more than 3 million kWh annually - enough to power about 280 homes. Investments for clean energy projects in public buildings demonstrates local resilience and the benefits of a cleaner and more efficient electric grid. These efforts help to align our City with Washington's 2021 State Energy Strategy and its goal to achieve 100% clean electricity by 2050. Attachments: Energy Retrofits for Public Buildings Grant Award - Solar for the City of Edmonds - Public Safety Building Solar Solar Presentation Packet Pg. 411 2/3/22. 9:48 AM Review and sign document(s) I DocuSign CT 7.2.a OK DocuSign Envelope ID: C7E2AC31-3gE646E6-8D31-8A7E8710@506 7, - x STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 1011 Plum Street SE • PO Box 42525 ■ Olympia, Washington 98504-2525 • (360) 725-4000 www. commerce. ws.gov November 30, 2021 Thom Sullivan City of Edmonds 7110 210th St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 CLOSE Re: Contingent award of the Energy Retrofits for Public Buildings Solar Grant Dear Thom Sullivan, Congratulations! The Department of Commerce is conditionally awarding City of Edmonds a grant under the E nergy Retrofits for Public Buildings - Solar for the City of Edmonds - Public Safety Building Solar. The award a mount is not to exceed $119,645. This award letter is contingent on no successful protests of the award decisions and the execution of a Grant Agreement with Commerce. This award is based on the information provided in the submitted application including: • Match Funding • Total Project Cost ■ Simple Payback • Scope of the project Any changes to these items must be reviewed and approved by Commerce. By accepting this award you agree to follow the state capital funding requirements as enforced by Commerce, including but not limited to: • Washington State Prevailing Wage • Washington State Public Works requirements • State Cultural and Historic Resource requirements and Tribal consultation as required by Governor's Executive Order 21-02 • Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) • Report on all pass -through funding under the Governor's Diverse Spend Initiative Additionally, you agree to follow the contract requirements, the Request for Applications, and the requirements put in place by Commerce. In light of the contingent nature of this grant, we require a counter -signature below by an authorized City of r Edmonds official. City of Edmonds, including its directors, employees and agents, agree to make no public Q statpmpnts rpaardinn this award iintil the Grant AnrPempnt is PxPriitPd unless (:nmmprrp nrnvideG nrinr ronc, https://na3.docusign.net/Signing/?ti=6c67b7dd2l3643679f77bOb60e468al8 I Packet Pg. 412 1 2/3/22, 9:49 AM Review and sign document(s) I DocuSign i�aS sc �.- o- ar � �0 �.c� Learn More G�' 7.2.a 0K m-• CLOSE In light of the contingent nature of this grant, we require a counter -signature below by an authorized City of Edmonds official. City of Edmonds, including its directors, employees and agents, agree to make no public statements regarding this award until the Grant Agreement is executed, unless Commerce provides prior cons 032_CityofEdmonds. pdf DocuSujn Envelope ID: C7E2AC31-39E64raE8-8D31-8A7FB7108M6 Next Steps: 1. Sign and return this letter by 5100 PM on December 15, 2021, 2. Jill Eikenhorst will be your contract manager and will be assisted by Will Cox. They will contact you regarding next steps once your signed letter has been received. 3. Contracts will be processed in the order that completed pre -contract information is received. We appreciate your patience as we process the contracts for this program. If you have any questions, please call Jill at (360) 522-0000 or email us at energyretrofits c:ommerce.wa.gov Commerce looks forward to working with you and your team on this important project. S n c1Mbac}uY&'Wwd by. Michael Furze Assistant Director, Energy Division For Commerce Reference: 032 Accepted on behalf of City of Edmonds: Signature: Title: Date. ___-- https://na3.docusign.net/Signing/?ti=6c67b7dd2l3643679f77bOb6Oe468al8 Packet Pg. 413 City of Edmonds Public Safety Building - Solar PV February 2022 instry ife Ot Your Building Arm .H.Al F Di Is GO G'otm Ol ' Z, 7.2.b Packet Pg. 414 7.2.b Scope: • Install a 133 kW 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 grid consumption. Funding: • Project Cost Estimate of $469,645 • Awarded Commerce Grant funding of $119,645 • 25% of total project cost • City of Edmonds matching needed is $350,000 R 1 6+ 11 f c � d L O r E t r r Q Packet Pg. 415 7.2.b Project Payback: • Simple payback of 20.2 Years including Grants, Utility savings and Carbon savings. Cost of Carbon: • The Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide per metric ton of CO2e : $76 in 2020 (WA UTC) • This equates to $7,430 / Yr cost of carbon savings (for 2020). Energy & Green House Gas Reductions: • Electric Energy savings of 135,976 kWh/Yr. • Utility Costs savings of $9,888/Yr • Carbon reduction of 215,546 Ibs CO2e /Yr. • Equivalent to 365,322 Miles Not Driven /Yr OR 27 Acres of Trees Planted Packet Pg. 416 7.2.b 0 L U Next Steps: • Confirm matching funds of $350,000 • Accept Commerce Grant award puestions? 4--+ E E 0 U Packet Pg. 417 7.3 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/15/2022 Ordinance Adopting Extreme Risk Protection Order Statute into Edmonds Municipal Code Staff Lead: Shane Hawley, Acting Assistant Chief Department: Police Services Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History In 2016, Washington State voters passed initiative 1491. That initiative created a new type of protection order; the Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO). The purpose of those orders is to keep individuals from possessing firearms or dangerous weapons that would otherwise not meet any legal standards that would otherwise prohibit them. Examples include; those with documented mental health issues, suicidal individuals or people who are known to be dangerous but have not committed any crime. Over the last six years, the legislature has continued to expand the availability of these orders. Family members and even law enforcement agencies can seek to have such orders issued by a court. Because the ERPO statute is unique compared to other orders, it has slightly different penalties. In fact, after two convictions under the statute, a third violation is automatically a felony. This was recently discovered when a patrol officer arrested a subject in violation of an ERPO and we discovered that the violation was not adopted by reference under the city municipal code. The violation had to be charged into our municipal court under a generic city code that does not carry the same enhanced penalties. The draft ordinance modifies EMC 5.34.040, which is a "catch all" for non -adopted order violations. It leaves in place that language, because there are many different types of orders, but it adds a new section as well. The new section specifically adopts the ERPO penalty section by reference. Staff Recommendation Accept and modify Edmonds Municipal Code section 5.34.040 to include adoption of the Extreme Risk Protection Order penalty section by reference. Narrative N/A Attachments: Ordinance Amending ECC 5.34.040 (redline) 2.11 Packet Pg. 418 7.3.a 19 : i ► .TLY N-r" AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 5.34 ECC (PERSONS, CRIMES RELATING TO) TO ADOPT BY REFERENCE RCW 7.94.120 AND RCW 7.105.460; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City has, under Edmonds City Code (ECC) Section 5.34.040 (Failure to Abide by Court Order), made it a misdemeanor for any person subject to a court order, the violation of which is not covered by a specific provision of Chapter 5.34 (Persons, Crimes Relating To), to knowingly and willfully violate the terms of that order; and WHEREAS, law enforcement officers or agencies are authorized under Chapter 7.94 RCW (Extreme Risk Protection Order Act) to petition for an extreme risk protection order, and as of July 1, 2022, such authorization is provided by Chgpter 7.105 RCW (Civil Protection Orders); and WHEREAS, the Edmonds Police Department has determined that it is not currently authorized under the ECC to enforce certain penalties for violation of extreme risk protection orders that are available under RCW 7.94.120 (Penalties), which penalties will be codified at RCW 7.105.460 as of July 1, 2022; and 0 WHEREAS, after review and discussion, the City Council has determined it to be N appropriate to amend ECC 5.34.040 to adopt RCW 7.94.120 and RCW 7.105.460 by reference; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. ECC 5.34.040 is amended to read as follows (new text shown in underline): 5.34.040 Failure to abide by court order. A. State Statutefs4 Adopted by Reference. The followine statutefs4 of the state of Washineton as the same exist or shall hereafter be amended are hereby adopted by reference: RCW 7.94.120 Penalties 7.105.460 Enforcement and penalties — Extreme risk protection orders — False petitions B. It shall be a misdemeanor for any person subject to a court order, the violation of which is not covered by a specific provision of this chapter, to knowingly and willfully violate the terms of that order. Packet Pg. 419 7.3.a Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi- cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR MIKE NELSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: :1 JEFF TARADAY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Pg. 420 7.3.a SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the day of 2022, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 5.34 ECC (PERSONS, CRIMES RELATING TO) TO ADOPT BY REFERENCE RCW 7.94.120 AND RCW 7.105.460; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this day of 2022. CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY Packet Pg. 421 7.4 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/15/2022 Hybrid Meetings Update Staff Lead: Dave Turley Department: Administrative Services Preparer: Dave Turley Background/History The Council has discussed various formats that City Council meetings can be held post -pandemic. Three choices were discussed: In -person meetings, which is how Council met pre-COVID; Virtual Meetings, which is how Council is meeting currently, or a Hybrid approach, where the meeting will be held in person, but participants also have the option of attending "virtually" which at this point means via Zoom. In a previous meeting, the Council met and decided that future City Council meetings will be in the "hybrid" format. Since hybrid meetings are by far the most difficult to execute from a logistical and an IT standpoint, staff has been asked to investigate and to make recommendations about what will be needed to make hybrid City Council meetings a reality. Staff Recommendations 1. Council meetings to remain virtual through March 15. On that date staff can provide another update, and Council can discuss a date to begin using the new format. 2. Meetings to be physically located in Council Chambers only, as before. 3. Public may provide comment on Zoom, but cannot remain in the "Zoom Room" for the entire meeting. 4. Public comments taken via Zoom will be voice -only. No video. Narrative There has been much discussion around what hybrid City Council meetings will look like at Edmonds. Best choices are as follows: * 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 * Regular meetings beginning on or after 7:00 PM will continue to be streamed online, and shown on Comcast and Ziply, all "live." * Council Committee Meetings and special meetings that are not streamed online due to timing or court/council chamber availability can be accessed virtually using Zoom. * 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) Packet Pg. 422 7.4 * 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, both of which we believe we can have 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? Packet Pg. 423 7.5 City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 02/15/2022 Proposed Amendments to the 2022 Adopted City Budget Staff Lead: Diane Buckshnis, Kristiana Johnson Department: City Council Preparer: Scott Passey Background/History On 2/1/22 - a public hearing was held and Council reviewed and vetted four amendments. On 2/8/22 - a Special Meeting was held and Council reviewed the Fund Balance Policy and vetted Decision Packet #1, 2, and 20. The meeting ended in the middle of decision packet #21. For the Attorney's budget ordinance which requires a super majority - Decision Packet #1 received a super majority with the City hiring a contracted REDI officer for three years at a cost of $100,000 per year. Recommendation Review Council amendments for vetting and vote and request Attorney or the Administration to prepare an ordinance to amend the 2022 budget. Narrative The PowerPoint presentation provides 2022 Council amendment suggestions and a public hearing was held on 2/1/22. Council vetting began 2/8/22. Only super majority votes (five) will be added to the ordinance for final vote. Attachments: Exhibit 1 February 15 Council 2022 Budget Amendment Exhibit 2 City Attorney Opinion Packet Pg. 424 7.5.a 2022 Budget Comments Timeliness is imperative. We are still in a pandemic and have economic pressures from a spike in inflation, supply -chain concerns, supply shortages, three to five projected interest rate hikes and other concerning p J g economic indicators. We have local budgetary pressures from changes in the South Fire Contract, impact on wages and (maybe) benefits from the recent compensation study and now new sewer plant issues coming on line with costs increases noted. Packet Pg. 425 7.5.a 2022 Budget Comments It might be advantageous to postpone some appropriations to allow for more information and further discussions in Council Committees. With all the economic, local, and health indicators continuing to emerge, Council's fiscal oversight becomes paramount. Council Committee are always available for vetting and amendments happen quarterly or as needed. A super -majority vote (five votes) is needed in order for the amendment to be moved to the udget ordinance. The ordinance for final approval by Council will only include super - majority votes. r a Packet Pg. 426 7.5.a 2022 Budget Amendments #21— $200K additional funds - There was a $409K carry forward. The City has $3.1MM of ARPA funds remaining for Household Support. No justification for the $300K identified as "Community Relief" considering Snohomish County has provided no information needed relating to the recent tax increases. Motion: Reduce decision packet by $200K. Substitute Amendment: Move funds to designated account 018 Homeless Fund. #22 — $119.4K - New FTE position to manage existing capital projects — there is not sufficient information to support a full time FTE, how this position will manage what projects in future years. Council committee should review this FTE job description and exactly how this projects interacts with Public Works. Motion: Remove decision packet and move to Council Committee. Packet Pg. 427 7.5.a 2022 Budget Amendments #33 — $15K — Facility Assessment — 2021 bonds approved based on the existing conditions assessment report. Bonding for these projects will be completed in three years. A discussion about the timing of the re -assessment should be brought forth to a Council Committee. Motion: Remove decision packet; bring to Council Committee #34 — $45K Carpet Cleaning — There is not sufficient information to support why this can't be performed internally especially when a new custodian is in the budget. Motion: Remove the decision packet. Process can be handled via a budget amendment and Council Committee review. Packet Pg. 428 7.5.a 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). #37 - $100K - funding for ongoing aging infrastructure — 2021 bonds were to address backlog of infrastructure capital maintenance project 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. Packet Pg. 429 7.5.a 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 should be vetted through a committee to determine if less expensive alternatives. Motion: Delete decision packet and process alternative through Council Committee and handle through quarterly amendment process. #40 — $36K - 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. N N O N d t r O N E a d W O am O L a r c E r- d E Q M m N N CO N U C O CU LO CU L x W C d E t V f3 a� Packet Pg. 430 7.5.a 2022 Budget Amendments #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. #47 — $440K - Yost and Seaview 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 Seaview reservoir is not included. This needs to be sorted out in the Council Committee. Motion: numbers Delete decision packet; bring to Council Committee and sort out through CIP/CFP process. N N O N d t r O .r N E a d W O am O L a r c a� E r- d E Q M m N N CO N U O CU LO CU L X W C d E t V f3 a� Packet Pg. 431 7.5.a 2022 Budget Amendments #48 — $120K - 3-year Rate Study Consultant —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. Bring forth through Council Committee. #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; bring through Council Committee. N N O N d t r O .r N E a O am O a r_ d E Q m N N Co N O CU LO CU L L X W C d E t V f3 a� Packet Pg. 432 7.5.a 2022 Budget Amendment #53 — $550.K Perrinville Creek Lower Restoration — 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. #55 — $190K - Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Improvements — no justification for water roJect. Suggest mitigation or the phases of this stormwater p gg that the tormwater J jSu saspect be clarified in the p CIP/CFP process. Motion: Delete decision packet and move through CIP/CFP process when restoration plan outlined. #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. LL � . of EDAj r -- X W Jac. 159� � d t V f3 a� Packet Pg. 433 7.5.a 2022 Budget Amendment #61 - $400K - Green Streets or green street definition in Rain garden grants availablE needed to determine how t to reduce flooding. and Rain Gardens — Not sufficient information supporting City documents to support costs. through Snohomish County. More information ie bio-retention and rain gardens are to be built Motion: Delete decision packet. Bring forth through Council Committee and the CIP/CFP process. 70 — $485K - New vehicles — There are already a number of vehicles in the police and public works departments. Vehicles purchases should move through a Council committee for a better understanding of all cars needed 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. LL � . of EDAj r -- X W C d t V f3 a� Packet Pg. 434 7.5.a 2022 Budget Amendment #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 Counci Committee #72 - $230K - Strategic Planning for optimizing the solar panel upgrade on Frances Anderson Building. Motion: Delete decision packet and work through Council Committee regarding strategy and funding for the grant approved by Council. :A I Packet Pg. 435 7.5.a 2022 Budget Amendments to Increase Appropriations • Motion to add $34K for the match for the Fourth Avenue Corridor which is part of the Creative District's capital project need. • Motion to add $60K for study of a Police Station relocation and/or City Hall relocation. • Motion to add $150K for Streetlights in the Lake Ballinger Area — move thought Council Committee and the CIP/CFP impact based on review of all areas of Edmonds (Seaview, Firdale, 5-Corners, Westgate, etc.) OF EDA, Jac. 1 S90 N N O N d t r O .r N C E a O am O L a r- d E Q m N N CO N O U LO CU L X W Packet Pg. 436 7.5.b MEMORANDUM FOR INCLUSION IN COUNCIL PACKET Date: January 12, 2022 To: Edmonds City Council Cc: Mayor Mike Nelson Dave Turley, Administrative Services Director From: Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Re: Applicable law regarding possible budget amendments Having been made generally aware of a desire by at least some councilmembers to remove previously approved items from the 2022 budget, it seems appropriate to advise the city council regarding applicable law and, in particular, the vote margin that might be required to accomplish that objective. The final paragraph of RCW 35A•33.12o reads as follows: The city council, upon a finding that it is to the best interests of the code city to decrease, revoke or recall all or any portion of the total appropriations provided for any one fund, may, by ordinance, approved by the vote of one more than the majority of all members thereof, stating the facts and findings for doing so, decrease, revoke or recall all or any portion of an unexpended fund balance, and by said ordinance, or a subsequent ordinance adopted by a like majority, the moneys thus released may be reappropriated for another purpose or purposes, without limitation to department, division or fund, unless the use of such moneys is otherwise restricted by law, charter, or ordinance. RCW 35A•33.120 (emphasis added). In other words, any ordinance that the council would be considering to adopt budget amendments would need five votes to pass if the ordinance had the effect of decreasing the appropriations for a given fund. Keep in mind, however, that it is only the ordinance that requires such a vote margin. Any preliminary motions M600 Stewart Street, Suite 400, Seattle, WA 98101 P 206.273.7440 F 206.273.7401 www.lighthouselawgroup.com Packet Pg. 437 7.5.b made as part of the perfecting or finalizing of the ordinance would only need a majority for passage. But, as a practical matter, if an ordinance ultimately contains several amendments that each only garnered four votes during the perfection process, that ordinance might have a difficult time obtaining the five votes necessary for passage. If the final ordinance contains, for example, eight different budget amendments, but only one of those eight actually decreases an appropriation, the ordinance would still need five votes to pass, because there can be only one vote on the final ordinance and the ordinance would decrease appropriations. Accordingly, the council may wish to direct that two ordinances be prepared: one ordinance that contains amendments that decrease appropriation levels and another ordinance that contains other budget amendments that do not decrease appropriation levels. An example of a budget amendment that does not decrease appropriation levels would be the removal of an authorized FTE position without removing the appropriation or funding that had been associated with that FTE position. If two such ordinances are prepared, only the ordinance that decreases appropriation levels would require five votes to pass. Please feel free to contact us with questions. N600 Stewart Street, Suite 400, Seattle, WA 98101 I P 206.273.7440 I F 206.273.7401 I www.lighthouselawgroup.com Packet Pg. 438