2022-03-01 City Council - Full Agenda-31021.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Op E D
o Agenda
Edmonds City Council
s71. ,HvREGULAR MEETING - VIRTUAL/ONLINE
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE,
HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA
98020
MARCH 1, 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
PRESENTATIONS
1. Hearing Examiner Annual Report (15 min)
2. Kone Consulting Homelessness Assessment Presentation (30 min)
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
Edmonds City Council Agenda
March 1, 2022
Page 1
1. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of February 22, 2022
2. Approval of Minutes of Adjourned Meeting of February 17, 2022
3. Approval of payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
4. Approval of claim checks and wire payments.
5. Councilmember Training Reimbursement
6. Approval of Settlement Agreement with Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. Ordinance Amending the 2022 City Budget (5 min)
2. Edmonds Tree Canopy Assessment (30 min)
3. Civic Center Playfield Park Update and Change Order Approval (30 min)
4. Salary Commission Reinstatement (30 min)
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
ADJOURN
Edmonds City Council Agenda
March 1, 2022
Page 2
4.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/1/2022
Hearing Examiner Annual Report
Staff Lead: Susan McLaughlin
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Michael Clugston
Background/History
The City's Hearing Examiner provides a report on activity each year.
Staff Recommendation
No action is required.
Narrative
The Hearing Examiner, Phil Olbrechts, hears quasi-judicial development applications under contract with
the City of Edmonds. Mr. Olbrechts will be present to give his report, which is also attached to this
agenda memo.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1- 2021 Annual Report
Packet Pg. 3
4.1.a
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 25, 20212
TO: Edmonds City Council
FROM: Phil A. Olbrechts — Hearing Examiner
RE: 2021 Annual Report
SUMMARY: Two hearing examiner decisions have been issued since the last annual report to
the City Council issued on March 10, 2021. Each decision is addressed in reverse chronological
order below:
Brackett's Reserve Preliminary Plat (12/20/21): Approved eleven lot preliminary plat on a
2.47 acre parcel located near the end of 240th St. SW, adjacent to the Madrona K8-8 School.
Several neighbors expressed numerous concerns over the project. Their concerns were
understandable, as they have enjoyed a peaceful existence in a heavily wooded and quiet area
served by narrow streets and intermittent sidewalks. The concerns of the neighbors were
individually addressed in detail in the findings of fact of the Examiner decision. City staff and
the City's development regulations had adequately addressed most of the issues. The only
significant area of concern found needing further investigation was safe walking conditions to
and from school. Neighbors pointed out that 2401h was a narrow road with some site distance
problems that were exacerbated by cars parked along the shoulder. The narrowness of the road
and parked vehicles could potentially force students walking to and from school to walk in the
travelled portion of the road. A condition of approval required public works staff to investigate
the placement of no parking signs in this area if the vehicles did present a dangerous situation for
the school children.
Wastewater Treatment Plant\Carbon Recovery Project (8/2/21): Approved two variances
and design review to install a carbon filter and construct a loading dock within the 20-foot
setback to SR 104 for the City's wastewater treatment plant located at 200 2nd Avenue. The
carbon filter was proposed to be five feet from the property line and the loading dock one foot
from the property line. There were no other feasible alternative locations for the filter and
loading dock due to the functional requirements of the building and the existing improvements.
Packet Pg. 4
4.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/1/2022
Kone Consulting Homelessness Assessment Presentation
Staff Lead: Shannon Burley
Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Preparer: Shannon Burley
Background/History
The City of Edmonds has been working to address housing instability and enhance human services for
many years. In 2018-19 City Council retained Kone Consulting (KC) to conduct an assessment of the
homelessness landscape within the City. The KONE Report was presented to City Council in February of
2019 and can be found on the Human Services page of the City's website.
In 2021 City Council adopted a budget which included funding for a dedicated social worker, provide
administrative support and support community -based organizations. The Human Services Division was
moved to the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department in April 2021 and in June 2021 Council
Priorities for the Human Services Division were determined. Those priorities included updating the KC
Report to reflect the current state and possible impacts from the COVID pandemic and related
pandemic -relief funds.
Staff Recommendation
NA - presentation only.
Narrative
The presentation (attached) includes the preliminary conclusions and recommendations from KC. It will
be followed by a full report in mid -March.
Attachments:
Kone Consulting Preliminary Homeless Report 2022
Packet Pg. 5
4.2.a
O E 4 4
Q
Packet Pg. 6
Introduction &
Background
v
N
C
O
Y
N
N
O
N
r-
O
O.
d
N
N
O
d
E
O
2
m
C
E
a`
a�
C
N
C
O
U
m
c
O
Y
c
m
E
z
v
c�
a
Packet Pg. 7
Background
• In 2018 and 2019, Edmonds -based Kone Consulting (KC) was retained
to conduct an assessment of the homelessness landscape within the
city, including:
• The number and demographics of residents experiencing homelessness
• Local and regional services available to assist those individuals living
homeless, as well as mitigating potential homelessness from occurring
• How nearby south Snohomish County cities and towns were addressing
homelessness
• Identifying best practices among like -sized municipalities in other
geographic regions
Packet Pg. 8
2019 Report
• Resulted in a report to council in February 2019 including:
• Quantitative data from 2017 census data and the Washington
Department of Social and Health Services
• A services landscape scan, qualitative data from stakeholder interviews
and community engagement
• Voices from those with lived experience
• Recommendations for future planning
O
U
O
Y
N
N
O
N
r-
O
Q
E
O
i
R
E
L
CL
3
N
C
O
U
m
c
O
Y
r
c
m
E
t
r
r
Q
-M6
Packet Pg. 9
2021-2022 Report Update
• In 2021, the City requested KC update the homelessness
assessment to reflect the current state and possible impacts from
the COVID pandemic and related pandemic -relief funds.
• This presentation includes the preliminary conclusions and
recommendations. It will be followed by a full report in mid -
March.
Packet Pg. 10
Methodology
v
N
C
O
Y
N
N
O
N
r-
O
Q
d
N
N
d
d
E
O
2
E
L
a.
Im
N
O
U
am
c
O
Y
r
c
m
E
t
R
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 11
Major Tasks/Study Objectives
• Identifying the
Edmonds
Type and Extent of the Homelessness in
• Inventorying Current Homeless Services in Edmonds and
Seven Surrounding Cities
• Identifying Actual Funding Sources for Current Homeless
Services and Potential Funding Sources to Address Edmonds -
Area Homelessness
• Best Practices Research
Packet Pg. 12
Data Gathering
• Extant Data Review and Update of Prevalence of Homelessness
• Update previous report information
• Examine new and existing trends in American Community Survey
(ACS) data
• Explore possible Covid pandemic impacts
• Online Survey
• 25 questions
• Closed and open-ended questions
• 43 stakeholder responses
• Top 3 participant categories:
• Non-profit organization employees
• City agency and government officials
• Informal community support
-MEPacket Pg. 13
Overview of Edmonds
v
N
C
O
Y
N
N
O
N
r-
O
Q
d
N
N
d
d
E
O
2
R
C
E
a.
IM
O
U
am
c
O
Y
r
c
d
E
t
R
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 14
Selected Edmonds Population
and Demographic Estimates
ACS 2020 Edmonds ❑ata (By Ethnicity)
3.2% -\0.6%
■ White
■ Two or more races
■ Asian alone
Black
■ American Indian and Alaska
Native alone
Edmonds residents tend to be whiter
than the county and state
• Less Asian, Black representation
ACS 2020 Snohomish County Data (By Ethnicity)
----, i.as%
■ White ■ Asian alone ■ Two or more races - Black ■ American Indian and Alaska Native alc
ACS 2020 Washington State Data (By Ehnicity)
IMMM
■ White ■ Asian alone ■ Two or more races ■ Black ■ American Indian and Alaska Native alone
Packet Pg. 15
Selected Edmonds Population
and Demographic Estimates
Edmonds residents tend
to be around the county
median household
income
• Difference of about $60
between Edmonds and
Snohomish
• Both Edmonds and
Snohomish County
median income is about
$10,000 greater than the
rest of the state
ACS 2020 Median Household Income
$90,000.00 $89,229.00 $89,260.00
Edmonds Snohomish Gounty
$78,687.00
Washington State
Packet Pg. 16
Selected Edmonds Population and Demographic _
Estimates
$45.00
$40.00
The average wage in $35.00
Snohomish County is
generally within about 80 530.00
cents of the state average $25.00
wage (with the exception $2o.00
of 1999-2001) until 2016 515.00
$10.00
O
U
O
c
O
Y
Inflation Unadjusted Average Wage N
0
N
r-
O
a
m
o:
a�
0
i
R
C
K=1
3
N
C
O
U
m
c
O
1
c
—i N M Ln ko N M 05 0 r N m Ln ko N W n) 0 r N m �* Ln ko n UO Q d
ri ri ri ri rl r1 rl rl r-I N
ci
R
--Ow-State ♦Snohomish Q
Packet Pg. 17
Housing Characteristics
• Edmonds residents tend to be older
• Edmonds:45.9
• Washington state: 37.9
• The number of residents living alone at 65
and older has been steadily increasing
• 2011:10.5%
• 2019:14.5%
• The majority of residents own their home
(70.7%)
• Average household size is 2.31
ko: ' K
consulting
Occupied Units by ownership
29.E
01%
■ Owner -occupied housing units
■ Renter -occupied housing units
Median Age of Residents
5a 45.9
as 38.2 37.9
30
20
10
0
City of Edrnonds Snohomish County Washington slate
■ Median age (years)
ACS2011-2015, 5-yearestimates
r
Q
Packet Pg. 18
Cost Burdened Households
• The majority of Edmonds renters (80%) pay
between $1,000 and $1,999 in monthly
rent
• The median cost of rent alone in Edmonds is
$172 higherthan the federal poverty line.
• Median monthly cost: $1,466.00
• Edmonds median annual cost of rent: $17,592
• Federal poverty line for 2 adults: $17,420
• The median cost for home ownership with
a mortgage in Edmonds is over $10,000 above
the poverty line
• Median monthly cost: $2,298.00
• Edmonds median annual cost of home
ownership w/ mortgage: $27,576
• Federal poverty line for 2 adults: $17,420
Cast of Rent
11 % 9%
■ Less than $999
■ $1,000 to $1,499
■ $1,500 to $1,999 3610/0
■ $2,000 or more
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
Edmonds Residents Cast Burden Three Year
Comparison
4aA% 3 7. 7 %
35A%
3AA%
25 A%
19.4%
2aA'K
15A4G 12.5%
Saa%
s%
o.mc
Gostburrdened Severelycost
burdened
21.4%
Gostburrdened Severelycost
hundened
44%
ACS, 2019 2011-2015 2014-2018
Packet Pg. 19
Im
c
0
U
0
Y
Cost Burdened Households
Cn
Those with higher income pay a smaller percentage of it to rent and mortgage;
than those with lower income, creating a greater burden for those with less Y
ACS 2019 Edmonds Monthly Housing Costs as a Percentage of Household Income In the o
04
Past 12 Months r-
100% °a
91% �
90% Cn
80% 77!O C
72% O
70%
62 % �
60% - — O
E
50%
42% a
40%
3
30°la 28% 30°0 27 a c
O
U
20% 199G _ m
god 12% 11% ggo 11°la Y
0% E
S 2D% 20% to >_ 3D% 5 20% 2D% to > 30% 5 20% 20% to > 30% < 20% 20% to > aO% 5 20% 20%to > 30%
29% 29% 29va 29% 29% O
r
Q
Lessthan$20,000 $10,000 to $34,999 $35.000to$49,99 $50,000to$74,999 $75,000 or more
Packet Pg. 20
Cost Burdened Households
Rent Index Dashboard by Snohomish County Human Services
30a
lu 20
IU 10a
5 (OW
42.
i °To
w� i
iff
1,753
81
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Edmonds 0 Evema Lake Stevens Lynnwood 0 Marysville
Packet Pg. 21
Extent and Types of
Homelessness in
Edmonds
a
Packet Pg. 22
DSHS, ACS & PIT Count Limitations
• Unlike last report, DSHS data for this round did not include a breakdown by o
program. DSHS data measured number of homeless clients in all cash and o
Y
programs.
N
N
O
N
It
O
• Due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Census Bureau was unable to0.
collect information from certain segments of the population N
E
O
• Those who did respond to the survey had significantly different social, economic
and housing characteristics from those who didn't, resulting in nonresponse bias
a.
in the data and prompting the Census Bureau to use experimental weights
O
• This year the PIT (Point -in -Time) count was limited by Covid-19 staffing
O
constraints and a need to limit the spread of the novel coronavirus. Additionally, Y
counts of unsheltered individuals are likely to be undercounts due to difficulty
accessing locations where they reside.
a
Packet Pg. 23
Extent of Homelessness
Since 2007, the percentage of Edmonds DSHS clients who are homeless has
increased despite overall cases decreasing across the state
Edmonds DSHS TotaI GI i ents and Homeless Clients
151M
' 0m
' 050
2000
1000
1&00%
14jDO%
12M
10_8 %
8_w4
&Ot
4
2jW4
0 O_
2007 200E 2000 20111) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 202T 20216
� Tom I num ber of Ed monds DSHS c Iiants � % of homeless cli ents ........ Lin ear N of homeless el ierill
ToAd pandamicrnormoratcriuraatorirn relief serwicE%availahle Packet Pg. 24
Priority Subgroups of Unhoused or At -Risk
People '
0
Black/African American and American Indian and Alaska Native DSHS homeless clients
are overrepresented compared to Census Bureau data for Edmonds Y
N
N
O
N
Hispanic DSHS homeless clients are also overrepresented
Edmonds Race and Ethnicity Comparison, ACC & DSHS Homeless clients
76.4% E
67.1% L
a
0
U
m
c
10.3% 8.1 % 7.6% 10.5% 13.6°h Y
r
3.2°l0 2.6°io 3.1% 0.6% 3.0% �
E
White two or more races Asian Hispanic or Latino Black American Indian and �
r
(of any race) Alaska Native a
■ Ed mo nds ACS 2019 ■ Edmonds DSHS Homeless Clients 2019
Packet Pg. 25
Older Adults who are Homeless or At -Risk of
Homelessness
Since 2013, there's been
an upward trend in the
percentage of DSHS
65 or alder (% of Total Homeless Client)
homeless clients who are
4.00%
65 or older
3.50%
3.00%
In DSHS data, values less
2.5030
.. • • • •
than 10 (but greater than
2.00%
• • •
zero) and their
1.50%
corresponding
1.M%
percentages are not
0.50%
displayed to limit the
0.00%
disclosure of client
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018* 2019 2020 ZQ�1
identity and these years
are denoted with an
asterisk(*)
Packet Pg. 26
Older Adults who are Homeless or At -Risk of
Homelessness
Older adults are the second largest
group of people in Edmonds and
they're also the second largest age
group calling211
AC5 2020 Edmonds Ages
Proportionally, the two charts are similar
0
but in terms of magnitudes, there are
Y
more working age adults calling 211
N
suggesting that older adults might have
0
their working age friends and family
Cn
members make those calls for them
E
0
2021 211 Contact Age a
0.06% c
13.74%
CU
m
c
18.8696 1h Y
r
Q
■ 20to 59years ■ 60+ years old ■ Under 5to 19years ■ Adults(21-59) ■ Unknown/Deckned to Answer ■ older Adults (60+) ■ Children (0-20)
Packet Pg. 27
Homeless in Snohomish County
Number of Persons
Housed, Sheltered, and Unsheltered
Point -in -Time Count
517
2015
489
016
■ Unsheltered
M -
55, 0 =4M 0 MI
2017 zoos 2019
Sheltered ■ Permanently Housed
a
https.-Asnohomishcountywa.gov/2857/Point-ln-Time
Packet Pg. 28
Unhoused People with Behavioral
Health Needs
350
• Those with mental
300
illness or
substance use
250
disorders make up
a 200
the largest
amount of
150
unsheltered in the
Z
100
county
so
0
2020 Point in Time Count Summarized by Sub-
lation
Severely Chronic Veterans Persons with Victims of Unaccompanied Parenting
Mentally III Substance HIV/AIDS Domestic Youth Youth
Abuse Violence
Sheltered Unsheltered
Packet Pg. 29
Why People Become Homeless
• The majority of survey
respondents indicated that
lack of affordable housing
was the most common reason
that people became
homelessness in Edmonds
• Third most common reason
being the rise in housing costs
What are the most common reasons that
people become homeless in Edmonds?
Lack of affordable housing 69%
Mental illness 37%
Rise in housing costs 36%
Personal hardship 32%
Lack of adequate support 31 %
services
Substance use 29%
Unemployment 19%
Stagnant wages 17% Y
Domestic violence or abuse 8%
Systemic racism 8%
Other 3%
Did not answer 3%
Packet Pg. 30
Why People Stay Homeless
• The majority of survey
respondents
indicated lack of
affordable housing was
also a common reason
that people stay
homeless in Edmonds
What are the most common reasons that people
0
stay homeless in Edmonds?
o
Y
Lack of affordable housing
63%
o
N
It
Lack of adequate support services
61%
0
Cn
a)
Mental illness
32%
E
Substance use
27%
0
Rise in housing costs
24%
C
Stagnant wages
24%
L
a.
Personal hardship
22%
o
Unemployment
19%
Systemic racism
10%
Y
Other
8%
Domestic violence or abuse
0%
a
Did not answer 3%
Packet Pg. 31
Visible Homelessness and Hidden
Homelessness
• The majority of survey
respondents indicated
that hidden
homelessness was the
prevalent form of
homelessness in
Edmonds
Which type of homelessness is most common in
Edmonds? (Choose one)
Hidden homelessness 59%
Chronic homelessness 19%
Episodic homelessness 10%
Transitional homelessness 7%
Did not answer 5%
0
U
0
Y
N
N
O
N
t
0
Cn
0
a.
R
C
3
0
U
m
c
Y
c
m
E
t
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 32
Visible Homelessness and Hidden
Homelessness
• The majority of survey
respondents indicated
that Car or RV was the
place where people
experiencing
homelessness were
typically staying
Where are people experiencing homelessness in
Edmonds typically staying? (Select all that apply)
Car or RV
With friends/ family
Public property
(such as parks or plazas)
Street
Lower -cost motel
Shelter(s)
Did not answer
Other (please specify)
69%
59%
47%
39%
39%
20%
8%
2%
0
U
0
Y
N
N
O
N
t
0
Cn
0
0
i
E
a.
U
m
c
0
Y
c
m
0
a
Packet Pg. 33
Inventory of Homeless
Services in Edmonds
Region
Packet Pg. 34
Inventory of Homeless Services
•
About a third or more of
providers identified food
assistance, rent/utility
assistance, motel vouchers,
and mental health resources as
services they offered.
Among those providing shelter
services, the survey showed a
total of 125 beds that were
available; for housing services,
a total of 70 housing units.
What types of services do you provide for
individuals or families?
Food assistance
Rent/ utility assistance
Not answered
Motel vouchers
Mental health resources
Substance use disorder resources
Domestic violence resources
Shelter
Transitional housing
Employment services
Rapid rehousing
Affordable housing
Permanent supportive housing
41%
39%
37%
36%
32%
27%
25%
17%
15%
14%
14%
10%
10%
0
U
0)
c
0
Y
N
N
O
N
t
0
0
Cn
0
i
R
E
CL
U
0
0
Y
0
0
a
Packet Pg. 35
Housing and Shelter is a Top Service
Need in Edmonds
• 211 data shows
that housing and
shelter as well as
utilities are the
largest service
needs in Edmonds
211 Edmonds Service Referrals (By Type)
Education
Disaster I
Child Care & Parenting
Transportation Assistance
Clothing & Household
Healthcare
Employment & Income
Mental Health & Addictions
Food
Government & Legal
Other
Utilities
Housing & Shelter
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
■ Met ■ Unmet
0
O
O
Packet Pg. 36
211 Callers in Edmonds are asking for
Services to Manage Housing Costs
211 Edmonds Serve Referrals (Top 20 Sub -Types)
• Amore granular view
Other food m
of the 211 data
Cris is intervention&suicide �
Gas money
Clothing
Naturgas
shows
that
of
the
top
Medical expense assisttaancence �
Directory assistance
five
Helphobseood
specific service
Job search �
requests 4 of them
Other government & legal
Water/sewage garbage
Oth er h ou sing & s h elte r
are directly related to
Mental health services
Housing law
Food pantries/food banks
Shelters
housing or housing
Rent assistance
Low-cost housing
related
costs
All other requests
Electric
0 100 200 300 400 Soo 600 70O 80Q
■Met ■Unmet
0
Y
Packet Pg. 37
Rent Assistance is a Top Unmet Need in
Edmonds
• 211 data shows
that the second
largest
percentage of
unmet requests is
in rent
assistance
% Unmet of 211 Edmonds Referrals
Electric I
Food pantries/food banks ■
Water/sewage garbage
Other government & legal
Job search
Shelters
Help buying food
Phonejinternet
Move -in assistance
Tax preparation
Ride services
All other requests
Automobile assistance
Directory assistance
Rent assi stance
Volunteering & don ations
O
U
O
c
O
Y
r
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.005 Q
Packet Pg. 38
Barriers to Services
• Survey respondents chose from a list of common barriers that people experiencing
homelessness face in accessing services Y
• Roughly a third of respondents indicated lack of transportation, confusing delivery 04
systems and difficulty completing an application.
Did not answer 49%
Lack of transportation
39%
Confusing service delivery systems
36%
Difficulty completing the application
31%
Lack of access to the internet
29%
Lack of mailing address
29%
Aversion to congregate shelters
25%
Lack of a telephone
22%
Stigma
22%
Other (please specify)
8%
N
r-
0
0
E
What are the most con 101
L
barriers that homeless
people face in accessi1 a ?
0
U
m
0
1
r
0
0
a
Packet Pg. 39
Funding Sources for
Homeless Services
v
O
C
O
Y
Packet Pg. 40
Actual Funding for Homeless Services
• Survey participants
indicated city funds/grants
as the leading source of
actual funding for
homeless services
• Other sources of funding
include Snohomish County,
the Department of
Commerce and the Verdant
Health Commission
0
If your organization provides services to
people experiencing homelessness,
how doy(
N
fund these services?
N
Did not answer
46%
r-
0
City funds/grants
27%
o
Donations
20%
Federal grants
20%
.6
County funds
19%
State funds
19%
o
Philanthropic grants
15%
U
Y
Other (please specify)
8%
Not applicable
2%
a
Packet Pg. 41
Funding Performance tracking
About a third of participants said they are required to track their
performance or outcomes to maintain funding
Almost half of participants declined to answer
Yes 37% Are you required to track performance or
No 14% outcomes to maintain funding on any
Don't know 3%
sources of funding?
Did not answer 46%
Packet Pg. 42
Potential Funding
One major theme among responses in
an open-ended follow-up was that the
ability to find funding and the
process to apply was too difficult.
IM
Are you aware of any other specific
sources of funding not currently being Y
received that could be used to address N
homelessness?
Yes 12%
No 32%
Don't know 10%
Packet Pg. 43
Potential State/County Funding
• WA Department of Commerce grants, including Shelter Grant
Program and Housing Trust Fund
• Verdant funding
• Snohomish County's HB 1590 Business Plan funding that
includes:
• 82% of funds expended on acquisition, rehabilitation, construction, and
operations and maintenance of newly acquired and created affordable,
emergency bridge, and permanent supportive housing for a total investment of
$79,464,349 over the first five years.
• 8% of the funds expended for the delivery of services and the creation of a local
reserve fund for the construction of behavioral health facilities for a total
investment of $17,950,361 over five years
Packet Pg. 44
Best Practices
0
U
Survey respondents overwhelming believe the best practice for addressing Y
homelessness is more affordable housing. Other common responses were to create a 04
lon
cohesive emergency shelter system in south Snohomish County, and to increasing
regional collaboration.
When asked about nationally -recognized evidence -based practices, survey
respondents most commonly mentioned permanent supportive housing, and
homelessness prevention (e.g. rental assistance, landlord assistance, eviction
prevention).
Packet Pg. 45
Creative Solutions to Increasing Affordable
Housing
HIP Housing's Shared Housing Program in San Mateo County, CA is increasing affordable housing
stock within existing housing
Matches individuals and couples seeking housing with people who have a room to rent.
• The only eligibility requirement besides being an adult for Home Providers is to have a home in San Mateo County and for
Home Seekers to live, work, or attend school in San Mateo County.
• Home Providers determine want to charge, although most Home Seekers can pay $1,000/month or less.
• There are two types of home sharing arrangements: the Home Provider can either be matched with someone who pays rent, or
someone who pays a reduced rent in exchange for helping with household duties.
• Providers and Seekers complete a background check and work with a housing counselor
to establishing agreements and resolve conflicts.
• Home Providers are often older adults who have high mortgages and taxes, so having a housemate
allows them to stay in their home longer.
• Home Seekers often include hidden unhoused people who are staying with friends or in hotels,
entry-level essential workers, young people lacking rental history.
• Most important outcomes:
4.2.a
Expands the affordable housing options in the community without changing building height limitations or using protected
land to build new units.
Keeps older adults in their own homes longer. Packet Pg. 46
0
U
0
0
Y
4.2.a
Best Practice for Interagency Collaboration
• Bellevue CARES model of multi -agency collaboration for service delivery.
0
• Started in 2012 as a partnership between police and fire departments as a solution N
for high utilizers. Also didn't want to wait until people become a high utilizer to N
intervene. More of a vulnerable populations program now. It
• In 2017 created a Response unit. 7 days a week 8-5:30.2 SWs at a time that can
respond on scene. Residents are encouraged to call CARES instead of 9-1-1. o
• Online referral system. First responders make referrals to SW students. SW assesses
individual needs and refers to appropriate services. SWs provide case management :E
until successfully make warm handoff. Work with some people long-term if they area.
,
not eligible for other services, especially older adults.
0
• City also has two positions related to homelessness under City Manager's office.
a homeless outreach coordinator and a homeless policy manager. 0
• Serve around 80 unhoused which has grown a lot. Light rail coming to Bellevue will
also likely increase the need.
0
a
Packet Pg. 47
4.2.a
Best Practices for Data Collection and Reporting
0
U
c
• Bergen County Housing, Health and Human Services homelessness Y
data collection and reporting through their "Built for Zero" program. N
• In 2012 joined the 100,000 Homes Campaign run by Community -
Solutions. Goal to house 100,000 people, especially the most vulnerable.
• Developed a "vulnerability" score to help triage and prioritize services/beds.
• By 2015 were so successful in housing people, they had less than 2.5%
unhoused, so established "Built for Zero". _
• Housing the remaining unhoused is proving to be most difficult- they are often multi-
barriered. E
• Secrets to successful performance measurement include regular
partner meetings to assess data, designate people as inactive, clarify data
points, etc.
• They have learned that performance measurement is the discipline that helps
the partners work towards the same goal and be accountable to each other.
Packet Pg. 48
Conclusions
While the number of unhoused individuals in Edmonds has gone down over the past few Y
years, the proportion of low-income people experiencing homelessness as increased, 04
en
especially amongst older adults.
• Non -white residents are disproportionally impacted by homelessness and housing
instability.
• The number of cost -burdened residents has grown over the past several years from
around 20% to almost 40% of Edmonds residents.
The City of Edmonds Human Services Department have put new programs in place that
appear to be preventing homelessness.
• There are opportunities for the City to increase regional collaboration with neighboring
cities and the County, especially related to an emergency shelter in south Snohomish
County.
• There are opportunities for the City to provide additional services through
collaboration with DSHS and by providing grants to local community -based
organizations.
Packet Pg. 49
Recommendations
• Continue to fund a Human Services Department, and consider increasing Y
staffing capacity for regional collaboration, policy development, grant-writing,04
cm
and outreach.
0
• Prioritize working with the County to create a south Snohomish County
emergency shelter with onsite supportive services.
0
E
• Pursue agency collaboration by outstationing DSHS eligibility workers from the
Alderwood CSO in the Edmonds Human Services Office.
• Pursue a collaboration with Edmonds College to provide outreach SWs for the
City Human Services Department to work with Edmonds first responders to
provide services to unhoused and other in crisis.
0
• Create a human services grant program and make bi-annual grants available to
community -based organizations to increase availability of local services, 0
including a home sharing program like HIP Housing.
0
• Pursue State and County funding to supplement City general funds for
homelessness prevention services.
a
Packet Pg. 50
Thank You
Comments or Questions?
Alicia.kone@koneconsulting.com
(855) 981-5663
Feedback Form:
https://koneconsulting.com/feedback
Our purpose is to
inspire change and
create lasting
improvements for our
clients in the
government and
nonprofit sectors.
Our clients experience
joywhile we do the
work, and the impact
we make endures long
after we're gone.
Packet Pg. 51
7.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/1/2022
Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of February 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:
02-22-2022 Draft Council Special Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 52
7.1.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE SPECIAL MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
February 22, 2022
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Will Chen, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Council President Pro Tern
Vivian Olson, Council President
Susan Paine, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
Mike Nelson, Mayor
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
None
1. CALL TO ORDER
STAFF PRESENT
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Sharon Cates, City Attorney's Office
Rob English, Acting Public Works Director
Pamela Randolph, WWTP Manager
At 6:46 p.m., the Edmonds City Council Special Meeting was called to order by Mayor Nelson. The Council
utilized the Zoom online meeting platform to conduct this meeting.
2. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Council then convened in an executive session to discuss pending or potential litigation per RCW
42.3 0.11 0(l)(i).
ADJOURN
At 6:59 p.m., the executive session concluded and the meeting was adjourned.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 22, 2022
Page 1
Packet Pg. 53
7.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/1/2022
Approval of Minutes of Adjourned Meeting of February 17, 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:
02-17-2022 Draft Adjourned Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 54
7.2.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES
February 15, 2022
Adjourned until February 17, 2022
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Vivian Olson, Council President
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Will Chen, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Susan Paine, Councilmember
Laura Johnson, Councilmember
1. CALL TO ORDER
STAFF PRESENT
Michelle Bennett, Police Chief
Dave Turley, Administrative Services Director
Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., Cultural Arts & Human
Services Director
Susan McLaughlin, Dev. Serv. Director
Rob English, Acting Public Works Director
Thom Sullivan, Facilities Manager
Sharon Cates, City Attorney's Office
Scott Passey, City Clerk
The Edmonds City Council virtual online adjourned meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor
Nelson.
2. ROLL CALL
City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present, participating remotely.
3. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 2022 ADOPTED CITY BUDGET (CONTINUED)
Councilmember Buckshnis introduced the following proposed 2022 budget amendments:
#38 — $270.180 - New Police Perimeter Fence
• The cost and design of the fence has not been brought forth to a council committee. Securing the
police area is important but should be vetted through a committee to determine if there are less
expensive alternatives.
• Motion: Delete decision packet and process alternatives through council committee and handle
through quarterly amendment process.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON,
TO DELETE THE DECISION PACKET.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 17, 2022
Page 1
Packet Pg. 55
7.2.a
Council President Olson said this was one from the beginning that she thought could have been eliminated,
particularly since it had not been communicated to public that they should not walk through the parking lot.
However, after looking into it further, it seems to be a morale issue due to officers' personal vehicles and
police vehicles being vandalized. [inaudible] She supported this as it was something that will make them
happy. She also wanted to avoid the delay caused by having it go through a committee even though she did
not object to that process.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented the council has received a number of emails from the police
department describing why this important to them. The council also heard from Police Chief Bennett during
the October/November vetting of the budget. She acknowledged morale is part of it, but asked Chief Bennett
to speak to the safety component. Chief Bennett commented many of the council received the video she
sent about a guy involved in a pursuit who was angry with the police and bum -rushed the back door. It is a
safety issue for officers; there have been a number of assaults and assassinations in parking lots where
police officers are coming in and out of their vehicles or buildings. One of staff s main concerns is that over
70 vehicles have been damaged including having tires slashed, paint thrown on vehicles, windshields
broken, etc. There is also an issue with pedestrians crossing the parking lot and with Civic Park going in
across the street, that is expected to get worse. In the past, there have been kids darting in and out between
cars, kids on skateboards, and vehicles unintentionally blocking police cars leaving for in -progress calls.
The biggest concern is it is just a matter of time before someone gets hit in the parking lot. The rationale
includes all those reasons as well as this has apparently been requested for almost 20 years.
Councilmember L. Johnson relayed her understanding the perimeter fence was not just to protect cars, but
also to protect the area where people are detained. Chief Bennett said the sally port, where prisoners,
property and evidence come in and out of the building, is not a secure area whatsoever and there is no
protection or perimeter for officers coming in or out. Additionally, when prisoners or evidence are not using
the sally port, that area is used for training such defensive tactics and people are walking through those
training scenarios. For example, she recently conducted pepper spray training in that area. In addition,
officers come in and out of their vehicles armed with AR-15 rifles, a part of their equipment, can be
alarming for citizens to see.
Councilmember L. Johnson said securing vehicles was very important, but the perimeter fence securing the
sally port really emphasized the importance to her, as well as hearing about near misses in the parking lot
which hopefully the perimeter fence would prevent.
Councilmember Paine commented the perimeter fencing is essential, especially securing the sally port. The
60 incidents in the past and Chief Bennett's experience last week really drives home the importance of this.
She was unsure why this was even a discussion issue when these can be seen as morale issues. She
recognized this was a very high risk area for accidents which needed to be prevented as it would be a terrible
thing if there was an inadvertent vehicle -vehicle or vehicle -pedestrian accident. It also highlights the
importance of people not walking through parking lots. She did not support removing this decision package.
Councilmember Tibbott said he did not support removing this decision packet. He looked at the fence
design and that answered all his questions. He was ready to vote.
Councilmember Chen thanked Chief Bennett for providing him and Councilmember Tibbott an in -person
tour. He agreed with everything that had been said and saw the need for the fence although the cost was
initially a deterrent for him. The council needs to support this to protect the police force, police property
and personal property and to avoid potential liabilities. He did not support removing this decision package.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was aware of the previous history and why the fence was not installed
in the past. She asked how the estimated cost was determined, whether it was something the administration
came up with and was increased to reflect inflation. Chief Bennett answered vendors provided bids several
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 17, 2022
Page 2
Packet Pg. 56
7.2.a
times in the past and it got to the point where because that had been done so many times, some vendors
refused to come out because the project never happened. Staff took the latest bid from All City Fence and
added inflation to develop the best estimate at the time.
Councilmember K. Johnson said one of her questions was how the fence would integrate with the public
parking in that lot, with traffic flow, with the art, and people accessing the parking. She agreed 100% with
securing the police but was concerned about how it would integrate with public parking and the size of the
fence. The cost was quite high and she wondered how large the fence would be. Chief Bennett answered
the design prepared in the past by a couple different potential vendors still includes public parking and
handicapped parking. The fence will be designed to naturally usher people into the Veterans Memorial
Plaza and the walkway and will not prevent people from accessing the parking lot. She offered to send the
schematic design to council again. It is a decorative wrought iron fence so it will not look like a fortress or
chain link. Councilmember K. Johnson said she would like to see the design.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (0-7), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN,
TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON
VOTING NO.
#40 — $36K — 2022 Commute Trip Reduction
With pandemic these ORCA cards seem to be an unneeded expense since many employees are
working from home. An amendment can always come through after proper vetting in council
committee.
• Motion: Delete decision packet.
No motion was made.
#41 — $30K - Purchase Message Board
• The civic organizations that want to use them can rent them from a sign company. This is not a city
function.
• Motion: Delete decision packet and bring forth to council committee to justify need.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON,
TO DELETE THE DECISION PACKET AND BRING FORTH TO COUNCIL COMMITTEE.
Councilmember L. Johnson said during staff s presentation in the fall, she learned it is more than just civic
groups that use these. She asked if staff could speak to how these were used. Acting Public Works Director
Rob English explained message boards are also used for capital construction. The City has two existing
variable message boards that were purchased a few years ago. During public events in the past 1-2 years,
at times signs have had to be pulled from a capital project. This additional sign is needed to meet the demand
for construction projects and public events.
Councilmember L. Johnson observed the message boards are yet another way to engage with the public and
inform them what is happening in the community. Mr. English answered agreed they are great tools to
engage with the public and notify of upcoming projects. They were used very effectively to notify the public
of the meetings regarding the bike lane project. Councilmember L. Johnson asked if they have a safety
component. Mr. English answered they can, there were discussions at the time of the potential tsunami that
the signs would be useful in a disaster event to send out notifications.
Councilmember L. Johnson summarized it was a one-time $30,000 cost with a great benefit; it increases
the City's ability to engage with the public, something citizens want and something the council has said
they are interested in. She did not support removing this decision package.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 17, 2022
Page 3
Packet Pg. 57
7.2.a
Councilmember Paine said she loves coming across these message boards; they are helpful to residents and
visitors because they provide a lot of information such as notifying of tricky traffic. She did not support
removing this decision package, noting the funding comes from ending fund balance and one of the reasons
for having an ending fund balance is to support purchases like this. The message board signs are helpful
across the City and probably more signs would be useful as more projects are developed.
Councilmember K. Johnson recalled Mr. English saying there was more demand in the last 1-2 years for
community events and asked if he was referring to Walkable Main. Mr. English yes, noting the signs were
also used for the Uptown Market and a few others events that were listed on the slide that Mr. Williams
presented last fall.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if community groups could use them such as the Rotary Club for
Oktoberfest. Mr. English answered he was not aware that they have been put out for that type of community
group, but he would need to verify that; they are typically used for City -sponsored events. Councilmember
K. Johnson commented the Uptown Market and Main Street events were new and perhaps needed these
message boards. It was not clear in the justification how they were going to be used. She acknowledged
they were intended to be used to support ongoing capital projects which she felt was very useful.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed the City already has two message signs. Mr. English answered yes.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the $30,000 would be used to purchase one or two more message
boards. Mr. English advised it was to purchase one.
MOTION FAILED UNANIMOUSLY.
#47 — $440K - Yost and Seaview Reservoir Assessment and Rehabilitation
• This entire project has yet to be brought forth to council and an amendment can occur in 2022. The
numbers don't match the description and the Seaview reservoir is not included.
• This needs to be sorted out in the council committee.
• Motion: Delete decision packet; bring to council committee and sort out numbers through CIP/CFP
process.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON,
TO DELETE THE DECISION PACKET; BRING TO COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND SORT OUT
NUMBERS THROUGH CIP/CFP PROCESS.
Councilmember Chen commented there is no doubt due to the age of these two facilities that an assessment
needs to be done. He asked if those were time sensitive or urgent and if not, the proposal to remove the
decision package and go through the process was appropriate. Mr. English explained it is urgent from an
age perspective; the Yost reservoir was built in 1973 and the Seaview reservoir was built 1976. The two
reservoirs at Five Corners were refurbished recently and both ended up having more extensive repairs than
originally thought. At the conclusion, staff agreed these two reservoirs needed to be assessed due to their
age. An assessment that started last year on Yost reservoir found the roof is not structurally attached to the
walls which presents a potential hazard in a seismic event, the reservoir is leaking, the floor has critical
problems that need repair, it needs to be retrofitted to current structural codes, and the walls are not designed
to account for surrounding groundwater levels. That assessment was done in 2021 and the intent is to move
forward with design. It will be a sizeable repair project; ballpark estimates are $3 million to make those
repairs.
Mr. English explained the Seaview reservoir assessment is underway following a delay related to another
issue so details regarding the repairs are not yet available. In response to Councilmember Chen's question,
he strongly recommended this project continue to move forward.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 17, 2022
Page 4
Packet Pg. 58
Councilmember L. Johnson asked Mr. English to explain what would happen in the event of failure. Mr.
English answered in a complete failure, the structure could potentially collapse or crack to a degree that
would render it non -operable which would eliminate use of that reservoir during a critical event.
Councilmember L. Johnson observed moving forward now helps ensure that doesn't happen and gives the
City time to start budgeting for the significant costs as well as determine how significant the damage is and
possibly reprioritize the repairs. Mr. English agreed. Councilmember L. Johnson said given all that, the
condition of the reservoirs, and that the City needs the reservoirs, she will not support removing this
decision package.
Councilmember K. Johnson said this decision package has a lot of contradictory information. She
determined the $130,000 assessment of the Yost reservoir needs to be done and once that is done, the City
will know the design costs. They are currently estimated to be $450,000 with future construction at $3-$3.5
million just for the Yost reservoir and apparently there is some analysis being done for the Seaview reservoir
but that cost will not be determined until the assessment is finished in 2022.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON,
TO AMEND TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ASSESSMENT FOR THE YOST RESERVOIR IN THE
AMOUNT OF $130,000 AND FIGURE OUT WHAT ELSE NEEDS TO BE DONE WHEN WE HAVE
THE INFORMATION.
Councilmember K. Johnson said this decision package is for a total expenditure of $505,000, but the
estimate for the design is $450,000 and the estimate for the assessment is $130,000 which totals $580,000
so the numbers do not quite add up. She moving forward with $130,000 for the assessment and figure out
the numbers for both the Yost and Seaview reservoirs. She was in support of the project but felt it needed
to be thoroughly understood before funds were allocated.
Mr. English suggested keeping in mind that this decision package was written seven months ago in July
2021 so the information is old and the assessment on Yost reservoir is now complete as indicated by the
information he shared about the roof not being structurally attached, the reservoir leaking, etc. The Seaview
reservoir is in the process of being assessed. The $440,000 for design and $65,000 for staff time totals
$505,000 which is budgeted to begin the design process in 2022.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented that was very interesting information, that the assessment on the
Yost reservoir is done and the assessment of the Seaview reservoir is underway. She asked if funds were
necessary for the assessment or was that already paid for. Mr. English answered the assessment was paid
with 2021 funds and this work would be to start design in 2022. Councilmember K. Johnson observed the
design is only for the Yost reservoir and asked how much the design for Seaview would cost. Mr. English
answered that is not known at this point because the assessment of Seaview has not been completed.
Councilmember K. Johnson observed this is really not the Yost and Seaview assessment and rehab, it is the
Yost reservoir design project. Mr. English said the goal is to do them in tandem, but the focus of the design
now is on the Yost reservoir. Once the assessment is completed on Seaview, the scope and fee to move
forward will need to be determined. Councilmember K. Johnson said this decision package does not lay
that out; she appreciated Mr. English's explanation and update.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
Councilmember Paine said Mr. English covered all the numbers she was going to ask for an update on. She
observed the intent would be to finish the assessment on Seaview and try to do them in tandem. Mr. English
agreed.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 17, 2022
Page 5
Packet Pg. 59
7.2.a
Based on the fact the assessment on Yost has been completed and there are issues that need to be worked
through, Councilmember Buckshnis asked if this was part of the December CIP/CFP process or was this
information provided since then. Mr. English advised page 65 of the CIP/CFP listed the Yost Seaview
reservoir project. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if $440,000 was sufficient to begin design with this
assessment of Yost. Mr. English answered a lot will depend on the Seaview assessment, how good or bad
that is will determine how much potential additional budget is needed for design fees in 2022.
MOTION FAILED UNANIMOUSLY.
#48 — $120K - 3-year Utility Rate Study Consultant
• Every three years the City conducts a rate study utilizing projects in the CIP/CFP; the last rate study
was in 2019
• The CIP/CFP should be scrubbed before we allow review by a consulting firm as this process is
not brought forth to council committee. Numbers in this budget have shown inconsistencies. This
can be handled through amendment process once CIP/CFP is reviewed.
• Motion: Delete decision packet and bring forth through Council Committee.
Councilmember L. Johnson referred to Councilmember Buckshnis' comment about the maker of the motion
and asked who that was. Mayor Nelson advised no motion had been made. Councilmember Buckshnis
commented on November 17t'', there were two individual councilmember and an elected official who would
be seated on November 23' who were not part of the process. She is just the person who was provided the
data since the council does not have a legislative assistant. This item came from Councilmember K.
Johnson.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO DELETE THE DECISION PACKET AND BRING FORTH THROUGH COUNCIL
COMMITTEE.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she believed the stormwater fees should not be included in the $16M
stormwater project for the Edmonds Marsh as it will impact the rate study.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of clarification, pointing out the council voted to remove $16M
from stormwater during the CIP/CFP process so it would not impact the rates. Councilmember K. Johnson
said at the time this was put together, it was included which was her main objection at that time. As has
been noted, the council needs to take a closer look at the CIP/CFP because that information is part of the
rate study. She suggested waiting a year to sort this out and doing the rate study next year.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented this was part of the original discussion. Looking at the decision
package, one can read that this has been done every three years, reviewing utility rates charged customers
and recommending any needed changes for council approval and mayor sign -off. This task needs to be done
so that the City can ensure there is adequate funding for staff to, 1) manage and run our aging water, sewer
and storm utility and infrastructure, 2) continue to provide safe drinking water, and sewer and storm service
to Edmonds residents, 3) address immediate maintenance needs, and 4) address long term maintenance
replacement and upgrade needs. In addition, a review of the City's general facilities charges will be done
and any recommended changes will be brought to council and mayor for approval.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked Mr. English if he had anything to add to. To her this was about safe
water, assessing and ensuring there was adequate funding, and this is done every three years. She had not
heard justification for not ensuring this could be done. Mr. English said Councilmember L. Johnson hit a
lot of key points. The previous discussion about the reservoir that needs $3M in improvements is one of the
things that needs to be considered in the next 3-year rate study, ensuring those costs are programmed so the
rates provide revenue to fund those improvements. If the rate study is put off a year, the challenge is the
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 17, 2022
Page 6
Packet Pg. 60
7.2.a
incremental jump the following three years could be much larger. The longer the study is delayed, the more
the increase is potentially compounded in the following 3 years.
Councilmember L. Johnson said everyone has heard news stories across the country of what happens when
adequate efforts are not made to ensure safe drinking water and she preferred not to be one of those. She
supported continuing this study to ensure the City has safe drinking water as it is necessary for life and the
cost of not doing it could be enormous. She did not support the motion.
Councilmember Tibbott asked the last time the CIP/CFP was evaluated and whether the reservoirs that were
just discussed were in the current CIP/CFP and if not, they would not be part of the proposed rate study.
Mr. English explained the council approved the CIP/CFP in December which is done every year.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of clarification, agreeing the council reviews the CIP/CFP every
year but it was reviewed in detail in 2014. Mr. English answered that $3M cost for the reservoir is not
programed in the CIP/CFP that was approved in December. Councilmember Tibbott observed if the City
undertook a rate study before the end of the year, the reservoir costs could theoretically be included. Mr.
English answered it takes a while to the develop the rate study; it usually starts in the spring and information
is presented in early fall so timing is critical. If the intent is to do a 3-year package of rate increases that
start in 2023; the last year of the current 3-year rate increase is 2022. If the City wants the next package to
start in 2023, the rate study needs to start sooner rather than later.
Councilmember Paine did not support removing this decision package, noting rate studies are a normal
feature of all municipalities, regularly occurring and something that needs to be done to maintain funding
for water, sewer and stormwater utilities. These are protected funds used for nothing other than utilities. If
the council wants to review the CIP/CFP, that can be added to the council agenda planning.
Council President Olson said with the pandemic, many things that always happen on a regular schedule did
not happen for a year or so. If there was a good reason and it was not legally required to do the study every
three years, she agreed the council could consider waiting until the CIP/CFP is scrubbed so the inputs are
better for the rate study. This is not a decision about clean water, it is just about the rates that are charged,
not what the City is taking care of/not taking care of, although the funding for those things is related and
makes it easier not to look for funds from the General Fund. She stressed regardless of the decision on this
decision package, it was not making a choice for unsafe drinking water.
Council President Olson understood the jump in rates was a concern and something the City would want to
mitigate and asked if there was any upside/value in waiting until there had been a close look at the CIP/CFP
which will occur during this calendar year. Mr. English said he struggled with the characterization of
scrubbing the CIP/CFP because the council has the opportunity for that review when it is presented every
year. Other than delaying the rate adjustment and the impact that delaying the study a year could have, he
did not have a lot of other argument other than continuing to fund operations and the capital program; a
delay increases the adjustment in following years. Council President Olson agreed that was a negative. She
asked if there were any positives in waiting. Mr. English answered no, the positives of doing the rate study
this year outweigh the negatives.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the practice of conducting rate studies began 6-9 years ago. Before that,
council set the rates based on what other cities had done and things of that nature. As Councilmember K.
Johnson mentioned, in 2019 the Edmonds Marsh was moved into stormwater and the stormwater rates were
contingent on that project being in stormwater which was her concern. She saw issues with watershed areas
such as Perrinville that are included in the CIP/CFP which is another reason she thinks the CIP/CFP should
be methodically reviewed. The council looks at the CIP/CFP very quickly every year because it is done
during the budget process although it was slightly different in 2021 and the CIP/CFP presentation was
moved to December.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 17, 2022
Page 7
Packet Pg. 61
7.2.a
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the rate study consultant recommended an 8.5% increase last year and
the council changed it to 5%. The council has total control over the rates. If this study needs to be done,
fine, but her preference is to go through the CIP/CFP carefully and include the reservoir information. She
did not see an issue with waiting until September or next year to start the rate study. She reiterated rates
used to be set by council and when Noel Miller was the public works director, rates were not increased
which is why there were such large increases in the last few years. She summarized it was important go
through things methodically, take our time and ensure everything is shored up especially with our
watersheds.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked how inflation would affect a decision not to do a rate study at this time.
Administrative Services Director Dave Turley answered as has been pointed out several times and part of
the reason these amendments are being discussed, inflation is currently higher than it has been in a decade.
Utility rates increase every year, much of that is due to inflation. For example, if the regular rate increase
was 5%, and the rate increase was skipped this year, the increase could be significantly higher due to the
effects of inflation. He would not want to see a 5% increase this year turn into a 12-13% increase the
following year. Skipping a rate study and taking a shot in dark by council seemed dangerous in his
experience. Councilmember L. Johnson said she could see how, especially for people on tighter budget, an
incremental increase versus a large increase due to not doing the studies would not be the best way to
proceed.
Councilmember Paine asked the risk of veering away from a rate study; if the last increase was 5%, what
increase was recommended by the last study. Councilmember Buckshnis answered the recommendation
was 8.5% and council approved 5%. Mr. Turley said he would need to do the math. Councilmember Paine
said she was curious about the level of risk without having the correct amount assessed. In addition, as
Councilmember L. Johnson mentioned, having a big increase was disruptive to people's budget planning.
Not having enough collected also could put the City in a dicey spot. Councilmember Paine concluded she
did not want to miss a year for the rate study.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the financial statements footnotes the increase at 5%; Mr. Turley would
need to go back to the prior year and watch the PowerPoint to see what rates were initially proposed. Mr.
Turley agreed it was 5% for last three years, when inflation was 1%.
Councilmember K. Johnson said another consideration is during these difficult pandemic times, many
people are strapped for resources and maintaining a level period in utility rates would be welcomed by the
public. There may be some risk of a higher rate the next year, but the rate study does not determine the rate;
the council determines the rate. For example, if the rate study recommends an 8.5% increase, the council
does not have to approve that increase. The council needs to balance the needs with what they feel the
public can tolerate. If there has been a 5% increase for the past three years, that could be maintained this
year and a detailed rate study done when the utilities' needs are better understood.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND
BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON
AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO.
#51 — $20K — Overtime
• The City's pilot projects are not a sufficient reason to add overtime on an on -going need. Increasing
the overtime appropriation should be addressed with council committee to look at consistency in
overtime over the years.
• Motion: Delete decision packet and bring through council committee.
No motion was made.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 17, 2022
Page 8
Packet Pg. 62
7.2.a
#53 — $550K Perrinville Creek Lower Restoration
• Total project cost estimated at $3.5M with another $2M for Talbot Road culverts.
• See #60 There is not sufficient information to support this expense and/or restoration aspect.
• Motion: Delete and move through CIP/CFP process when restoration plan is provided by
administration.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON,
TO DELETE THIS $550,000 REQUEST.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the council has heard from many citizens regarding the Perrinville
Creek Watershed restoration. It has been almost a year and no restoration plan has been provided by the
administration to support the $3.5M. The railroad trestle for the Meadowdale Beach was $3.5M so she was
unsure where the $3.5M estimate came from. She preferred to have this go through the CIP/CFP process to
get the numbers to support this need.
Councilmember Paine asked Mr. English to describe the status of the work on Perrinville Creek. Mr.
English answered the project is on the lower segment of Perrinville Creek. Discussions have begun with
three of the property owners on that segment to establish a new alignment for the outfall of the lower
section. There is an existing streambed channel that meanders across 3-4 properties at the outfall and that
channel is filled with sediment from the creek and is not taking water. There is a diversion structure
upstream from that lower reach that takes the water out to Puget Sound. The discussions with property
owners are intended to reach agreement on establishing a new channel that would run between City's
diversion pipe and the current meandering channel in more straight alignment and take it out through a fish
passable culvert underneath the railroad. That is the project that this decision package would move forward.
Councilmember Paine asked if these fund would be for the design process. Mr. English answered yes.
Councilmember Paine observed funds are needed to develop a design and it takes money to develop
complicated designs like this. She recalled from last year, this is an active emergency. Perrinville is a very
fragile watershed and the outflow to Puget Sound is an actual emergency. She was glad to hear that's what
the project looks like, that works needs to be done and the plan for the engineered design needs to be funded.
Councilmember L. Johnson said in the introduction to this and speaking to the motion, she heard
acknowledgement that this is an emergency, a huge problem and that the exact cost is unknown. There are
some estimates such as $3.5M and another $2M for the Talbot road replacement. She was also hearing that
because the exact cost is unknown, planning should not begin. She was not following why if it was
acknowledged as an emergency, the City should not move forward with how to address the emergency.
Doing that requires funding and will reveal the cost. If it is an emergency and everyone acknowledges that,
then the City needs to move forward with a plan to address it. She supported keeping the funding in the
budget and did not support removing it.
Councilmember K. Johnson said Perrinville Creek was very important to her; it has the potential for fish
passage and the lower restoration project cannot be done without looking at what causing is the
sedimentation that continues year after year. The entire Perrinville Creek basin needs to be considered
holistically including engaging the City of Lynnwood as a partner. The City cannot just put a bypass pipe
in the lower session to get rid of the water because that will still cause sedimentation and fish cannot be
restored in the creek if the heavy sedimentation continues. The City has been working on the lower part of
the creek but has been unable to solve the problem. Before moving ahead with part of the solution, the City
should look at the entire problem. For that reason, she supports removing this decision package at this time
and maybe redesigning the ask.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 17, 2022
Page 9
Packet Pg. 63
7.2.a
Councilmember Chen commented councilmembers all know the urgency of this project. He recognized
Councilmember Buckshnis for taking him to visit the mouth of the creek where the problems occurs; but
like Councilmember K. Johnson said, the problem is not just at the mouth, it starts upstream. With that said,
this study doesn't just look at the mouth, it will incorporate what Councilmember K. Johnson said, look at
the whole picture and determine how to address problem. If that is the case, he would support funding the
study because the City has to start somewhere. This is an emergency, property owners have been flooded
when water doesn't get channeled to Puget Sound properly. He asked Mr. English to describe what this
funding would do.
Mr. English said everyone is raising good points regarding Perrinville Creek. Tetra Tech did a study on the
Perrinville system; one of the things they evaluated was reducing the amount of water going into the system
in an effort to reduce peak flows events. During high flow rain events, which have occurred more frequently
in the past couple years, a lot of sediment is taken out of the banks. The Tetra Tech study identified several
up -basin projects that could be done to reduce the impacts. Some of those have been implemented including
the first phase of the Seaview infiltration galley that was installed a couple years ago and the second phase
that is planned to be completed this year. Several rain gardens were also built in the upper part of the
watershed, all in an effort to reduce the input into the system.
Mr. English agreed Lynnwood needs to be a partner because they are part of the basin and have drainage
into the creek. These funds are focused on solving the current, immediate problem on the lower segment,
from the diversion structure to the outfall. There are concepts on paper, but nothing has been designed. That
process needs to be started because the effort to permit whatever will be built in the lower reach will take
time. That is the immediate need and that is what this money is for. The council will approve the design
contract so they will see the scope of work for that section.
Councilmember Chen commented this project has had a lot of stakeholder involvement including the
railroad, private property owners, and Lynnwood so the consultant will have that information and not just
focus on one area due to the broader implications. He supported funding for this project because the City
needs to get started.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the City was involved in litigation and could not do any design. As
Councilmember K. Johnson said, the City needs to look at this from a global perspective. If something is
designed for the lower aspect and then finds there is something further up that causes problem such as under
the Perrinville post office where large amounts of land is moving down the steam into that lower restoration
area, that could be problematic. She questioned how design could begin when it was kind of in limbo. Mr.
English said he wanted to be cautious about providing a response and did not comfortable speaking to
Councilmember Buckshnis' question from a legal standpoint.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the City needs get all its ducks in a row which is one of the biggest issues
about the lower section, not to mention the section further up. Mr. English said in any case there still needs
to be a design for the lower part. He agreed there were parts of the upper watershed that could be studied
but the lower stretch still needs to be designed regardless. Sharon Cates, City Attorney's Office, said she
did not have much to add about what should/should not be discussed because she was not familiar with any
litigation currently underway and Mr. English was right to be cautious about saying too much at this point.
Councilmember Buckshnis summarized she did not think any design should begin until "we figure out
where we can design it."
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND
BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON
AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO.
#55 — $190K - Edmonds Marsh Water Quality provements
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 17, 2022
Page 10
Packet Pg. 64
7.2.a
• No justification for water mitigation or the phases of this stormwater project. Suggest that the
stormwater aspect be clarified in the CIP/CFP process.
• Motion: Delete decision packet and move through CIP/CFP process when restoration plan outlined.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
DELETE THE DECISION PACKET AND MOVE IT THROUGH THE CIP/CFP PROCESS WHEN
RESTORATION PLAN IS OUTLINED.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented this project was recently removed from stormwater. Six designs
provided by a hydrology firm were used to develop the $16M estimate. It was not funded via a marsh
restoration plan, but as mitigation for the connector project. Once the connector went away, design 6 of the
Shannon Wilson report became moot in her opinion and this information is premature and she preferred to
look at the entire project holistically. Water quality improvements were made by citizen volunteers
removing the fences and there are plan to remove the fences on the Shellabarger side of the marsh utilizing
Edmonds College interns. She recommended putting a pause on this until there is resolution of the Unocal
property.
Councilmember L. Johnson said feasibility documents for the Willow Creek Daylighting project identified
some areas of concern with the water quality of stormwater entering the marsh. Additionally, new research
has identified a chemical in tire production causing pre -spawn mortality in salmon, further cementing the
linkage between vehicle traffic and poor water quality for fish habitat. She pointed out that chemical is the
6PPD-quinone which University of Washington and Washington State University were finally able to
definitively show is causing mortality in salmon. After a storm event, they saw up to 90% death. In 2004
in Edmonds at the hatchery, there was a huge die off of 9,500 young salmon due to a stormwater event.
This provides the opportunity to look at SR-104, an area of high traffic with a lot of tire dust and to consider
how this impacts salmon. At the WRIA-8 meetings, there were videos and in-depth discussion about that
chemical in tires causing mortality in spawning salmon.
Councilmember L. Johnson said this is an opportunity to see how SR-104 and the area around Harbor
Square impact the health of salmon and what can be done to prevent tire dust from entering the marsh. This
project includes a grant. For all the emphasis that has been put on ensuring healthy habitat for salmon, she
questioned why the City wouldn't want to treat the runoff from SR-104 and reduce a known toxic chemical
entering the marsh. She supported retaining the decision package and did not support motion.
Councilmember Paine concurred with Councilmember L. Johnson's comments. She asked if there was
anything more that needed to be said about this project. It was her understanding the project was along SR-
104 and would mitigate tire dust on SR-104 which acts like a giant sluice. There is another project to
reconfigure the ferry traffic holding lanes which will concentrate more cars in that area. She asked if there
was other justification for this project. Mr. English offered to summarize what the project will do. There
are catch basins on SR-104 that collect runoff from the street and discharge it directly into the marsh. The
first phase of this project, for which the City received a Department of Ecology grant, will retrofit those
catch basins and provide water quality treatment to treat runoff before it enters the marsh. Phase 1 will take
care of the catch basins on the west side. When ARPA funds became available, the project was expanded
and added Phase 2 and 3; Phase 2 would do the same thing to the catch basins on the east side of SR-104
and Phase 3 would do the same thing to the catch basins in Harbor Square. Phases 2 and 3 will be funded
with ARPA money and Phase 1 is funded 75% with a Department of Ecology grant and a 25% local match
from stormwater.
Council President Olson said she was not able to have conversations with Councilmember Buckshnis about
this because too many other councilmembers had had budget conversations with her. As someone who has
been super involved in the marsh and WRIA 8 and has been a lead proponent for the community in terms
of environmental things, this seems like a positive thing that could be done now to move things forward.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 17, 2022
Page 11
Packet Pg. 65
7.2.a
She asked Councilmember Buckshnis to express what her reservations with doing that. Councilmember
Buckshnis said Students Saving Salmon do water quality reports. The City is not dealing with spawning
salmon yet because no design has been done for the Edmonds Marsh restoration due to the Unocal property.
She was unaware there was a grant and she was unsure when the grant obtained. There have been some
efforts with water quality such as taking the fences out. She preferred to wait a year to see how to do the
entire project. She acknowledged the runoff from SR-104 flows directly into the marsh but did not think it
made it to Puget Sound. If she could be convinced it does flow all the way to Puget Sound, "then maybe
we should do it." She summarized she is listening to local scientists who support a holistic approach.
Council President Olson asked Councilmember Buckshnis if she supported retrofitting the catch basins to
improve water quality, noting that will eventually need to be done so it would be better to do it sooner rather
than later.
Councilmember Chen commented SR-104 has existed for many years and he questioned why this study
had not been done earlier. Mr. English explained this is not a study, it is to design and retrofit the catch
basins. SR-104 is a State route in the State's right-of-way. There has been a lot of focus on the marsh and
this was identified as an improvement that could be made. The grant which was secured in 2020 was written
to implement this project.
Councilmember Tibbott said this decision package was not clear. He did not understand from reading it
that it included installing catch basins to filter water. Hearing that explanation and knowing there are grant
funds to install the catch basins, he did not support removing this decision package from the budget. He
expressed appreciation for the additional information provided tonight.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented as someone who has actually studied this quite a bit for various
reasons, it was only a few years ago that the connection was made that tire dust is responsible for the
spawning salmon die off. It was suspected for quite a while, but that connection was only definitely made
a couple years ago. While this project would be beneficial to prevent pollution entering the marsh, the
determination that it would improve the health of salmon likely impacted the City's ability to obtain the
grant.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she was well aware of the tire dust issue and how it can cause pollution
that directly affects fish. However, her problem with this decision package is she cannot figure out what's
going on. The decision package states the City previously secured a 75% grant and she heard that that was
applied for in 2020. She was unsure if that was part of this decision package or if it was for Phase 1. The
explanation provided by staff was that Phase 2 will be on the west side and Phase 3 will be at Harbor Square
but the numbers don't add up. The decision package states initial Phase 1 elements were estimated at
$418,000 with another $750,000 estimated for the expanded phase for a total of $1.16 million, but the total
expenditures proposed are only $190,000 which includes interfund services and the proposed funding
source is the Coronavirus Relief Fund. She summarized her concern was the decision package is not clear
and although the intent is not good, it needs to be sorted out in order to move forward.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND
BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON
AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO.
#60 — $121,542 - Perrinville Creek Projects
• No information provided from the Administration for the restructure project.
• Motion: Delete decision packet and bring forth through CIP/CFP process and budget amendments.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 17, 2022
Page 12
Packet Pg. 66
7.2.a
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
DELETE DECISION PACKET AND BRING FORTH THROUGH CIP/CFP PROCESS TO GAIN
MORE INFORMATION.
Councilmember Paine asked staff to confirm they are in discussions with the City of Lynnwood about how
to better handle stormwater issues in the Perrinville watershed. Mr. English said staff has made the initial
outreach and those discussions need to continue, they haven't gone very far at this point. The decision
package has ties back to the Tetra Tech study that he mentioned for the upper part of the watershed. That
study identified the need to reduce inputs into Perrinville Creek to bring down peak runoff events. This
funding has been in the budget for several years to fund those projects. In the early years it was used to help
the Seaview Phase 1 project, rain gardens were built on 8I't last year, and there are plans this year to work
with the Snohomish County Conservation District to add rain gardens in an area off 83rd. The focus and
purpose of these funds are to help solve the Perrinville issue, to reduce flows entering the system.
Councilmember Paine said she was glad to see the funding in the budget.
Councilmember L. Johnson referred to the justification in the decision package that was passed as part of
the 2022 budget which states, reducing scouring flows, in order to reduce sediments load, in Perrinville
Creek was identified in a previous basin report completed in 2015 as a critical element of restoring this
creek which has been significantly impacted by urban development. She recall a councilmember
mentioning earlier that sediment is a major part of the problem. She did not understand the statement in the
PowerPoint about no information provided because the information is provided in the decision package in
the budget book. The council knows there is an issue with Perrinville Creek and that sediment is an issue;
this decision package spells that out. She hoped councilmembers would take the opportunity to ask
questions to understand the need for retaining this decision package and the need to address this.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the decision package which states, the approved CIP accounts for
this being a $100,000 annual amount. She asked if this was $100,000 annual amount or $121,542 or was it
something separate. She was confused as she believed the entire basin should be looked at instead of
piecemealing it. She referred to Mr. English's explanation that the funds would be used for rain gardens,
pointing out Snohomish County Conservation District gives out grants for rain gardens. Mr. English
explained several rain gardens have been identified on 83rd for construction in 2022 to reduce the inputs.
He reminded that decision packages are written in July and it takes time to develop projects. Between July
and now, more is known and the project on 83' is the target for building rain gardens. This program has
been funded for the last several years. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how many rain gardens could be
constructed for $121,000. Mr. English said he did not have that information with him tonight.
Councilmember Paine recalled this was looked at closely in the CIP review. It is on page 71 of the CIP,
$121,000 this year and $100,000 for the following six years. This is an ongoing project; there have been
infiltration projects in Seaview and that is now in Phase 2. This is programmed as part of the CIP and she
was surprised to see this being identified as something new when it was talked about during the CIP/CFP.
Rain gardens have been discussed as effective measures to reduce environmental harm. She was struggling
to understand why councilmembers did not understand this was part of the effort to reduce runoff in that
neighborhood since everyone knows how fragile the environment in that area is. She referred to projects on
Olympic View Drive where the land is subsiding because it is all sand.
Speaking in opposition to removing this decision package, Councilmember L. Johnson said we all know
the benefits of retaining water on site and reducing flows and the benefits of filtering water onsite. This
decision package states the funding will allow staff flexibility to respond to opportunities such as rain
gardens cluster projects or ensure matching funds are available for grant applications for flow reduction
projects. The funds provide the ability to partner, to take advantage of opportunity as they present
themselves, and shows the City is dedicated to do this. If the funds are removed from the budget, groups
will be less likely to partner with the City. These funds show the City's dedication to working to reduce
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 17, 2022
Page 13
Packet Pg. 67
7.2.a
flooding and working on things that are overall good for climate protection. She did not support the motion
to remove the funding from the budget.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (0-7), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN,
TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON
VOTING NO.
#61 - $400K - Green Streets and Rain Gardens
• Not sufficient information or green street definition in supporting City documents to support costs.
• Rain garden grants available through Snohomish County.
• More information needed to determine how the bio-retention and rain gardens are to be built to
reduce flooding.
• Motion: Delete decision packet. Bring forth through council committee and the CIP/CFP process.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON,
TO DELETE DECISION PACKET AND BRING FORTH THROUGH COUNCIL COMMITTEE
SO IT CAN BE REVIEWED MORE CLOSELY.
Council President Olson commented this is premature. The State of the City was the first she had ever heard
of green streets and certainly the community hasn't been consulted regarding whether that is something
they want the City to move forward with. In addition, it is not in the comprehensive plan or something that
has been talked about as a community. She agreed with the need for further vetting of this appropriation.
Mayor Nelson commented this was included in the budget which was long before his State of City.
Councilmember L. Johnson suggested staff describe the benefits of green infrastructure and green streets.
Development Services Director Susan McLaughlin commented the previous items have emphasized the
importance of reducing flooding, bioretention, improving stormwater management, and keeping water as
well managed as possible as it moves into Puget Sound. This decision package was written by her
predecessor but she also has great experience with green streets. Green streets is a generalized term and the
City does not have a definition. They are so broadly defined that it could literally mean an abundance of
landscape that is intentional on a particular street, whether it is to improve the pedestrian experience or an
actual engineered bioretention facility.
Ms. McLaughlin continued, as part of the PROS Plan, residents expressed interest in improving walkability
throughout the City particularly around parks. Mapping is being done of areas in the City that are suitable
for bioretention and creating a green street network. An intentional effort toward capital investments on
these streets makes sense from an engineered bioretention standpoint. That is on the higher, engineered
scale; green streets can literally mean planting trees, de -paving and getting rid of as much [im]permeable
surface as possible on streets that tend to have excessive width in some areas. The opportunities are endless
and having capital dollars available and mapping a green street network will benefit residents who are
interested in greening the streets and improving walkability.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked if green streets and this effort fit into the comprehensive plan. Ms.
McLaughlin answered absolutely. Everything that has been talked about such as improving the
environment, managing stormwater, and improving walkability are all policy statements that could be found
in some form or fashion in the comprehensive plan. Mapping capital investments will be important moving
into the future, but there are endless opportunity to plant trees, de -pave, add landscape, etc. and having
capital dollars to do that will be important. Having capital dollars available for public/private partnerships,
opportunities where the City could partner with other organizations to install rain gardens or improve
landscaping will also be helpful.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 17, 2022
Page 14
Packet Pg. 68
7.2.a
Councilmember K. Johnson said she certainly hoped efforts toward green streets did not include de -paving;
that was a concept she had never heard of before. She had heard of defunding the police but not de -paving
the streets. She felt streets were insufficient in many areas and if the desire was to improve walkability, the
number one thing would be to build sidewalks. Anytime sidewalks are constructed, it can include planting
trees and landscaping along the right-of-way. Sidewalks are her priority in terms of walkability and use of
the right-of-way. She found it alarming to be doing things that are contrary to what the City has been
working on.
Councilmember Paine said her notes from the budget review indicate the focus was in the Perrinville area.
There are some parts of Edmonds that have extraordinarily wide rights -of -way where a large rain garden
could easily be installed to help slow water. She asked if her notes were correct, that the focus was on the
Perrinville area. Mr. English answered it was more of a citywide focus. He noted Ms. McLaughlin brings
an enormous expertise to the City including new perspective in implementing this program and she did a
great job of describing the scope. Ms. McLaughlin said being new and not understanding the history of
some projects, she can appreciate the need in the Perrinville area. When appropriate locations for green
streets or rain gardens improvements are prioritized, Perrinville may rise to the top. She wanted to ensure
there was nimble funding available for partnerships, grants and capital projects that may make sense in
other areas that could be combined with walkability improvements.
Councilmember Paine said her old neighborhood in Broadview included alternative street edge designs, an
amazing street design that removed some of the concrete but improved walkability, slowed water and
offered tremendous water quality improvements for Carkeek Creek. She was totally in support of the
decision package and would love to see alternate edge designs in Edmonds.
Councilmember Tibbott said one of the things he appreciated about this budget amendment process was
the opportunity to hear details. It was his understanding that the $400,000 would be for initial design work
and also to identify county or state grant funding sources that could be used to improve the hardscape
throughout the City to control stormwater. Ms. McLaughlin admitted she was new to the City and did not
write this decision package, but that is consistent with her understanding and the direction she would
recommend going. If the decision package is retained, creating a spending plan will be important and would
include grants, partnerships and capital projects.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to the proposed use of ARPA funds and asked if that was an acceptable
use of ARPA funds. Ms. McLaughlin said her previous experience was working for a Department of
Transportation and a lot of capital projects were proposed using ARPA funds so she viewed this as
completely consistent with how ARPA funds have been used by capital departments. During the pandemic,
a lot of people began to appreciate their neighborhoods and communities and began walking in their
neighborhoods more than they had before, so putting money toward walkability, landscaping, trees,
adequate bioretention, and stormwater management makes a lot of sense.
Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding that ARPA funds could be used for this purpose and it
would help improve walkability throughout the entire City as well as improve stormwater retention. Ms.
McLaughlin said she did not want to over -promise; $400,000 won't improve walkability throughout the
entire City.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the council just approved $126,000 for rain gardens in Perrinville
and she hoped that was sufficient for that area. She did not think the council had sufficient oversight to
understand the design and planning process for spending this $400,000. It would be very advantageous to
run this though a committee and then utilize the budget amendment process. A lot of citizens do not
understand what green streets means. This is still at the beginning stage and she was concerned about
providing funds to be nimble when the council doesn't know what is going on. She wanted to have the
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 17, 2022
Page 15
Packet Pg. 69
council involved in the planning process, which streets or neighborhoods are being considered versus just
making funds available to be nimble.
Councilmember Chen thanked Councilmember K. Johnson for her earlier comment that hopeful this project
was not about removing sidewalks; the City need more sidewalks. He liked the concept of green streets and
rain gardens; it is a new concept to a lot of people but it is a good direction to head. Based on what he
learned so far, it is a little premature and $400,000 could just be the tip of the iceberg as it could only
construct a couple sections. He supported removing this decision package for now, doing more study and
education of council and citizens, and perhaps doing a bigger project. He saw the value of this decision
package but preferred to do further study before throwing money at it.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented this discussion has been a learning exercise, but there is not enough
information in the decision package. This is under the legislative oversight; the council needs to know more
about what this is and what is proposed before authorizing money for it. According to the decision package,
up to $1 M in ARPA funds can be spent. She agree it should go through committee first and funding could
be considered as part of the quarterly budget amendment process. The decision package does not seem very
well understood and it is not in the comprehensive plan. She preferred to take this more slowly.
Council President Olson reinforced what she heard from councilmembers, recalling a slide displayed during
the State of the City that showed green streets with people walking in the street instead of on the sidewalks.
The community has weighed in that walkability is a huge priority, but it was not clear to her that that meant
walking in the streets versus on the sidewalks. There is a limit to how much nimbleness she wanted and
how much lack of oversight she wanted the council to have until there was community engagement and
clarity on which direction to go. She supported the idea of bringing this back through committee with more
tangible specifics on how the money would be spent.
Councilmember L. Johnson pushed back against the statement that this does not support the comprehensive
plan when staff stated it supports a number of elements in the comprehensive plan. This is clearly an
opportunity for more education; she was taken aback at the lack of understanding of green infrastructure
and green streets. Some understand how important it is but say the project is probably bigger so the City
shouldn't start somewhere. The City needs to start somewhere; if we do not start chipping away at climate
change, we will never get anywhere. She questioned saying we need to start with bigger projects, pointing
out some people need to catch up with what it means to address climate change and what is within our
capability to address.
Councilmember L. Johnson continued, there are experts in the City saying these things that can be done,
but some councilmembers are saying they've never heard of it or don't understand it. Councilmembers need
to do their own research and understand what is being done. The City will never get anywhere addressing
climate change if councilmember keep coming to the table ignorant like this. She was scared for her
children's future when leaders think like this and are not willing to ack when they have an opportunity to
do so. To say that the project needs to be bigger, or I don't understand or heaven forbid, take away asphalt
which warms the environment, and instead add greenscape that cools the environment and makes areas
more walkable. She found this astounding and said there needs to be education and it needs to start with the
council.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN,
TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
#70 — $485K — Purchase New vehicles
• There are already a number of vehicles in the police and public works departments. Vehicle
purchases should move through a Council committee for a better understanding of all cars needed
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 17, 2022
Page 16
Packet Pg. 70
7.2.a
which might also include the police department restructure. Current economic indicators identify
cost of vehicles are up significantly because of supply chain shortages.
• Motion: Delete decision packet and move through Council Committee.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
DELETE THE DECISION PACKET AND MOVE THROUGH COUNCIL COMMITTEE
Councilmember L. Johnson asked Chief Bennett to speak to why this is a need rather than a want. Chief
Bennett said she would prefer the fleet manager speak to this but he is on vacation out of the country. It
was her understanding that these are replacements in the normal course of business. There are some aging
vehicles in the fleet; one officer drives a Ford Crown Victoria, a vehicle that is no longer manufactured.
To provide context, Mr. Turley said the City has 118 on -road vehicles (cars and pickups); Fleet pays close
attention to maintenance and the replacement schedule, about 10 are replaced every year. The 2011 Crown
Victoria is a patrol car; patrol cars have extremely high miles. The vehicles being replaced include a 1997
step van and a 2002 pickup. He emphasized the replacements are done on a regular schedule; if these vehicle
are not replaced this year, twice as many will need to be replaced next year.
Council President Olson recalled some councilmembers in the past thought the commitment to that rotation
schedule was something that could be looked at as a City policy to stretch it another year in general. This
year when it has been so hard to get cars or cars are going for a premium, it seems like if there was an
opportunity to replace fewer, that might be advantageous.
Councilmember Paine asked how much money had been collected in the B Fund for these planned
purchases. Mr. Turley said he did not have the balance in front of him. It is an internal service fund,
departments that use vehicles pay into the fund in advance so in a way all the vehicles have already been
funded by the departments. The money is already in the 511 Fund so the expenditure does not affect this
year's General Fund at all.
Councilmember Paine recalled Facilities Manager Thom Sullivan saying vehicles could be purchased
through a state contract and asked if these vehicle were purchased through that same state contract. Mr.
English answered these vehicle would be purchased form the state contract. He asked the Fleet Manager to
compare cars purchased in previous years versus 2022 because those prices were already established. Two
vehicles were compared, the Police Explorer Hybrid which had an increase 2.1 % from 2021 to 2022 which
is not as much of an increase as other new vehicles are experiencing. The resale value of used vehicles at
auction is also higher which offsets the cost of purchasing new vehicles. Councilmember Paine commented
it was great that there were five electric vehicles and three hybrids which is much better for the environment.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she did not have a problem with buying new vehicles, recalling in the old
days vehicles were purchased through the third quarter amendment process so vehicles were in place before
the budget. She felt it would be advantageous for the purchases to go through committee and consider
whether all eight vehicle purchases were necessary. She agreed with getting rid of the Crown Victoria patrol
car, but questioned replacing a 2015 Ford F-250 with an F-150.
Councilmember Tibbott said it appeared this was replacing vehicles that were very old and ready to be
replaced. He did not want to get into a discussion about which ones needed to be replaced the most, but
asked if all eight of the vehicle were on the replacement list for this year. Mr. English answered it was his
understanding that they are on replacement list. Councilmember Tibbott asked about the 2017 and 2015
vehicles. Mr. English said the 2017 Police Ford Explorer has 111,000 miles at the time the decision package
was drafted so it has reached a point where it was ready for replacement. Chief Bennett commented police
vehicles are driven during 12 hour shifts so they are driven a lot.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 17, 2022
Page 17
Packet Pg. 71
7.2.a
Councilmember L. Johnson said given that this does not come out of the General Fund and paid for with
funds in the B Fund, it doesn't make sense that councilmembers are saying they need to further understand
why a vehicle is being replaced when there are staff in charge of the replacement recommending they be
replaced. She pointed out replacing a Ford F-250 with an electric F-150 makes sense, it is a smaller vehicle,
overall a better thing and it is electric. Those who are driving these vehicles and those that oversee the
vehicles have prepared this replacement schedule. The purchases have no impact on the General Fund but
they do impact the City's ability to perform services and not spend more time than necessary on
maintenance of vehicles that are out of date. She did not support the motion.
Councilmember Chen did not support removing funds for these vehicles. Even though some of the cars
could go on for a couple more years, public safety is a high priority for the City. Properly funding the police
force's salaries, a perimeter fence, and these vehicles are reasonable asks.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN, TIBBOTT, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO.
#71- $260K Vehicle Charging Network
• Further review to entail creating a charging network system and data on current use of our charging
stations and locations for them other than downtown area. (2021 bonds utilized and is this an aging
infrastructure?)
• Motion: Delete decision packet and review through Council Committee
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
DELETE DECISION PACKET AND REVIEW THROUGH COUNCIL COMMITTEE
Councilmember Tibbott said deleting this decision package was his proposal. He understands there are a
lot of incentive programs for people to install their own charging stations and he learned from the Planning
Board about incentives for builders to include them in new homes which led him to ask how many charging
stations were needed in the City. He questioned how long a vehicle charging network would be needed, it
was not clear to him whether it was a 2, 5, or 20 year solution. He recalled when charging stations were
installed in the past, citizens said they did not like to use the ones provided by the City because they were
too expensive.
Councilmember Tibbott continued, in his opinion there was missing data; he would like to see if the data
supports installation of a charging network, whether people are using the existing stations and where the
charging stations would be located. He did not anticipate that locating them in the 3-hour parking zones
would be a good use of City funds. He asked how this sequenced with newer vehicles that have longer
lasting batteries and people charging their vehicles at home. He summarized it was not clear that the data
supported a need for a network and he would like to have it reviewed by council before moving forward.
Councilmember Paine supported keeping this decision package in the budget as was decided last year. She
commented people driving electric vehicles want to charge their vehicles while visiting Edmonds whether
that is in the downtown core or along Highway 99. Developing infrastructure like this will be important as
the number of electric vehicles increase. She recalled from staff's presentation on Tuesday, there are almost
1,000 electric vehicles in Edmonds and that will continue to grow. People want electric vehicles, it is good
for the environment, and when people purchase a new vehicle, they may not choose a gas vehicle but instead
choose a hybrid or electric vehicle. The need includes visitors having access to charging stations. The
benefits of building out a charging network downtown, uptown or other places where people can park, have
dinner and return to a well -charged car will be a huge and attractive benefit for Edmonds.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 17, 2022
Page 18
Packet Pg. 72
7.2.a
Council President Olson appreciated the data issues Councilmember Tibbott raised. Philosophically, she is
on -board with this project but more information could be provided to ensure the City is making a good
decision and putting the chargers in the right place. The thing that bothered her most was that bond proceeds
were being used for this. The council was very clear that the bond proceeds were for capital maintenance,
stuff that is so unsexy that it has not been done year after year. There may be support for spending fund
balance for a capital project like this. The funding source is the greatest issue for her, but additionally the
idea of having more information, ensuring it is a good decision, and implementing the right plan are also
important. She summarized further vetting through a committee is appropriate.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked Mr. Turley to speak to the funding source and the appropriateness. Mr.
Turley explained the 016 Fund was brought back at the same time the bond funds came in. The idea behind
the 016 Fund is that is where major projects such as this would be funded. The idea would be when projects
are funded every year, instead of funding the Building Maintenance Fund, the 016 Fund would be funded
and some money would go into both, small amounts into the General Fund building maintenance and big
dollars into 016. The bond funds are supposed to be used for the items on the McKinstry report that represent
backlogged maintenance; this would not be one of those projects. When this decision package was prepared,
the bonds had not been sold. It was identified as a major capital construction project, not intending that it
would be funded by bond funds. Every year when these projects are done, a transfer from the General Fund
will need to be budgeted, similar to the funds budgeted for streets. The 016 fund has not existed for the past
few years which is the reason it is different than in the past.
Councilmember L. Johnson said the need has been shown and that need will only grow. She appreciated
Councilmember Paine synthesizing the information that was received earlier, especially identifying the
environmental component. She noted there is also an economic component through tourism. There are a lot
of places the vehicle chargers can be located. She is not an expert at determining where they need to go but
she knew there was a need and that they will be used. She felt the council was micromanaging by admitting
they were needed but having it go through committee first when this has benefits on a number of levels and
it fits with a number of the council's climate change goals. She was comfortable keeping this decision
package in the budget.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for Councilmember Tibbott's comments, the council needs
to pragmatically look at some of these programs. She agreed the charging stations were needed but budget
amendments are done quarterly or it could be handled as an emergency amendment. Many citizens are
asking about having electric vehicle charges in their homes or about having chargers on Highway 99,
Firdale or Westgate. This is a lot of money. She asked whether this was funded with bond funds; she did
not believe it should come from the bond funds. Mr. Turley said as large projects are paid from the 016
Fund, there will need to be a transfer in to fund them. That transfer has not yet been made.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the bonds were supposed to pay for aging infrastructure and major
projects. This is a new project and could be funded by the bond funds but that was not the original intent
for those funds. She supported Councilmember Tibbott's proposal, moving this quickly through committee
and get things more focus and more mapped out. Facilities Manager Thom Sullivan said when this proposal
was first looked at last summer, former Director Phil Williams and he looked at the utilization via a
company the City uses, SemaConnect, to administer the public EV charging stations. SemaConnect and
other companies approached the City to inquire about expanding the network due to dark spots in the City.
Mr. Sullivan explained there is a consortium of EV charging networks that use cell apps for people to find
a charger. The larger networks want to be around large transit hubs; SemaConnect considers themselves an
urban charging network so they are better utilized in small downtown spaces, near shopping centers, etc.
and Snohomish County in general is not well served outside the transit hubs except for public EV stations.
There hasn't been a large private commitment to EV stations. There has been a large increase in all -electric
vehicles during the last two years and he anticipated that would grow immensely in the next five years.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 17, 2022
Page 19
Packet Pg. 73
7.2.a
When the chargers were first installed in 2013, the average charge time was 7-13 minutes; now there are 4-
6 hour charges on certain days of the week. The trend seems to be that people are charging 1-2 times/week
while at work and the industry trend is longer charging duration instead of transient charging. The proposal
to add 10 charging stations would expand the network to serve the Uptown neighborhood, Five Corners,
Firdale, the library and Frances Anderson Center, near the hospital, etc.
Council President Olson said she was still not clear whether the bond funds would be used for this project.
She asked where Fund 016 came into play and how that related to whether the bond funds would be used.
Mr. Turley explained right now the only money in the 016 Fund is bond money. As projects are funded out
of the 016 Fund, General Fund money, grant funds or other funding will need to be transferred into Fund
016.
Council President Olson asked if this decision package remains in the budget, would bond funds be used
for it. Mr. Turley said it was kind of like borrowing from the bond funds and it will be paid back later due
to the timing. Council President Olson asked how the council would know that that happened in the future.
Mr. Turley said it was perfectly reasonable for it to go through a committee to keep track of how the bond
funds are spent, discussing and approving projects on a quarterly basis before they are funded. There are
no bond -funded projects in the budget yet.
Councilmember Chen asked if installing charges would eliminate parking spaces downtown and on
Highway 99. Mr. Sullivan said at this point they use a public parking space and they are typically time
constrained parking spaces except while charging. The City's network currently charge $1.50/hour for
charging. The chargers indicate whether a vehicle is charging, is plugged in but not paying for charging, or
is full and done charging. When the new chargers will installed, COVID happened so people camping in
EV hasn't really been a problem although there had been some complaints before.
Councilmember Chen asked if the charging station itself takes up a parking space. Mr. Sullivan answered
the charging station typically sits on the sidewalk and the parking space can be used by non-EV at a time
duration. Councilmember Chen commented electric vehicles are like an iPhone, it's new technology and
then it's all over the place. He anticipated electric vehicles were coming and the City needed to get started
installing chargers. He summarized getting started was the right thing to do so he supported funding this
decision package.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented the City has six charging stations now, two on Main Street, two in
the public safety parking lot and two in the City Park parking lot. She referred to the proposal for a charging
station near the new scrubber in City Park and asked if that was a separate program or part of the proposed
ten new EV charging locations. She was unclear whether it was for City vehicles or would be one of the
ten proposed EV chargers. Mr. Sullivan said the electric vehicle charging station associated with the odor
scrubber project is taking power from the new transformer and used charge Facilities electric vehicles and
someday electric Park vehicles.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she was confused with $250,000 for repairs and maintenance. Mr. Sullivan
said typically repairs and maintenance are contracted vendor expenditures and not done in-house.
Councilmember K. Johnson shared the concern about not knowing where these will be located. She said it
would be interesting to see usage, recalling at first it was just a few minutes and now is typically 4-6 hours
which she felt was excessive within the 3-hour parking limits. She expressed interest in looking at the data
and to understand where the proposed units would be located.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to Mr. Sullivan's comments about usage and location, he was making the
point that the Planning Board heard, that 80% of people who purchase electric vehicle charge them either
at home or at work. He did not anticipate that locating them in 3-hour parking spaces downtown would be
advisable. It would be up to the property owner to install a charging station in a private parking lot. He was
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 17, 2022
Page 20
Packet Pg. 74
7.2.a
curious where the City thinks charging stations could be located where people would use them in
conjunction with their work or an extended charge while at home. He was also curious about the cost,
recalling there were complaints about how much the City charged, and the fact that batteries last much
longer than they did 8-10 years ago when electric vehicles first came out. He was unsure this would be a
viable resource for people with an EV in the future.
Councilmember Tibbott continued, he was looking for data points regarding where they would be located,
how much they would cost, would people use them. He expressed concern with using bond funds for these
charging stations as the intent was to dedicate that to deferred maintenance. He supported the motion to
remove the decision package for now until information could be provided to justify installing ten charging
stations around the City.
Councilmember Paine commented the other group that would use this technology were people who live in
apartments and condominiums built without EV chargers. A resident could drive to the charger, charge
their car and bring it home. She recalled when selling her condo, someone looking at it asked if it was
possible to install a charging station; her condo did not have a charger as it was built in 1979. There are
people living in Edmonds who need these facilities and if that prevented someone from buying an electric
vehicle, it was a lost opportunity.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, TIBBOTT,
AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS
CHEN, PAINE AND L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT,
TO ADJOURN.
Councilmember Paine said she would like to have an opportunity for council and mayor comments as there
has not been time for them in the last few weeks due to time management.
Councilmember L. Johnson pointed out there were only a few amendments. Today is February 17t' and it
would be nice to have the budget completed so staff knows what they are working with. Given that this
meeting was specifically scheduled for budget amendments it behooves the council to stick around and get
this done so the next council meeting can be used to address other pressing City business.
Council President Olson commented realistically the remaining amendments could take close to an hour
and another potential amendment was suggested today via email. The council has done a lot of work this
week and it would be nice to end on time.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, CHEN,
TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS PAINE AND COUNCILMEMBER L. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
8. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
COUNCIL COMMENTS
to. ADJOURN
The council meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
February 17, 2022
Page 21
Packet Pg. 75
7.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/1/2022
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 #64996 through #64998 for $4,635.15 dated 02/18/2022, payroll direct
deposit for $629,907.49, benefit checks #64999 through #65004 and wire payments of $634,351.71 for
the pay period February 1, 2022 through February 15, 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:
02-01-22 to 02-15-22 benefit checks summary report
02-01-22 to 02-15-22 Payroll Earnings Summary Report
Packet Pg. 76
Benefit Checks Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,041 - 02/01/2022 to 02/15/2022
Bank: usbank - US Bank
Check #
Date
Payee #
Name
Check Amt
64999
02/18/2022
bpas
BPAS
5,774.37
65000
02/18/2022
epoa2
EPOA-POLICE
6,027.00
65001
02/18/2022
epoa3
EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT
498.76
65002
02/18/2022
flex
NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS
3,333.31
65003
02/18/2022
teams
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 763
4,604.50
65004
02/18/2022
icma
VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884
5,239.52
25,477.46
Bank: wire - US BANK
Check #
Date
Payee #
Name
Check Amt
3324
02/18/2022
awc
AWC
340,901.85
3327
02/18/2022
wadc
WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER
26,770.11
3328
02/18/2022
us
US BANK
119,925.39
3329
02/18/2022
mebt
WTRISC FBO #N317761
114,176.61
3331
02/18/2022
pb
NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION
6,161.29
3333
02/18/2022
edm
CITY OF EDMONDS
120.00
3334
02/18/2022
oe
OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
819.00
608,874.25
Grand Totals: 634,351.71
2/22/2022
7.3.a
vi
a�
t
v
r
r=
m
Direct Deposit
m
0.00
0.00 cv
0.00 0
0.00
0.00 a:
a
0.00 0
M
0.00
0
o.
o.
Q
Direct Deposit
o
Q.
0.00
a�
L
0.00
0.00
E
0.00
E
0.00
u3i
0.00
N
Y
0.00
U
a)
t
U
0.00
+'
a�
c
0.00
a)
N
N
r
N
O
O
r
N
N
r
O
N
O
r
C
a)
E
t
V
fC
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 77
7.3.b
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,041 (02/01/2022 to 02/15/2022)
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
112
ABSENT
NO PAY NON HIRED
64.00
0.00
121
SICK
SICK LEAVE
738.00
29,250.61
122
VACATION
VACATION
952.25
39,492.74
123
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY HOURS
104.50
4,741.08
124
HOLIDAY
FLOATER HOLIDAY
18.00
622.39
125
COMP HOURS
COMPENSATORY TIME
171.25
7,004.73
129
SICK
Police Sick Leave L & 1
84.00
3,572.50
130
COMP HOURS
Holidav Compensation Used
9.00
358.18
131
MILITARY
MILITARY LEAVE
50.00
2,210.28
135
SICK
WASHINGTON STATE SICK LEi
13.50
239.10
141
BEREAVEMENT
BEREAVEMENT
38.50
1,589.27
150
REGULAR HOURS
Kelly Dav Used
48.00
2,497.79
153
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY BUY BACK
66.00
6,187.22
155
COMP HOURS
COMPTIME AUTO PAY
310.67
15,807.39
157
SICK
SICK LEAVE PAYOFF
115.25
6,794.62
158
VACATION
VACATION PAYOFF
30.11
1,775.15
160
VACATION
MANAGEMENT LEAVE
1.00
54.68
190
REGULAR HOURS
REGULAR HOURS
16,503.00
697,232.99
194
SICK
Emerqencv Sick Leave
144.00
5,826.35
195
REGULAR HOURS
ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE
88.00
3,842.00
196
REGULAR HOURS
LIGHT DUTY
216.00
10,561.91
210
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME -STRAIGHT
56.00
2,237.68
215
OVERTIME HOURS
WATER WATCH STANDBY
48.00
2,359.43
216
MISCELLANEOUS
STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT
15.00
1,417.68
220
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME 1.5
574.75
45,424.43
225
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME -DOUBLE
1.75
138.55
400
MISCELLANEOUS
MISC PAY
0.00
2,095.79
405
ACTING PAY
OUT OF CLASS - POLICE
0.00
531.52
410
MISCELLANEOUS
WORKING OUT OF CLASS
0.00
359.48
411
SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
0.00
1,393.81
600
RETROACTIVE PAY
RETROACTIVE PAY
0.00
460.52
602
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP 1.0
49.25
0.00
603
COMP HOURS
Holidav Comp 1.0
9.00
0.00
02/22/2022
Packet Pg. 78
7.3.b
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,041 (02/01/2022 to 02/15/2022)
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
604
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5
300.25
0.00
902
MISCELLANEOUS
BOOT ALLOWANCE
0.00
225.00
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
308.91
ctr
MISCELLANEOUS
CTR INCENTIVES PROGRAM
0.00
270.00
deftat
MISCELLANEOUS
DEFENSE TATICS INSTRUCTOI
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
717.15
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
fmla
ABSENT
FAMILY MEDICAL/NON PAID
16.00
0.00
furls
SICK
FAMILY MEDICAL/SICK
192.00
13,686.61
hol
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY
-9.00
-387.89
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
607.96
Ig12
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 9%
0.00
4,697.39
Ig13
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 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
Lonqevitv 1 %
0.00
391.90
Iq5
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 3%
0.00
1,313.39
Iq6
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv .5%
0.00
294.14
Iq7
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 1.5%
0.00
360.52
Iq8
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 8%
0.00
252.04
02/22/2022
Packet Pg. 79
7.3.b
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 1,041 (02/01/2022 to 02/15/2022)
Hour Type
Hour Class
Description
Hours
Amount
mtc
MISCELLANEOUS
MOTORCYCLE PAY
0.00
127.02
ooc
MISCELLANEOUS
OUT OF CLASS
0.00
475.08
pfmp
ABSENT
Paid Family Medical Unpaid/Sup
66.00
0.00
phy
MISCELLANEOUS
PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY
0.00
2,682.83
prof
MISCELLANEOUS
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS :
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
21,084.03 $936,087.45
Total Net Pay: $634,542.64
r
m
c
a�
c
�a
0
a
4-
0
7i
0
a
a
a
O
a
a�
o:
L
CU
I_
Cn
a�
c
L
W
0
L
CU
N
N
LO
N
O
O
N
N
T"
O
N
O
C
E
t
V
fC
r
Q
02/22/2022
Packet Pg. 80
7.4
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/1/2022
Approval of claim checks and wire payments.
Staff Lead: Dave Turley
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #251389 through #251453 dated February 24, 2022 for $523,049.31 and wire
payments of $20,218.77 and $219.58.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim checks 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:
claims 02-24-22
wire 02-22-22
wire 02-23-22
FrequentlyUsedProjNumbers 2-24-22
Packet Pg. 81
7.4.a
vchlist
02/24/2022 11:06:48AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
251389 2/24/2022 076040 911 SUPPLY INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Page
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun vi
INV-2-16368
INV-2-16368 - EDMONDS PD - HATC
(D
DUTY BOOTS
E
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
129.9� a
BIANCHI DUTY BELT 7950
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
BIANCHI NYLON INNER BELT 7205
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
25.5(
OPEN CUFF CASE 7934
N
Y
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
31.0( y
BELT KEEPERS PACK
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
16.0( E
10.1 % Sales Tax
M
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
27.5,
INV-2-16369
INV-2-16369 - EDMONDS PD - SON(
,u
O
BIANCHI 7950 DUTY BELT
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
69.9� o
BIANCHI NYLON INNER BELT 7205
a
a
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
25.5( Q
OPEN CUFF CASE 7934
N
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
31.0(
BIANCHI BELT KEEPERS PACK
N
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
16.0( o
10.1 % Sales Tax
y
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
14.4'
INV-2-16400
INV-2-16400 - EDMONDS PD - WEIE
BLAUER TACSHELL JACKET
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
c
244.9�
NAME TAPE
E
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
8.0(
SEAM SEAL PATCH
Q
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.0(
10.1 % Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00 26.5(
INV-2-16401 INV-2-16401 - EDMONDS PD - BENI`
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 82
vchlist
02/24/2022 11:06:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.4.a
Page: 2
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
251389
2/24/2022
076040 911 SUPPLY INC
(Continued)
vi
BLAUER TACSHELL JACKET
001.000.41.521.10.24.00
244.9� E
NAME TAPE
a
001.000.41.521.10.24.00
8.0(
SEAM SEAL PATCH
3
001.000.41.521.10.24.00
10.0(
10.1 % Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.24.00
26.5E Y
INV-2-16544
INV-2-16544 - EDMONDS PD- ROBII
SGT CHEVRON INSTALL - COG
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
8.0( E
10.1 % Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
_M
0.8'
Total:
1,044X O
251390
2/24/2022
071634 ALLSTREAM
18132650
C/A 768328
Ta
0
PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service
a
512.000.31.518.88.42.00
1,341.7' Q
Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929;
001.000.61.558.70.42.00
10.5� N
Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines
N
001.000.61.558.70.42.00
10.5� N
Total:
1,362.8< y
E
251391
2/24/2022
063862 ALPINE PRODUCTS INC
TM-207280
WATER - SUPPLIES/ BUE 4X4 MARI
WATER - SUPPLIES/ BUE 4X4 MARI
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
576.0( c
Freight
E
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
85.5E
10.4% Sales Tax
+°
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
68.8( Q
Total:
730.3E
251392
2/24/2022
069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
656000192438
WWTP: 2/16/22 UNIFORMS,TOWEL
Mats/Towels $47.88 + $4.98 tax = $5
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 83
vchlist
02/24/2022 11:06:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.4.a
Page: 3
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
251392
2/24/2022
069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
(Continued)
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
52.8E
Shirt & Cargo Samples + Coat Lab=$
E
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
2.7( a
Total:
55.5E
L
251393
2/24/2022
001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO
79449
ROUGH BOX - HEDMAN
3
ROUGH BOX - HEDMAN
c
130.000.64.536.20.34.00
�a
738.0( y
Total:
738.0(
251394
2/24/2022
073903 BENS CLEANER SALES INC
329548
WWTP: PO 776 LANCE, GUN SWIM
PO 776 LANCE, GUN SWIVELS, Gl
E
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
486.1 , E
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
o
50.6E '@
Total:
536.7: o
L
251395
2/24/2022
073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
27937582
IMAGE RUNNER 14351F CONTRAC-
a
contract charge imageRUNNER 143E
Q
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
13.3, c-4
10.4% Sales Tax
N
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
1.3� N
27937597
IMAGEPRESS LITE C165 CONTRAC
o
contract charges imagePRESS Lite C
N
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
302.8E 'E
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
31.4E
28011317
CONTRACT CHARGE C257IF #5721
Contract charge imageRUNNER ADV
001.000.11.511.60.45.00
29.0E
10.4% Sales Tax
Q
001.000.11.511.60.45.00
3.0,
28011319
CONTRACT CHARGE C2571F #5721
Contract charge imageRUNNER ADV
001.000.11.511.60.45.00
29.0E
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 84
vchlist
02/24/2022 11:06:48AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
251395 2/24/2022 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.4.a
Page: 4
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
(Continued)
vi
10.4% Sales Tax
(D
001.000.11.511.60.45.00
3.0. E
28078181
INV 28078181 - EDMONDS PD
a
2/22 CONTRACT 3AP01257
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
175.9E .3
2/22 CONTRACT 3AP01253
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
175.9E
10.4% Sales Tax
N
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
36.6( u
28078203
P&R C5750 COPIER: CONTRACT OE
P&R C5750 Copier: Contract Number
E
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
227.0,
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
23.6 0
28078247
INV 28078247 - EDMONDS PD
�a
2/22 CONTRACT- 38C01511
0
L
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
191.7E
a
10.4% Sales Tax
Q
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
19.9z
N
28078269
P&R C2571F COPIER: S/N 3CE0793,
N
P&R C257iF Copier: Contract Numbe
N
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
35.0 1
c
10.4% Sales Tax
N
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
3.6E
.
28078281
DEV SVCS MONTHLY COPIER CON
�a
U
Building Dept Copier (SN: 3CE08167
};
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
35.0,
10.4% Sales Tax
E
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
3.6E
t
28078292
PM C2571F COPIER: S/N 3CE08178
P&R C2571F COPIER: S/N 3CE0793,
Q
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
29.0£
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
3.0,
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 85
vchlist
02/24/2022 11:06:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.4.a
Page: 5
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
251395 2/24/2022 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
(Continued)
28078303
DEV SVCS MONTHLY COPIER CON
(D
Planning Copier (SN: 3CE07934)-
E
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
35.0 � a
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.45.00
3.6E .3
28078314
CONTRACT CHARGE C2571F #5721
Contract charge imageRUNNER ADV
001.000.11.511.60.45.00
29.0E Y
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.11.511.60.45.00
3.0,
Total:
1,444.4' E
251396 2/24/2022 077353 CAPITOL CONSULTING LLC
2
STATE LOBBYIST FEBRUARY 2022
f°
STATE LOBBYIST FEBRUARY 2022
0
001.000.61.511.70.41.00
3,750.0( @
Total:
3,750.0( o
L
251397 2/24/2022 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC
R743511
UPS REPLACEMENT BATTERIES
Q
BTI RBC35 UPS replacement batteriE
Q
--
512.000.31.518.88.31.00
130.2E N
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.88.31.00
13.5E N
R956472
CISCO ANYCONNECT APEX LICEN;
Cisco AnyConnect Apex - Qty 25
E
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
232.2E 'ea
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
24.1 E c
SO40027
ADOBE CREATIVE CLOUD FOR EN'
Adobe Creative Cloud for Enterprise
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
694.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
Q
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
72.1 E
S319086
WWTP: PO 714 HPE 1.92TB SATA F
PO 714 HPE 1.92TB SATA RI SFF S
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
3,931.0E
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 86
vchlist
02/24/2022 11:06:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.4.a
Page: 6
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
251397
2/24/2022
069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC
(Continued)
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
408.8:
Total:
5,506.2E
251398
2/24/2022
068815 CORRECT EQUIPMENT
46129
SEWER - WIRED SQUAT CORE
SEWER - WIRED SQUAT CORE
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
2,648.9(
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
275.4�
Total :
2,924.35
251399
2/24/2022
078859 D&R ELECTRONICS CO LTD
CN000002415
E191 PO, E192PO & E193PO - PART
E191 PO, E192PO & E193PO - PART
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
-618.7E
IN250012051
E191 PO, E192PO & E193PO - PART
E191 PO, E192PO & E193PO - PART
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
243.7E
IN250012168
E191 PO, E192PO & E193PO - PART
E191 PO, E192PO & E193PO - PART
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
487.5(
Freight
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
33.0(
Total:
145.5(
251400
2/24/2022
006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE
3375425
P&R: CONCESSION IN PARKS ADS
P&R: CONCESSION IN PARKS ADS
001.000.64.571.22.41.40
280.6(
3375611
PLANNING - LEGALAD
Request for Qualifications-
001.000.62.558.60.41.40
198.7E
Total :
479.3E
251401
2/24/2022
073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC
500829
E6GB.SERVICES THRU 11/27/21
E6GB.SERVICES THRU 11/27/21
423.000.75.594.35.41.00
3,203.8E
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 87
vchlist
02/24/2022 11:06:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
251401 2/24/2022 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC (Continued)
504478
251402 2/24/2022 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 22-4146
251403 2/24/2022 076790 DUNGENESS CONSTRUCTION CORP EOFB.Pmt 5
251404 2/24/2022 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 2841
2842
2844
PO # Description/Account
E6GB.SERVICES THRU 1/29/22
E6GB.SERVICES THRU 1/29/22
423.000.75.594.35.41.00
Total
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2/18/22
City Council Minutes 2/15/2022
001.000.31.514.31.41.00
Total
EOFB.PMT 5 THRU 01/31/22
EOFB.PMT 5 THRU 01/31/22
422.000.72.594.31.65.20
EOFB.Ret 5
422.000.223.400
WATER - SUPPLIES
WATER - SUPPLIES
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
PM: DISCS, CLEANER
PM: DISCS, CLEANER
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM: DISCS
PM: DISCS
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM: HOSE
PM: HOSE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total :
7.4.a
Page: 7
Amoun
m
E
206.01 a
3,409.8<
L
3
c
�a
561.6( y
561.6(
a�
t
E
194, 064.5,
0
-9,703.2(
184,361.2<, o
L
Q
a
Q
66.5< N
4
6.9, N
N
0
0
34.5 ,
3.6(
a�
E
t
42.9
a
4.4,
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 88
vchlist
02/24/2022 11:06:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.4.a
Page: 8
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
251404
2/24/2022 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE
(Continued)
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
3.0" E
2847
PM: SPONGES, GLOVES, CONTAIN
a
PM: SPONGES, GLOVES, CONTAIN
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
29.6< .3
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
3.0£
2858
WATER - SUPPLIES
WATER - SUPPLIES
U
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
55.5E
10.4% Sales Tax
E
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
5.7£ 'M
Total:
285.11
0
251405
2/24/2022 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
AR212119
AR212119 - ACCT MK5031 - EDMON
'@
1/22 BW COPIES- 38C01511
0
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
1/22 CLR COPIES - 38C01511
Q'
Q
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
N
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
16.3, N
AR212708
C57501 OVERAGE
c14
bw overage 1/16 - 2/15/2022
0
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
2.1E E
bw overage 1/16 - 2/15/2022
@
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
2.1E
bw overage 1/16 - 2/15/2022
a�
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
2.1 E E
dr overage 1/16 - 2/15/2022
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
15.1(
dr overage 1/16 - 2/15/2022
Q
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
15.1(
clr overage 1/16 - 2/15/2022
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
15.1(
Page: 8
Packet Pg. 89
vchlist
02/24/2022 11:06:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.4.a
Page: 9
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
251405 2/24/2022 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
(Continued)
10.4% Sales Tax
(D
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
1.7� E
10.4% Sales Tax
a
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
1.7�
10.4% Sales Tax
3
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
1.8(
AR212712
CUST# MK5533 C57501 3AP07496 C
�a
Meter charges 01/16/22 - 02/15/22 Bt
Y
001.000.31.514.23.48.00
29.8E
Meter charges 01/16/22 - 02/15/22 Cc
001.000.31.514.23.48.00
48.6( E
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.48.00
_M
8.1 E
AR212791
C250 OVERAGE
o
bw overage 1 /1 - 1 /31 /2022
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
4.6( o
clr overage 1 /1 - 1 /31 /2022
a
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
a
33.5E Q
AR212965
ACCT#MK5648 CONTRACT 2600-02
N
Maintenance 02/21/22 - 03/20/22 Car
N
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
307.2( N
10.4% Sales Tax
c
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
31.9E N
Total:
694.5E .
251406 2/24/2022 075136 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOC
169108
E21 FC.SERVICES THRU 10/29/21
U
E21 FC.SERVICES THRU 10/29/21
422.000.72.531.90.41.20
4,027.5( E
171886
DEV SVCS PROF CONSULTANT SV
U
Edmonds Climate Action Plan-
001.000.62.524.10.41.00
31412.5( Q
172043
E21 FC.SERVICES THRU 1/31/22
E21 FC.SERVICES THRU 1/31/22
422.000.72.531.90.41.20
2,860.0(
Page: 9
Packet Pg. 90
vchlist
02/24/2022 11:06:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
251406 2/24/2022 075136 075136 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOC (Continued)
251407 2/24/2022 076992 ENVIRONMENTAL WORKS 19001A-21
251408 2/24/2022 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
251409 2/24/2022 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
251410 2/24/2022 075923 GOV QA LLC
251411 2/24/2022 012199 GRAINGER
EDH948012
EDH948632
Description/Account
Total
E7MA.SERVICES THRU 1/30/22
E7MA.SERVICES THRU 1/30/22
126.000.64.594.76.41.00
Total
P&R: CONCESSION IN PARKS ADS
P&R: CONCESSION IN PARKS ADS
001.000.64.571.22.41.40
PLANNING - LEGALAD
Notification of City Application-
001.000.62.558.60.41.40
Total
1068228
WATER - INVENTORY
WATER - INVENTORY
421.000.74.534.80.34.30
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.34.30
Total
INV1286
GOVQA YEAR 2022
govqa contract for 2022
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
Total
9184096155
PM SUPPLIES: EYE WASH PRESEF
PM SUPPLIES: EYE WASH PRESEF
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
9184170844
PM SUPPLIES: V-BELT, DRILL, LABI
PM SUPPLIES: V-BELT, DRILL, LABI
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
7.4.a
Page: 10
Amoun
10,300.0( 4
r-
m
E
�a
1,110.0(
1,110.0( .3
c
�a
N
92.8E
a�
t
63.6, E
156.5:
0
�a
3,388.4-
a
a
352.4( Q
3,740.81 N
It
N
N
0
13,050.0( E
1,357.2( 2
14,407.2(
c
a�
E
t
29.2E
a
00
142.4E
Page: 10
Packet Pg. 91
vchlist
02/24/2022 11:06:48AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
251411 2/24/2022 012199 GRAINGER
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.4.a
Page: 11
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued) vi
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
14.8, E,
9186058328
PM SUPPLIES: FIRE ALARM SIGN
a
PM SUPPLIES: FIRE ALARM SIGN
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
35.7E .3
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
3.7'
9210521127
WWTP: PO 771 SOCKET CAP & MA
PO 771 SOCKET CAP & MALE ADAF
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
a�
36.7E
10.4% Sales Tax
E
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
3.8Z
Total:
269.6E
0
251412
2/24/2022 074804 HARLES, JANINE
284608
PHOTOGRAPHY & INSTAGRAM SEI
'@
PHOTOGRAPHY & INSTAGRAM SEI
0
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
300.0E m
Total :
300.0( Q
251413
2/24/2022 074966 HIATT CONSULTING LLC
2019-301
TOURISM PROMOTION & MARKETI
N
TOURISM PROMOTION & MARKETI
Iq
120.000.31.575.42.41.00
2,851.6, N
REIMBURSEMENT CALENDAR ASS
c
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
75.0( E
Total :
2,926.6, .E
U
251414
2/24/2022 061013 HONEY BUCKET
0552572608
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER HC
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER HC
a)
t
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
252.3,
0552580341
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY
MATHAY BALLINGER PARK HONEY
Q
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
111.6E
Total :
363.9
251415
2/24/2022 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
3529362
DESK CALENDAR REFILL
Page: 11
Packet Pg. 92
vchlist
02/24/2022 11:06:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.4.a
Page: 12
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
251415
2/24/2022 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
(Continued)
Desk calendar refill
m
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
63.6E E
10.4% Sales Tax
a
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
6.6,
3537043
OFFICE CHAIR FOR G JOHNSON
3
Office chair for G Johnson - invoice
M
001.000.31.514.23.35.00
634.5(
10.4% Sales Tax
N
001.000.31.514.23.35.00
Y
65.9E
3540643
CREDIT FOR RETURNED OFFICE C
Credit for office chair returned on
E
001.000.31.514.23.35.00
-334.8(
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.35.00
-34.8, o
3540649
POST IT, PENS, LABELS, CALENDA
Post its, mouse pad, Clorox wipes,
o
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
221.9E 0-
10.4% Sales Tax
a
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
23.0E N
3542685
SWIFFER DUSTER REFILLS
N
Swiffer duster refills
C14
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
16.9E c
10.4% Sales Tax
N
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
1.7E .
3544527
COPY PAPER
�a
U
Copy paper - 6 cs
};
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
293.9z
10.4% Sales Tax
E
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
t
30.5
Total :
989.4° Z"
a
251416
2/24/2022 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
300-10095364
FLEET - PARTS/ CLEAR LED
FLEET - PARTS/ CLEAR LED
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
37.9(
10.4% Sales Tax
Page: 12
Packet Pg. 93
vchlist
02/24/2022 11:06:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.4.a
Page: 13
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
251416
2/24/2022
014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
(Continued)
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
3.9z
Total:
41.8'
251417
2/24/2022
072627 INTRADO LIFE & SAFETY INC
6058260
MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINT
Monthly 911 database maint
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
500.0(
Total :
500.0(
251418
2/24/2022
017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC
49454
EOMA.SERVICES THRU 10/30/21
EOMA.SERVICES THRU 10/30/21
332.000.64.594.76.41.00
15,139.9E
EOMA.SERVICES THRU 10/30/21
125.000.64.594.76.41.00
1,479.0�
50206
EOMA.SERVICES THRU 1/29/22
EOMA.SERVICES THRU 1/29/22
332.000.64.594.76.41.00
5,778.5,
EOMA.SERVICES THRU 1/29/22
125.000.64.594.76.41.00
564.5'
Total:
22,962.05
251419
2/24/2022
075159 LIFE INSURANCE CO OF NO AMER
March 2022
MARCH 2O22 CIGNA PREMIUMS
March Cigna Premiums
811.000.231.550
12,808.0,
Total :
12,808.0:
251420
2/24/2022
067235 MARYS TOWING INC
01936
INV 01936 - CS 22-2388 - EDMOND,'
TOW WHITE VOLVO- CS 22-2388
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
208.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.41.00
21.6'
Total :
229.6:
251421
2/24/2022
077253 MAYES TESTING ENGINEERS INC
TG35745
EOMA.SERVICES THRU 2/5/22
EOMA.SERVICES THRU 2/5/22
332.000.64.594.76.41.00
777.0E
Page: 13
Packet Pg. 94
vchlist
02/24/2022 11:06:48AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
251421 2/24/2022 077253 MAYES TESTING ENGINEERS INC
251422
251423
251424
251425
2/24/2022 078809 MCKAY POLYGRAPH
2/24/2022 021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
EOMA.SERVICES THRU 2/5/22
125.000.64.594.76.41.00
Tota I :
2162022EPD INV 2162022EPD - EDMONDS PD
2/16 PRE EMPLOYMENT POLYGRAI
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
Total
11031`3034 UNIT 66 - PARTS/ SENSOR
UNIT 66 - PARTS/ SENSOR
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
9.8% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
1103P3123 UNIT 66 - PARTS/ HEATER
UNIT 66 - PARTS/ HEATER
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
2/24/2022 064655 NEW RESTORATION & RECOVERY SVC INV18616
2/24/2022 065720 OFFICE DEPOT
227551196001
227552885001
Total :
WWTP: PO 757 SLUDGE REMOVAL
PO 757 SLUDGE REMOVAL SERVIC
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Total
INV 227551196001 ACCT 90520437
PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPLIES NAPKI
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
INV 227552885001 ACCT 90520437
PUBLIC WORKS - SUPPLIES/ LAMII
7.4.a
Page: 14
Amoun
75.9, E
853.0( a
a�
3
175.0(
175.0( y
Y
V
a�
t
273.0E .
�a
26.7E o
�a
0
163.9E a
a
Q
17.0E "
480.85 N
N
N
0
50,152.9E E
5,215.9"
55,368.8E
a�
E
t
�a
32.3( Q
3.3E
Page: 14
Packet Pg. 95
vchlist
02/24/2022 11:06:48AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
251425 2/24/2022 065720 OFFICE DEPOT
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
251426 2/24/2022 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER January, 2022
251427 2/24/2022 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC
054057
7.4.a
Page: 15
PO # Description/Account Amoun
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
26.9E
10.4% Sales Tax
E
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
2.8" a
Total:
65.4E
L
COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSI`
3
Emergency Medical Services & Traun
001.000.237.120
221.9E N
PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account
Y
001.000.237.130
4,930.9z
Building Code Fee Account
001.000.237.150
274.5( •�
State Patrol Death Investigation
U
001.000.237.330
44.2; o
Judicial Information Systems Account
001.000.237.180
1,336.1 z o
School Zone Safety Account
a
001.000.237.200
20.9E Q
Washington Auto Theft Prevention
001.000.237.250
444.5- N
Traumatic Brain Injury
N
001.000.237.260
212.5z N
Accessible Communities Acct
N
001.000.237.290
6.6E E
Multi -Model Transportation
2
001.000.237.300
U
6.6E };
Hwy Safety Acct
001.000.237.320
211.1- E
WSP Hwy Acct
001.000.237.340
251.6(
DNA Database Acct Q
001.000.237.400 52.0'
Total : 8,013.9:
YOST POOL SUPPLIES
Page: 15
Packet Pg. 96
vchlist
02/24/2022 11:06:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.4.a
Page: 16
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
251427
2/24/2022
063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC
(Continued)
YOST POOL SUPPLIES: chemicals
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
1,148.7,
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
119.4,
Total:
1,268.1 S
251428
2/24/2022
060945 PACIFIC POWER BATTERIES
19017110
SEWER - BATTERY
SEWER - BATTERY
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
19.1
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
1.9�
19017166
SEWER - BATTERY
SEWER - BATTERY
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
19.1
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.31.00
1.9�
Total :
42.2E
251429
2/24/2022
075769 QUADIENT LEASING USA INC
N9238458
MAIL POSTAGE LEASE CHARGES
mail postage lease charges 2/23/22 -
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
1,985.2,
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
206.4,
Tota I :
2,191.65
251430
2/24/2022
064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC
5-034581
UNIT 55 - BATTERY
UNIT 55 - BATTERY
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
98.8E
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
10.2E
Tota I :
109.1(
251431
2/24/2022
078861 RYU, CODY CHANG M
E20CE.Five CR LLC
E20CE.FIVE CR LLC ROW ACQUISI
E20CE.FIVE CR LLC ROW ACQUIS�
112.000.68.595.20.61.00
25,000.0(
Page: 16
Packet Pg. 97
vchlist
02/24/2022 11:06:48AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
251431 2/24/2022 078861 078861 RYU, CODY CHANG M
251432 2/24/2022 071655 SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP
251433
251434
251435
2/24/2022 037801 SNO CO HUMAN SERVICE DEPT
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
B14750065
1000580641
2/24/2022 037330 SNO CO PLANNING & DEVLP SERV 1000579892
PO # Description/Account
Total :
JAN-2022 CLOUD SERVICE CHARD
Jan-2022 Cloud Service Charges
512.000.31.518.88.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.88.41.00
Total
Q4-2021 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS
Quarterly Liquor Board Profits
001.000.39.566.10.41.50
Quarterly Liquor Excise Taxes
001.000.39.566.10.41.50
Total
2022 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TOMOF
Snohomish County Tomorrow-
001.000.62.524.10.49.00
Total
2/24/2022 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 201184538 HICKMAN PARK
HICKMAN PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
202439246 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
202439246 CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
Clean Energy Pilot Program - 2021
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
Clean Energy Pilot Program - 2021
001.000.65.518.20.47.00
Clean Energy Pilot Program - 2021
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
Clean Energy Pilot Program - 2021
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
7.4.a
Page: 17
Amoun
25,000.0(
m
E
�a
1,129.6z
L
117.4E
1,247.1:
N
U
a�
t
1,677.0E
E
1,444.6( 19
3,121.6° o
�a
0
8,724.0( a
8,724.0( Q
N
N
N
36.8( c
N
E
3,299.7E 2
c
a�
38.6E E
�a
QW0
-403.5
Page: 17
Packet Pg. 98
vchlist
02/24/2022 11:06:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.4.a
Page: 18
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
251435 2/24/2022 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
(Continued)
Clean Energy Pilot Program - 2021
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
-20.5' E
Clean Energy Pilot Program - 2021
a
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
-6.4z
Clean Energy Pilot Program - 2021
3
130.000.64.536.50.47.00
-4.2f
Clean Energy Pilot Program - 2021
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
-16.2( Y
Clean Energy Pilot Program - 2021
U
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
-6.6z u
Clean Energy Pilot Program - 2021
E
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
37.5 'sa
Clean Energy Pilot Program - 2021
423.000.76.535.80.47.61
-447.6f O
Clean Energy Pilot Program - 2021
423.000.76.535.80.47.62
-0.7( o
Clean Energy Pilot Program - 2021
Q
423.000.76.535.80.47.00
-6.4' Q
202540647
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 191
N
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 191
N
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
18.7( N
Total :
2,122.4< c
N
251436 2/24/2022 037521 SNO CO TREASURER
00479000100302
2021 SURFACE WATER TAX 23009
E
2022 Surface Water Charges - 23009
2
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
U
420.7E };
27043200300100
PARCEL 27043200300100 LAKE BAI
a�
Parcel 27043200300100 Lake Manac
E
001.000.39.576.90.41.50
14.0�
27043200300200
PARCEL 27043200300200 LAKE BAI
Parcel 27043200300200 Lake Manac
Q
001.000.39.576.90.41.50
14.0�
Tota I :
448.9:
251437 2/24/2022 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY
80863
PARKS MAINT 5005 DUMP FEES
Page:
18
Packet Pg. 99
vchlist
02/24/2022 11:06:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.4.a
Page: 19
Bank code :
usbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
251437
2/24/2022
006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY
(Continued)
PARKS MAINT DUMP FEES
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
687.0(
ILLEGAL DUMP FEES
422.000.72.531.10.49.00
962.0(
Total:
1,649.0(
251438
2/24/2022
070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER
January 2022
Crime Victims Court Remittance
Crime Victims Court Remittance
001.000.237.140
107.4�
Total :
107.4<
251439
2/24/2022
038100 SNO-KING STAMP
69104
INV 69104 - EDMONDS PD
4 MAILBOX TAGS- EHLERT&PONXP
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
14.0(
Freight
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
4.2E
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
1.9(
Total :
20.1 E
251440
2/24/2022
078850 SPARKLE WASH OF PUGETSOUND LLC 0000062
WWTP: CLEAN OUT WATER LINES
CLEAN OUT WATER LINES FROM 3
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
11,400.0(
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
1,185.6(
Total :
12,585.6(
251441
2/24/2022
009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC
4394195
WATER - SUPPLIES/ TRENCHING S
WATER - SUPPLIES/ TRENCHING S
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
238.3,
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.31.00
24.7E
Total :
263.1(
251442
2/24/2022
071585 STERICYCLE INC
3005902673
INV 3005902673 - CUST 6076358 - E
Page: 19
Packet Pg. 100
vchlist
02/24/2022 11:06:48AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.4.a
Page: 20
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun
251442
2/24/2022
071585 STERICYCLE INC
(Continued)
MED BOX DISPOSAL
001.000.41.521.80.41.00
139.0�
Tota I :
139.OS
251443
2/24/2022
074797 SUPER CHARGE MARKETING LLC
10596
SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR FEE
SOCIAL MEDIA SERVICES FOR FEE
001.000.61.557.20.41.00
650.0(
Total :
650.0(
251444
2/24/2022
065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC
27814
SEWER - LIFT STATION 9 UPGRADI
SEWER - LIFT STATION 9 UPGRADI
423.000.75.535.80.48.00
1,690.8(
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.48.00
175.8z
Total :
1,866.6z
251445
2/24/2022
078849 TECHNICAL SYSTEMS INC
16236
WWTP: RELAYS
RELAYS
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
132.1(
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
13.7z
Total :
145.8z
251446
2/24/2022
067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
9899446684
C/A 671247844-00001
Cell Service Fac-Maint
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
103.4E
Cell Service-PD
001.000.41.521.10.42.00
40.5E
Cell Service-PW Sewer
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
40.5E
Total :
184.5F
251447
2/24/2022
069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC
8807563134
WWTP: PO 773 PIPETTES
PO 773 PIPETTES
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
179.2z
Page: 20
Packet Pg. 101
vchlist
02/24/2022 11:06:48AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account
251447 2/24/2022 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC (Continued)
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
8807566491 WWTP: PO773 PIPET TRANS
PO 773 PIPET TRANS
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
251448 2/24/2022 077785 WASHINGTON KIDS IN TRANSITION 1-2022
251449 2/24/2022 078302 WEBER, CAROL
251450 2/24/2022 073552 WELCO SALES LLC
251451 2/24/2022 073018 WINFIELD SOLUTIONS LLC
13
8213
64838274
Total :
PMT 7 ERPF HOUSEHOLD SUPPOF
PMT 7 ERPF HOUSEHOLD SUPPOF
142.000.39.518.63.41.00
PMT 7 ERPF HOUSEHOLD SUPPOF
142.000.39.518.63.41.00
PMT 6 ERPF HOUSEHOLD SUPPOF
PMT 6 ERPF HOUSEHOLD SUPPOF
142.000.39.518.63.41.00
PMT 6 ERPF HOUSEHOLD SUPPOF
142.000.39.518.63.41.00
Total
VISIT EDMONDS WEBSITE SUPPOI
VISIT EDMONDS WEBSITE SUPPOI
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
Total
BUSINESS CARDS FOR CM CHEN
Business cards for CM Chen - Oty 25
001.000.11.511.60.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.11.511.60.31.00
Total
PM SUPPLIES: FERTILIZER
PM SUPPLIES: FERTILIZER
7.4.a
Page: 21
Amoun
a�
49.4, 3
5.1,
252.4' Y
U
t
37,384.0� •�
3,739.0( o
�a
0
43,766.4' a
a
Q
4,376.6E "
89,266.21 N
N
N
O
500.0( E
500.0( .�
c
a�
66.7E t
6.9z Q
73.65
Page: 21
Packet Pg. 102
vchlist
02/24/2022 11:06:48AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
251451 2/24/2022 073018 WINFIELD SOLUTIONS LLC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
(Continued)
251452 2/24/2022 078807 ZACHOR STOCK & KREPPS INC PS 22-EDM-0002
251453 2/24/2022 078389 ZENNER USA
65 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
65 Vouchers in this report
0065181-IN
7.4.a
Page: 22
PO # Description/Account Amoun
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
1,798.2(
10.4% Sales Tax
E
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
187.0, a
Total :
1,985.2,
L
FEB-2022 RETAINER
3
Monthly Retainer
001.000.36.515.41.41.20
23,625.0( y
Total:
23,625.0( U
WATER - INVENTORY/ METERS -
WATER - INVENTORY/ METERS-
E
421.000.74.534.80.34.30
1,212.4( 2
Freight
o
421.000.74.534.80.34.30
153.6E '@
Total :
1,366.0! o
L
Bank total :
523,049.31 a
Q
Total vouchers :
523,049.31 N
N
N
N
O
N
E
2
V
al
Page: 22
Packet Pg. 103
7.4.b
vchlist
02/22/2022 2:02:05PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
2222022 2/22/2022 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Page:
Invoice PO # Description/Account
Amoun .-.
N
0091 US BANK - JANUARY
TONER FOR HR FAX MACHINE
E
001.000.22.518.10.31.00
108.1(
AWC JOB POSTING PACKAGE
Q-
001.000.22.518.10.41.40
350.0(
APWA POSTING - PUBLIC WORKS
3
001.000.22.518.10.41.40
325.0(
IPMA TRAINING - EMILY
f°
001.000.22.518.10.49.00
U)
999.0( �
1937 FLEET CC - 02/07/2022
ROOT SPRING SCRAPER - UNIT 11
t
U
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
1,187.4£ .
FISHERIES SUPPLY - UNIT 82 - LEE
U
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
99.1: o
SMARTFOOD SERVICE - SPRAY BC
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
6
32.3, o
AMAZON - HOSE NOZZLE
Q.
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
72.7'. Q
AMAZON - ICE MAKER FOR PUBLIC
422.000.72.531.90.35.00
587.3, N
AMAZON - ICE MAKER FOR PUBLIC
c�
111.000.68.542.90.35.00
N
587.3, N
AMAZON - ICE MAKER FOR PUBLIC
421.000.74.534.80.35.00
m
587.3, .L
AMAZON - ICE MAKER FOR PUBLIC
3
423.000.75.535.80.35.00
587.3, c
AMAZON - ICE MAKER FOR PUBLIC
E
E
511.000.77.548.68.35.00 587.3z
TALLEY - UNIT 145 - PARTS
511.000.77.548.68.31.10 257.7£ Q
UPS STORE - E191 PO - SHIPPING
511.100.77.594.48.64.00 40.3:
LYNNWOOD LOCK & KEY - KEYS
511.000.77.548.68.49.00 5.5:
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 104
vchlist
02/22/2022 2:02:05PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
2222022 2/22/2022 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.4.b
Page: 2
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
^
AMAZON - BATTERIES
N
c
511.000.77.548.68.31.20
8.8,
HOME DEPOT - UNIT 66 SUPPLIES
>+
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
c�
18.7( Q-
FISHERIES SUPPLY- E191PO - PAF
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
65.2( 3
EBAY - OVERHEAD OIL REEL FOR ;
c
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
931.7£ f°
FISHERIES SUPPLY- E191PO - FU;
Y
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
U
68.8( t
AMAZON - TIRE PRESSURE GAUGI
U
511.000.77.548.68.35.00
17.3: E
AMAZON - FLEET
�°
511.000.77.548.68.49.00
U
54.6, o
WABO - WELDER CERT RENEWAL
511.000.77.548.68.49.00
M
55.0( c
1937 TIRE PRESSURE GAUGE
Q.
Amazon - Tire Pressure Gauge
Q-
Q
511.000.77.548.68.35.00
-17.3!
2660 MONITORS, UPS, BATTERIES, POV1
N
N
CDW - APC Replacement Battery Ca
N
512.000.31.518.88.31.00
445.3,1 N
Newegg - Acer K222HQL 21.5" Monit
512.000.31.518.88.35.00
1,688.7� .=
Newegg - TP Link 802.3af Gigabit Po
3
512.000.31.518.88.31.00
41.9:
Newegg - TROPRO 1080p Webcam
E
512.000.31.518.88.31.00
27.5�
Newegg - Logitech MK270 Wireless
512.000.31.518.88.31.00
148.9£ Q
CDW - Cisco Universal AP Bracket
512.000.31.518.88.31.00
15.1,
CDW - APC Back UPS 650 390 watt
512.000.31.518.88.31.00
521.1 z
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 105
vchlist
02/22/2022 2:02:05PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
2222022 2/22/2022 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.4.b
Page: 3
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
^
2985
WWTP: FOLDABLE SHOP CRANE J
N
Harbor Freight Tools: Foldable Crane
>%
423.000.76.535.80.35.00
331.1 �
DOE: Jim Nordquist: Credit Card Ser
a
423.000.76.535.80.49.71
4.1,
DOE: Jim Nordquist 2022 WW Opera
3
423.000.76.535.80.49.71
98.0(
Go Amp for PSI: LJohnson - WW Op(
423.000.76.535.80.49.71
102.0( Y
3355
MOLES CC - 02/07/2022
aUi
AMAZON - STORM SUPPLIES
U
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
41.9z E
DRONE DEPLOY - YEARLY MEMBE
0
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
3,312.0(
4697
NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE FURNITI
c
NO client room table
>
001.000.60.557.20.35.00
140.2( Q.
NO provider tables
a
001.000.60.557.20.35.00
556.8( Q
retirement framing Broman
N
001.000.21.513.10.41.00
9.91, N
AA batteries
N
001.000.21.513.10.31.00
19.4E
b&c thank you paperweights
001.000.21.513.10.49.00
404.0( 3
office chair
001.000.21.513.10.35.00
696.7(
Canva mo. sub. 2/2022
001.000.21.513.10.49.00
12.9'.
4929 US BANK - DEV SVCS Q
Amazon-
001.000.62.524.20.31.00 155.2£
Amazon-
001.000.62.524.10.31.00 66.3
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 106
vchlist
02/22/2022 2:02:05PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
2222022 2/22/2022 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.4.b
Page: 4
Invoice PO # Description/Account Amoun
(Continued)
^
Adobe (Inv date: 1/25/22)-
N
001.000.62.524.10.49.00
117.0(
Edmonds Bakery-
001.000.22.518.10.49.00
50.0( Q-
The Seattle Times-
001.000.62.524.10.49.00
58.5( 3
WABO - 2022 Education Registration
001.000.62.524.20.49.00
11250.0( N
Survey Monkey-
�
001.000.62.524.10.49.00
212.1( t
Amazon-
U
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
75.1 f E
2COCOM*SUPERSOFT-
�°
001.000.62.558.60.31.00
U
136.3( c
MailChimp-
001.000.62.524.10.49.00
25.3� c
5923
CS/ECON DEV CREDIT CARD JANL
Q.
Off iceSpace website listing for Januai
Q-
Q
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
100.0(
6654
SULLIVAN CC - 2/01/2022
N
N
FRANK LUMBER - NEIGHBORHOO[
N
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
255.8, N
CITY OF EDMONDS - BLD PERMIT I
001.000.66.518.30.49.00
265.4( .=
KNOX - YOST PARK HINGES
3
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
506.7z
HOME DEPOT - NEIGHBORHOOD C
E
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
497.9(
RELIABLE PARTS- PUBLIC WORKS
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
25.3'. Q
8017
ENG CREDIT CARD JANUARY 2022
Schroder - Training Force Accounts 8
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
30.0(
8865
US BANK - FEBRUARY
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 107
vchlist
02/22/2022 2:02:05PM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.4.b
Page: 5
Bank code: usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Invoice PO # Description/Account
Amoun
2222022 2/22/2022 062693 US BANK
(Continued)
^
BATTERIES
N
c
001.000.22.518.10.31.00
17.9E E
WEATHER ALERT RADIO
001.000.22.518.10.31.00
120.1, 0-
9644 USPS - POSTAGE FOR PASSPORT;
USPS - POSTAGE FOR PASSPORT;
3
001.000.23.512.51.42.00
17.9(
Total:
20,218.71, N
1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
Bank total :
20,218.71, m
t
1 Vouchers in this report
Total vouchers :
v
20,218.71, E
U
4-
0
0
L
Q
Q
Q
N
N
N
N
N
O
d
L
3
r
c
as
E
0
a
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 108
7.4.c
vchlist
02/23/2022 2:01:55PM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
2232022 2/23/2022 062693 US BANK
1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
1 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Page
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun . .
ui
4474
MS 365 BUSINESS STANDARD
c
Microsoft 365 Business Standard
E
E
001.000.11.511.60.49.00
13.8(
4474
IPAD KEYBOARD, PAPER SUBSCRI
a
BestBuy - iPad keyboard and case fo
001.000.11.511.60.31.00
66.2< 3
Microsoft 365 Business Standard 1/2(
001.000.11.511.60.49.00
13.8( N
Sound Publishing - Everett Daily HerE
Y
U
001.000.11.511.60.49.00
111.9E
4474
MS 365 BUSINESS STANDARD
L)
Microsoft 365 Business Standard fina
E
001.000.11.511.60.49.00
13.8( u
Total:
219.51 o
Bank total :
219.5f >
0
L
Total vouchers :
219.5f a
Q
N
N
CO)
N
N
O
L
3
r
c
m
E
U
�a
a
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 109
7.4.d
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
E8FA
SWR
2019 Sewerline Replacement Project
c516
E8GA
STM
2019 Storm Maintenance Project
c525
E8FC
WTR
2019 Swedish Waterline Replacement
c523
E8JA
STIR
2019 Traffic Calming
i038
E9AA
STIR
2019 Traffic Signal Upgrades
i045
E9AD
UTILITIES
2019 Utility Rate & GFC Update
s02O
E8JB
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
iO57
E21AB
STIR
2021 Overlay Program
051
E21 CA
STIR
2021 Pedestrian Task Force
i062
E21DB
SWR
2021 Sewer Overlay Program
i06O
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
i07O
E22AA
STIR
2022 Stormwater Overlay Program
i066
E22CD
STIR
2022 Traffic Calming Program
071
E22AB
UTILITIES
2022 Utility Rate and GFC Study
s03O
E22NB
STIR
2022 Waterline Overlay Program
i064
E22CB
220th Adapti
i028
E8AB
STIR
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
i005
E7AC
11111110&
2j/3th St,ysland & Mj�c. Ramna
i037
E8DC
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
E8CA
STIR
76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
c368
ElCA
STIR
84th Ave W Overlay from 220th to 212th
i031
E8CC
STIR
89th PI W Retaining Wall
i025
E7CD
urb Ram
i033
E8DB
STIR
Admiral Way Pedestrian Crossing
iO4O
E91DA
STD
Audible Pedestrian Signals
i024
E7AB
STM
Ballinger Regional Facility Pre -Design
s022
E9FA
STIR
Bikelink Project
c474
E5DA
STIR
Citywide Bicycle Improvements Project
i05O
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. 110
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
7.4.d
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
s014
i067
i068
c436
s011
c461
017
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
EBMA
E6AA
E22CE
E22CF
E4FD
ESGB
E4GC
E6DD
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. 111
7.4.d
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. 112
7.4.d
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. 113
7.4.d
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. 114
7.4.d
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. 115
7.4.d
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. 116
7.4.d
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. 117
7.5
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/1/2022
Councilmember Training Reimbursement
Staff Lead: Vivian Olson
Department: City Council
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
The 2021 City of Edmonds budget for Council training and travel was $6700, reflecting support for our
councilmembers to pursue professional and skill development.
Per Director Turley on Feb 15, 2022 most of this Council training budget was unspent in 2021 and the
funds are available to cover the Dec portion of the 2021 LSC program claimed by CP Olson. The claim for
$387.50 was submitted in a timely manner and IAW the documentation requirements of the City of
Edmonds expenses and reimbursement policy.
The LSC December training day's agenda is at attachment 5, documentation that the subject matter in
this Leadership Snohomish County Government and Public Policy training day is directly related to CM
roles and responsibilities.
Recommendation
Approve claims reimbursement on consent agenda.
Narrative
Councilmember training reimbursement can be authorized by either the Council President (in this case
CM Paine who was CP in 2021) or by the full Council. The latter will take place if approved on consent or
pulled from consent and getting four or more votes.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - City of Edmonds Claim for Expenses
Attachment 2 - Proof of Payment
Attachment 3 - Effective COE Employee Expenses, Volunteer Recognition and Reimbursement Policy Aug
18, 2014
Attachmetn 4 - Leadership Sno Co Program Description
Attachment 5 - LSC Government and Public Policy Day
Attachment 6 - 2022 Council training and travel budget and policies, provided as evidence that what CP
Olson is asking for falls into the category she has pre -authorized for all CM's in 2022
Packet Pg. 118
0
Name: V I
Department:
CITY OF EDMONDS
Month/Year:
CLAIM FOR EXPENSES
�n� 1
7.5.a
T Instructions: Submit required, detailed receipts for lodging and mist
reimburseable expenses with this voucher. See City of Edmonds Tu
and Meal Expense Procedure. Contact the Finance department with
questions regarding reirriburseable expenses.
TRIP
INFORMATION
PER DIEM RECEIPTS REQUIRED 1
PERSONAL MOTOR VEHICLE
Date
Purpose of Trip
Destination
Trip Time
Meals
Mileage
Allowance
Other Per
Detail
Depart
Return
B
L
D
Sub Total
Lodging
Costs
Total
PT to PT
Reimburse-
ment Rate
0.00
0.00
0.585
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.585
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.585
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.585
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.585
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.585
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,585
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.585
0.00
0.001
0.00
0.585
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.585
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.585
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.585
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.585
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.585
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.585
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.585
0.00
0.00
0.001
0.585
0.00
0.00
0.001
0.585
0.00
TOTALS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0011
0.0000
)ETAIL OF OTHER EXPENSES
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that this is a true arr
correct claim for necessary expenses incurred by me and th
no payment has been received by me on account thereof
C1
Manager
C� �?a T4v�
/UsersNivian/Library/Containers/com.apple. mail/Data/Library/Mail Down loads/F41 9 DAO D-OC2F-4343-B427-8251 503EF F89/2022 Claim For Expenses.xlsx
1
Packet Pg. 119
TILLS F'ARGO
Bill Pay
Y��'
��z. / ✓J
Add Pay
e_e I r fiI Imp
Paper checks are taking over 5 days to reach their destination, due to updated USPS service standards on First -Class Mail. You may want to
send check payments earlier to avoid a late fee.
Payees Scheduled (2) 1 History
Search payees
View: Last 60 days
Download His
I My Spending
Report
Sent.
Payee v
Amount'v
Payment Account'v
Deliver by v
Status v Action
01/06/22
01/10/22
Paid • • •
01/05/22
01/07/22
Paid
01/05/22
01/07/22
Paid
01/04/22
01/06/22
Paid
12/24/21 ti
12/28/21
Paid ■ ..
AWLeadership
12/22/21
Snohomish
$387.50
:12/29/21
Check Mailed ...
County
I
To
Leadership Snohomish County
Name on bill
VIVIAN OLSON
Payment account
PREFERRED CHECKING
Amount
$387.50
Sent
12/22/21
Deliver by
12/29/21
Confirmation
49LZRBBW
Status
Check Mailed
Packet Pg. 120
7.5.c
City of Edmonds
LJ ,!
y
ago tia
Employee Expenses, Volunteer Recognition and
Reimbursements Policy
August 19, 2014
Packet Pg. 121
7.5.c
City of Edmonds
Employee Expenses, Volunteer Recognition and Reimbursement Policy
EMPLOYEE EXPENSES. VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION AND REIMBURSEMENTS
General Reimbursement Policy
The City of Edmonds reimburses its employees and elected or appointed officials for reasonable
expenses incurred conducting City business providing the expenses are prudent and directly related
to the individual's service on behalf of the City.
The City of Edmonds is best served by the active participation of community citizens as volunteers.
Volunteers learn more about their City and contribution to its effectiveness, thereby fostering
increased cooperation and understanding.
Administration
The Finance Director administers the reimbursement program, designs and distributes forms and
instruction and carries responsibility for review of claims. Claims will not be allowed without a
detailed account of monies spent certified by the individual making the claim as required by the
State Auditor.
Documentation
Claims for personal reimbursement must be made on official Employee Claim for Expenses form,
be accompanied by the vendor's original receipt or bankcard charge slip showing the date, vendor
imprinted name, amount paid and items/services received, and must be certified correct and signed
by the individual seeking reimbursement. Should a receipt be lost or not be obtainable, an
employee must fill out a Lost Receipt form and attach to the Claim for Expenses signed by his/her
Department Head (or Mayor if the employee is a Department Head). This will serve as a substitute
for a receipt.
In addition to the documentation above, claims for meals that feed others require the following
documentation:
1. The names of the individuals being hosted
2. Their official title or capacity as it related to City business
3. The nature of the topics discussed, nature of the occasion, what public purpose or policy was
being served (and/or copy of agenda)
4. The person being reimbursed must explain why it was necessary to conduct this business over a
meal rather than on City premises.
5. Subject to budget available for event and preapproval by Mayor for staff -sponsored events and
by Council President for Council -Sponsored events.
Employee claims for expenses must be signed by department heads, or in his/her absence, by his/her
designee. Department head or acting department head claims must be signed by the Mayor.
Council member expenses must be signed by the Council President.
All Employee claims should be submitted in a timely manner; within 30 days. No reimbursement
requests will be authorized for any expenses taking place in a previous budget year.
1
Packet Pg. 122
7.5.c
City of Edmonds
Employee Expenses, Volunteer Recognition and Reimbursement Policy
Food and Beverage
There is no state law explicitly authorizing cities to pay for food and beverages with public funds.
Lacking a law, the responsibility is placed on the local city to determine its policy for paying for
food and beverages for employees.
Based on recommendations from the State Auditor's Office, the City uses the following guidelines
in determining the use of public funds for expenditures for food and beverages:
1. Who consumed this food and drink?
2. What was the nature of the occasion for the consumption?
3. What public purpose or policy objective was served?
4. Why was it necessary to consume food and beverage to carry out the policy?
5. Were the expenses "reasonable"?
6. Were the expenses consistent with the policy authorizing reimbursement?
The city must also consider Internal Revenue Service regulations covering the income tax
consequences of providing food and beverages to employees. Payment for food and beverage
expenses that meet the IRS non-taxable criteria will be made through Accounts Payable. Payment
for food and beverage expenses that do not meet the IRS non-taxable criteria will be made through
Payroll and taxed at the current IRS rate.
General IRS Meal Reimbursement Regulations
(See following sections for specific examples)
The following food and beverage expenses qualify as non-taxable under the IRS code and will be
reimbursed through Accounts Payable.
1. Meals consumed while traveling on city business. To qualify as travel the employee must
travel a distance of 40 miles or more from Edmonds and stay overnight.
2. Business meals between city employees and non -city employees that can reasonably be
expected to bring a specific business benefit to the city (e.g. a new store is contemplating
locating in Edmonds). These meals would typically involve the Mayor and business people
seeking to increase business in Edmonds. Restaurant meals with current or potential city
suppliers (vendors/contractors/consultants, etc.) would not qualify under this category.
3. Meal expenses directly related to and necessary for attending business meetings or
conventions of organizations directly related to city business. These organizations include
chambers of commerce, business leagues and trade or professional organizations such as the
American Planning Association, American Public Works Association, etc.
4. Meals provided by the city that meet the following three criteria:
a. The meal must be brought to the employee; cash may not be given to the employee to buy
a meal.
b. The meal must be provided at the city's business premises. This may include temporary
work sites, such as a rented hotel conference room, if business is conducted there. Public
restaurants do not qualify as business premises.
c. The meal must be provided for the city's convenience and have a sound business
justification. Examples include:
Packet Pg. 123
7.5.c
City of Edmonds
Employee Expenses, Volunteer Recognition and Reimbursement Policy
i. Meals furnished during work hours so employees are available for emergency calls
during the meal. Evidence must be provided that an emergency occurred.
ii. Meals delivered to the office at a group meeting that spans a mealtime and the meeting
cannot be interrupted for a meal break.
The following food and beverage expenses are taxable under the IRS code and will be reimbursed
through Payroll.
1. Meals consumed while attending local training sessions/classes. Local training means
training that does not qualify for travel by being 40 miles or more from the city and
requiring an overnight stay.
2. Meals consumed while transporting city or non -city participants to recreation programs.
3. Meals between city employees and/or non -city employees off the city premises that
otherwise qualify for reimbursement under city policy.
4. Meals consumed while transporting and/or chaperoning city or non -city participants to city
sponsored Parks and Recreation programs or events where paid staff are required for safety
and supervision. Examples include, but are not limited to, programs or events at restaurants
for senior participants.
Claims for taxable meal reimbursements must be submitted to Payroll on an Employee
Reimbursement form. Meal reimbursements are included in the employee's regular paycheck.
Retreats/Meetings/Training
Council Retreats/Executive Team Retreats/Department Retreats to determine goals and
objectives for the department/City: The reasonable cost of necessary food and beverages while
conducting a City retreat is authorized for reimbursement. Each department will be limited to one
retreat per year. Non -taxable -paid through Accounts Payable
City Sponsored Training/Staff Meetings: the general rule is that meals and snacks are not
reimbursable and are to be purchased by those individuals attending. However, the City will pay
reasonable cost of beverages. Non-taxable under the IRS De Minimis meals category paid
through Accounts Payable.
Professional Organization Sponsored Training or Seminars/Business Luncheon Meetings: The
City will pay the cost of meals included as part of the registration or purchased separately to be
consumed at meetings held during a meal time. Examples include the Chamber of Commerce,
American Planning Association, Snohomish County Clerks & Finance Officers Association, etc.
Non-taxable per specific IRS regulation -paid through Accounts Payable
Awards/Recognition
Service Awards Ceremonies: Expenditures for reasonable refreshments served at the Mayor's
Annual City-wide Employee Awards Programs, including luncheon to recognize employees with 5,
10, 15 and 20 plus years of service and breakfast to recognize employees selected for service
awards. (Limited to one each per year) Non-taxable under the IRS De Minimis meals category -
paid through Accounts Payable.
3
Packet Pg. 124
7.5.c
City of Edmonds
Employee Expenses, Volunteer Recognition and Reimbursement Policy
Department Head Appreciation Luncheon: Expenditures for reasonable refreshments served at
the Annual Department Head Appreciation Luncheon for only City of Edmonds staff and Council
members. (Limited to one per year) Non-taxable under the IRS De Minimis meals category paid
through Accounts Payable.
Special Events
The City policy is to allow for reimbursement for the costs of reasonable refreshments for public
events such as Open Houses, City Anniversary Celebrations, and hosting delegations from other
jurisdictions. Reimbursement requests must be accompanied by the publicly published notice of the
event. Non-taxable under the IRS De Minimis meals category paid through Accounts Payable.
Birthday Celebrations/Retirement Celebrations/Welcoming Parties: these events are considered
private parties and as such represent an inappropriate expenditure of public funds. The cost of any
food or beverage or any incidental expenses related to these events (film, flowers, cards, etc.) are
not eligible for reimbursements.
Volunteers: It is the policy of the City of Edmonds to recognize and acknowledge the contribution
that volunteers make to the City. The City will pay the reasonable cost for providing service
awards, food and beverages at an annual recognition event.. Non-taxable if held on city premises
and meals are provided paid through Accounts Payable. Taxable if held off city premises -
employee's meal reimbursement paid through Payroll.
Meals
Business Meals between City Employees: Meals (including snacks) between City Employees will
not normally be reimbursed. It is expected that City Business between City employees can for the
most part be conducted on City premises during normal work hours.
Working Lunches: the City recognizes that there are occasions when it may be necessary for a
group of employees to work through lunch in order to meet a deadline or to keep a group convened
in order to accomplish the task. To be considered for reimbursement as a working lunch, the
meeting must span over a three hour period which includes the group's normal lunch hour and have
approval of the Mayor. Non-taxable if the meal is provided on the city premises for the
convenience of the citypaid through Accounts Payable
Business Meals between City Employees and Non -City Employees: the reasonable costs of
necessary meals while conducting City Business with persons other than City employees either
locally or out of town are authorized for reimbursement. Employees seeking reimbursement for
meals of a non -City person must obtain prior approval from the Mayor. The employee's meal is
non-taxable if the meal is provided on the city premises for the convenience of the city or the
employee is on out of town travel for the city —paid through Accounts Payable. The employee's
meal is non-taxable if it meets the IRS test of providing a specific business benefit to the city
(normally only the Mayor will qualify in the specific business benefit category) —paid through
Accounts Payable. The employee's meal is taxable if the meal is not related to city travel and is
4
Packet Pg. 125
7.5.c
City of Edmonds
Employee Expenses, Volunteer Recognition and Reimbursement Policy
eaten off the city premises paid through Payroll. The meals for the non -city employees are paid
through Accounts Payable.
5
Packet Pg. 126
2/22/22, 11:42 AM
7.5.d
Signature Program — Leadership Snohomish County
SIGNATURE PROGRAM
The Signature Program is a 9-month
leadership program for
professionals with some experience
in leadership roles from varied
career, educational, political, and
cultural backgrounds. Participants
must be ready to explore local
issues and new leadership strategies
to prepare for civic involvement.
Enrollment includes participation in
a two-day retreat held
September, seven all -day Education
Days October -April (either the first or
second Thursday of each month),
participation in a team community
impact project, a research interview,
an all -day equity and inclusion
$37100
$2,800 nonprofit
rate. Limited
scholarships are
available for
people with
limited
resources.
Please indicate
the need in your
application.
Interviews will
be
held throughout
July and early
httnc•//Inn rinrchin— nrn A c n nrnnrnme/c inn nh irenrnn—m
Packet Pg. 127
1/4
2/22/22, 11:42 AM
7.5.d
Signature Program — Leadership Snohomish County
\�J
LEADERSHIP
SNOHOMISH
-
• Use an FIO (figure it out)
Program begins
E
approach to address a
in September.
L
community challenge.
APPLICATION
• Strengthen tri-sector (business,
government, nonprofit) ability to
L
APPLY
0
communicate and collaborate.
• Identify core leadership abilities.
O
0 M I N A T F
O
• Use curiosity when confronting
NE
�- L
challenges.
• Examine complex challenges
PROCESS
E
M
L-
O
that require leadership. L)
O
• Inspire teamwork and leverage
strengths and talents of team
members.
• Use the tri-sector community as
the sandbox to create a way to
examine leadership, leaders and
how to build thriving companies,
communities and organizations.
• Have fearless conversations to
Still have
questions?
Contact us.
examine real issues.
Packet Pg. 128
2/4
0
LEADERSHIP
DHDMII-
�`,.,.
EDUCATION DAY AG,
I_SC Class of 2c.
TOPIC: Government & Public Policy Day (Advocacy)
DATE: December 9, 2021
LOCATION: Via Zoom:
https:Lus02web.zoom.us/i/82677684344?. wd=NU85UIdWeF15R3VibmsrVzJrZHZSZZ09
Meeting ID: 826 7768 4344
Passcode: 904099
Objectives:
• Show how citizens can stay informed, get involved, and influence processes.
• Share experiences of community leaders.
• Show how various government agencies work at different levels.
• Learn that the government is not separate from us - we ARE thegovernment!
Time
Agenda
8:30
Welcome and Introductions Co facilitators: Angela Di Filippo, Jodi Runyon, Jennifer Smolen.
VIDEO: "I'm Just a Bill" https://Youtu.be/OFVKvciTItto
8:40
Land Acknowledgement
8:45
Homework Recap
- What do you think of the definitions provided in the homework activity?
How would you define government(using these or your own knowled e/ex erience)?
9:00
Panel: Robert Knoll, Rachel Dean, Misha Lujan
Get to know teams and resources that can help you with daily life, or with unique advocacy issues. Building
advocacy relationships with staff - working with elected officials and their staff. How to navigate the
governmental system.
9:45
BREAK
10:00
Summer Hammons, Legislative Policy Analyst, Tulalip Tribes Treaty Rights and Government Affairs Office
How the Treaty Rights and Government Affairs office works with legislators and others at the State level
including the writing of policy, amending proposed bills, reviewing proposed changes to law, and challenging
law to uphold the treaty rights.
10:45
Erika Olson, George G. Tolbert II, Christian Perez, Citizen University
Erika, George and Christian return as graduates of Citizen University (citizenuniversity.us), founded by Eric Liu,
to continue work with the class on how we can apply our why, create our Civic First Aid Kit and connect
learning to our journey of engagement and advocacy.
11:45
Video and Discussion - Video: "Do Politics Make us Irrational?" - 5 minutes
(https:l/www.ted.com/talks/iav van bavel do l2olitics make us irrational)
- Breakout Rooms: 15 minutes
- each room 5 - 7 participants
- Group Discussion: 10 minutes
- report -out from breakout groups
12:15
Government Myth Busters
Learn more about common misconceptions related to government and get your questions answered.
c
m
E
m
L
E
a�
c
.E
L
L
E
am
E
U
c
3
0
U
Packet Pg. 129
7.5.e
'1230
LUNCH
1:00
Positive Leadership (Advocacy)
Kathy Coffey, Executive Director, Leadership Snohomish County
2:00
Change the Narrative
Michael Adams, Executive Director
Learning how grassroots advocacy can make a positive difference in the community.
"To Encourage Anti -Racism; Ensure equity in policy and practice; Support the community efforts in diversity and
inclusion. Expand local resources to limit barriers to success." - Change the Narrative
2:45
BREAK
3:00
The Inner Workings of Government
Gloria Hirashima, Chief Administrative Officer, City of Marysville
3:45
Activity - Using Your Strengths to Advocate
• Create your advocacy profile - worksheet. Pulling it all together.
• Set your goal -SMART goal sheet. Taking action.
4:30
Debrief / Reflection / Discussion
4:45
Next Education Day Overview: Economic and Workforce Development Day, January 6 & 12, 2022
Ismaila Maidadi, Chad Golden, Tammy Dunn
5:00
Adjourn
c
m
E
m
E
0
a
a.
c
R
c
m
E
c
L
/O
V
V
N
J
a
Packet Pg. 130
7.5.f
Olson, Vivian
From: Olson, Vivian
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 9:18 AM
To: Olson, Vivian
Subject: Fwd: Council Training and Travel Budget and Policies
Attachments: 2022 Claim For Expenses.xlsx
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Olson, Vivian" <Vivian.Olson@edmondswa.gov>
Date: January 12, 2022 at 8:50:49 PM PST
To: Council <Council@edmondswa.gov>
Subject: Council Training and Travel Budget and Policies
Hello Council -
Based on the guidance herein, you can decide for yourself (without Council President pre -approval) how
to get the best impact for the City from your part of the Council budget for training and travel, which is
$800* in 2022.
As a guideline, course topics offered by organizations like AWC and MRSC are known to be important for
City leaders. Keep the focus local, the skill development directly related to your role as a
councilmember, and keep your total requested training reimbursements for the year under $800.
and you can count on me to approve your reimbursement requests when you submit the completed
form and your proof of payment to me.
As a reminder, it is City policy that requests for reimbursement be submitted within a month of the
training or travel. The completed form (attached), proof of payment, and info on the course taken can
be left in my mailbox in the council
office or scanned and submitted to me by email (if the latter, make sure I acknowledge receipt).
Thanks and happy learning!
Vivian
*note that in addition to this $800/CM amount, there is another $1k that I held back for retreats and
any other training we may conduct in house. Some of this money will be available to you for additional
CM training WITH preapproval toward the end of the year if it isn't needed for this other.
Sent from my iPhone
1 Packet Pg. 131
7.6
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/1/2022
Approval of Settlement Agreement with Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
Staff Lead: Pamela Randolph
Department: Public Works & Utilities
Preparer: Rob English
Background/History
On December 3, 2021, during renovations at the Wastewater Treatment Plant that included removal of
the sludge incinerator, a Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) inspector issued to the City a Notice of
Violation (NOV) for an alleged violation of a PSCAA regulation: Regulation III, Article 4, Asbestos Control
Standards. This regulation requires building owners to obtain an asbestos survey of suspect materials
before beginning certain construction work. The City was aware of and had undertaken good faith
efforts to abide by this regulation based on its interpretation of its requirements and had made an
independent determination that no asbestos was present. Therefore, the City had not obtained the
survey. The City obtained the survey within days of receiving the NOV and no asbestos was detected.
The City appealed the NOV to the Pollution Control Hearings Board on December 30, 2021. In January
2022, the PSCAA reached out to the City to discuss resolution of the Appeal. These discussions assisted
in clarifying the PSCAA's intent with regard to the requirements of this regulation. The result of these
discussions was the attached Settlement Agreement that reduces by one-half the civil penalty of Seven
Hundred Fifty Dollars ($750) and permanently suspends payment of the second half if no unexcused
violations of this regulation occur for a period of two (2) years. Upon approval by the City Council and
signature by both parties, the City will dismiss its Appeal of the NOV.
Staff Recommendation
Approve Settlement Agreement and authorize the Mayor's signature.
Narrative
City staff, with the assistance of the Office of the City Attorney, has negotiated the terms of the attached
Settlement Agreement with the PSCAA.
Attachments:
Settlement Agreement
Packet Pg. 132
I 7.6.a I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL HEARINGS BOARD
STATE OF WASHINGTON
CITY OF EDMONDS,
Appellant
V.
PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY,
Respondent
PCHB No. 21-089
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
I. PARTIES
The parties to this Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") are:
A. The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency ("Agency"). The Agency is a multi -county
regional air pollution control agency covering the counties of King, Pierce, Snohomish and
Kitsap, in the State of Washington. It is a municipal corporation of the State of Washington
and established under chapter 70A.15 RCW, the Washington Clean Air Act.
B. City of Edmonds, a Washington municipal corporation ("City of Edmonds"), which
owns and operates a wastewater treatment plant facility located at 200 2nd Avenue South,
Edmonds, Washington, 98020.
II. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to resolve City of Edmonds' appeal of Notice of
Violation No. 4-A000100 in PCHB No. 21-089 without further litigation.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT- PAGE 1 OF 4
a
PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY
1904 3rd Avenue Suite 105
Seattle, WA 98101-3317 Packet Pg. 133
Phone: (206) 343-8800
Fax: (206) 343-7522
I 7.6.a I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
III. AGREEMENTS BY THE PARTIES
The parties agree to the following terms and conditions:
A. Pursuant to the Agency's civil penalty worksheet approved by the Agency's Board of
Directors, the administrative civil penalty for the alleged violation cited in NOV No. 4-
A000100 is $750. To resolve of Notice of Violation No. 4-A000100, City of Edmonds
agrees to pay $375.00 to the Agency within thirty (30) days of the date of this Agreement.
B. Further, the City of Edmonds agrees to no further violations of Article 4 of Regulation III
of the Agency for two years (2) from the date of this Agreement. If any unexcused
violations of Agency Article 4 of Regulation III occur within two (2) years from the date
of this Agreement, the City of Edmonds agrees to pay $375.00 to the Agency and that
amount is immediately due and payable to the Agency.
C. The Agency agrees to take no further enforcement action regarding Notice of Violation
No. 4-A000100 if no unexcused violations of Article 4 of Regulation III of the Agency
occur for two (2) years from the date of this Agreement and $375.00 described in § III(A)
above is paid to the Agency.
D. Withdrawal of Appeal. Within ten (10) days of the effective date of this Agreement, City
of Edmonds shall dismiss with prejudice its appeal of PCHB No. 21-089.
IV. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This Agreement constitutes the full and final resolution of City of Edmonds appeal in
PCHB No. 21-089.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT— PAGE 2 OF 4
PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY
1904 3rd Avenue Suite 105
Seattle, WA 98101-3317 Packet Pg. 134
Phone: (206) 343-8800
Fax: (206) 343-7522
I 7.6.a I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
V. PARTIES BOUND AND AUTHORITY
This Agreement applies to and is binding upon the signatories and their successors and
assigns. The parties each represent and warrant that they have full power and actual authority
to enter into this Agreement and carry out all actions required of them by this Agreement.
VI. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as excusing City of Edmonds from
compliance with any applicable federal, state or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations,
including the Agency's regulations. This Agreement does not provide City of Edmonds with
any additional rights or privileges, nor does it preclude the Agency from taking enforcement
or any other legal action against City of Edmonds for future violations of Article 4 of
Regulation III or other violations not covered by this Agreement.
VII. MODIFICATION
This Agreement may be modified only upon written agreement and amendment by the
parties.
VIII. FULL UNDERSTANDING AND INDEPENDENT LEGAL COUNSEL
The parties each acknowledge, represent and agree that they have read this Agreement
and that they have been fully advised by their own legal counsel regarding their legal rights
with respect thereto.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT- PAGE 3 OF 4
a
PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY
1904 3rd Avenue Suite 105
Seattle, WA 98101-3317 Packet Pg. 135
Phone: (206) 343-8800
Fax: (206) 343-7522
I 7.6.a I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
IX. EFFECTIVE DATE OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall take effect upon the signatures of both parties.
CITY OF EDMONDS
Mike Nelson, Mayor
Date:
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED :
Scott Passey, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT- PAGE 4 OF 4
PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY
By:
Its:
Date:
PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY
1904 3rd Avenue Suite 105
Seattle, WA 98101-3317 Packet Pg. 136
Phone: (206) 343-8800
Fax: (206) 343-7522
8.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/1/2022
Ordinance Amending the 2022 City Budget
Staff Lead: City Attorney
Department: City Attorney's Office
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
The city council adopted the 2022 Budget in November 2021. The city council would now like to make
amendments to that adopted budget.
The city council has, over the course of several meetings in 2022, taken preliminary votes to provide
guidance on the contents of the budget amendment ordinance.
Recommendation
Consider and vote on proposed ordinance.
Narrative
The proposed ordinance to amend the budget was not ready for publication at the time the council
packet went to print. The packet contents for this agenda item will be updated on Monday, February 28,
2022 to include the proposed ordinance along with updates to this agenda memo.
Update:
The attached proposed ordinance to amend the budget is intended to reflect the totality of all the
preliminary votes that had the support of at least five councilmembers.
Attachments:
2022-02-28 ordinance amending 2022 Budget
Council Budget Amendment Charts
Packet Pg. 137
8.1.a
ORDINANCE NO. 42_
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 4240 AND THE
2022 ADOPTED BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON.
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council adopted Ordinance 4240 on November 17, 2021
to establish the City of Edmonds' appropriations for the fiscal year commencing January 1,
2022; and
WHEREAS, the composition of the city council changed six days after the adoption of
Ordinance 4240 to replace an appointed councilmember with an elected councilmember, and
further changed in January 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council finds that it is to the best interests of the City of
Edmonds to decrease, revoke or recall a portion of the unexpended fund balances that had been
appropriated through Ordinance 4240 and therefore finds it necessary to adopt an amended budget
for that same fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.33.120 authorizes the city council, by ordinance, approved by the
vote of one more than the majority of all members thereof, to take such action, and
WHEREAS, the city council held a hearing on these various proposed budget amendments
on February 1, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the city council considered various proposed amendments to the 2022 budget
and/or took preliminary votes to gauge the extent of support for each proposed amendment during
the city council meetings held on January 25, 2022, February 1, 2022, February 8, 2022, February
15, 2022, February 17, 2022, and February 22, 2022, and
Packet Pg. 138
WHEREAS, during these meetings, the following amendments were preliminarily
approved by vote of one more than the majority of all members of the city council:
• Concerning Decision Package #1: the new FTE for a REDI Manager, and its
associated funding, which had been approved with Ordinance 4240 was revoked
and replaced with an appropriation of $100,000 in 2022 (with an additional
$100,000 expected to be appropriated in 2023 and 2024) for a three-year contract
for services of a similar nature;
• Concerning Decision Package #21: the general fund appropriation was decreased
by $200,000 and that same amount was transferred to the 018 homelessness fund
for appropriation and expenditure consistent with the purposes of that fund;
• Concerning Decision Package #61: the $400,000 appropriation associated with this
decision package for green streets and rain gardens was revoked;
• A temporary senior planner position was converted to a permanent FTE with an
additional $20,000 appropriated over the previously approved salary to allow for
the possibility of hiring someone at the top step of the salary range;
• the general fund appropriation was increased by $34,000 to fund the Edmonds 4th
Avenue Creative District design project.
NOW, THEREFORE; the City Council of the City of Edmonds, Washington, do ordain as
follows:
Section 1. The city council hereby finds, based on the recitals above, that it is
to the best interests of the City of Edmonds to decrease, revoke or recall all or any portion of the
total appropriations provided for the funds affected by the preliminary votes described above.
Packet Pg. 139
8.1.a
Section 2. The budget for the City of Edmonds Washington for the year 2022
is hereby amended as described herein at the fund level with its final form and content as set forth
in the comprehensive budget document, City of Edmonds Adopted Budget, copies of which are on
file in the Office of the City Clerk, PROVIDED THAT
• the FTE authorization for a REDI Manager position, and its associated
general fund appropriation, which had been contained in that document is
hereby revoked, and replaced with a general fund appropriation of $100,000
in 2022 (with an additional $100,000 expected to be appropriated in 2023
and 2024) for the purposes of a three-year contract for services of a similar
nature, AND FURTHER PROVIDED THAT
• the temporary FTE authorization for a senior planner is hereby converted to
a permanent FTE authorization with an additional $20,000 appropriation to
the general fund to allow for the possibility of hiring at the top step of the
salary range, AND FURTHER PROVIDED THAT
• the general fund appropriation is hereby decreased by $200,000 and that
same amount is hereby transferred from the general fund to the 018
homelessness fund for appropriation and expenditure consistent with the
purposes of that fund, AND FURTHER PROVIDED THAT
• the $400,000 appropriation associated with Decision Package #61 for green
streets and rain gardens is hereby revoked, AND FURTHER PROVIDED
THAT
• the general fund appropriation is hereby increased by $34,000 to fund the
Edmonds 4th Avenue Creative District design project.
Packet Pg. 140
8.1.a
Section 3. Estimated resources for each separate fund of the City of Edmonds,
and aggregate expenditures for all such funds for the year 2022 are set forth in summary form on
Exhibits A, B, and C which are attached hereto and incorporated herein as if set forth in full, and
are hereby appropriated for expenditure at the fund level during the year 2022 as set forth in the
City of Edmonds Adopted Budget, as amended above.
Section 4. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically 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/AUTHENTICATE
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
:1
CITY ATTORNEY, JEFFREY TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Packet Pg. 141
8.1.a
1810111►k1zlei azto]
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. _
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 1st day of March, 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 AMENDING ORDINANCE 4240 AND THE
2022 ADOPTED BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _ day of March, 2022
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Packet Pg. 142
EXHIBIT "A" BUDGET SUMMARY BY FUND
FUND
NO.
FUND
DESCRIPTION
2022
BEGINNING
FUND BALANCE
REVENUE
EXPENDITURES
2022
ENDING
FUND BALANCE
001
GENERAL FUND
13,252,674
44,169,863
49,244,874
8,177,663
009
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE
370,037
225,000
260,490
334,547
011
RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND
-
-
-
-
012
CONTINGENCY RESERVE FUND
1,784,770
-
1,784,770
014
HISTORIC PRESERVATION GIFT FUND
16,299
5,900
10,399
016
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
4,610,222
980,000
3,630,222
017
MARSH RESTORATION & PRESERVATION FUND
844,866
-
-
844,866
018
EDMONDS HOMELESSNESS RESPONSE FUND
-
200,000
200,000
-
019
EDMONDS OPIOID RESPONSE FUND
-
-
-
-
104
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND
193,873
167,210
45,800
315,283
111
STREET FUND
731,490
1,751,930
2,254,676
228,744
112
COMBINED STREETCONST/IMPROVE
2,075,270
13,359,021
12,542,946
2,891,345
117
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND
645,541
216,701
181,880
680,362
118
MEMORIAL STREET TREE
-
-
-
-
120
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND
51,231
84,410
100,900
34,741
121
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND
80,358
26,540
26,880
80,018
122
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND
12,768
1,550
3,000
11,318
123
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS
85,338
29,590
28,200
86,728
125
PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT
3,065,531
2,271,020
4,279,876
1,056,675
126
SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND
2,238,445
2,261,030
1,922,273
2,577,202
127
GIFTS CATALOG FUND
294,795
82,750
78,400
299,145
130
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV
211,509
182,430
220,561
173,378
136
PARKSTRUST FUND
118,837
4,330
-
123,167
137
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD
1,100,900
43,520
25,000
1,119,420
138
SISTER CITY COMMISSION
10,362
10,290
11,900
8,752
140
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FUND
23,181
79,349
87,680
14,850
141
AFFORDABLE & SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FUND
143,441
65,000
-
208,441
142
EDMONDS RESCUE PLAN FUND
-
4,856,549
1,250,000
3,606,549
143
TREE FUND
20,487
215,330
214,800
21,017
211
LID FUND CONTROL
-
-
-
-
231
2012 LTGO DEBT SERVICE FUND
-
611,370
611,370
-
332
PARKS CONSTRUCTION
4,554,645
3,822,685
7,321,018
1,056,312
421
WATER
26,048,110
11,018,136
11,110,498
25,955,748
422
STORM
13,638,345
7,877,897
8,238,202
13,278,040
423
SEWER/TREATMENT PLANT
43,391,480
16,001,340
15,656,812
43,736,008
424
BOND RESERVE FUND
843,961
1,988,700
1,988,710
843,951
511
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND
8,999,440
1,925,920
1,942,460
8,982,900
512
Technology Rental Fund
797,594
1,153,570
1,447,422
503,742
617
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND
-
Totals
130, 255, 800
114, 703, 031
122, 282, 528
122, 676, 303
Q
Packet Pg. 143
EXHIBIT "B" BUDGET AMENDMENTS BY REVENUE
FUND
NO.
FUND
DESCRIPTION
Adopted
Budget
Ord. #
1/1/2022
Adopted
Amendment
Ord. #
2022
Amended
Revenue
Budget
001
General Fund
$ 44,204,863
$ (35,000)
$ 44,169,863
009
Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve
225,000
225,000
011
Risk Management Reserve Fund
-
-
012
Contingency Reserve Fund
014
Historic Preservation Gift Fund
016
Building Maintenance Fund
017
Marsh Restoration & Preservation Fund
-
-
018
Edmonds Homelessness Response Fund
200,000
200,000
019
Edmonds Opioid Response Fund
-
-
104
Drug Enforcement Fund
167,210
167,210
111
Street Fund
1,751,930
1,751,930
112
Combined Street Const/Improve
13,359,021
13,359,021
117
Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund
216,701
216,701
118
Memorial Street Tree
-
-
120
Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund
84,410
84,410
121
Employee Parking Permit Fund
26,540
26,540
122
Youth Scholarship Fund
1,550
1,550
123
Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts
29,590
29,590
125
Park Acq/Improvement
2,271,020
2,271,020
126
Special Capital Fund
2,261,030
2,261,030
127
Gifts Catalog Fund
82,750
82,750
130
Cemetery Maintenance/Improv
182,430
182,430
136
Parks Trust Fund
4,330
4,330
137
Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fd
43,520
43,520
138
Sister City Commission
10,290
10,290
140
Business Improvement District Fund
79,349
79,349
141
Affordable and Supportive Housing Fund
65,000
65,000
142
Edmonds Rescue Plan Fund
4,856,549
4,856,549
143
Tree Fund
215,330
215,330
211
Lid Fund Control
-
-
231
2012 LTGO Debt Service fund
611,370
611,370
332
Parks Construction
3,822,685
3,822,685
421
Water
11,018,136
11,018,136
422
Storm
8,277,897
(400,000)
7,877,897
423
Sewer / Treatment Plant
16,001,340
16,001,340
424
Bond Reserve Fund
1,988,700
1,988,700
511
Equipment Rental Fund
1,925,920
1,925,920
512
Technology Rental Fund
1,153,570
1,153,570
617
Firemen'S Pension Fund
I -
Totals
1 $ 114,938,031
1 $ (235,000)
$ 114,703,031
r
N
7
m
U
N
N
O
N
N
t
C
C
d
Q
N
V
C
R
C
L
0
N
ca
t
U
C
N
E
C
d
E
Q
r
N
7
m
C
7
O
U
C
N
E
t
V
M
Q
Packet Pg. 144
8.1.b
EXHIBIT "C" BUDGET AMENDMENTS BY EXPENDITURE
FUND
NO.
FUND
DESCRIPTION
Adopted
Budget
Ord. #
1/1/2022
Adopted
Amendment
Ord. #
2022
Amended
Expenditure
Budget
001
General Fund
$ 49,246,551
$ (1,677)
$ 49,244,874
009
Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve
260,490
260,490
011
Risk Management Reserve Fund
-
-
012
Contingency Reserve Fund
-
-
014
Historic Preservation Gift Fund
5,900
5,900
016
Building Maintenance Fund
980,000
980,000
017
Marsh Restoration & Preservation Fund
-
-
-
018
Edmonds Homelessness Response Fund
200,000
200,000
019
Edmonds Opioid Response Fund
-
-
104
Drug Enforcement Fund
45,800
45,800
111
Street Fund
2,254,676
2,254,676
112
Combined Street Const/Improve
12,542,946
12,542,946
117
Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund
181,880
181,880
118
Memorial Street Tree
-
-
120
Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund
100,900
100,900
121
Employee Parking Permit Fund
26,880
26,880
122
Youth Scholarship Fund
3,000
3,000
123
Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts
28,200
28,200
125
ParkAcq/Improvement
4,279,876
4,279,876
126
Special Capital Fund
1,922,273
1,922,273
127
Gifts Catalog Fund
78,400
78,400
130
Cemetery Maintenance/Improv
220,561
220,561
136
Parks Trust Fund
-
-
137
Cemetery Maintenance Trust I'd
25,000
25,000
138
Sister City Commission
11,900
11,900
140
Business Improvement District Fund
87,680
87,680
141
Affordable and Supportive Housing Fund
-
-
142
Edmonds Rescue Plan Fund
1,250,000
1,250,000
143
Tree Fund
214,800
214,800
211
Lid Fund Control
-
-
231
2012LTGO Debt Service Fund
611,370
611,370
332
Parks Construction
7,321,018
7,321,018
421
Water
11,110,498
11,110,498
422
Storm
8,638,202
(400,000)
8,238,202
423
Sewer / Treatment Plant
15,656,812
15,656,812
424
Bond Reserve Fund
1,988,710
1,988,710
511
Equipment Rental Fund
1,942,460
1,942,460
512
Technology Rental Fund
1,447,422
1,447,422
617
Firemen'S Pension Fund
-
-
Totals
$ 122,484,205
$ (201,677)
$ 122,282,528
Q
Packet Pg. 145
Proposed
Proposed
Amendment
Proposed
Amendment
Change in
Amendment
Change in Ending
Fund Number
Revenue
Change in Expense
Fund Balance
001
(35,000)
(1,677)
(33,323)
018
200,000
200,000
422
(400,000)
(400,000)
Total Change
(235,000)
(201,677)
(33,323)
Q
Packet Pg. 146
8.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/1/2022
Edmonds Tree Canopy Assessment
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Preparer: Kernen Lien
Background/History
See narrative.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
A tree canopy cover analysis was included within the scope of developing the City's Urban Forest
Management Plan (UFMP). Based on 2015 aerial imagery, this analysis estimated Edmonds' tree canopy
coverage to be about 30.3% citywide. The UFMP contains a goal to report at least every 10 years on
canopy coverage. Another goal in the UFMP is a policy of no net loss to overall tree canopy. During the
review of the tree regulations in 2021 there was some concern that the city may not be meeting the no
net loss goal and there was a desire to update the canopy assessment to get a more current picture of
the city's urban forest coverage.
An updated Tree Canopy Assessment was commissioned and the report is provided as an attachment.
The updated canopy assessment employed the USDA Forest Service's Urban Tree Canopy assessment
protocols and derived coverage assessment based on 2020 high -definition aerial imagery and LIDAR
information. The project consultant will present the findings at this council meeting.
Attachments:
Ed monds-Tree-Ca nopy-Assessment-2015-2020_FI NAL
Packet Pg. 147
Tree Canop
Assessment
-'. ¢,iw
y�� tRr Edmonds, Washington
' _
PREPARED BY:
rr SavATree Consulting Group
University of Vermont Spatial Analysis Laboratory
PREPARED FOR:
Mimi
�, • ` ; City of Edmonds
W '
Ft
PREFACE
Edmonds is a thriving city. Its proximity to Seattle,
location on the shores of Puget Sound, and the
oldest city in Snohomish County give it unique
characteristics that influence its tree canopy. Over
the past century, Edmonds has transitioned from a
mill town to a city with a mix of residential,
commercial, and recreational land uses. Its urban
tree canopy is well -established, with tree removals,
plantings, and growth of existing tree canopy all
contributing to the current state of its urban
forest.
Edmonds' urban forest is an indispensable part of
the city's infrastructure. Research has shown the
environmental, human health and economic
benefits trees provide. However, as with any
community, Edmonds faces a host of environmental
challenges while seeking to balance development
and conservation. A healthy tree canopy is crucial
for maintaining this balance, providing Edmonds'
residents with a resource that will impact the
health and well-being of generations to come.
The USDA Forest Service developed tree canopy
assessment protocols to help communities identify
the local green infrastructure providing tree
coverage on the ground when viewed from above.
A tree canopy assessment helps chart a greener
future by providing information on the tree canopy
communities have, how it has changed, and where
there is room to plant trees. This report is a
discussion of the methods and findings related to
the application of USDA's tree canopy assessment
protocols in characterizing tree canopy change
from 2015 to 2020 in the City of Edmonds.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ■
In an effort to update existing canopy products for the
x - City of Edmonds, this tree canopy assessment produced
high -resolution canopy products based on aerial imagery
a r and light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data. The
. assessment was a collaborative effort that included the
participation of internationally recognized leaders in the
* ' r
... �.: .� development of high resolution land -cover datasets.
Accurate, high -resolution land cover maps are essential tc
a wide range of landscape analysis and monitoring efforts
This report outlines methods and findings from the
x quantification of tree canopy change in the City of
t r, Edmonds over a five-year period (2015-2020). Findings
{ are presented for various delimitations, including 20-acrE
hexagons (created for the purpose of this report) and
4 • : k . ti watersheds. The report also discusses the relationship
~" #+ between tree canopy and land use, existing vegetation's
'=$° . role in providing ecological benefits that enhance human
yyyy wellbeing, and potential area for canopy expansion.
- a=` Keyfindings from this report indicate that due to tree
- canopy gains offsetting canopy losses in the City of
M R
z yw Edmonds, if current trends persist then Edmonds total
' amount of tree canopywill likely remain unchanged.
Although this could serve as an opportunity to shift focus
onto promoting management practices that lead to a
rr f'*•'4-f A'[2 fir.
healthy tree canopy, keeping track of where gain and
losses (through periodical assessments) occur is also
.3Timportant. This is because ensuring equitable access to
nature is crucial for any city's resilient future. The
assessment found ample space in the City of Edmonds to
expand tree canopy, so there is great opportunity to
.. '• � TI� � lYO • • L
ensure future tree planting occurs where it is most
r �: f v • , r'4
needed.
s- , Lr �• a
FINDINGS
dmonds' tree canopy has
ncreased slightly from
A15 to 2020.
If current trends
continue, Edmonds'tree
canopywill likely remain
unchanged.
Most of the canopy
gains come from
incremental growth of
existing trees,
highlighting the
importance of
preservation efforts.
Gains in tree canopy
outpaced losses by a:�
very small amount.
Changes in tree canopy
vary. Gains are primarily
being driven by growth in
1110 residential trees, while
losses occur at the
expense of removing
forest patches for
construction.
The loss of forest
patches is of concern.
Substantial production
of ecosystem services
do not typically occur n:
through the growth of
individual trees. a
,�, ? 2 1. ;%
The vast majority of tree Street trees contribute
canopy, along with gains and substantially to the city's
losses in tree canopy overall canopy. Urban
occurred on residential forestry funding is key to
lands. Residents are crucial tv�
maintaining the canopy
to the growth of Edmods' within the rights -of -way. 4;
urban forest.
a
A.
BUZ
x��
RECOMMENDATIONS
Preserving existing
tree canopy is the
most effective means
for securing future
tree canopy, as loss is
an event but gain is a
process.
Having trees with a
broad age distribution
and a variety of species
will ensure that a
robust and healthy tree
canopy is possible over
time.
Integrate the tree canopy
change assessment data
into planning decisions at
all levels of government
from individual park
improvements, to
comprehensive planning
and zoning initiatives, to
citywide ordinances.
Tree canopy assessments
require high -quality,
high -resolution data.
Continue to invest in
LiDAR and imagery to
supportthese
assessments and other
mapping needs. Canopy
re -assessments may be
timed with regional aerial
imagery collection for
cost-effective planning.
A
Planting new trees
areas in areas that
have high summer
temperatures, risk
flooding and lowtr
canopywill enhanc
ecosystem service!
and improve equity
Community educat
crucial if tree canoe
to be maintained o�
time. Residents tha-
knowledgeable abo
the value of trees w
help the city stay gr
for years to come.
Reassess the tree
canopy at regular
intervals to monit
change and make
strategic manages
decisions.
Field data collectioi
efforts should be u!
to complement this
assessment as
information on tree
species, size, and hE
can only be obtaine
through on-the-grc
inventories.
8.2.a
Tree canopy assessments rely on remotely
sensed data in the form of aerial imagery
and light detection and ranging (LiDAR)
data. These datasets, which various
governmental agencies in the region have
acquired, are the foundational information
for tree canopy mapping. Imagery provides
information that enables features to be
distinguished by their spectral (color)
properties. As trees and shrubs can appear
spectrally similar or obscured by shadow,
LiDAR, which consists of 3D height
information, enhances the accuracy of the
mapping. Tree canopy mapping is
performed using a scientifically rigorous
process that integrates cutting -edge
automated feature extraction technologies
with detailed manual reviews and editing.
This combination of sensor and mapping
technologies enabled the city's tree
canopy to be mapped in greater detail.
Compared to national tree canopy
datasets, which map at a resolution of 30-
meters, this project generated maps that
are over 1000-times more detailed and
better account for all of the city's tree
canopy.
Figure 1: 2020 Imagery (top) and 2017 LiDAR (bottom) were used in
conjunction with 2015 imagery (not shown) to map tree canopy change
and land cover.
Figure 2: High -resolution land cover developed for this project.
Packet Pg. 153
From a single street tree along a roadside to a patch of trees in a park, every tree in the city was accounted
for in our high -resolution mapping. Through it, we computed tree canopy change by quantifying the no
change, gains, and losses in Edmonds' tree canopy from 2015-2020. We also calculated the magnitude of
change from 2015 to 2020.. The figures below provide examples of the most common types of tree canopy
change that occurred in Edmonds during this five-year period.
• 401
L
Figure 3: 88th W and 184th St SW.
Most of the tree canopy in this
residential area has remained
relatively stable in the past five
years but the new construction of
three homes resulted in the loss of
tree canopy and a reduction in a
small urban forest patch. Loss of
such patches are difficult to replace.
Figure 4: Caspers St and Aloha St.
Another example of new
construction but unlike the
example above this location did not
experience a loss of any forest
patches. Although some trees were
removed that loss was offset by
new plantings and growth. Over
time, new developments with tree
plantings will experience a large net
increase in tree canopy.
`liN 16 �•
aD
E
N
Q
a
0
c
M
U
m
m
c
0
w
Figure 5: 94th PI W. This large
forest patch contributes important E
ecosystem services such as wildlife
habitat and water quality. The Q
amount of tree canopy within the
forest is increasing due to a
combination of natural growth and
succession. Preserving such
patches is important in the face of
development pressures.
Packet Pg. 154
Edmonds is a mosaic of landscapes, including parks, historical districts, dense commercial areas, and
suburban residential lands. A grid of 20-acre hexagons was used to visualize the distribution of tree canopy.
Across the city, canopy coverage within these hexagons ranges from less than 1% to 99%. Approximately
half the city has less tree canopy coverage than the city average. Higher amounts of tree canopy are
present in conserved forests and established residential areas —the lowest amounts of tree canopy exist in
the commercial districts.
a
Figure b. Existing tree canopy percentage as of 2020 summarized using 20-acre hexagons. For each of the hexagons,
Existing Tree Canopy was calculated by dividing the amount of tree canopy by the land area, which excludes water. Using
hexagons as the unit of analysis provides a standard mechanism for visualizing the distribution of tree canopy without the
constraints of other geographies that have unequal area and, thus, cannot be readily compared (e.g., Census b packet Pg. 155
Canopy Change Distribution
By 2015, 34.3% of land in Edmonds was covered with trees. This number reached 34.6% by 2020. Tree
canopy in Edmonds has increased very slightly (only 17.6 acres of net gain), but this pattern is far from
consistent throughout the city. One location experienced a near 100% relative loss, whereas others
gained as much as 35% new canopy relative to 2015 conditions. The starkest losses were in response to
new construction, which resulted in either the removal of individual trees or the reduction in forest
patches. Most of the gains tended to be small, occurring on the edges of existing trees. There were some
areas of explosive gain associated with the rapid growth of younger trees.
Over 162 acres of tree canopy were removed from 2015 to 2020 but these losses were offset by 180
acres of new growth, resulting in a net increase of 17.6 acres of tree canopy. As new growth is
incremental, gains in tree canopy are not as noticeable as removals. The largest absolute gains were
most apparent in areas that already had a robust tree canopy. Canopy begets canopy as healthy trees
gain canopy on an annual basis. The greatest relative gains in tree canopy were in locations where new
plantings were carried out on areas with little tree canopy in 2015. This is important because just as
forest patches provide valuable ecosystem services, such as wildlife habitat, so do individual trees. In
areas with low tree canopy, an individual tree can provide a refuge from the sun while watching a
baseball game or help to reduce homeowner air conditioning costs. Natural growth can provide gains in
areas with robust canopy, but in areas with low canopy, such as new developments, tree plantings are an
important part of a long-term plan to increase tree canopy.
4.6%
2020 Tree Canopy %
009%
2020 acres - 2015 acres
2015 acres
Relative change in 1961.7 acres - 1944.1 acres
2015 Tree Canopy % tree canopy 1944.1 acres
Q
Figure 7: Tree canopy change summarized by 20-acre hexagons. Darker greens indicate greater relative gain, while darker
purple reflects higher relative amounts of loss.
Packet Pg. 156
More of the city's tree canopy is located on single-family residential
properties than other land uses. With 58% of the city's tree canopy on single-
family residential land, totaling 1,139 acres, the proportion far exceeds the
next highest land use category, open space, which contains 19% of the city's
tree canopy. However, the tree canopy on these two land uses is quite
different. On residential land, much of the tree canopy comprises individual
trees or small patches that do not have a natural, unmanaged understory. On
open space lands, the forest patches are larger and are more likely to contain
a natural duff layer. In addition, open space land has a higher proportion of
tree canopy coverage, at 74%, far exceeding other land uses. For example, on
average, single-family residential and commercial properties have 36% and
16% tree canopy coverage, respectively. Transportation areas have 22%
coverage, which is commendable given the challenges of establishing tree
canopy along streets.
Single-family residential land also has the most room to establish new tree
canopy, with 995 acres of vegetated land (Possible -Vegetation) not covered
by tree canopy. This fact is not surprising given that single-family residential is
the most prominent land use in the city. These numbers indicate residents'
crucial role in the city's tree canopy efforts. Residents must be on board with
planting and preservation efforts if the city wishes to maintain or increase its
tree canopy. Tree plantings must commence once construction on a new
residence is complete. Plantings need to be coupled with preservation
initiatives to create an uneven -aged urban forest and offset the anticipated
Commercial
MultiFamily -
Residential
Open Space
Public.
Single Family
Residential
Transportation
Utilities
0 500
■
Commercial 3%
Multi -Family 5%
Residential
Open Space -
Public
Single Family
Residential
Transportation
Utilities
Figure 8. Percent of total tree
canopy by land use class.
■ Existing Tree Canopy (acres)
■ Possible Vegetation (acres)
■ Possible Impervious (acres)
■ Not Suitable (acres)
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Acres
Figure 9: Existing and Possible Tree Canopy summarize by land use.
8.2.a
Q
Packet Pg. 157
Residential land also contributed the largest amount of new tree canopy to the city, and where the most significant
amount of tree canopy was lost. Multi -family residential was the only land use where losses exceeded gains, primarily
due to new construction. The absolute growth in tree canopy was greatest on open space land use due to the small,
incremental growth stemming from many trees. There were losses on open space lands, but the canopy growth was
more than double the loss. Transportation land uses experienced the highest amount of relative gain, lending evidence
that Edmonds' investments in urban tree care and management are paying off.
Commercial
Multi -Family Residential
Open Space
Public
Single Family Residential
Transportation
Utilities
Tree canopy gains on open
space land outpaced losses
by more than 2:1
-anopy growth
tial lan
-24 31
-100 -80 -60 -40
Loss (acres) #
V`
-20 00 20 40 60 80
Gain (acres) #
Figure 10: Tree canopy gains and losses by generalized land use categories
Commercial
Multi -Family
Residential
Open Space
Public
Single Family
Residential
Transportation 0
Utilities
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Existing Tree Canopy (acres)
20% 40% 600%
Existing Tree Canopy %
u
100
2.0•% 0.0°/a 2.0%
Tree Canopy Change Relative %
Q
Figure 11: Tree canopy area, percent coverage, and relative change for generalized land use categories. Packet Pg. 158
It is essential to have higher amounts of tree canopy along streams to reduce
nonpoint source pollution and erosion. The areas surrounding a 100-foot
buffer of Edmonds' streams have an average tree canopy coverage of 56%.
These stream buffer locations also experienced an increase in tree canopy,
more than double the city average. Maintaining tree canopy within the stream
buffers will help to continue this trend. Techniques for preserving tree canopy
in these areas will likely differ by land use. 43% of the tree canopy within the
stream buffers is on open land, and 42% is on single-family residential land.
Commercial
Multi -Family Residential
Open Space
Public
Single Family Residential
Transportation
8.2.a
42-%
Figure 12. Percent of total tree
canopy within stream buffers by
by land use class.
Of the 28 watersheds in Edmonds, 10 experienced a decrease in tree canopy from 2015 to 2020. Within
each watershed, the patterns of change vary considerably by land use. For example, the Westgate Pond
watershed experienced the greatest relative loss of tree canopy of any watershed. Even though tree
canopy increased in the transportation areas along the street, the losses on single-family residential land,
which account for most of the land in the watershed, offset these gains. In contrast, the Hindley
watershed showed a solid increase in tree canopy even though, like Westgate Pond, the majority of the
tree canopy is on single-family residential land. The Lund's Gulch watershed is the most treed watershed
in the city, with over 70% coverage. Tree canopy increased on all land uses, but primarily on the open
space lands that dominate the watershed.
Deer Creek
-
Edmonds Marsh -
Edmonds Way
Fruitdale-
-
Good Hope Pond
)♦
-
Halls Creek
Hindley -
-
Lake Ballinger
Lund's Gulch
Meadowdale A
Meadowdale B
JJJJJJJJJJJ)♦
Northstream -
Outfall Creek
Perrinville
Perrinville Piped-
-
Puget Sound
Puget Sound Piped
J
Shell Creek
J
Shell Creek Bypass
-
Shellabarger-
-
Southwest Edmonds AM
JJJJJ�
Southwest Edmonds B
Stilthouse Creek -
Talbot Park A�
Talbot Park B�
-
Terrace Creek
Westgate Pond
Willow Creek
Q
0 50 100 150 200 250 0% 20% 40% 60% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0%
Existing Tree Canopy (acres) Existing Tree Canopy % Tree Canopy Change Relative °/o
Figure 11: Tree canopy area, percent coverage, and relative change summarized by watershed
Packet Pg. 159
T11TTrudy found ample space in Edmonds to expand the tree canopy. The term used to describe vegetatec
areas with no trees, buildings, roads, or bodies of water is Possible -Vegetation. Possible-Vegetatior
represents the theoretical plantable space, which is locations without tree canopy and where new tre(
canopy could theoretically be established without having to remove hard surfaces. Many factors go intc
deciding where a tree can be planted with the necessary conditions to flourish, including land use
landscape conditions, social attitudes towards trees, and financial considerations.
E
The Possible -Vegetation category should serve as a guide for further field analysis, not a prescription of y
where to plant trees. With over 1,427 acres of land, comprising nearly 25% of the city's land base fallin€ Q
into the Possible -Vegetation category, there remain significant opportunities for planting trees anc a
preserving canopy that will improve the city's total tree canopy in the long term. It is also important to not( O
that well over half of the Possible -Vegetation space (995 acres) is located on single-family residential areas
mainly lawns. While it is likely easier to establish tree canopy in these locations, planting trees in areas witr
higher impervious cover will significantly impact the urban heat island.
c
0
E
Edmonds has enough available land to W
substantially increase its tree canopy
a
Figure 16. Possible Tree Canopy (as of 2020) consisting of non -treed vegetated surfaces summarized by 20-acre hexagor
These vegetated surfaces that are not currently covered by tree canopy represent areas where it is biophysically feasible
establish new tree canopy. It may be financially challenging or socially undesirable to establish new tree canopy on much o
this land. Examples include recreational fields. Maps of the Possible Tree Canopy can assist in strategic planning, but
decisions on where to plant trees should be made based on field verification. Surface, underground, and above surface
factors ranging from sidewalks to utilities can affect the suitability of a site for tree canopy planting.
Packet Pg. 160
The ecosystem services trees provide make them an essential part of Edmonds' infrastructure. Current and past
practices impact the distribution of tree canopy. These factors include zoning decisions, the ability of residents to
request and advocate for new street trees in their neighborhood, and racist practices of the past. In order to ensure
a just and equitable future in which all of Edmonds' residents are afforded the advantages that the trees provide, the
city should strategically target its planting efforts.
Climate change is anticipated to
exacerbate urban heat islands
and flooding in cities, resulting in
tens of thousands of excess
deaths in the coming decades. A
way to address past inequities,
enhance ecosystem services, and
make Edmonds a more
sustainable city is to focus on
areas that lack the ability to
properly combat rising
temperatures and surface runoff.
To evaluate existing vegetation's
contribution towards mitigating
these key issues, we mapped local
vegetation capacity to combat
urban heat islands and reduce
stormwater runoff using the
Integrated Valuation of
Ecosystem Services and
Tradeoffs tool (InVEST) and the
tree canopy products developed
for this report.
In Edmonds, areas with a greater
capacity to mitigate rising
temperatures and to retain
surface runoff appear as hotspots
(dark -shaded areas). These areas
are patches of unfragmented
vegetation amid built-up areas.
Planting trees and implementing
other green infrastructure in
areas with concentrated
urbanization could help decrease
the strain that falls over these
hotspots. It would also help
relieve community members'
exposure against environmental
risks (especially for those that do
not live near a lot of vegetation),
increasing community health and
well-being longterm.
Figure 14: Heat mitigation by local vegetation. The dots are colored based on the
mean index of heat mitigation by all types of vegetation in each 20-acre hexagon.
The map ranges from zero (indicating low mitigation) to one (indicating high
mitigation).
Q
Figure 15: Runoff retention by local vegetation. The dots are colored based on the
mean index of runoff retention by all types of vegetation in each 20-acre hexagon.
The map ranges from zero (indicating low retention) to one (indicating high
retention).
Packet Pg. 161
PERFORMING CANOPY ASSESSMENTS OVER TI M
This project employed the USDA Forest Service's urban tree canopy assessment protocols and
made use of federal, state, and local investments in geospatial data. Tree canopy assessments
should be completed at regular intervals, every 3-5 years.
Remotely sensed data forms the
foundation of the tree canopy
assessment. We use high -
resolution aerial imagery and
LiDAR to map tree canopy and
other land cover features.
The report (this document)
summarizes the project
methods, results, and findings.
The presentation, given to partners
and stakeholders in the region,
provides the opportunityto ask
questions about the assessment.
s �
The land cover data consist
of tree canopy, grass/shrub,
bare soil, water, buildings,
roads/railroads, and other
impervious features.
0^
-1001�1
The tree canopy data
analytics provide basic
summary statistics in
addition to inferences on
the relationship between
tree canopy and other
variables.
Thi
summarized byvariou
geographical units,
ranging from the
property parcel to the
watershed to the
municipal boundary.
These summaries are an
exhaustive geospatial
database that enables the
Existing and Possible
Tree Canopy to be
analyzed.
This assessment was carried out by SavATree and the University of Vermont Spatial Analysis Lab. The methods and
tools used for this assessment were developed in partnership with the USDA Forest Service. The source data used f
the mapping came from the City of Edmonds, Snohomish County, the State of Washington, the USDA, and the USGS
The City of Edmonds funded the project. Additional support for data analytics came from the Gund Institute for
Environment at the University of Vermont. Computations were performed on the Vermont Advanced Computing C
supported in part by NSF award No. OAC-1827314.
Report Authors
Mike Galvin
Jarlath O'Neil -Dunne
Mayra Rodriguez
Tree Canopy Assessment Team
Terry Barrett
Ernie Buford
Nora Burdick
Viv Karins
Maeve Naumann
Sean MacFaden
Anna Royar
Kelly Schulze
City of Edmonds Contact
Kernen Lien
Environmental Programs Manager
City of Edmonds - Planning Division
425-771-0220 ext. 1223
Kernen.Lien@edmondswa.gov
V1
III
MUniversity of Vermont
ri•ti• ! (fir Sys
8.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/1/2022
Civic Center Playfield Park Update and Change Order Approval
Staff Lead: Angie Feser
Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
Preparer: Angie Feser
Background/History
This agenda has three components, a project update including construction progress and budget
update; stormwater mitigation project at Yost Park and Council consideration of a Change Order
approval.
Civic Center Playfield Park project is the renovation of an 8-acre park in downtown Edmonds. In May
2021 a successful bid process resulted in the award of the construction contract to A-1 Landscaping and
Construction with project work starting August 9, 2021.
Total cost for project construction was estimated at $13,757,730 which resulted in a shortfall of
$1,634,447 based on funding allocation. On October 8, 2021, the City Council authorized a $6m bond
funding providing the revenue necessary to cover the park project expenditure gap, with the remaining
bond fund balance available for city-wide projects.
Construction Update
As of March 1, 2022, the project is at 33% completion and on schedule to finish in December of this
year. Significant tasks completed include construction mobilization, temporary erosion and sediment
control installation, temporary dewatering system installation and removal as necessary, site
demolition, rough grading, retaining walls for sport courts and some concrete curbs. Tasks in progress
are storm drainage, skate park form construction, restroom design completion, public art design public
process and the transfer of State of Washington Department of Commerce grant for the inclusive
playground.
Project Budget
The original project construction cost estimate authorized by Council was $13,757,283 including
a contingency of $1,216,271. As with most significant construction projects, there are some
unforeseen items which have increased project costs, but the project is still within the total
project estimate. Some noteworthy items include secondary power lines, providing additional
paving for the Boys & Girls Club, additional gravel in detention layers due to settlement, the pre-
fabricated restroom, dewatering services, testing services and the stormwater mitigation project
at Yost. All of these additional expenses are within the contingency amount, so the overall
project cost still remains at the original amount.
Yost Park Stormwater Mitigation
A permitting requirement of the Civic Park project is off -site stormwater mitigation. A project that had
been developed in Yost Park has evolved into a better design than the original concept. Early design
Packet Pg. 164
8.3
included many small locations around the parking lot and swimming pool, which would have required
tree removal, cutting and patching of the parking lot, new retaining walls on the pool hillside, loss of
patio and grass area next to the pool and a significant impact to park and pool operations during
construction. In addition, it would require a considerable allocation of Parks and Public Work employee
allocation for installation. The new design eliminates these issues, creates a singular improvement in a
utility Right of Way adjacent to the park. The new approach will require a contractor to install and
therefore, require consideration for increased expenditure instead of in-house labor and related
opportunity costs. It was originally estimated to cost $200,600 but now is estimated at $461,300 due to
changes in design and installation requiring contracted services. This project will be bid as a separate
project and will require Council authorization later this year.
Change Order #5 Approval
As per City Purchasing Policy, any project Change Order exceeding $100,000 requires Council
authorization. Attached is Change Order #5 totaling $298,080 and is for temporary dewatering ranging
from work completed in January and includes estimated related expenses for these services through the
end of April.
Staff Recommendation
No action required for project update.
Staff recommends the Council approve the Civic Center Playfield Project Change Order #5 for $298,080.
Narrative
In early 2016, after leasing for 40 years, the nearly 8-acre Civic Center Playfield property was acquired by
the City from the Edmonds School District for $1.9M with all but $400,000 funded by grants.
A year after acquisition in 2017, a Master Plan using a robust public process was adopted by Council
with the work of consulting firm of Walker Macy. The same firm was later approved by the Council to
complete the design development, permitting, bidding, and support during construction.
In 2018, the City began applying for grants and in November of that year the Council adopted the Parks
Capital Improvement (CIP) and Capital Facilities (CFP) Plans identifying Civic Park as a project and it was
approved each year since. Also, in 2018, the 50-year old Grandstand was demolished. The next year,
2019, the Council issued the $3.7m bond to fund construction.
The project went out to bid early 2020, but was not successful. Elements of the project were revised and
the project was re -bid twice 2021. The last round of construction bids was opened May 27t" with five
submittals and verified that A-1 Landscaping and Construction is the successful low bidder. Of the four
project alternates, the Council authorized the rubberized perimeter path surfacing alternate for
inclusion of the project. The other three alternates were not included in the construction agreement and
have the ability to be installed at a later time. They include an interactive water feature at the park
entrance, a scramble/climbing wall and street tree grates.
Park Design
The proposed park renovation project includes youth athletic fields, upgraded sports lighting,
permanent restrooms, shade pavilion, improved skate park, petanque court grove, a pollinator meadow,
tennis, pickleball and basketball courts, a 1/3-mile perimeter walking path, fully inclusive playground,
picnic areas, public art and more.
The existing Field House, leased to Boys & Girls Club of Snohomish County since 1962, will remain intact
as well as a designated area around it to enable the Boys & Girls Club to continue operations during and
after construction.
Packet Pg. 165
8.3
Attachments:
Change Order #5
Packet Pg. 166
8.3.a
CHANGE ORDER NO. 5
February 24, 2022
PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Playfield Project
Owner: City of Edmonds
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Contract No.: EOMA/c551
Contractor: A-1 Landscaping and Construction
20607 State Route 9 SE
Snohomish, WA 98296
Under contract for the Civic Center Playfield Project, your contract is hereby revised as follows:
Original Contract Amount: $ 10,135,595.52
Current Contract Amount (adjusted by previous change orders): $ 10,301,535.60
Net Change This Change Order: $ 298,080.00
Revised Contract Amount (including tax): $ 10,599,615.60
CHANGE ORDER DESCRIPTION:
Extra work for Temporary Dewatering (Contingent Bid Item) at Force Account:
1. Provide temporary dewatering operations between January 1 It
2022 and the anticipated decommissioning
of the system by the end of April 2022 that will exceed the current contract unit cost of $413,824.10 for
Contingent Bid Item #4. Total estimated increase in the force account contingent bid item is $270,000.00
plus tax equal to $298,080.00.
CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME:
® No change in contract time.
In accordance with WSDOT Standard Specifications 1-04.5, by his/her signature below, the contractor accepts all
requirements of this change order and agrees that this change order constitutes full payment and final settlement
of all claims for contract time and for all costs of any kind, including costs of delays, related to any work either
covered or affected by the change.
Accepted by Contractor:
A-1 Landscaping and Construction Date Printed Name, Title
Approval Recommended
Robert S. English, PE Date
City Engineer / Acting Public Works Director, City of Edmonds
Packet Pg. 167
8.3.a
Approval Recommended Approved
Angie Feser, PLA Date Mike Nelson, Mayor Date
Parks, Rec. & Cultural Services Director City of Edmonds
City of Edmonds
Packet Pg. 168
8.4
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 03/1/2022
Salary Commission Reinstatement
Staff Lead: Vivian Olson and Diane Buckshnis
Department: City Council
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
The Salary Commission was disbanded effective July 15, 2021 (see exhibit 1 - page 9-12) by a repeal of
the ordinance for chapter 10.80. The narrative for that meeting was as follows:
RCW 35.21.015 authorizes the creation of a salary commission for compensation of elected officials but
does not require that such a commission exist. The City of Edmonds previously established a Citizens'
Commission on Compensation of Elected Officials (Citizens' Commission), ECC 10.80, in Ordinance
Numbers 3508 and 3967 and that commission was repealed in 2014 with Ordinance 3975. Another
salary commission was created in 2017 with Ordinance 4057, later amended by Ordinance 4062.
The city council would like to analyze the compensation of its future members with an eye toward
making service on the city council more accessible to people who need to work full time to support their
families. The work of past salary commissions suggests that a compensation shift of that magnitude
would not likely be accomplished through continued use of a salary commission.
A salary commission is most useful in establishing the compensation of current council members, not
future council members. It also has been determined that a significant amount of staff time is needed to
support the salary commission.
Given the above, the city council determined at the 6/8/2021 meeting that it is in the best interest of
the City to terminate the salary commission.
Recommendation
Consider re-establishing salary commission via repealing repeal ordinance that repealed city code
chapter 10.80 regarding the salary commission.
Narrative
The City Council has not performed any analysis of and a former salary commission provided a history
and/or analysis of the salary commission (see exhibit #2). Exhibit #3 provides the repealed ordinance
4223.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1- 2021-06-01 City Council Minutes - Salary Commission
Exhibit 2 - 2021-06-08 City Council Minutes - Salary Commission
Packet Pg. 169
8.4
Exhibit 3 - 2021-06-15 City Council Minutes - Salary Commission
Exhibit 5 - Ordinance 4223 Repealing the Salary Commission
Exhibit 4 - Salary Commission Reviewed FEB 22_Redacted
Packet Pg. 170
8.4.a
alternative. Having decided on a whim to do this with an emergency ordinance, she questioned why the
Council could not decide it is a flawed idea and presented that as an option. She suggested including more
options that target un-treed properties as they are clearly the source of the tree canopy coverage. Generally
environmental stewardship laws try to target the polluters and not those involved in beneficial stewardship
which is why these types of regulations backfire. She referred to the paragraph regarding equity issues that
only scratches the surface on the effects of requiring tree retention in less developed, poorer properties and
spending more than a page discussing view corridors.
(Written comments submitted to PublicComment@Edmondswa.gov are attached.)
7. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The
agenda items approved are as follows:
APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING/BUDGET RETREAT MINUTES OF
MAY 8, 2021
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2021
3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS
8. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. AMENDING ECC 10.80 SALARY COMMISSION
HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson explained there are two primary amendments, 1) changing the regular
cycle of the Salary Commission from every two years to every four years, and 2) selecting Salary
Commission members in the year in which the Commission meets. The Commission has had fairly
consistent recommendations with regard to changes in compensation for the Mayor and City Council, but
a significant amount of staff hours are needed to support the commission. That seemed to indicate a four-
year cycle would utilize the City's resources more effectively.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why these changes were being proposed now, relaying that a lot of people
are wondering why the Council is the topic of many procedures. The last Salary Commission recommended
creating a job description and said the salaries were not commensurate with the amount of work. The Salary
Commission did not interview all Councilmembers and did not interview her when she was Council
President in 2014. She questioned the estimate of 150 staff hours, noting although that was a lot, it was
spread over two or four years. When she inquired about the estimate, she was told the City did not dedicate
that much time to the commission. She reiterated her question of why now. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered it
seem appropriate to do it now coming out of COVID and possibly holding Council and Mayor salaries flat
while the City's financial resources are determined. She was uncertain who Councilmember Buckshnis
spoke with regarding the time allocated to the commission; she spoke with those who actually did the work,
staff that supported it and the consultant as well as the former HR Director and all confirmed the amount
of staff time required to support the commission. She acknowledged it was an estimation as staff did not
keep track of the exact hours; the estimate was 5-10 hours/week beginning in March.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked why the commission's recommendation to develop a job description was
not followed. Ms. Neill Hoyson responded it would be very odd to have a job description for Council; she
was unaware of any other cities that have a Council job description as Councilmembers are not employees.
If the intent of a job description is to more accurately compare the work the Edmonds' Council does to
other comparable cities, a job description is unlikely to achieve that. Councilmembers' duties are outlined
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 10
Packet Pg. 171
8.4.a
in the RCW; every City and Council does that differently and every Councilmember does that work
differently and may devote different amounts of time. A job description would just restate what the Council
is authorized to do per the RCW and would not address compensation issues versus an employee where the
job description identifies level of authority, years of experience, education requirements, independence, etc.
While she understood the commission said a job description would be helpful, she disagreed.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented there were four new Councilmembers last year and she recalled a
Councilmember saying it would have been beneficial to have an understanding of the roles of Council
President. Many things could be included in a job description, not just related to compensation. The
commission spent a lot of time and provided some examples and she was concerned the City was not
pursuing their recommendations.
Council President Paine raised a point of order, requesting Councilmember Buckshnis speak to the content
and not the experience of other Councilmembers. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was speaking about
the legacy of why a job description would be helpful.
Council President Paine expressed concerned about equity and whether this has gone through an equity
analysis with regard to the pay and the salary structure. She was not opposed to the proposed changes, but
felt there needed to be an equity analysis. Compensation changes have been consistent over the years, but
it does not provide information about who is able to be part of the City Council. She recalled comments in
the commission's past reports that the pay is fairly low so the result is hobbyists rather than valuing the
time. She supported doing an equity analysis as part of the next Salary Commission's work.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the Salary Commission meets every two years. Ms. Neill
Hoyson advised the current code requires the commission met every two years in odd numbered years.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed the Council does not have to accept the commission's findings.
Ms. Neill Hoyson answered once they are submitted to the City Clerk, the Council has no authority to
accept or reject their proposals. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled at one point the Council
disbanded the Salary Commission due to an unwillingness to accept their recommendation for an increase.
The ability for Councilmembers to do the job is for the voters to decide; there is no measurement tool
because Councilmembers are not City employees. She agreed the salary was low, recalling $0.19-0.20/hour
was suggested, but it is not necessarily something that people do for the money. However, unless a
Councilmember has another source of income, they cannot afford to be on Council. Someone working full-
time may not be unable to participate in everything the Council does.
Councilmember Distelhorst expressed support for an equity analysis, noting a lot of work is occurring in
the City related to evaluating departments, and it would be appropriate to apply this to that work. He asked
how four years was determined rather than three, noting four years seemed like a long time. With regard to
continuity of membership and not having to reinvent that process, commissioners can serve two terms but
as proposed essentially everyone would be up for reappointment. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered the term
would only be during the time the commission meets because there is no work for them to do outside of
when they meet to establish salaries of elected officials. Having commissioners in their position only during
the time the commission is meeting is administratively more manageable. With regard to four years, that
seemed like a reasonable amount of time given the history of consistent changes, often no changes.
Reappointment to two terms is established per RCW.
Councilmember L. Johnson commented while serving and prior to serving it was hard to ignore that a
certain level of privilege was required to serve on Council which results in at least to some degree a
consolidation of power among a somewhat similar subset of the community, leaving out a large subset of
the community. The City is working on using an equity lens across the board in the City While she
appreciated that the administration was additionally burdened right now especially with COVID and that
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 11
Packet Pg. 172
resources were stretched, she was concerned with pushing this off without a clear picture of how to apply
an equity lens so who is represented on Council can be expanded. She hoped to continue this discussion
and come back with a broader picture of what this might look like.
Councilmember Olson questioned the urgence of this action. It seemed that the Salary Commission
members learned of this by Councilmembers asking them questions versus staff consulting them. She
recalled Ms. Neill Hoyson mentioning she spoke with the consultant and staff and suggested input from the
commission may be of value. Ms. Neill Hoyson said staff did not speak to any current commissioners
regarding the proposed change. The urgency is if the commission convenes this year, it needs to happen in
July which will require notifying people about appointment to the commission; several commissioners'
terms expired at the end of last year.
Councilmember Olson asked if former salary Commission members were contacted. Ms. Neill Hoyson said
no Salary Commissioners were contacted. Councilmember Olson appreciated staff considering a three or
four year meeting cycle, agreeing a two-year cycle may be a bigger use of resources. She referred to
language she provided to staff and bcc'd to Council regarding continuity.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday observed a majority of Councilmembers have raised concerns about equity and
making the City Council positions more accessible to a broader array of community members by making it
more of a living wage. It is unlikely a Salary Commission would get the Council to that place based on
previous Salary Commissions' results. If that is the direction the Council wants to go, the path would be to
disband the Salary Commission, have the Council set salaries for future Councilmembers, not their own,
and they can be set as high or as low to accomplish those policy aims. That is allowed under state law
because the Council will not be setting its own salaries. If the Council wants to undertake an equity approach
to the Council salary, that is the way to accomplish it.
Ms. Neill Hoyson agreed if the Council's intent was a full-time living wage for Councilmembers, convening
the Salary Commission this year would not achieve that.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the Salary Commission was disbanded in 2014. If the Salary
Commission is disbanded and the Council sets its own salary, she asked what happens to the Mayor's salary
and does a Salary Commission need to be established to set the Mayor's salary. Mr. Taraday recalled the
Council set the Mayor's salary. Ms. Neill Hoyson said that year that the Council disbanded the Salary
Commission, the Council did not receive an increase and the Mayor was given a COLA.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the Salary Commission meets in off years when there are no elections.
Ms. Neill Hoyson answered the Salary Commission meets every two years in odd years; moving to every
four years would still have it occur in odd years. If that was the intent, a three year cycle may not meet that
intent.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled former Councilmember Joan Bloom was also interested in the issue of
equity. She relayed Councilmembers do not do full-time work, but the salary should be more than
$1000/month.
Councilmember K. Johnson supported the way the Salary Commission was established. There were
staggered three-year terms and they provided information between July 15t and September 30t''. She
preferred to continue with that process and found no compelling reason to change it at this time. Because it
is a five member commission with staggered terms over three years, it is possible to have two vacancies.
She urged the Council to continue with the existing Salary Commission process and not make any changes
at this time.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 12
Packet Pg. 173
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked when the Mayor's salary was last increased. Ms. Neill Hoyson
answered the Mayor has received a COLA each year; the last one was in 2021. Councilmember Fraley-
Monillas asked when it was last increased besides COLA. Ms. Neill Hoyson said she researched back to
2012 and it has only been a COLA since then. She offered to research that further.
Councilmember Olson asked whether information from the commissioners could be included in the
narrative next week. There has been a lot of information from several parties for consideration today, but
the commissioners seems to be a missing element. That would also give Council time to think about what
they have heard. Ms. Neill Hoyson asked what information she was looking for from commissioners,
whether it was input on the proposed changes. Councilmember Olson answered she was interested in their
perspective on sunsetting, whether continuity was of value, and the change from a two year cycle to a four
year cycle.
2. PROCESS FOR REVIEWING HOUSING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Development Services Director Shane Hope recalled at the May I I' meeting the Council was close to
approving a process for reviewing the Housing Commission's recommendation. At the conclusion of the
May 11', meeting it was agreed it would only take a few minutes to decide which policy ideas to consider
first. She explained reviewing recommendations from the Housing Commission does not mean the Council
is approving them, just that they are trying to get a fuller sense of them and determine the need for more
details and other work to be done. For example, after the Council's initial review of idea, they could decide
to have the Planning Board work on it further, provide the Planning Board direction or comments, variations
on the idea, more details, etc. For the policy recommendation that do not require Planning Board review,
the Council could direct staff to return with more detailed information.
Ms. Hope explained at the May 1 Ph meeting, Councilmembers were split on Option 1, divide the work first,
or Option 2, start simple. A hybrid of the approaches was possible and Council could even have a study
session later this month to review a short list of items. In a hybrid approach, Council could divide up the
work and refer some things to the Planning Board this year, knowing that all Planning Board
recommendations will come to the Council for further work and final decision, and address a couple things
that do not need Planning Board input. The remaining items, especially the more complex ones, could get
started later, probably in 2022. In that approach, the Council could begin with 2-3 items of low to moderate
complexity for the Planning Board to start working on this year and maybe one item the Planning Board
could work on after a budget allocation. For the Planning Board this year, the Council could do an initial
review of a short list of recommendations.
Ms. Hope displayed the Housing Commission Policy Aspects Table:
Housing Commission
Subject to PB
Level of
Need for
Est. Min. Time
Policy
Review
Complexity
Outside
For PB
Consultant
consideration
Missing middle housing
Yes
I. JL161J.
Probably not
4-6 mo.
in single family
neighborhoods
Equity housing incentives
Yes
High
Probably not
4-6 mo.
Medium -density SF
Yes
High
Probably not
4-5 mo.
housing
Neighborhood village
Yes
High
Yes
8-9 mo.
subarea planning
Cluster/cottage housing
Yes
Moderate
Probably not
4 mo.
Detached accessory
Yes
Low
No
3 mo.
dwelling units
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2021
Page 13
Packet Pg. 174
8.4.b
Councilmember Buckshnis requested a copy of the NEPA for the FCC. She said a map is great but there is
nothing that ties the map to the master permit. She suggested providing the entire packets from 2019 so she
could compare and contrast the master permits. She recalled the master permit in 2019 included maps. Mr.
Taraday said his hesitation in including all the 2019 packet materials in next week's packet was
overwhelming the Council with hundreds of pages of materials that might make it difficult to separate the
wheat from the chaff. He wanted to provide the Council what they needed to cast their vote, but was unsure
it would be helpful to provide that much information.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas requested any information on City of Portland v. FCC such as the
arguments.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented if Councilmembers did not want to read historical materials, they
did not have to. She felt the more information that was available the better. This is a serious issue for the
City and will change the look of the City for years to come. She recognized everyone likes cell phones, but
it is a very important issue for a historically beautiful city.
Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess.
9. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. WAIVING RENT PAYMENTS FOR THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR JULY-
SEPTEMBER 2021
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the Chamber is still operating with less staff. There is light at
the end of tunnel with the Taste of Edmonds in August and if that occurs, the Chamber should be self-
sufficient from then on.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO PROVIDE THE CHAMBER WITH COST FREE RENT FOR THE NEXT
THREE MONTHS FOR A TOTAL OF $2136.57 FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for waiving the Chamber's rent through the end of the year,
although through September was also fine. She commented the Chamber is invaluable to the City.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the proposed waiver is for July, August September. If the Chamber
is not able to hold the Taste for whatever reason, she may request a waiver for another few months.
Councilmember K. Johnson voiced her support, relaying she has been a member of the Chamber of
Commerce since 2012. They do wonderful work for the City although their role during COVID changed.
She supported the rent waiver and hoped the Chamber would be back in business by October.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. AMENDING ECC 10.80 SALARY COMMISSION
HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson explained this item was discussed at last week's Council meeting. There
are no changes to the original proposal as there was no clear direction at last week's meeting. She recapped
the options which include adopting the proposed code changes to move the Salary Commission cycle to
every four years. There was some discussion about amendments to address continuity of commission
members. Another option is to retain the current two-year cycle in the code for the Salary Commission. The
Council also discussed the issue of equity, particularly as it relates to compensation of Councilmembers
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 8, 2021
Page 16
Packet Pg. 175
8.4.b
and whether it is at a level that allows a diverse group of people to participate as Councilmembers. Mr.
Taraday had explained to the Council if that was their interest, it would not be effected through the Salary
Commission, that the Council would need to take that action which would likely include disbanding the
Salary Commission for some period to allow Council to enact compensation changes.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she talked to the Salary Commission members and there seems to be a
difference of opinion about time spent. She felt the last commission was the best one the City has had; they
did investigative work and interviewed everybody. She referred to an email she sent last week that included
a recap from one commissioners and did not recall receiving an answer to the need for further work to be
done by the Salary Commission. She did not understand the proposal to go to a four-year cycle and asked
if Ms. Neill Hoyson was waiting for this decision before appointing Salary Commission members as the
Salary Commission would begin in July. Ms. Neill Hoyson said there is some time sensitivity related to
this decision; if the Council chose to move forward with the Salary Commission in the current code, those
vacancies would need to be posted very quickly. She reiterated the three decisions for Council, 1) whether
to change the code to a four-year cycle, 2) remain as it currently is, or 3) the Council look at establishing
compensation. If the Council wants the Salary Commission to remain as is, that decision needs to be made
tonight so that process can begin and the commission can begin meeting. If the Council chooses to disband
the commission, that decision could occur tonight, but the Council process can occur at a later time.
Councilmember Buckshnis said she was not in favor of disbanding the Salary Commission or changing to
a four-year cycle.
Councilmember Olson said she was interested in the possibility of a four-year cycle, recognizing it takes a
lot of time for commissioners to do this work and their work had not resulted in a huge changes. The original
code with staggered four-year commission terms was a good way to provide continuity. She did not see
how that was provided with commissioners appointed only for a three month period every four years. In
her opinion, the proposed four-year cycle caused more problems than it solved. Although she initially liked
the possibility, in the end, unless she heard something that changed her mind, she was not in favor of four-
year cycle and preferred to retain the Salary Commission as it currently exists.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented there is an equity issue on Council related to the salary
because it makes it difficult for people who are working or who have children to participate. She retired as
she was sworn in for that reason. She agreed with having a four-year cycle, but she would rather disband
the Salary Commission and look at districting as districts would provide more fairness for people running
for office. She was not interviewed by the last Salary Commission and did not see that they did anything
more spectacular than any of the other Salary Commissions over the last 12 years. She summarized equity
was the most important piece with regard to the Salary Commission.
Council President Paine recalled from last week that if the Council wanted to address the equity issue which
many Councilmembers felt was a good idea, that could not be done via the Salary Commission. Therefore,
if the Salary Commission continues, the Council is subject to their recommendations. The Salary
Commission did a lot of work, but there were no real changes in their decisions, a $1000 increase/year
which is an average of about 8%/year, the Council's salary is $17,000/year and the Council President
receives an additional $300 a month. She agreed it probably would not allow someone to give up their side
gig or be able to work part time. Being a Councilmember requires a lot of flexibility and the cost of living
is steep and getting steeper. Two years is too short for a Salary Commission cycle, three years may be the
right number if the Council wants to continue with a Salary Commission. She asked if the Council was
interested in pursuing the issue of equity.
Councilmember Distelhorst agreed with Council President Paine that the issue of equity in pay is much
larger and would take much longer and a more comprehensive review. As a full-time employee serving on
Council, he can attest to the demands it makes on those serving and their family members. That barrier to
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 8, 2021
Page 17
Packet Pg. 176
8.4.b
participation and serving on the Council is not something the Council should take lightly and it needs to be
considered outside the Council and over a much longer period of time. He questioned whether that issue
could be considered in a 3-4 year cycle or if it was better to disband the Salary Commission and reinstate it
in the future after that work is done. There needs to be a more comprehensive process than the Council can
consider in a near time frame. Ms. Neill Hoyson commented if the Council wants to undertake that work,
the decision about how to address equity did not to be made tonight and could be done over a longer period.
There are many options for accomplishing that, options that include having a Salary Commission as well
disbanding the Salary Commission.
Councilmember K. Johnson spoke to the Council culture of no surprises. This was a new item and was a
big surprise to her at the last Council meeting. The Council has consistently used the Salary Commission
to establish salaries. It was not presented to Public Safety, Parks and Personnel Committee and she did not
receive any emails or phone calls about it. She concluded it was in the City Council's best interest to have
the Salary Commission at this time.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
CONTINUE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE SALARY COMMISSION AS WRITTEN IN THE
CODE.
Councilmember K. Johnson explained the City Council has received annual increases of either $1500 or
$1000 since 2017. If the Council deferred the Salary Commission for four years, it would create a projected
deficit of at least $4000 which is about 24% of the salary. She saw no benefit in postponing to four-year
cycle or only seating the commission for 3-4 months at a time. The Salary Commission has done
independent work, they make a recommendation so the finances can be included in the budget, and as stated
previously, the last Salary Commission did an excellent job and can build on what they learned.
Councilmember L. Johnson said her comments were not a reflection on whether the Salary Commission
had done an excellent job or not, it was more about the fact that numerous Councilmembers have expressed
interest in the equity issue and barriers to serving.
Councilmember K. Johnson raised a point of order, suggesting Councilmember L. Johnson speak to the
motion which does not relate to equity issues. Mayor Nelson ruled Councilmember L. Johnson's comments
were related to whether or not to continue the Salary Commission.
Councilmember L. Johnson said if Council's intent is to address the equity issue, convening the Salary
Commission need to be delayed until at least year three or four. Consideration of the equity issue and
reconvening the Salary Commission should not happen at the same time, and if it the Council was interested
in addressing equity, that should be done first and then decide whether the Salary Commission should meet
on a three or four year cycle. She did not support a two year cycle, and favored either three or four years.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the problem is the difficulty working and serving on the
Council at the same time and having the Salary Commission would not allow the Council to address the
issue of equity any time soon. She viewed the salary as a barrier to participation in the governmental
process. The Salary Commission works on salaries, not what the pay should be. She clarified if the Council
votes on salaries, Councilmembers are not eligible to receive the increase until they are re-elected. It was
not intended to benefit the existing Council but to create equity in the ability to run for Council. If
Councilmembers were interested in equity, she encouraged them to stop the Salary Commission and
consider addressing issues associated with serving on the Council during the next year.
Councilmember Buckshnis disagreed there had to be one or the other. She suggested allowing the Salary
Commission to continue on a two-year cycle and at same time create a separate structure to consider
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 8, 2021
Page 18
Packet Pg. 177
districting. Citizens are concerned that the Council is addressing Council business instead of City business.
She suggested doing both in tandem as addressing equity and/or districting will take 1-2 years.
Councilmember Olson commented the Salary Commission's recommendation is in affect for two years. If
the Council continued with a two-year cycle for Salary Commission, which she recommended, a voting
system task force is looking at options for the way Councilmembers are elected and districting and they
could also consider equity. By the time the task force does its research and makes a recommendation, it will
probably be 2-3 years and would be the perfect time to disband the Salary Commission and consider another
compensation approach for the reasons that the task force would have considered.
Speaking against reconvening the Salary Commission this year and in favor of waiting until year three or
four, Councilmember L. Johnson clarified when she focuses on equity issues and barriers, it was not to
create equity and less barriers to the job for herself. She chose to run and participate with her available time;
she wants to make it available for others to do and to have more diverse representation on Council. Based
on that, she was not in favor of convening the Salary Commission this year. She favored Council, or by
whatever means the Council agrees on, addressing the equity issue and seeing what can be done to remove
some of the barriers. Following that effort, the Salary Commission could meet if necessary. She did not
want to waste anyone's time, commissioners or City staff. This is an opportunity to conserve time that can
be put toward other things and revisit this next year or the following year.
Council President Paine supported having a group of Councilmembers to look at equity issues this year.
She supported developing an equity plan, but did not support the motion to convene the Salary Commission
this year, commenting that would be the reverse order of what needs to be done.
COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
AMEND HER MOTION, TO HAVE THE SALARY COMMISSION CONVENE THIS YEAR AND
BEFORE THE NEXT CYCLE, PUT TOGETHER A GROUP TO LOOK AT THE EQUITY ISSUES.
Mayor Nelson restated the amendment:
TO SIMULTANEOUSLY HAVE THE SALARY COMMISSION MOVE FORWARD AND FORM
AN EQUITY GROUP.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTELHORST CALLED THE QUESTION. VOTE ON THE CALL FOR
THE QUESTION CARRIED (5-2) COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON AND OLSON VOTING NO.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST,
FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON,
BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST,
FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER L.
JOHNSON, TO NOT REINSTITUTE THE SALARY COMMISSION FOR THE REST OF THIS
YEAR AND DURING THIS TIME WORK WITH HR TO DEVELOP WHAT COULD APPEAR TO
BE AN EQUITY PIECE TO IT.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if that would require changing the City code. Ms. Neill Hoyson answered
yes, it would require repealing the code section regarding the Salary Commission. City Attorney Jeff
Taraday advised if the motion passes, he would bring back an ordinance next week to repeal the chapter on
the Salary Commission.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 8, 2021
Page 19
Packet Pg. 178
8.4.b
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said this will provide an opportunity to consider the issue. The Council
has started and stopped the Salary Commission in the past. She encouraged Councilmembers to support the
motion, commenting the Salary Commission can be reconvened next year if it becomes too difficult to
create equity. She summarized that to her, it was not about the money.
Council President Paine supported forming an equity subgroup or bringing in someone.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas raised a point of order, requesting Council speak to the motion. Mayor
Nelson agreed.
Councilmember Buckshnis questioned how much time this would take HR and assumed it would take much
more than the 150 hours the Salary Commission took. She asked whether the intent was to discuss districting
or diversity and equity for Council pay. Districting is already a law that needs to take place. She questioned
why HR would be involved in districting. She agreed with having diversity, recalling former
Councilmember Bloom raised this issue years ago. She was confused with the intent of the motion.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas responded it is illegal for the City to proceed with redistricting. Her
proposal was for HR to determine how this would be done, noting it had been done all over the west coast
and perhaps a group could be formed with Ms. Neill Hoyson at the forefront rather than Council. This is
not really Council business as much as it is HR business. She suggested the process take no more time than
working with the Salary Commission.
Councilmember Olson commented some of the comments are supporting earlier conversations about
proceeding with the Salary Commission while this other process occurs. Establishing an equitable pay range
for a closer to full-time job or establishing it as a living wage so someone could serve on Council and not
work another job would have a significant impact on the budget. and was not discussed in the Council
budget retreat. In her opinion, proceeding with the Salary Commission for two years was appropriate and
these other issues could move forward simultaneously so the impacts to the budget could be considered in
the two-year period.
Ms. Neill Hoyson pointed out if the Council took on this issue and chose to set compensation themselves,
it would not go into effect next year; the earliest it would impact the budget would be 2024. Mr. Taraday
agreed 2024 would be the earliest and if the Council wanted all seven positions to be the paid same amount
at the same time, the earliest that could be accomplished would be 2026.
Councilmember L. Johnson was in favor of disbanding/delaying the Salary Commission for 3-4 years.
However, with respect to the equity component, she preferred that start with Council with assistance from
HR as needed. One of the reasons for not having a Salary Commission was limited staff time. Once the
Council has done its work, the Salary Commission would be reconvened.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember L. Johnson, but said the Council does not
have the expertise and this work is very difficult and time consuming. She preferred to start with the HR
Director and then pull Councilmembers into the conversation.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented this will have the reverse effect; not making any salary changes
until 2026 will depreciate the value of the Council salary as it will remain at $17,000/year until 2026. She
cautioned Councilmembers to consider what they were trying to achieve. She anticipated it will require
much more work than convening the Salary Commission for three months and may take over a year to
accomplish. For those reasons, she did not support the motion.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 8, 2021
Page 20
Packet Pg. 179
8.4.b
Council President Paine observed if the Council developed an equity piece with a monetary aspect, the
Council could impose its own salary raise, but it would take effect following the state guidelines, taking
effect after the position is up for election. Mr. Taraday agreed, explaining because the filing date of the next
election had passed, the salary of Positions 4, 5, 6 and 7 could theoretically be increased in 2024, but it is
too late to do that for Positions 1, 2 and 3. If the intent is to have all seven seats paid at the same rate in any
given year and if the Council wants to set the rate themselves, the earliest that could be done is 2026.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas restated the motion:
TO NOT RECONVENE THE SALARY COMMISSION AND LEAVE THE NEXT 6-7 MONTHS TO
WORK ON WHAT EQUITY WOULD LOOK LIKE WITH THE HR DIRECTOR LEADING AND
COUNCIL PARTICIPATING.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked Ms. Neill Hoyson to comment on her ability to support that effort. Ms.
Neill Hoyson agreed having a basic understanding of how compensation analysis occurs would be a good
place to start and that would not take much time. For example, if Council positions were to be considered
a 50% FTE, how that compared to pay in other organizations. If the intent was for her to do all the research,
that would take a more significant amount of time, but providing a basic introduction to compensation
analysis was potentially a couple days of work and being available to answer questions.
Councilmember L. Johnson asked if that aligned with what Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recommended.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas answered yes.
Councilmember K. Johnson commented if the Council is averaging an 8%/year increase and no salary
changes occur until 2026, that is 5 years of 8% or 40%. While the Council is trying to make the pay more
equitable, this action will have an inverse effect of depreciating the value of the salary for the intervening
five years.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said $17,000/year is more than someone earning minimum wage since the
Council does not work full-time. The Council could consider this again in 2022 and if it looks like it will
take too long, the Salary Commission can be convened.
Councilmember Distelhorst observed Council would have the ability to reinstate a Salary Commission in
2022. Mr. Taraday agreed. Councilmember Distelhorst observed the adjustments to the Council salaries
could occur next year independent of the larger structural changes regarding positions in 2026.
Councilmember L. Johnson said the Council would address the equity component and then have the Salary
Commission meet 1-2 years later.
Councilmember Olson commented on timing and efficiency, repealing and reinstating the code and
reconvening a new Salary Commission when there is already a commission up and running with some
members still serving. She encouraged Councilmembers to think this through as she did not believe this
was in the Council's best interest. She preferred to stay the course, defeat the motion and convene the Salary
Commission at the same time the other work is being done and then disband the Salary Commission if
necessary. Mr. Taraday said in the interest of efficiency, if the Council is leaning toward disbanding and
readopting the Salary Commission later, that is not much different than the administration's original
proposal because it moves the Salary Commission to every four years instead of every two years. With one
ordinance, the Council could potentially accomplish both instead of repealing and readopting.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3); COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST,
FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES;
AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING NO.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 8, 2021
Page 21
Packet Pg. 180
8.4.c
Councilmember Olson pointed out this wasn't changing what was in the minutes; this was inserting
something that was completely omitted. She was fine with either a summary or the verbatim.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON CALLED THE QUESTION. VOTE TO CALL THE QUESTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4) COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS
AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS,
AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE COUNCIL MINUTES AS PRESENTED IN THE PACKET FOR
JUNE 8, 2021. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS
DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE
VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING
NO.
2. URBAN FOREST PLANNER JOB DESCRIPTION (previously Consent Agenda Item 5)
Councilmember Olson said she wanted to take a second look at the job description and to consider Natalie
Seitz's comments as there may be some relevance.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
POSTPONE TO A FUTURE MEETING.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the intent was to postpone to a date certain. Councilmember Olson said
she wanted to postpone to another meeting, with the Council President scheduling it whenever she wanted
but providing her at least a week to review it. Council President Paine suggested June 22" d
Councilmember L. Johnson asked if it would be on the June 22nd Consent Agenda. Council President Paine
answered yes.
Councilmember Distelhorst asked if this had been reviewed by a Council committee and had the committee
recommended consent. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas answered yes.
Mayor Nelson restated the motion.
POSTPONE TO THE JUNE 22ND CONSENT AGENDA.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. ORDINANCE TO REPEAL SALARY COMMISSION (previously Consent Agenda Item 8)
Councilmember Olson said she pulled the ordinance to repeal the Salary Commission due to the substance
of yesterday's letter to the editor from resident Jay Grant who chaired the Salary Commission, specifically
the assertion that the Salary Commission had looked at equity which was confirmed by other commissioners
in the comment section. Because the reason the Council was disbanding the Salary Commission was to look
at the issue of equity, this new information from participants and stakeholders warranted further discussion
and another vote.
COUNCILMEMBER OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON, TO
DISCUSS IT TONIGHT IF THERE'S TIME OR AT A TIME THAT THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT
CAN PUT IT BACK ON THE AGENDA TO RECONSIDER THIS WITH CONVERSATION BASED
ON THIS NEW INFORMATION.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 9
Packet Pg. 181
8.4.c
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said the Salary Commission does not look at equity. It is important to
understand that money is not the only equity issue; other equity issues include benefits for a family, for
example a working couple or a working single parent that needs medical benefits.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, the Council was attempting to put this item on the
agenda, not to discuss the merits of repealing the Salary Commission. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
explained she was speaking against the motion. Mayor Nelson suggested Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
tighten up her comments to speak to the motion.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was speaking to the issue of equity. The issue is not just financial,
equity includes districts so Councilmembers are elected from different areas, providing medical benefits,
changing the meeting time, etc. Money was probably one of the last issues she wanted to look at. It is not
the Salary Commission's job to look at districts and/or benefits as their focus is salaries. She encouraged
the Council not to convene the Salary Commission and to create a group that can look at the equity issues.
She encouraged Councilmembers not to support the motion.
Council President Paine raised a point of order, stating the motion was out of order as the Council already
voted and it was not a motion for reconsideration. Unless someone from the prevailing side wanted to
change their vote, the motion was not proper. City Attorney Jeff Mr. Taraday said the prevailing party rule
only applies to motions made during the same meeting. The Council directed the City Attorney to the
prepare an ordinance at the last meeting. That ordinance is in the packet; it was pulled from Consent and
there either needs to be a motion to approve it or to do something else. Mayor Nelson ruled the discussion
was appropriate.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the Council received a lot of information today. She observed there
was no announcement to convene the Salary Commission which should have been done 1-2 months ago; it
was almost like the administration knew the commission would be disbanded. She asked whether there had
been an ordinance to repeal the Salary Commission. Mr. Taraday said the repealing ordinance was the item
that was pulled from the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if it was a new ordinance that
came out today. Mr. Taraday said the ordinance was not included in an earlier draft of the packet and was
added to the packet today.
Councilmember K. Johnson asked if the motion suggested this could be discussed at a future meeting.
Mayor Nelson said the motion stated it could be discussed tonight or at a future meeting. Councilmember
K. Johnson preferred it be postponed to a future meeting so the Council could take into account the
comments from citizens regarding the abolition of the Salary Commission.
Council President Paine expressed support for approving the repealing ordinance tonight. The past Salary
Commission could not address equity because they do not have that authority; that is the authority of the
City Council. There were also no changes in the salary, the Salary Commission's 2019 recommendation
stayed the same. Council can work with staff and HR Director Neill Hoyson agreed she could provide
Council a "Compensation 101." The Council needs to have that conversation and she can work with Ms.
Neill Hoyson to put that together. She expressed support for approving the ordinance to repeal the Salary
Commission.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Council President Paine regarding having the Council look at
equity. She was uncertain one email from a one person who served on the committee and their interpretation
should reverse the work the Council has done. She supported considering equity, noting any changes to the
salary would not affect current Councilmembers. Retaining the Salary Commission would likely result in
an increase in Council's salary and the Council cannot to do anything about it. For example, if the Salary
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 10
Packet Pg. 182
Commission recommends the Council gets a raise, that is what happens. She suggested repealing the
ordinance would save taxpayers money and allow the Council to look at issues that may keep people from
running for office.
Councilmember K. Johnson said repealing the Salary Commission was a big mistake. The Salary
Commission removes elected officials from setting their own salaries, they look at benefits and can consider
other issues. The issue of equity is very muddy; the Council could go to a ward system without affecting
the Salary Commission. The Salary Commission conducts independent investigation, works with the HR
Director, looks at what other cities are doing, and considers compensation related to salary and benefits. If
the Salary Commission was eliminated, the Council salary would be flatlined until 2026 which does not
increase the salary or opportunities for people to be on the Council. If anyone believes the salary for the
City Council is inadequate, the Salary Commission is the best chance for making incremental
improvements. If the Salary Commission is disbanded, with an average 8% increase per year, a 40%
increase would be required in 2026 to keep up with inflation and other factors. She did not support the
motion.
Councilmember K. Johnson objected to this coming to Council as a surprise; this is essentially the Council's
second touch. An issue has not been discussed is the difference between legislative and administrative
authority; the Mayor is suggesting a change to the Salary Commission, but in fact that is the Council's
legislative authority and she was confused why Councilmembers were agreeing to it. She preferred to have
a larger discussion regarding equity, what was wrong with the Salary Commission and what equity meant
to the four Councilmembers who support this, whether they want more salary or benefits. She was unclear
what the objectives and reasons were for abandoning the Salary Commission.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4) COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS
AND OLSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS,
AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING NO.
Councilmember L. Johnson said she had not had an opportunity to weigh in on the discussion and felt left
out. She asked if Councilmember who did not get called on would have an opportunity to provide input.
Mayor Nelson suggested a Councilmember make a motion regarding action on the ordinance which could
be followed by discussion.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PAINE, TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE IN THE PACKET DISBANDING THE SALARY
COMMISSION.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, asking if it was the ordinance in Friday's packet or the
packet that was updated today. Mayor Nelson clarified the motion pertains to the ordinance that was sent
out today. Mr. Taraday explained there was no change to the ordinance; the earlier draft of the packet did
not contain the ordinance. There is only one version of the ordinance.
Councilmember L. Johnson said out of curiosity, she looked at the minutes from August 19, 2014 when the
Salary Commission was disbanded in the past and found Councilmembers Buckshnis and K. Johnson voted
in favor of disbanding.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, commenting the Councilmember had no idea what
happened in 2014 or whether it was germane to this decision. The topic under consideration is repealing
the proposed ordinance and Councilmember L. Johnson was referring to disbanding the Salary Commission
in 2014. Mayor Nelson clarified the discussion is regarding repealing the Salary Commission so a
Councilmember bringing up past repeals was relevant. He ruled point not taken.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 11
Packet Pg. 183
8.4.c
Councilmember L. Johnson said she was speaking to repealing the Salary Commission in 2014 and the
voting record. Statements are being made that this is without precedence; she found it interesting that two
Councilmembers who are now in opposition were in favor in the past. This is not without precedence,
specifically for existing Councilmembers. If time permits, she will look at the votes in 2017. This
information is relevant because the administration brought this forward showing all the time that goes into
the Salary Commission. She recognized staff was under tremendous pressure coming out of a pandemic
and are pointing out the time the Salary Commission takes and the minimal change between Salary
Commissions. That information as well as her desire to leave a legacy of increasing the ability for
individuals to serve on Council led her to support having Council look at the equity issue and whether to
reconvene a Salary Commission in the future. She resented the implication that there was a coordinated
effort, assuring there was no coordinated effort; it was each Councilmember speaking to their desire for
future Councils.
Councilmember Distelhorst commented he would keep his comments brief as it is already 8:37 p.m. and
the Council still has a number agenda items. He supported repealing the ordinance because there needed to
be a more inclusive, holistic look at the process which would not be achieved by the Salary Commission.
It may require working with the HR Director and/or an outside professional and will require a broader view
and more holistic approach. This not personal for the existing Council, it is setting up a long term structure
for the future, for the benefit of residents, the City and public officials. He recalled people saying they did
not do it for the money, commenting that was a fantastic place to be because it meant they have the money
to take care of themselves. Not everyone in the community can do something not for the money because
they have rent, mortgage and bills to pay. That needs to be taken into consideration with a holistic approach
to provide a better structure that allows more people in the community to participate in public service. He
supported repealing the ordinance and having a specific group effort looking at this without a narrow
COLA, inflation, dollars and cents look. There is an opportunity to have a Salary Commission in the future
to conduct a periodic review once these issues are addressed. For those reasons, he supported the motion.
Councilmember K. Johnson said she did not understand what it meant to have a holistic view of the Council
or better opportunities for people to participate in public service. In a democracy anyone who wants to run
for public office may do so. The compensation for public office is minimal; she doubted the Council even
made minimum wage if 25 hours a week was considered. The Salary Commission is supposed to look at
salary and benefits. There could be a separate discussion about equity, holistic treatment, or wards, etc., but
she did not understand how that would be structured. When talking about equity in this context, there needed
to be more specifics because she did not understand and the public may not either.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she was also on the Council when the Salary Commission was
disbanded and assumed she voted in favor. She recalled after some time, the Council agreed to restart the
Salary Commission. The fact that three existing Councilmembers were involved in disbanding and
reinstituting the Salary Commission illustrated that there was more to it and that it was not commonly done.
She expressed interest in residents being able to run for office, noting five of the seven current
Councilmembers live in the bowl or the view corridor of Edmonds. That results in a certain types of people,
and other people who do not live in those areas need to be encouraged to run for office. Unfortunately, if
someone works to support their family, they cannot run for office and be successful because they cannot
attend daytime meetings. That precludes nurses, daycare staff, baristas, construction workers, the working
class of Edmonds who cannot leave work for daytime meetings. For democracy purposes, she
recommended taking a look at it to see if anything could be done to encourage other people to run for office,
not just people who have the financial ability to do it. She noted other cities are also looking at this issue.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE CALLED THE QUESTION. UPON ROLL CALL, VOTE TO CALL
THE QUESTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-MONILLAS,
BUCKSHNIS, OLSON AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES;
AND COUNCILMEMBER K. JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 12
Packet Pg. 184
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS DISTELHORST, FRALEY-
MONILLAS, AND L. JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PAINE VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS K. JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND OLSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember L. Johnson corrected the record: in the August 19, 2014 minutes, Councilmembers
Buckshnis and Fraley-Monillas voted in favor of disbanding the Salary Commission and Councilmember
K. Johnson voted against.
9.
1. COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND ACTION ON MASTER PERMIT WITH NEW
CINGULAR WIRELESS, PCS, LLC, OBTAINING TERMS THAT PROTECT THE CITY
IN RELATION TO THE FORTHCOMING PLACEMENT OF SMALL WIRELESS
(SMALL CELL) FACILITIES IN THE CITY'S RIGHTS -OF -WAY, SUBJECT TO
OBTAINING SITE SPECIFIC PERMITS
City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised additional changes to Section 25 of the master permit were emailed to
Council. Ms. Tinker will briefly review the substance of the changes. If a motion is made to approve the
master permit, he requested the Council clarify that the recommended version of the master permit was the
one emailed to Council with changes to Section 25. It was his understanding that AT&T had also agreed to
that language.
Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order regarding when that that information was emailed.
Councilmember Distelhorst advised it was emailed at 8:04 am today.
Angela Tinker, Lighthouse Law Group, reviewed:
• Master Permit Approval (or Denial)
o What does a "No" Vote (not approving the Master Permit) mean for the City?
■ City will still get Small Wireless in its streets
■ Site specific applications will still be made
■ Shot clock periods apply
■ City cannot prohibit the provision of personal wireless services
■ City will risk not having the financial protections the Master Permit Offers
• Master Permit Financial Protection
o Financial protections provided with this Master Permit:
■ Comprehensive indemnity
■ Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy $ 5,000,000 / $10,000,000
■ City named as an additional insured
■ AT&T assumes risk of damage to its facilities
■ Indemnity and insurance survive any expiration or termination
■ AT&T must remove its facilities upon expiration or termination
■ City can impose monetary penalties $500/day
■ City can require AT&T to maintain $50,000 security fund in favor of City
■ AT&T's agreement City is not bound if FCC's restrictions are lifted
• Master Permit Approval (or Denial)
o If the first wireless provider places its facilities in City's rights -of -way without a master permit,
City risks being able to get a master permit with any other wireless provider and the financial
protections that come with it.
■ Federal Law requires the City be competitively neutral
o What does a "Yes" Vote mean for the City?
■ City will get the financial protections of the Master Permit
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 15, 2021
Page 13
Packet Pg. 185
8.4.d
ORDINANCE NO. 4223
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, REPEALING EDMONDS CITY CODE
CHAPTER 10.80 REGARDING THE SALARY COMMISSION.
WHEREAS, RCW 35.21.015 authorizes the creation of a salary commission for
compensation of elected officials, but does not require that such a commission exist; and
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds previously established a Citizens' Commission on
Compensation of Elected Officials (Citizens' Commission), ECC 10.80, in Ordinance Nos. 3508
and 3967; and
WHEREAS, that commission was repealed in 2014 with Ordinance 3975; and
WHEREAS, another salary commission was created in 2017 with Ordinance 4057, later
amended by Ordinance 4062; and
WHEREAS, the city council would like to analyze the compensation of its future members
with an eye toward making service on the city council more accessible to people who need to work
full time to support their families; and
WHEREAS, the work of past salary commissions suggests that a compensation shift of
that magnitude would not likely be accomplished through continued use of a salary commission;
and
WHEREAS, a salary commission is most useful in establishing the compensation of
current councilmembers, not future councilmembers; and
and
WHEREAS, it takes a significant amount of staff time to support the salary commission;
WHEREAS, the city council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to
terminate the salary commission; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
1
Packet Pg. 186
8.4.d
Section 1. Repealer. The entirety of chapter 10.80 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled
"Salary Commission," is hereby repealed.
Section 2. 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 3. Effective Date. This ordinance is subject to referendum and shall take effect
thirty (30) days after passage.
":• /"I
MAYOR MIKE NELSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Nt etfai.e65 c,4,,r- >�-oR-
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFF TARADA
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: June 11, 2021
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: June 15, 2021
PUBLISHED: June 18, 2021
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 15, 2021
ORDINANCE NO. 4223
2
Packet Pg. 187
8.4.d
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 4223
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 15th day of June, 2021, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance
No. 4223. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as
follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, REPEALING EDMONDS CITY CODE
CHAPTER 10.80 REGARDING THE SALARY
COMMISSION.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 15th day of June, 2021.
3
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Packet Pg. 188
8.4.d
Everett Daily Herald
Affidavit of Publication
State of Washington }
County of Snohomish } ss
Maggie Boyd being first duly sworn, upon oath
deposes and says: that he/she is the legal
representative of the Everett Daily Herald a
daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal
newspaper by order of the superior court in the
county in which it is published and is now and
has been for more than six months prior to the
date of the first publication of the Notice
hereinafter referred to, published in the English
language continually as a daily newspaper in
Snohomish County, Washington and is and
always has been printed in whole or part in the
Everett Daily Herald and is of general
circulation in said County, and is a legal
newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99
of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter
213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal
newspaper by order of the Superior Court of
Snohomish County, State of Washington, by
order dated .June 16, 1941, and that the annexed
is a true copy of EDH930360 ORDS 4223-4225 as
it was published in the regular and entire issue
of said paper and not as a supplement form
thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such
publication commencing on 06/18/2021 and
ending on 06/18/2021 and that said newspaper
was regularly distributed to its subscribers
during all of said period.
The amount of the fee for such publication is
$43.40,
Subscribed and sworn tore me on this
day of
r
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington.
Ui, of F.dn,umd.. - I. lent ADS I I410 W 16
W01 I PASSFV
Unda phillips r
NAY public
Smwof%ashlagton
10 4Poltth+tEntExpires 08/9R27
Packet Pg. 189
8.4.d
Classified Proof
ORDINANCE SUMMARY
of in* City of Edmonds. Was Mrigion
On the 151+1 tlay of June. 2�3I, I" Clfy Cauns+l p! the City of
Edmonds, passed the Iattcwing Otdinarlces. the sulnanaries or said
ordinances conslsbng of L1ks are proovlded as 11611mvs'
pRDINANCE NO 4223
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS.
WASHINGTON, REPEALING EDMONDS CITY CODE
CHAPTER 10.60 RECARD[NG THE SALARY COMMISSION.
ORDINANCE NO 4224
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, GRANTING TO NEW CINGULAR
WIRELESS PCS. LLC, A DEL-AWARC LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY, A NON•EXCLUWVE MASTER PERMIT
AGREEMENT TO INSTALL, OPERATE. AND MAINTAIN
SMALL WCRELESs TELECOmMUNtCATIONS FACILITIES
WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF=NAY OF THE. CITY OF
EDIb ONDS. WASHINGTON_ PRESCRIBING CERTAIN
RIGHTS. DUTIES, TERMS. AND CONDITIONS '' ITH
RESPECT THERETO. ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE
ORDINANCE NO. 4225
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EOMC WOS.
WIwSHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 2.18 ECC
;VACATION AND SICK LEAVE) TO ADD JUNE 19TH
IJUNETEENTH) AS A CITY HOLIDAY: PROVIDING FOR
SEVERAal1 rrY. AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of 14esa OrtllAa ncnS wilt be mailed OPon Fuqu061.
DATED this 15th Day of June, 2021.
CITY CLERK, SCOTT PASSEY
Published: June 1B, 2021, EOH930360
Proofed by Boyd, Maggie, 06/18/2021 08:30:48 am Page: 2
Packet Pg. 190
8.4.e
Edmond's Council and Mayor's
Compensation — Understanding
Laws, Facts, and Perspective
By Jay Grant, former Salary Commission Chair
Both the State of Washington and Snohomish
County have citizen salary commissions to
evaluate and determine the amount of
compensation, including any benefits of elected
leaders on a two-year cycle. For the most part,
over the last 20 plus years, so has the City of
Edmonds. The objective of a Commission is to
take the politics out of the salary determination,
allowing the citizens to set the compensation
rather than the elected Council members.
In 2014 the Salary Commission Ordinance was
eliminated by Council for several stated reasons.
There was concern about the number of cities
used in the analysis, if the Commission had a
proper quorum to vote based on the Ordinance;
according to the City Attorney there was, and
likely the fact the Mayor received a substantial
increase whereas the Council members received
no increase. The Council later abolished the
Commission stating they would review the
Ordinance and reauthorize it after careful study.
Also, the old Ordinance did not comply with the
State's Statute.
There are only two methods to make changes to
elected officials' compensation, by Ordinance
with direction from the Council or have a salary
commission.' If the City does establish a Salary
Commission, unless the City charter includes
appropriate appointment language within the
Charter, which Edmonds does not, then the
Statue dictates the requirements, including the
nomination, confirmation, and independent
determination authority.
1 RCW 35A.12.070 — Compensation of Elected Officers — Expenses and
RCW 35.21.015 Salary Commissions
2 Edmonds City Code 10.80
3 The Council did not affirm all the Mayor's original nominations
4 Comparable cities, board, and boards used in 2017/2019
Having a city council determine their
compensation is often considered highly political,
and councils who choose this method often lag
behind the financial curve. Even when a raise is
enacted, it does not become effective until the
next election affecting the individual elected
member(s) as required by Statute. Whereas the
Commission has latitude in the effective date, but
most have elected the following January 15T. What
is most significant about a city with a salary
commission, like the State and County, is
independence of the commission in their
salary/benefit determination, as it must be
adhered to by the city. If proper procedures are
followed, the determination is subject only to a
citizen's referendum.
The Edmonds City Council again authorized
through Ordinance a new Salary Commission in
20162 that met the Salary Commission Statute
requirements. The changes from the 2014
Ordinance included five rather than seven
Commissioners and was closely written to follow
the State Statue. This included a process where
the Mayor nominated the individuals, and the
Council confirmed the nominations3.
The selected five Commissioners met as required
in 2017 and 2019. In both cases, the
Commissioners evaluated many cities and used
over 214 comparable jurisdictions representing
similar demographics to Edmonds. It included
data and conversations with the Cities of
Lynnwood and Shoreline plus non -city
jurisdictions, to include the Port of Edmonds,
District 15 Education Board, and Hospital District
Board. The outcomes from both Commission
sessions offered reasonable raises and kept the
health benefits6 in place for the Council
members. The Mayor received a cost of living
raise and continued benefits' mirroring
permanent Staff.
5 Most recent Salary Commission determination, September 11, 2019,
Council packet page 10, document 5.4a
6 Benefit for the member alone with the option of cash equivalent
7 Vacation, sick and disability benefits were not addressed
The information in the summary outlines elected officers' compensation and the Edmonds Salary Commission. Prepared by Jay Grant, Salary 1
Commissioner 2000— 2004 and Chair 2017— 2020; offers a personal perspective, and is written to be factually based, and is not legal a
document.
Packet Pg. 191
8.4.e
Because the determination of any increase or
decrease is absolute under the State's Salary
Commission Statue and therefore a requirement
of the Edmond's Ordinance, the Commissioners
were mindful of their responsibility to the Council
and Mayor positions. Also taken into
consideration how any increase might affect the
City budget and public perception'. However, at
no time were the individuals who hold those
position ever considered.
In review of the Washington State and the
Snohomish County Salary Commissions, each
have a commission that meets every two years.
Their criteria define who nominates a member to
their salary commission and provides for random
voter involvement, demographic locality, and
specific professional expertise. One of the issues
of the 2014 Commission was an issue of not
having all seven -commissioners position filled,
only five of seven. It was found vacancies often
occur at the State and County level, even
currently. Noteworthy it could not be found
where the State or County have ever abolished
their commissions.
Apart from the current Administration in the
many years of Edmonds having a Salary
Commission, the Administration's Human
Resource Department (HR) has consistently
performed its task on time offering statistical
data and other information requested by the
Commission. In addition, the HR Director or
another member of the HR staff as attended the
Commission meetings, taken the minutes and
offered insight.'
The 2017— 2019 sessions included the same five -
person volunteer Commissioners10, they spent
hours at several official meetings and worked on
individual assignments to gather data, speak to
citizens, and plan the Council Meeting
presentation. The abilities of the individuals
8 Other City Commissions members and public polls were used
9 2017 the HR director coordinated, in 2019 the HR position was
vacant, the City had an expert consultant, Marilynne Beard, performed
this task as well as review and analysis of the responses to the city's
RFP for attorney services. Her time spent is documented
ranged from a CEO of major nonprofits, an
academic, a CPA, a local business owner and one
with decades of federal and state legislative and
regulatory experience.
Throughout the 2017 and 2019 public meetings,
each decision was made on a consensus basis,
and the actual agreements and votes were
unanimous. In 2019, the Commissioners took a
hard look at quantifying how much time City
Council members worked on City issues and
meetings. They also reviewed equity in the form
of fair compensation for the work performed.
The findings discovered that the number of hours
could vary significantly for each Council member.
It could include as little as attending City Council
weekly meetings and their official meeting
assignments to many additional hours attending
optional meetings, to be better informed, to
exhaustive hours interaction with constituents.
However, a common number of hours could not
be determined. In the end, the Commissioners
suggested a clear job description and duties
could assist Commissions with their evaluation of
the part-time position. It should be noted the
Port of Edmonds Commissioner document their
meeting and the hours related to those meetings.
One could conclude that having the
Administration offer nonprejudicial guidelines"
offering consistent direction in data formula
might be helpful. An example of this, the 2014
Commission used city population demographics
of the five cities above and five below Edmonds.
The 2017 and 2019 used a much greater spread
of 21 cities looking at the highs and lows of salary.
The 2014 Commission included the cost of health
care benefits for the member and included the
allocated cost, whereas in 2017 and 2019
healthcare benefits were maintained but did not
monetize the cost in the overall compensation
number. Health care costs typically increase over
the years and can vary by region. Although all
10 Two of the Commissioners were renominated and approved for the
2019 Commission session due to staggered appointments
11 Guideline to clarify evaluation direction and data, but not to
prejudice compensation outcomes.
The information in the summary outlines elected officers' compensation and the Edmonds Salary Commission. Prepared by Jay Grant, Salary 2
Commissioner 2000— 2004 and Chair 2017— 2020; offers a personal perspective, and is written to be factually based, and is not legal a
document.
Packet Pg. 192
8.4.e
cities, like Edmonds, consider the cost in the
budget and may alter the coverage available, the
overwhelming factor is making the coverage
available. Another item that might be helpful is
to conclude with a summary report providing an
analysis outlining the cities' demographics used,
any methodologies factored, and other specifics
used by the Commission in the evaluation and
decision beyond Commission minutes and the
Council presentation material. This too may be
helpful to subsequent Commissions, the Council
and the public.
In this most recent round of dissatisfaction,
several Council members brought up an equity
issue, which seems to have motivated abolishing
the Salary Commission Ordinance. Although the
exact messaging was unclear, it appears they
want to make it easier for individuals to consider
running for the City Council by having higher
compensation than currently available. Inferring
only those who are of a higher income bracket
can avail themselves to running. It appears that
what those Council members are looking for
cannot be achieved alone by their actions unless
the Council itself provides an Ordinance with
specific formula or percentages that cause a
considerable increase for the part-time
position. There are likely multiple factors why a
person runs for office.
The 2019 Salary Commission reviewed
compensation parity for Council members based
on a percentage of the Mayor's compensation
and adjusted it for part-time work. That
estimate12 equated to $2,833 a month, more
than $1,000 a month than currently provided.
This number would bring compensation well
beyond any other comparable city, the highest
being University Place13 near Tacoma at $1,408 a
month and even surpassed Everett, the 7th
largest City in Washington, with a population
12 Basis used $136,000 @70% for 25 hours a week, 52 weeks a year
13 Available data in 2019 at time the Commission was meeting
14 2020 Census report
15 2021 and 2019 respectively
16 Determination based on two election cycles and stated by City
attorney during the June 15, 2021 Council meeting
over 112,00014 at $2,292 monthly, plus benefits.
The Commission found it could not justify that
type of increase and would likely not be politically
feasible. At the time of August 2019
determination for calendar years 2020 and 2021,
the increases given to the City Council members
placed Edmonds at the highest level of
compensation using the 21 comparable cities.
As to the Mayor's compensation, the
Commissions of 2014, 2017 and 2019 used the
strong mayor data and ignored appointed city
manager/administrator position, mainly because
of the steep compensation differences between
the two categories. To illustrate this fact,
Edmonds Mayor compensation is now just over
$136,000 a year and the City Manager of
Shoreline is at $190,00011, some cities have much
greater percentages; and where you have a city
manager, like Shoreline, their Mayor, who is part
of the City Council, makes $16,248 a year ($1,354
a month, slightly more than a council member).
If the Council itself sets its increases by
Ordinance, any raise or decrease will take effect
only after the next election. If the Council wants
to enact an amount available to all the Council
members equally, as it should, then it will take
two elections cycles to increase the
compensation, the earliest being 202616.
Trying to understand what the Council is looking
to achieve in equality17 may fall into two
categories, financial and locality. However, it
cannot be done alone with Salary Commission
requirements, which are limited, addressing only
salary and benefits. The Statute seems to provide
some criteria flexibility of the individuals
appointed, but the appointments must be made
by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council. If the
two parties are in sync, some values addressing
diversity and regional representation can be
17 June 15, 2021 Council meeting: Council President Susan Paine,
Council members Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Laura Johnson, and Luke
Distalmost
The information in the summary outlines elected officers' compensation and the Edmonds Salary Commission. Prepared by Jay Grant, Salary 3
Commissioner 2000— 2004 and Chair 2017— 2020; offers a personal perspective, and is written to be factually based, and is not legal a
document.
Packet Pg. 193
8.4.e
achieved. However, it is the propagative of both
parties to work independently.
Twice in recent history, the Council has abolished
the Salary Commission because they did not like
something. In this most current process, what
seems to be missing were upfront facts. It
appears, unlike the past staff administrative
support, planning and implementation did not
occur timely. The Commission start date was to
begin July 1, 2021. The solution provided by the
Administration was to amend the Ordinance to
change the Commission sessions from a two-year
to four-year process, this seemed very last
minute. The Administration's request did target
workload. The number of hours offered bythe HR
Director of 150 hours for staff support appears
excessive. At the time an expert consultant1' was
used by the City in 2019 who was assigned to two
separate projects, the Salary Commission and a
City Attorney hiring RFP19. The Administration's
request was due to workload, the majority of the
Council were concentrating on inequality and
prevailed in abolishing the Ordinance.
The current Salary Commission Ordinance was
enacted 2017 and addressed the challenges with
the previous Commission Ordinance. The 2017
and 2019 Commission sessions work extremely
well based on comments from Counci120. It seems
it would have been appropriate for the
Administration to have discussions with
knowledgeable parties and even propose
solutions that could have included delaying the
required schedule or even suspended it for this
cycle if in fact current workload was a factor.
Several accommodations have been made due to
the pandemic, but at this point the City business
continues and has accommodated this challenge.
The change to a four-year cycle is not an
unreasonable solution but waiting four years to
adjust compensation could cause challenges if
18 Summation of Salary Commissioners; documentation of Consultant
Marilynne Beard, former staff Deputy Mayor of Kirkland, performed
the task. During this period the HR Director position was vacant, HR
Staff managed the work during the vacancy period in addition to
support the Salary Commission
19 Request for proposal
considerable adjustments are needed for COLA21
considering the City just gave non -represented
employees a six percent raise. Also, there should
be a consideration to the fact the State and
County use a two-year cycle seems to be a
reasonable standardized practice.
Last year, some Council members in their Council
deliberationS22 seemed unaware of the specifics
and hard facts, including those of the related
State Statutes'. It's difficult for Council members
to make educated judgement, on any issue,
without detailed information and well thought
out solutions. Otherwise, facts that are not
relevant and may not even be true can be
expounded.
Based on the last Salary Commission's work,
there appeared public support for reasonable
compensation for the Council with proper
accountability23. The reality, if one is using
comparative data, they are at the top of the list.
There was discussion about some definition of
who could be on the Salary Commission in a
Salary Commission Ordinance based on being a
registered voter, qualifications, and resident
location of Commissioners. However, this is
achieved in the nomination and confirmation
process required the Mayor to nominate the
individuals and the City Council Members confirm
the nominations. We must assume any Mayor
and Council are considering multiple factors in an
appointment that affects the City Budget and
compensation of our elected leaders.
One item is apparent; the Council cannot
incorporate any mandate addressing how much
they should be compensated within the Salary
Commission structure. The only alternative is to
vote their own compensation through an
Ordinance, and if not done prudently, could likely
provoke ire in the community.
20 Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, in addition to other
members
21 Cost of living allowance, current data show this is on the horizon
22 June 15, 2021 regular council meeting
23 Citizen input using all City Commission member and publishing a
poll in local news organizations
The information in the summary outlines elected officers' compensation and the Edmonds Salary Commission. Prepared by Jay Grant, Salary 4
Commissioner 2000— 2004 and Chair 2017— 2020; offers a personal perspective, and is written to be factually based, and is not legal a
document.
Packet Pg. 194
Related Washington State Statues:
RCW 35.21.015
Salary commissions.
(1) Salaries for elected officials of towns and cities
may be set by salary commissions established in accordance
with city charter or by ordinance and in conformity with this
section.
(2) The members of such commissions shall be
appointed in accordance with the provisions of a city
charter, or as specified in this subsection:
(a) Shall be appointed by the mayor with approval
of the city council;
(b) May not be appointed to more than two terms;
(c) May only be removed during their terms of
office for cause of incapacity, incompetence, neglect of
duty, or malfeasance in office or for a disqualifying change
of residence; and
(d) May not include any officer, official, or
employee of the city or town or any of their immediate
family members. "Immediate family member" as used in this
subsection means the parents, spouse, siblings, children, or
dependent relatives of the officer, official, or employee,
whether or not living in the household of the officer, official,
or employee.
(3) Any change in salary shall be filed by the
commission with the city clerk and shall become effective
and incorporated into the city or town budget without
further action of the city council or salary commission.
(4) Salary increases established bythe commission
shall be effective as to all city or town elected officials,
regardless of their terms of office.
(5) Salary decreases established by the
commission shall become effective as to incumbent city or
town elected officials at the commencement of their next
subsequent terms of office.
(6) Salary increases and decreases shall be subject
to referendum petition by the people of the town or city in
the same manner as a city ordinance upon filing of such
petition with the city clerk within thirty days after filing of
the salary schedule. In the event of the filing of a valid
referendum petition, the salary increase or decrease shall
not go into effect until approved by vote of the people.
RCW 35A.12.070
Compensation of elective officers —Expenses.
The salaries of the mayor and the councilmembers
shall be fixed by ordinance and may be revised from time to
time by ordinance, but any increase in the compensation
attaching to an office shall not be applicable to the term
then being served by the incumbent if such incumbent is a
member of the city legislative body fixing his or her own
compensation or as mayor in a mayor -council code city casts
a tie -breaking vote relating to such ordinance: PROVIDED,
(7) Referendum measures under this section shall
be submitted to the voters of the city or town at the next
following general or municipal election occurring thirty days
or more after the petition is filed and shall be otherwise
governed by the provisions of the state Constitution, or city
charter, or laws generally applicable to referendum
measures.
(8) The action fixing the salary by a commission
established in conformity with this section shall supersede
any other provision of state statute or city ortown ordinance
related to municipal budgets or to the fixing of salaries.
(9) Salaries for mayors and councilmembers
established under an ordinance or charter provision in
existence on July 22, 2001, that substantially complies with
this section shall remain in effect unless and until changed
in accordance with such charter provision or ordinance.
[2001c73§4.]
NOTES:
Findings—Intent-2001 c 73: "The
legislature hereby finds and declares that:
(1) Article XXX, section 1 of the state
Constitution permits midterm salary increases for
municipal officers who do not fix their own compensation;
(2) The Washington citizens' commission on
salaries for elected officials established pursuant to Article
XXVIII, section 1 of the state Constitution with voter
approval has assured that the compensation for state and
county elected officials will be fair and certain, while
minimizing the dangers of midterm salary increases being
used to influence those officers in the performance of their
duties;
(3) The same public benefits of independent
salary commissions should be extended to the setting of
compensation of municipal elected officers; and
(4) This act is intended to clarify the intent
of the legislature that existing state law authorizes:
(a) The establishment of independent salary
commissions to set the salaries of city or town elected
officials, county commissioners, and county
councilmembers; and
(b) The authority of the voters of such cities,
towns, and counties to review commission decisions to
increase or decrease such salaries by means of
referendum." [ 2001 c 73 § 1.]
That if the mayor of such a city does not cast such a vote, his
or her salary may be increased during his or her term of
office.
Until the first elective officers under this mayor -
council plan of government may lawfully be paid the
compensation provided by such salary ordinance, such
officers shall be entitled to be compensated in the same
manner and in the same amount as the compensation paid
The information in the summary outlines elected officers' compensation and the Edmonds Salary Commission. Prepared by Jay Grant, Salary 5
Commissioner 2000— 2004 and Chair 2017— 2020; offers a personal perspective, and is written to be factually based, and is not legal a
document.
Packet Pg. 195
8.4.e
to officers of such city performing comparable services
immediately prior to adoption of this mayor -council plan.
Until a salary ordinance can be passed and
become effective as to elective officers of a newly
incorporated code city, such first officers shall be entitled to
compensation as follows: In cities having less than five
thousand inhabitants, the mayor shall be entitled to a salary
of one hundred and fifty dollars per calendar month and a
councilmember shall be entitled to twenty dollars per
meeting for not more than two meetings per month; in cities
having more than five thousand but less than fifteen
thousand inhabitants, the mayor shall be entitled to a salary
of three hundred and fifty dollars per calendar month and a
councilmember shall be entitled to one hundred and fifty
dollars per calendar month; in cities having more than
fifteen thousand inhabitants, the mayor shall be entitled to
a salary of twelve hundred and fifty dollars per calendar
Limitations on salaries: State Constitution Art. 11 § 8.
month and a councilmember shall be entitled to four
hundred dollars per calendar month: PROVIDED, That such
interim compensation shall remain in effect only until a
salary ordinance is passed and becomes effective as to such
officers, and the amounts herein provided shall not be
construed as fixing the usual salary of such officers. The
mayor and councilmembers shall receive reimbursement for
their actual and necessary expenses incurred in the
performance of the duties of their office, or the council by
ordinance may provide for a per diem allowance. Procedure
for approval of claims for expenses shall be as provided by
ordinance.
[ 2009 c 549 § 3008; 1971 ex.s. c 251 § 5; 1967 ex.s. c 119 §
35A.12.070.1
NOTES:
The information in the summary outlines elected officers' compensation and the Edmonds Salary Commission. Prepared by Jay Grant, Salary 6
Commissioner 2000— 2004 and Chair 2017— 2020; offers a personal perspective, and is written to be factually based, and is not legal a
document.
Packet Pg. 196
8.4.e
City of Edmonds
2019 Salary Commission Member List
POSITION NUMBER
NAME
DATE OF APP_ 7.
TERM EXPIRATION
Ava Dubno
5l31)2020
1
616/2017
Vice -Chair
Edmonds, WA 98020
6/6/2617
2
Jay Grant
5/3112020
Chair
Edmonds, WA 98020
3
Don Nall
517119
4/30/2022
Edmonds, WA 98020
4
Jeff Hodson
517119
4/2012022
Edmonds, WA 98020
5
Carl Zapora
6/6/2017
5/3112020
Edmonds, WA 98020
Miff Li : Marilynne Beard, Consultant
Authority, Edmonds City Code, Chapter 10.80 (attached). The Commission shall consist of
five members wh❑ are appointed by the Mayor and approved by Council. Terms
are one to three years, staggered as directed by the Mayor. Committee members
are limited to two terms. The Commission shall review the salaries of the city's
elected officials and make recommendations on appropriate increases or
decreases. All meetings are subject to the Open Public Meetings Act per RCW
42.30.
City of Edmonds • Human Resources Department
121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 • 425-775-2525 (P) • 425-275-4806 (P)
E: Mail: maryann.hardieQedmvndswa.coY
Revised 6f13117 EW
Packet Pg. 197
8.4.e
Chapter 10.80
SALARY COMMISSION
Sections:
10,80.010
Created — Membership.
10,80.020
Qualifications.
10.80-030
Duties.
10,80.040
Open meetings.
10.80.050
Referendum.
10.80.010 Created — Membership. " SHARE
.............................................. ...... ..... . .. ............................................. ............ ....... ..... ........... ....
A. There is created a salary commission for the city. The commission shall consist of five members, to
be appointed by the mayor with the approval of the city council.
B. The salary commission will serve without compensation.
C. Each member of the commission shall serve a term of three years, except that the initial members
shall be appointed for staggered terms of one, two or three years.
D. No member of the commission shall be appointed to more than two terms.
E. In the event of a vacancy in office of commissioner, the mayor shall appoint, subject to approval of
the city council, a person to serve the unexpired portion of the term of the expired position-
F. A member of the commission shall only be removed from office for cause of incapacity,
incompetence, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, or for a disqualitying change of residence -
[Ord. 4057 § 1, 2017j.
10.80.020 Qualifications. s"ARF
....... . ....... ............ ..............
A. Each member of the commission shall be a resident of the city-
B. No member of the commission shall be an officer, official, or employee of the city or an immediate
family member of an officer, official, or employee of the city. For purposes of this section, "immediate
c
N
N
c
c
0
.N
N
E
E
0
U
cv
U)
hutp://w-,Aw.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/?Edmondsl 0/Edmonds 1025.htm1&?f
Packet Pg. 198
8.4.e
family member' means the parents, spouse, siblings, chHdren, or dependent relatives of an officer,
official, or employee of the city, whether or not living in the household of the officer, official, or
employee. [Ord. 4057 § 1, 2017].
10.80.030 Duties. SHARE
A. The commission shall have the duty to meet between July I st and September 30th of each odd -
numbered year commencing the year 2017, to review the salaries paid by the city to each elected city
official, except that the salary of the municipal courtjudge shall be determined in accordance with
ECC 2-15-040. If after such review the commission determines that the salary paid to an elected city
official should be increased or decreased, the commission shall file a written salary schedule with the
city clerk indicating the increase or decrease in salary and the effective date. Prior to filing the salary
schedule with the city clerk, the city attorney shall review the salary schedule for ambiguity and legality
and shall approve the salary schedule as to form if the schedule is unambiguous and legal.
B. Any increase or decrease in salary established by the commission shall become effective and
incorporated into the city budget without further action of the city council or salary commission.
C. Salary increases established by the commission shall be effective as to all city elected officials,
regardless of their terms of office. Salary increases established by the commission shall be effective
on the next payday for city employees, or under the conditions established in the salary schedule.
C- Salary decreases established by the commission shall become effective as to incumbent city
elected officials at the commencement of their next subsequent terms of office.
E. For purposes of this chapter, "salary" means any fixed compensation paid or provided periodically
for work cr services and includes, but is not limited to, wages and medical or other benefits. This
definition expressly excludes any expenses paid or reimbursed on behalf of the mayor or council
member for training and travel expenses. [Orel. 4062 § 1 2017; Ord. 4057 § 1, 2017].
10.80.040 ❑pen meetings. SNARE
... ................................................. ....................... .
All meetings, actions, hearings, and business of the commission shall be subject to the Open Public
Meetings Act as set forth in Chapter 42.30 RCW. Prior to the filing of any salary schedule. the
http:llww-rw.codepublishing.cotWWA/Edmondsl'?Edtnonds 10/Edmonds l 025.htm1&?f
Packet Pg. 199
8.4.e
commission shall hold no fewer than two public hearings thereon within the two months immediately
preceding the filing of its salary schedule. [Ord. 4057 § 1, 2017].
10.80.050 Referendum. 0 SHARE
................................................................................................................................._.._...._..................................._...........................I............... �_................._.........
A. Any salary increase or decrease established by the commission pursuant to this chapter shall be
subject to referendum petition by the voters of the city, in the same manner as a city ordinance, upon
filing of a referendum petition with the city clerk within 30 days after filing of a salary schedule by the
commission. In the event of the filing of a valid referendum petition, the salary increase or decrease
shall not go into effect until approved by a vote of the people.
S. Referendum measures under this section shall be submitted to the voters of the city at the next
following general or municipal election occurring 30 days or more after the petition is filed, and shall
otherwise be governed by the provisions of the State Constitution and the laws generally applicable to
referendum measures. [Ord. 4057 § 1, 2017].
c
a�
E
as
r
c
c
0
.N
N
E
E
0
U
R
co
http://w-ww.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/?Edmonds] 01Edmonds1025.htm1&?f
Packet Pg. 200