The URL can be used to link to this page

Cmd110122 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES November 1, 2022 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Vivian Olson, Council President Will Chen, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Jenna Nand, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Oscar Antillon, Public Works Director Dave Turley, Administrative Services Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., & Human Serv. Dir. Rob English, City Engineer Shannon Burley, Deputy Parks, Rec. & Human Serv. Dir. Mike DeLilla, Senior Utilities Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Chen read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: “We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.” 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 4. PRESENTATIONS 1. PURPLE HEART CITY PROCLAMATION Mayor Nelson read a proclamation proclaiming the City of Edmonds as a Purple Heart City and encouraged all residents and businesses of Edmonds to show their appreciation for the sacrifices Purple Heart recipients have made in defending our freedoms, to acknowledge their courage, and to show them the honor and support they have earned. Mayor Nelson presented the proclamation to Drew James, Military Order of the Purple Heart Chapter 12 Seattle, and Gary Walderman, Heroes’ Café Director. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 2 Mr. James thanked the city council and mayor for the resolution. Edmonds is the last city in Snohomish County to declare themselves a Purple Heart City. He started this challenging task last November, to get the multiple cities in Snohomish County to declare themselves Purple Heart Cities. He is now working on cities throughout the state, beginning with cities on Highway 2 from Everett to Spokane. He will be the state commander for the Veterans of Foreign War in 2025-2026 and would like to see every city and county a Purple Heart City/County. He will add Edmond to the Purple Heart Trail tomorrow. Mr. Walderman echoed Mr. James’ comments, thanking Edmonds for becoming a Purple Heart City. This honors not only the combat-wounded and those who gave the ultimate sacrifice, but those who have internal wounds that are not classified as combat wounds. Becoming a Purple Heart City also thanks them because they are suffering just like those who lost a limb or their life for our country. He asked the community to think about those individuals as well when they think about Edmonds being a Purple Heart City and when signs are installed identifying Edmonds as a Purple Heart City. He noted many cities north of Edmonds have signs identifying themselves a Purple Heart City and Purple Heart parking spaces and it will be great to see it in Edmonds. He applauded the city council and expressed appreciation for their support of veterans and veteran initiatives. 2. RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING COMMUNITY VOLUNTEERS THAT RESTORED THE EDMONDS MARSH-ESTUARY AND SHELLABARGER CREEK Council President Olson recognized Joe Scordino who led this effort. She read the resolution and invited volunteers to stand as they were recognized: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, TO RECOGNIZE COMMUNITY VOLUNTEERS THAT RESTORED THE EDMONDS MARSH- ESTUARY AND SHELLABARGER CREEK. WHEREAS, restoration of the Edmonds Marsh-Estuary, a unique urban tidal wetland owned by the City of Edmonds, has been a City priority for many years; and WHEREAS, in 2010, WRIA 8 (Watershed Resource Inventory Area 8) recognized the importance of the restoration of this nearshore estuary and identified it as one of their priority projects for the recovery of Puget Sound Chinook salmon that are listed under the Endangered Species Act; and WHEREAS, an overgrowth of an invasive plant, bittersweet nightshade, had gone ‘unchecked’ for many years, thus allowing the invasive nightshade to overwhelm native wetland plants, encroach into creeks, and kill trees along the edges of the wetland; and WHEREAS, field data collected over five years by the Edmonds Stream Team and students from Edmonds-Woodway and Meadowdale High Schools demonstrated the nightshade was advancing along the fence line and forming impenetrable thickets on the chain-link fencing thus deteriorating water quality; blocking and altering critical water flow from Shellabarger Creek on both sides of Highway 104; and causing flooding at Dayton Street during rainstorms; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds Stream Team contacted the Washington Secretary of Transportation in 2021 about the urgency of this serious and expanding problem, and requested the State allow community members permission to manually remove the chain-link fencing and embedded invasive nightshade in the State’s right-of-way along Highway 104; and WHEREAS, the Washington Department of Transportation agreed on July 7, 2021 to grant this requested permission under their “Adopt a Highway” landscape program, resulting in a dedicated crew of community volunteers who focused their efforts on the east side of Highway 104, and were recognized by City Council Resolution 1483 in November 2021; and WHEREAS, over 50 private citizens responded to the June 2022 announcements in My Edmonds News calling for a second season of community volunteers to continue the habitat restoration efforts. During 18 work-party days this summer, this 2022 team of volunteers toiled in especially deep, wet mud to manually remove thickets of nightshade and the remainder of chain-link fencing in the wetland; and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 3 WHEREAS, this continued work successfully “day-lighted” (or reopened) the Shellabarger Creek channel on the west side of Highway 104, significantly re-establishing waterflow into the Edmonds Marsh- Estuary ; and WHEREAS, these community volunteers proved that private citizens can work cooperatively and effectively to successfully restore the ecological functions of natural areas to benefit wildlife, ‘ecosystem services’ (e.g., carbon sequestration, pollutant reduction), and citizens throughout the region that appreciate the preservation of functional, natural areas in the Puget Sound basin; and by extension saving the City thousands of dollars in labor, consultants and design fees. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES: The City Council of Edmonds hereby recognizes the significance of the community volunteer effort to restore and preserve the Edmonds Marsh-Estuary and Shellabarger Creek and would like to formally thank the following volunteers for their time and effort this year in achieving this important outcome for the City: Aiden Curran, Alessandra Serafini, Amelie Mederios, Andy Chin, Anna Berge, Annabelle Yenter, Barbara Ford, Benten Taing, Bernie Zavala, Bob Mooney, Bob Seidensticker, Chris Walton, Christopher Konkel, Dave Millette, Diane Buckshnis, Elizabeth Fleming, Evan Grey, Greg Ferguson, Isis Liaw, Jane O'Dell, Joe Scordino (Project Leader), John Brock, Joshua Ly, Kai Rosman, Karen Andres, Kathy Jones, Kenneth Schultz, Lars Andres, Laszlo Rosman, Lorraine Monroe, Lucia Brady, Makana Apio, Maria Metler, Marjie Fields, Matthew Jack, Nancy Scordino, Nathan Zeon, Noah Croskey, Piper Hanson, Russel Jack, Scot Simpson, Selena Bolotin, Tauri Senn, Teresa Schultz, Valerie Rosman, Vance Ekrem, Vivian Olson, Waylisha Grey, and Yvette Osai. Mr. Scordino thanked the council for the recognition and acknowledgement and thanked all the volunteers, commenting he was amazed at the volunteers’ resilience and the joy in their faces as they opened up the creek. He noted the State Secretary of Transportation sent individual letters to each volunteer to thank them. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO ADD A NEW ITEM, 10.1 CITY ATTORNEY CODE – REVISIONS TO 2.05 ECC. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO RENUMBER ITEM 10.2, PRESENTATION ON 2023-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, TO 10.3 AND ADD AS 10.2, COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR CITY ATTORNEY CONTRACT TASK FORCE TO WORK DIRECTLY WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY. Councilmember Buckshnis asked Councilmember Teitzel to restate the motion, commenting she was confused about the intent. Councilmember Teitzel explained the rationale was to avoid giving anyone the misimpression that the task force is negotiating on behalf of the council without the council’s express approval. This will include the discussion of potential terms and changes to terms that may be acceptable to council. The changes will be provided to council in a redline form for approval. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 4 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson described procedures for in-person audience comments. Elizabeth Fleming, Edmonds, spoke regarding the September 29th gun threat lockdown at Edmonds- Woodway High School and her concerns after learning the details of that situation. She realized this was not city council business, but the safety of children was of huge importance to all. She relayed her concerns with the Edmonds School District’s complete disregard for student safety by not having clear and effective protocols in place to deal with gun threats, which she found unacceptable. Thankfully and quite miraculously, the worst outcome did not transpire and put Edmonds in the national news. The more than 20,000 students who attend schools in the ESD were put at serious risk because the newly implemented gun threat policy put in after the EWHS incident was not put in place earlier. In addition, the decision by Principal Allison Larsen to delay response for two hours was nothing short of negligence, showing poor judgment and was inexcusable. She questioned the district’s lack of knowledge of why the student had an ankle bracelet and why the district would accept a student wearing an ankle bracelet without fully knowledge of the situation. The student who brought the gun to school had two outstanding arrest warrants for first degree armed robbery in King County, but elected officials were unaware of the danger imposed on the community and the students. The next ESD meeting is scheduled for November 8th and she encouraged parents, students, and non-parents to join to share their voices to demand accountability of the district and Principal Larsen for this incident and the way it was handled. She encouraged the city council and the mayor to provide input into the situation, commenting the community should know more at this point. Guns are dangerous, but it is not just guns, the proper protocols need to be in place to manage situations. Thankfully better protocols are now in place, but she found it unbelievable and upsetting that students were put in that situation and it is lucky that nothing worse happened. Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, referred to the CFP/CIP, agreeing with Planning Board Member Gladstone’s remarks (at the earlier special meeting) regarding her vote on the CFP/CIP that it did not seem imaginative enough. With regard to sidewalks, there is nothing in the 2023, 2024 or 2025 budget for sidewalks and it is not until 2026 that there is any funding for sidewalks. He attended all of Director McLaughlin’s visioning exercises and continuously hears citizens ask for sidewalks and did not hear much about bicycle lanes, yet there is $2.8 million in 2023 for bike lanes and nothing for sidewalks. He recommended splitting that amount and putting half toward sidewalks and half toward bike lanes. Next, he expressed concern with the progress on the wastewater treatment plan (WWTP), as it should have been completed by now. The budget doesn’t include any funds for construction and he was curious whether that project was on budget and how much was being carried over into future years. He envisioned the startup phase for the WWTP will be the most difficult part for the new technology. The council needs that insight when budgeting for 2023. With regard to the green street initiative, he understood the value of green streets and kind of applauded it, but his approach toward implementation would be different; he would target Highway 99 for the green street initiative versus downtown and get the state involved. If it is that good of an idea, the state should be on board. The Highway 99 project includes the median and sidewalks so green streets could easily be added and it could be a learning experience before implementing it elsewhere in the City. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, referred to the overall budget process and how the council gets to this point every year. It always seems like everyone is in such a hurry to look at budget proposals and new CFP/CIP projects that no one knows whether they will be done. He requested this process begin earlier, like in July, to identify problems and get people who have knowledge of the problem together and then develop a budget initiative instead of everyone reacting and saying no. A good example is the project on SR-104, everyone told him there was no way WSDOT would allow him to remove the fence. He soon learned that nobody went to WSDOT to tell them the fence was a problem and ask to work together to remove the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 5 fence. WSDOT told him sure, have at it. He suggested doing the same with other issues in Edmonds. He referred to a problem in Yost Park where the creek is eroding a hillside due to historic structures and suggested getting the people who are interested in preserving historic structures together in advance to figure out a solution to the problem and then propose a budget initiative to fix the problem. Instead there is a last minute proposal to do an assessment. He urged the council to embark on this process earlier and work toward a final budget after having open public discussions and getting people involved. 7. RECEIVED FOR FILING 1. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM THE OLYMPIC VIEW WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. Councilmember Teitzel requested Items 8.6 and 8.7 be removed from the consent agenda for further discussion. Councilmember Buckshnis requested Item 8.9 be removed from the consent agenda so she could vote against it. Council President Olson requested Item 8.8 be removed from the consent agenda so she could offer an amendment. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 2022 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS 3. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT WITH JAMES G. MURPHY TO SELL SURPLUS CITY EQUIPMENT 4. RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING COMMUNITY VOLUNTEERS THAT RESTORED THE EDMONDS MARSH-ESTUARY AND SHELLABARGER CREEK 5. EMPLOYEE EXPENSES, VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION, AND REIMBURSEMENTS POLICY ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT 6. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN/RIGHT OF WAY PHASES OF HIGHWAY 99 REVITALIZATION PROJECT-STAGE 3 7. APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN/RIGHT OF WAY PHASES OF HIGHWAY 99 REVITALIZATION PROJECT - STAGE 4 Councilmember Teitzel advised this is related to Stages 3 and 4 of the Highway 99 Revitalization Project which include a scope of work related to potential undergrounding of overhead utilities. The cost of that work in stage 3 is $183,000 and $235,900 in phase 4, a total of over $400,000 in taxpayer money devoted to that assessment in these two phases which does not include other future phases. The costs he cited are Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 6 related only to the assessment of undergrounding, not construction. He did not support undergrounding utilities anywhere in Edmonds in the current environment due to the cost. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO REMOVE THE POTENTIAL UNDERGROUNDING STUDY FOR OVERHEAD FACILITIES FROM THE SCOPE OF WORK. Councilmember Paine did not support removing the opportunity to have design work done for undergrounding aboveground utilities. Undergrounding in these sections and along the entire length of Highway 99 allows for planting big trees. Big trees are easier to maintain although the first few years are difficult. Planting big trees along the sidewalk and in the median mitigate climate change and offer beauty to an area that has been neglected and they would not be impacted by aboveground utilities. She remarked as one drives north on Highway 99 toward Edmonds, it looks like 1950. This effort is needed and it is owed to the community who live in the areas as well as drivers on Highway 99 entering Edmonds. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed the city owes it to citizens on Highway 99 which is why the council is requiring an SEIS which she wanted done sooner rather than later. She is a fiscal conservative, and looks after the taxpayers’ money. Undergrounding is a wonderful want, but it is not a need and it is very expensive, especially with the economy moving into a recession and with supply chain issues. She expressed her full support for the motion. Councilmember Tibbott said he is also a fiscal conservative, but he is mindful that future generations will thank the council for undergrounding utilities. There will never be a time in the city’s history when it will be less expensive than it is now when work is being done on Highway 99. For the sake of future generations and the prosperity of that area, he supports investigating what it will take to underground the utilities. He referred to wires that crisscross Highway 99 east to west, commenting they are very unsightly and potentially detrimental to the future of that corridor. He did not support the motion. Councilmember Nand understood Councilmembers Teitzel and Buckshnis’ points about being careful about utilizing taxpayers’ resources especially now when people are worried about filling their gas tanks. However, it should be considered whether now is a good time to underground and devote $400,000 to that effort. This could be a good opportunity to add resiliency to the grid. Windstorms are hitting the area with more frequency in the winter, resulting in 2-3 day blackouts which could be very dangerous for people with disabilities, the homebound and for seniors. She recognized undergrounding on Highway 99 would not solve those problems for the entire city, but it could be a policy moving forward so that Edmonds did not find itself in the position of municipalities in California and Texas who have rolling blackouts due to the vulnerability of their overhead electric wires. It is also dangerous to public utility workers and to citizens when wires come down. She agreed this could be considered a want and not a need, but for the resiliency of the grid for generations to come, this could be an important first step. Councilmember Teitzel referred to the comment tonight about the need to increase the quality and quantity of sidewalks in the City. This is a good preview of the upcoming budget discussions with regard to where to deploy scarce taxpayer resources. He is a fan of undergrounding, aesthetically it is much more beautiful than overhead wires; however, the City needs many more miles of sidewalks and more parks especial in the Highway 99 corridor. If he was asked for a tradeoff in terms of a need versus a want, the City needs more sidewalks and more park space for the growing population, the undergrounding of overhead utilities is not a need. Councilmember Chen said he is also a financial conservative, however, the Highway 99 revitalization is a once in a lifetime opportunity, and if it is missed, there will not be another opportunity for 50-100 years. Although he agrees sidewalks and other amenities are needed in the Highway 99 corridor, this is an opportunity the City cannot miss. It will provide the necessary space for taller trees. Highway 99 has a lot Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 7 of pavement although the center medians provide some improvement. This is an opportunity he was willing to invest in. Council President Olson recalled at the committee level, something was added so the undergrounding design would come back to council early in the process for council input. City Engineer Rob English explained after the feasibility Councilmember Teitzel referred to was complete, a presentation would be made to council regarding the estimated cost of undergrounding and there would be a decision point at that stage whether to move forward with the remaining design work and right-of-way acquisition to set it up for construction. Council President Olson said with that in mind, she agreed it was a want, but it is a really strong want for her for some of the reasons other councilmembers have expressed. Councilmember Paine asked Mr. English to confirm her understanding these are not General Fund dollars, but funds dedicated to capital and roadway projects. Mr. English responded on these two stages, the bulk of the funding is from state’s transportation programs Move Ahead Washington and Connecting Washington, so the funds cannot be moved to sidewalk projects in other areas of the City. Two competitive federal grants were secured based on project components which also could not be moved to other projects. There are also impact fees associated with the project for stage 4 due to the 200th/Highway 99 level of service issue and those funds cannot be used for sidewalk projects. There is a small amount of REET funds matching some of those grants which would be the only funds that could be moved to sidewalk projects. Councilmember Paine recalled Director McLaughlin indicating that transportation dollars do not fund sidewalks, that would be a multimodal transportation methodology that is not in place yet due to state regulations. Mr. English observed Councilmember Paine was referring to traffic impact fees which are built on intersection vehicle capacity level of service. The City’s transportation plan would potentially look at sidewalk or bike lane level of service but that LOS is not currently considered. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the Highway 99 Gateway project is $38 million. She asked if staff had an idea of cost of undergrounding because she did not see it in the CFP as it had not been figured out yet. Mr. English said estimates were prepared when the corridor analysis was done. The estimated cost of full design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction for stage 3 is approximately $9 million and $13.1 million for stage 4. Councilmember Buckshnis said now that she has listened to other councilmembers’ comments, she agreed, recalling the Banfield Freeway in the early 70s rather than going up Division Street. She agreed this may be an opportunity the City may never have again. She pointed out there are 8- 9 phases of this project. Mr. English agreed the corridor is broken into several segments, these are contracts for stages 3 and 4. The conceptual estimate is $33 million for stage 3; out of that, $9 million is associated with right-of-way, design and construction and the conceptual estimate for stage 4 is $42.6 million, of that $13.1 million is associated with full design, right-of-way acquisition and construction. Councilmember Buckshnis commented if undergrounding is done in stages 3 and 4, it will need to be done throughout. Mr. English agreed. Councilmember Buckshnis observed there were no estimates for undergrounding in future phases. Mr. English did not have the estimate for the full corridor. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if federal funds through the Infrastructure Bill could be used. Mr. English agreed that funding source was a potential opportunity. It will require work at the federal level to get Edmonds’ name and the project recognized. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the City already got one award, and possibly could get another; the award shows the City is doing the right thing. Mr. English explained the two awards the City received through the federal process were through the Snohomish County Infrastructure Coordination Committee and are smaller grants. Construction grants are much larger; staff will continue to pursue funding at both the state and federal levels as opportunities exist. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 8 At Mayor Nelson’s request, Councilmember Teitzel restated the motion FOR STAGES 3 AND 4, TO PULL THE SCOPE OF WORK ITEM RELATED TO POTENTIAL UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (1-6), COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, PAINE AND NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. 9. DEPARTMENTAL NAME CHANGE Councilmember Buckshnis said this came to the Public Safety, Planning, Human Services & Personnel Committee and should have come through the Finance Committee. The proposal is to change Development Services to Planning & Development. A google search showed planning in many development services departments, therefore she felt it was an unnecessary change that will cost the taxpayers money. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE DEPARTMENTAL NAME CHANGE. Council President Olson said the costs will be nominal. She suggested staff continue to use their current business cards until they need more. Most of the changes will be digital and she saw value in adding planning to the department name. Mayor Nelson assured the intent is for staff to use up their existing cards. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, PAINE AND NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. 8. ASSOCIATE PLANNER - JOB DESCRIPTION CHANGE TO ASSOCIATE TRANSPORTATION PLANNER Council President Olson requested the following revision: • Line 3 under position purpose, replace “to reach our Climate Action Goals” with “in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and Climate Action Goals adopted by Council.” COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO REVISE THE JOB DESCRIPTION AS STATED. Council President Olson explained the intent was to be clear that codes would be initiated by policy created by council. At City Attorney Jeff Taraday’s request, she repeated the proposed change. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PAINE VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE ASSOCIATE TRANSPORTATION PLANNER JOB DESCRIPTION AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN/RIGHT OF WAY PHASES OF HIGHWAY 99 REVITALIZATION PROJECT-STAGE 3 AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN/RIGHT OF WAY PHASES OF HIGHWAY 99 REVITALIZATION PROJECT-STAGE STAGE 4. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL VOTING NO Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 9 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PRESENTATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ON REVENUE SOURCES Administrative Services Director Dave Turley explained the City is required to have a revenue presentation and public hearing and the property tax presentation and public hearing. There is a budget public hearing tonight and another in a couple weeks; the City is not required to have a budget public hearing tonight but wanted to give the public an extra opportunity. With regard to questions he has heard about why the council was having so many public hearings on one night, the alternative was to have two tonight and one in two weeks, but the intent was to give the public an extra opportunity for another public hearing on the budget. He reviewed: • Why are we having this presentation tonight? o RCW 35.33.057 States that “Prior to the final hearing on the budget, the legislative body or a committee thereof, shall schedule hearings on the budget or parts thereof” • What is the purpose? o When putting a budget together, we start with understanding our revenues. One purpose of this presentation is to help you understand City revenues to help us make expenditure decisions, another is to give you context later this evening when you decide whether to increase our property tax levy by 1%. o For both this and the property tax agenda item, tonight is an opportunity to hear comments from the public and for council to discuss whether to adjust our Property Tax Levy for next year. • Budget Priorities / Highlights o What is in the Proposed Budget, in addition to ongoing city services? ▪ Significant Increase in Public Safety – In this budget the Mayor is proposing to invest an additional $3 million in our Police Department. Included are creating a new patrol district, adding a community storefront officer, two problem solving detectives, and more police cars and other needed equipment. ▪ Neighborhood Improvements – Approximately $2.7 million in improvements to City parks, $1 million reserved for Open Space acquisition, investments in Green Streets, providing grants to improve blighted property in our neighborhoods, and spending to help address the climate crisis. ▪ Highway 99 Community Investments – the first stage of rebuilding Highway 99 is scheduled to be completed this spring, and additional investments reflect our commitment to this area. ▪ ARPA Funds – Year 3 of ~ $11 million in federal funds that will be invested in improving the services that the City delivers to residents, as well as helping individual Edmonds businesses, individuals, and our environment. • General Fund Revenue Sources - $49.6 million • Citywide Revenues by Fund Type - $111.4 million Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 10 • City revenue budgets compared to previous years o General Fund ▪ High in 2021 due to bonds sold for parks and building maintenance ▪ High in 2023 due to ARPA funds o Water, Storm and Sewer related funds ▪ High in 2021 due to bonds sold for the incinerator project at the WWTP. ▪ High in 2022 due to revenue from partner cities as project is constructed o Fleet and IT ▪ 2023 higher due to ARPA funds to purchase several police cars o Edmonds Rescue Plan Fund ▪ City received $6 million 2021 and in 2022 o Street Construction ▪ High in 2022 due to grant funds for Hwy 99 o Street Maintenance ▪ Consistent year-to-year o Parks Construction ▪ High in 2021 and 2022 due to bond sold, donations, grant funds for Civic Field o REET ▪ High in 2022 and 2023 due to increased REET funds o Other Special Revenue & Debt Service ▪ High in 2021 due to bond refunding • General Fund Tax Revenue (2016 – 2021) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 11 • General Fund Revenues o These have been relatively consistent over the last several years o This stability helps when making a 2023 forecast • General Fund Revenues o About 72% of GF revenues are made up of Property Taxes and Sales Taxes o Property Taxes – very predictable and consistent – but little increase, even during periods of inflation o Sales Taxes – unpredictable and more volatile • General Fund Revenues – Other (~28%) o These are things like charges for services, fines and penalties, grants, and other misc. ▪ Planning & Development – Building permits and related fees ▪ Parks & Recreation – Program fees for things like classes o Outside Revenues – Agreements with Woodway and Edmonds School District, Distributions from the State (e.g. liquor and marijuana taxes) o ~ 90 revenue line items in total • General Fund Revenues – Property Taxes (~33%) o Very predictable and consistent, BUT, lag behind during inflationary periods (Presentation to follow later this evening) • General Fund Revenues – Sales Tax (~39%) o Retail Sales Tax ~ 25% o Other Sales Taxes (Utilities, Criminal Justice, Leasehold) ~ 14% Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 12 • Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) o A significant revenue source that can help to alleviate pressure on the General Fund o (REET does not affect most households in a given year) o REET Revenue ▪ 2019 Actual $3,096,440 ▪ 2020 Actual $3,653,320 ▪ 2021 Actual $4,753,384 ▪ 2022 Projected $4,000,000 ▪ 2023 Budgeted $4,400,000 • General Fund Revenues and Budget Planning o What you need to know: ▪ ARPA – we have received significant ARPA money and are proposing to use that money to make significant investments in public safety, neighborhood improvements, and to positively impact our climate and our local environment. ▪ Forecasting – Our actual results have fallen in line with projections that we have made. ▪ Trends – Our revenues remain strong, and we foresee continued growth in Sales Taxes and REET compared to historical numbers. ▪ Stimulus Packages – Nationally and locally, federal government stimulus packages are having a positive impact on keeping the economy going. ▪ Budget for 2023 – Forecasting the future is always problematic. Will we have continued inflation? A recession? Will our local economy remain strong? We will continue to monitor the economic environment during the coming years and make adjustments along the way. • Next Steps o Next on the agenda is a public hearing on revenue sources: 1. Open public hearing 2. Accept comments 3. Close public hearing o This is a presentation only, no action is asked for this evening. Its purpose is to inform council and the public and to help council make budgetary decisions later. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the General Fund Tax Revenue (2016 – 2021) graph, noting the EMS levy remains the same every year. He asked about the trend for expenses in that category. Mr. Turley said the EMS Levy is supposed to support fire and EMS, those costs have increased 10%/year and the EMS levy increases slightly more than 1%/year. The City’s fire contract is approximately $10-11 million and the EMS levy generates about $4.5 million and increases very slowly. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the finance committee talked about illusive trending for the next year. As part of the fund balance policy, the committee will look at trends. She watches Opening Bell every Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 13 day; some people believe the economy is in recession now and some don’t. It will be difficult in the future to match ongoing expenses created via the new jobs with the revenue sources. She would like to source the stable revenue with ongoing expenses. Councilmember Nand commented with early federal stimulus in response to the pandemic such as the CARES Act, the City was able to do more direct granting to people in Edmonds who were financially struggling such as through the Wellspring program that provided direct grants to people in danger of losing their housing due to job market instability. In looking at the legislative intent of ARPA, it is a form of stimulus in which the City was expected to provide economic and market strength as a market participant versus more direct granting. She asked whether it was contemplated in the 2023 budget that the City would use federal funds, either CARES or ARPA or other stimulus package in response to the pandemic, to provide direct economic relief to people in Edmonds who are struggling. Mr. Turley recommended separating CARES funds and the ARPA money. The City received about $2 million in CARES funds in the summer of 2020 and it had to be spent by yearend. At that point, a lot of people were out of work, their businesses were closed, and the economic situation was dire. The City spent a large portion or nearly all the $2 million directly to those hit hardest by the pandemic and who were in the greatest need. Mr. Turley continued, the ARPA money is different; it is intended for the City to be a market participant in the economy. The intent of the ARPA money is spending on lost revenues, things the City would typically spend General Fund on such as police and fire protection, and infrastructure. As a percentage, approximately 90% of the CARES money was distributed directly to individuals and businesses. The vast majority of the ARPA money will not be distributed to individuals and businesses because unemployment is low, the economy is on its feet so that need does not exist as much. There are funds earmarked in ARPA funds for low income help and educational assistance at Edmonds College and Shoreline College for Edmonds residents. One of the other differences between the CARES funds and the ARPA funds is the City has six years to spent ARPA funds. Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing. Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, referred to the graph of City revenue budgets compared to previous years, commenting the General Fund and Water, Storm and Sewer related funds were very similar amounts, yet there is more focus on the General Fund in the revenue discussions. There is typically a very robust discussion about utility rate increases, but there has not yet been any discussion about the rate increases imbedded in the Utility fund decision packages. Utility rate increases affect everybody, unlike REET which affects very few people. Not only has he not seen anything on the extended agenda about a discussion about the utility rate, but there has also been no discussion about a study to propose new utility rates. The last rate increase was last year. He found it disturbing that utility rate increases were imbedded in the decision packages but there were no plans for a utility rate study. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. 2. PRESENTATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPERTY TAXES Administrative Services Director Dave Turley reviewed: • Why are we having this presentation tonight? o RCW 84.55.120 States that we must “hold a public hearing on revenue sources for the district’s following year’s current expense budget.” (General Fund) • What is the purpose? o In our case, Property Taxes make up about 33% of GF budget. One significant purpose of this presentation is to give you context when you decide whether to increase our property tax levies by 1%. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 14 o A complete and detailed view of revenues and expenses, and fund balances, are included in the Mayor’s Proposed Budget. • Introduction: o Washington State property tax laws are among the most complicated in the entire country. o There are many sources if you would like more details on the intricacies of Washington State property tax laws. ▪ One very good, concise description can be found at http://mrsc.org/Home/Explore- Topics/Finance/Revenues/The-Property-Tax-in-Washington-State.aspx. ▪ Another useful resource is the Snohomish County Assessor’s 2022 annual report • What would be the estimated annual impact per household on increasing the 2023 levy? How much revenue are we estimated to have lost over the last 4 years? Regular Levy 1% $106,232 Number of households $17,845 Total $5.95 EMS Levy 1% $42.319 # of households $17,845 Total $2.37 • Total annual increase with a 1% increase in the regular levy and EMS levy Regular $5.95 EMS $2.37 Total $8.32 o Our banked capacity is $418,777, which results from not taking the full 1% allowable for the last four years. This is the amount that Council could still levy if it wished. o However, the revenue we would have received over those four years is more than the $418,777, because we have lost the incremental effect of taking the full 1% each year. The lost revenue is higher, between $500,000 and $1 million. • How do we compare to other cities in Snohomish County? o 2022 Typical Levy Rate for Cities in Snohomish County • Property Taxes make up about $16.3 million, or 33% of the General Fund budget o General Fund Revenue Sources - $49.6 million Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 15 o Property Taxes that go to the City of Edmonds make up only 10.3% of the Property Tax bill paid by the typical Edmonds homeowner (this was 11.2% last year and 14.6% the year before) • Property Taxes Levies 2014-2022 o (Data from the 2021 Annual Financial Report, page 161) o The City’s tax levy may only increase up to 1% per year except for 1) tapping banked capacity or 2) approving an excess levy or a levy lid lift. o In 2014-2016 the City levied extra money to pay for debt service on the Public Safety Building. • Property Taxes Decision for tonight: Does Council wish to increase either the Regular Property Tax Levy or the EMS Levy by 1% over last year? (Amounts provided by the Snohomish County Assessor’s Office) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 16 • Next Steps o Next on the agenda is a public hearing on Property Taxes: 1. Open Public Hearing 2. Accept comments 3. Close Public Hearing o After the Public Hearing, council needs to discuss the alternatives and decide on 1% or 0% increases on both the Regular and EMS levies. Then we will prepare an ordinance reflecting the decision arrived at tonight and place it on next week’s consent agenda. o Action Needed: ▪ Motion to approve a 0% or 1% increase to the Current Expense (Regular) Levy, and a second motion to approve a 0% or 1% increase to the EMS Levy. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the council has only approved a 1% increase once or twice since she has been on council. She asked how many years the City can bank capacity. Mr. Turley answered the current $418,000 is from the last four years when the City has not taken the full 1%. He was unsure if there was a time limit. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said he would need to research it to be certain, but his recollection was the banked capacity did not expire and remains until it was needed. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the council could forgive past banked capacity. Mr. Turley said he did not think the county assessor would allow that. Property tax laws are amazingly complicated. The $418,000 in banked capacity does not exactly represent the money the City did not collect over the four years. It is calculated by going back to 1985 and calculating what the highest possible levy for Edmonds could have been since that time and then City is allowed to increase 1% of that highest levy. The only reason that matters is in times of deflation or when the City gets to its limit, the City can only assess $3.50 per 1000, so if the levy gets higher, the City can lose the banked capacity because the levy maximum has been reached. A city can lose its banked capacity if it tries to exceed the total allowable levy which would occur if assessed values for the entire region suddenly depressed. With regard to banking capacity, Councilmember Teitzel asked if the City decided to forego the 1% increase for four years, the City could potentially take a 5% increase by taking advantage of the banked capacity for the last four years plus 1% in the fifth year. Mr. Turley said the $418,000 does not exactly represent 1% each year. That calculation is redone every year and is effected by refunds, new construction, and the overall assessed value. What Councilmember Teitzel said was close to accurate, but the increase would not be 5% and build on the next year, the increase would be 1% plus the $418,000 and then the increase the next year would start at the lower amount, not the amount including the $418,000. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 17 Councilmember Teitzel commented the City is doing very well financially for various reasons, sales tax and REET revenues are significantly higher than forecast plus the City is receiving ARPA infusions. By comparison to those millions of dollars, a 1% property tax increase would generate $106,232 which is a tiny fraction of the City’s financial position. With that in mind, he did not support approving a 1% property tax increase. The optics right now are very bad, people are worried about the economy and view property tax as a regressive tax. Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing. Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, suggested before voting, the council consider whether a tax increase is a want or a need. It seems like the property tax increase is out of sequence as the council should first get through the budget to see what is needed and if the revenues exclusive of any tax increase cover the need and if it doesn’t, the council could entertain a tax increase. He found it premature for the council to vote on a property tax increase today. He questioned whether the 1% was on the dollar amount or on the levy rate; to his reading, it was 1% on the levy rate. He has not seen any information or heard any discussion about whether to increase the EMS levy. Elizabeth Fleming, Edmonds, urged the council to take a very fiscally conservative approach to budgeting this year. With regard to property tax, she pointed out property valuations have increased astronomically, close to 23% in Snohomish County for 2023, on top of a 27% valuation increase from 2021 to 2022 according to the assessor’s office. A 1% increase is only a drop in the budget, but has a bad look as people are struggling with inflation pressure such as when buying groceries. She feels that pressure although she is in a very favorable financial position and can’t imagine what if must feel like to people living paycheck to paycheck. With increased gas prices and the unstable and unpredictable economy, a 1% increase is juice that is not worth the squeeze. She urged the council not to approve a 1% property tax increase and to trim the fat from the budget. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO APPROVE A 0% INCREASE TO THE CURRENT EXPENSE REGULAR LEVY. Council President Olson commented in a year with one-time monies, this was a time the council could avoid going to the taxpayers for more when the City got the taxpayers’ money through the federal government. She supported a 0% increase. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the 0% increase include banking it. Councilmember Paine said her motion was strictly a 0% increase. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO BANK THE 1%. Councilmember Chen expressed support for a 0% increase for the reasons stated earlier such as sufficient one-time funding and the City’s strong financial position. He assumed the 1% would automatically be banked for the future, so he will support the amendment Councilmember Nand thanked Mr. Turley for an excellent presentation and explanation of very complicated property tax laws in Washington State and for pointing taxpayers to the Snohomish County Assessor’s report. Taxpayers are frustrated with skyrocketing assessments. Edmonds’ location on the I-5 corridor, one of the hottest real estate markets in the world, seems to be completely divorced from the cost of living pressures people are experiencing due to global supply chain issues, increased gas prices, the war in Ukraine, etc. There is a lot of financial anxiety in the City, especially people who bought property Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 18 decades ago and have seen their property taxes increase to the point where a total of $8/year may not seem very much, but it seems like a lot in an accumulative view. The City has great new revenues sources including ARPA funds which supplement what the council could ask from taxpayers. She agreed a 0% increase and banking for a year would be appropriate. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE A 1% INCREASE TO THE EMS LEVY. Councilmember Paine described her support for a 1% increase in the EMS levy was due to the $1.5 million increase in EMS services that the council approved. The 1% increase is an appropriate way to supplement the EMS budget. It is a small amount but it is all to the good. Councilmember Tibbott concurred with Councilmember Paine's comment, pointing the EMS levy is a very specific tax that supports EMS services. Councilmember Chen expressed support for the motion due to the $1.5 million increase in fire/EMS services last year. Public safety is his #1 priority and he supports this increase to fund it. Council President Olson said although she understand the points made by her colleagues regarding the $1.5 million increase in EMS funding last year, due to the City’s receipt of ARPA funds, she will vote against this tax increase, feeling the city has the funds elsewhere. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS AND PAINE VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBER NAND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. Mr. Turley advised the ordinances will be on next week’s consent agenda. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. 3. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2023 PROPOSED BUDGET Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing, advising there would be another public hearing on the budget in the future. Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, commented as always, the budget is an interesting and contentious process. He wondered what the City did not accomplish in 2022 that was expected to be accomplished, what was being carried forward into 2023 and suggested that be more visible in the proposed 2023 budget. He was most concerned about the impact of the proposed budget on the forecast for future years. Unrestricted reserves decline from $9 million in 2021 to $111,000 in 2026, which seems like a steep decline. Decisions the council makes now will affect the rate of that decline. At this rate, the council will be faced with increasing taxes to sustain that forecast. He understood forecasts were tricky, but as staff indicated, forecasts have been fairly accurate in recent years. The amount that the City’s spending dips into reserves should concern everyone, particularly in these inflationary times. Many citizens are apprehensive and cautious right now and are concerned with going into the reserves as much as the proposed budget envisions. He expressed support for budgeting by priorities; having departments prioritize their asks and identifying needs versus wants would be easier for everyone to see and appreciate where the City is going in the future. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 19 Jay Grant, Edmonds, echoed Mr. Ogonowski’s comments, urging fiscal prudence and ensuring the City has it’s priorities correct. He did not like dipping into the reserves. The City is doing okay financially and revenues have been good, but there have been challenges in the past when was nice to have money in the bank. He is a strong proponent of public safety and suggested looking hard at added spending that will have to be maintained. Just because the City has the money, he did not believe it had to be spent. Elizabeth Fleming, Edmonds, agreed with the previous speakers, recommending the council be fiscally responsible and conservative this year. A lot of community members are concerned about safety and public safety is obviously a huge area of concern and she supported the proposed increases in the police department. Infrastructure is always top of mind including how to maintain growth in housing and population and have the infrastructure to support it. The Highway 99 revitalization is part of that as well as addressing stormwater and wastewater management issues due to the City’s older infrastructure. It is important to her that the government not grow any larger than it is. She has heard there are staffing challenges within the City and suggested sharpening the pencil before adding more overhead related to labor and government growth. In looking at the $8 million increase in expenses in the 2023 budget and only $3 million increase in revenue, the magic number seems to be $5 million. She lives in the Gateway District of Highway 99; car dealerships are one of the biggest sources of sales tax and protecting that is very important. She was hopeful the hotel situation in that area would be good, but knew it was a concern for the community. She referred to the effort to require drug rehabilitation for people entering the hotel which the Snohomish County Council did not approve. She urged the council to prioritize and be fiscally conservative. Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. CITY ATTORNEY CODE - REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 2.05 ECC City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised the council was deliberating on this when the special meeting prior to this meeting ended. Councilmember Teitzel recalled he was in the process of raising a concern when the special meeting ended. Rather than a point of order, he should have expressed his concern via an objection. Councilmember Nand was suggesting that Mr. Taraday do more work on defining what exercise discretion means in terms of the city prosecutor; his concern and the reason he objected was this was asking Mr. Taraday to codify a policy issue, a policy issue by the council for a contracted attorney or the mayor for an in-house attorney. If the prosecutor is not behaving in a manner that matches what the citizens want, the council has the discretion to terminate that employee, a decision in the council’s hands, not Mr. Taraday’s hands. He would be open to Councilmember Nand offering an amendment to the wording of B.1. Councilmember Paine said some of her questions about what Councilmember Nand raised include whether this could be remedied by having the prosecutor an in-house position made via an appointment process by the council. Mayor Nelson clarified the decision package for the in-house prosecutor by the administration was withdrawn several days ago and is not currently a decision package. Mr. Taraday answered as written, the code preserves the flexibility for future councils to make the position either in-house or contract. Councilmember Paine clarified her question was whether this was a council confirmation position. Mr. Taraday answered as currently drafted, it would be if it was in-house, but that is a one-time confirmation. Councilmember Paine said the second part of her question was if council decided there was a policy they wanted to work through such as the relicensing resolution two years ago, it covered more than just prosecution and could the council say that is a policy of the City and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 20 enforce a policy direction that way if there was a situation like Councilmember Nand brought up. Mr. Taraday answered there are certain ways that that is a possibility. He assumed a contract prosecutor who wanted to keep their position would be wise to exercise their discretion in accordance with council adopted policy. At the end of day, when it comes to case by case filing decisions, a prosecutor will have their independence to make that call. No mayor or council should tell the prosecutor to file a charge; that needs to rest with the prosecutor. If the prosecutor is in-house, they serve at the pleasure of the mayor and if it is a contract, they serve at the pleasure of the council. Councilmember Paine asked if the code of professional responsibilities the city attorney follows are the same for the city prosecutor. Mr. Taraday answered yes. Council President Olson reminded there was a motion on the table to pass the ordinance in the packet when the special meeting ended. In response to Councilmember Teitzel’s comment, Councilmember Nand said she was seeking to converse with Mr. Taraday regarding what she felt was a lack of prosecutorial independence from public policy objective in accordance with Section 2.05.015 Legal council - in house which refers to the position that would be created at the pleasure of the council to be in-house which would then be treated as an appointed officer and refers to City Code 2.10. Section 2.10.020 states the mayor shall direct, supervise and be in charge of all appointed officers in the performance of the functions, powers and duties. She was trying to make the point about going to that catchall language for a potential future city prosecutor. A prosecutor always choses the cases they prioritize to prosecute; there are very controversial decisions coming out of certain city prosecutor offices like whether to recriminalize or continue to criminalize simple drug possession for example. Councilmember Nand continued, the way that 2.05.015 Legal counsel – in-house is drafted and having the potential in-house city prosecutor treated as any other appointed officer whose public policy decisions are directed by the mayor, may create an unnecessary perception that the mayor has some sort of political control over what should be, in her opinion, a position of reinforcing law and order, and have more independence from the mayor and police chief. The Snohomish County prosecutor does not answer to the Snohomish County Executive, the Snohomish County Council or the Sheriff but is directly answerable to county voters who are able to disagree on policy positions and push back without fear of being docked in a negative performance review or potentially fired. She suggested 2.05.015 was creating a perception that a future in-house city prosecutor would not have that level of independence, something she wanted to address. Councilmember Nand continued, when she suggested to Mr. Taraday 2.05.025 city prosecutor duties, that the city prosecutor shall exercise discretion, it creates more of an enforcement and perception of an in- house city prosecutor having prosecutorial independence and public policy independence from the mayor’s office. That is the way the geographically larger levels of government are set up, the checks and balances at the federal level, the justice department has independence from the executive and legislative branch which in the City would be the mayor’s office and the city council. She felt by putting that position in-house and not clarifying that, a future in-house city prosecutor would not have prosecutorial independence which could create problems in public policy especially the perception of politically unpopular decisions to either prosecute or not prosecute. Mr. Taraday said one thing the council could do in the subsection that states, “currently exercise discretion to” would be to insert additional language to say “exercise their independent discretion to” which would suggest that this position should be more independent than the typical director. At the end of the day, an in-house city prosecutor serves at the pleasure of the mayor. The only way around that is for Edmonds to become a charter city and have certain employees subject to special terminational provisions set forth in the charter. To his knowledge, the City of Bremerton did that with their city attorney position. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 21 That is a whole can of worms that would be a very lengthy process involving voter approval, etc. and not something that could be solved tonight. In response to the points raised by Councilmember Teitzel, Councilmember Nand said she was unsure whether her previous suggestion in 2.05.025 to say that the city prosecutor shall exercise discretion is sufficient to create the necessary reality and perception that there is prosecutorial independence, but that is something that needs to be codified. Mr. Taraday restated the motion and the amendments from the special meeting that preceded this meeting: • Main motion: Adopt the ordinance in the packet as amended. • Amendments: o Amend 2.05.020.C, to add new subsection 9, “Provide an annual update to the council and the public” o Amend 2.05.025 to add new subsection 4, “Provide an annual update to the council and the public” o Amend 2.05.020.C.4, change “officers” to “officials” o Amend 2.05.035 insert “and upon due notice to council” MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER NAND VOTING NO. 2. COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR CITY ATTORNEY CONTRACT TASK FORCE TO WORK DIRECTLY WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY Councilmember Teitzel explained a task force was created consisting of Councilmembers Chen, Paine and himself to work through issues related to extending the city attorney contract for one year which has included doing due diligence on the background data Mr. Taraday provided council in August. The task force is at the point where they need to work on the contract itself and develop options for the terms and conditions to bring to council for consideration. That requires one of the task force members to work directly with Mr. Taraday on those terms and conditions. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO AUTHORIZE ONE TASK FORCE MEMBER TO WORK DIRECTLY WITH MR. TARADAY. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why everything has to go through council. This was not done two years ago or in 2014. She was confused why this extra talk and work was necessary for something that has been done easily in the past. Councilmember Teitzel responded in 2019 during his first term on council, he and then-Councilmember Mesaros worked on this issue including working with Mr. Taraday to develop options to bring to council. There was concern expressed by other councilmembers at that time that they were doing that without approval by council. Out of an abundance of caution this time, he was seeking formal approval before taking that step with Mr. Taraday. Councilmember Paine added that this is to allow one person to speak with Mr. Taraday to avoid any OPMA violations. The task force has drafted some contract language and council will see the ultimate product. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if this will include the forensic audit for the OPMA issues addressed last year during the budget process. Councilmember Teitzel said that will be a 2023 issue. The focus now is to get the contract extension completed because the contract expires December 31, 2022. The OPMA and the forensic investigation will be done next year. Councilmember Buckshnis wanted citizens to know Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 22 that process will be initiated and she suggested certain councilmembers should recuse themselves as they may have been part of the OPMA issues last year. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. PRESENTATION ON PROPOSED 2023-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM City Engineer Rob English introduced Senior Utilities Engineer Mike DeLilla, Public Works Director Oscar Antillon, and Parks, Recreation & Human Services Director Angie Feser. Mr. English reviewed: • Differences between CIP and CFP o Funding for projects in the Public Works CIP are constrained in first three years (secured funding or reasonably expected to be secured funding) o Projects in the second three years have unsecured funding • Public Works & Utilities o 2023-2028 CFP & CIP ▪ Combined CFP & CIP Document - Transportation  Utilities  Water  Stormwater  Sewer - Facilities - Wastewater Treatment Plant - Comparison to previous year • Citywide Project Map Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 23 • CFP & CIP Format o Sample Project Sheet • Public Works & Utilities – Transportation o 2023 Pavement Preservation Projects ▪ 2023 Pavement Preservation Program DP#64 - 6 Lane Miles o 76th Ave Overlay Close-out DP#65($15k) o Main St. Overlay 6th Ave – 9th Ave DP#69($157k) ▪ 2023 Design / 2024 Construction ▪ $750K Federal Grant ▪ 11 New ADA Ramps o 2023 Safety & Capacity Projects ▪ Hwy 99 Revitalization/Gateway DP#66 ($2.6M) ▪ Hwy 99 Stage 3 244thSt-238thSt DP#67 ($1.1M) ▪ Hwy 99 Stage 4 224thSt-220that DP#68 ($740K) ▪ 76th Ave/220th St Intersection DP#63 ($761K) ▪ SR-104 Adaptive System DP#70 ($243K) ▪ Traffic Signal Safety & Upgrades DP#73 ($30K) ▪ Guardrail Improvements DP#74 ($20K) o 2023 Active Transportation Projects & Planning ▪ Transportation Plan Update DP#62 ($170K) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 24 ▪ Citywide Bicycle Improvements DP#71 ($1.7M) ▪ Green Streets DP#72 ($297K) ▪ Pedestrian Safety Program DP#75*($80K) ▪ Traffic Calming Program DP#76*($33K) ▪ Citywide Street Lighting Study DP#77 ($60K) *increase from decision package in budget ▪ Elm Way Walkway DP#78 ($901K) • Public Works & Utilities - Utilities o 2023 Water Utility ▪ 2022 Replacement Program DP#34 ($10k) ▪ 2024 Replacement Program DP#35 ($506K) ▪ Waterline Overlays DP#36 ($50K) ▪ Yost/Seaview Reservoir Repairs DP#37 ($805K) ▪ 2023 Replacement Program DP#38 ($1.7M) o 2023 Stormwater Utility ▪ Perrinville Creek Basin Projects - Lower Perrinville Creek Restoration DP#39 ($750K) - Perrinville Creek Basin Analysis Update DP#43 ($150K) - Perrinville Creek Basin Flow Mgmt DP#44 ($120K) ▪ Seaview Infiltration Facility Ph 2 DP#40 ($10k) ▪ Stormwater Overlays DP#41 ($200K) ▪ 2024 Replacement Program DP#42 ($290K) ▪ Storm & Surface Water Comp Plan DP#45 ($600K) ▪ Lake Ballinger Floodplain DP#46 ($750K) ▪ Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Impr* ($366K) o 2023 Sewer Utility ▪ 2022 Replacement Program DP#49 ($30k) ▪ 2024 Replacement Program DP#50 ($349K) ▪ Sewerline Overlays DP#51 ($200K) ▪ 2023 Replacement Program DP#52 ($1.6M) ▪ Cured in-place pipe rehabilitation DP#53 ($423K) o 2023 WWTP ▪ WWTP Clarifier 1 Rehabilitation DP#54 ($350K) ▪ Vacuum Filter Replacement DP#55 ($187K) ▪ Nuvoda Pre-Design DP#56 ($300K) ▪ Joint Sealant DP#57 ($60K) • Public Works & Utilities - Facilities o Boys & Girls Club o Cemetery Building o City Hall o Fishing Pier o Frances Anderson Center o Fire Station 16 o Fire Station 17 o Fire Station 20 o Historic Log Cabin o Historic Museum o Library o Meadowdale Club House o Old Public Works o Parks Maintenance Bldg. o Public Safety Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 25 o Public Works O&M o Wade James Theater o Yost Pool House • CIP/CFP Schedule o July ▪ City staff begins development of capital budgets o August/September ▪ Submit proposed Capital budget to Finance ▪ Prepare draft CFP and CIP o October ▪ Planning Board (October 12th) ▪ Planning Board Public Hearing (October 26th) ▪ City Council Presentation (November 1st) o November ▪ City Council Public Hearing (November 15th) ▪ Adopt CFP w/ Budget into the Comprehensive Plan (November 22nd) Councilmember Teitzel said he has several suggestions and possible amendments to the CIP/CFP and asked the process for that. Mr. English recommended amendment be made from the dais as changes to the document will require a council vote. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10:40 P.M. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, PAINE AND NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff for the questions they have answered but she has many more. She suggested having an update on the Perrinville Creek because she is having difficulty resolving the carryforward with the new CIP/CFP. In the past, carryforwards were part of budget. ARPA funds totaling $3.5 million have been set aside for Perrinville; an update would be appropriate in view of the additional $1 million set aside for that project. She asked if all the money was spent on Perrinville in 2022, acknowledging she submitted an email with that question and she may need to wait for a response. She observed the cost of Elm Street went from $300,000 to $900,000, and asked if that was due to changes in the supply chain, labor issues, or cement issues. Mr. English said the dollar amount for Elm Street has not changed; the original decision package last year was just over $900,000; the 2023 decision package was about the same amount. The difference is through the decision package process, staff is asking for the budget they anticipate will be needed in 2023 and not have a carryforward. That is Finance’s preference for how to set up 2023 projects. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the 2022 budget only includes the approval of $300,000, not an itemization. She suggested looking at carryforwards because it is difficult to track what happened last year. She recalled staff indicated the two new infrastructure projects funded by bonds had not been funded yet. She asked if staff wanted councilmembers to make amendments from the dais, noting some are related to decision packages. Mr. English recalled once the council begins deliberation on the budget, all the decision package are listed and council can make changes. Mayor Nelson suggested based on past practice, councilmembers submit amendments in writing to Director Turley so he can track them. Councilmember Teitzel thanked Mr. DeLilla for answering this question for him today. With regard to the infiltration facility in Mathay Ballinger, residents have expressed concern that that facility will result in the loss of park footprint. DP#80 to invest up to $500,000 to improve the park with a paved loop walkway, new shelter and picnic tables and permanent restrooms seems at odds with the infiltration facility. He asked if it would be possible to site the infiltration facility somewhere else such as on the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 26 Interurban Trail. Mr. DeLilla answered that stretch of the Interurban Trail that would be most likely to capture flows is owned by PUD. All the utilities in that tract area run perpendicular to the trail and the City only has a specific easement. PUD guards their property fairly aggressively in the event it is needed for future expansion or flexibility to house facilities. Putting a giant infiltration facility there would require quite the discussion with PUD and he did not think the odds for doing that would be good. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Edmonds Marsh water quality improvements and asked about the culverts on SR-104. Mr. DeLilla advised the City hired Doug Hardman and Associates with a grant from DOE to, in coordination with WSDOT, retrofit the catch basins on the west side of SR-104 to address pollutants. None of the money will be used on the culverts owned by WSDOT. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that was the $366,000 for Edmonds Marsh water quality improvements. Mr. DeLilla answered yes. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that would be repetitious if the culverts are replaced. Mr. DeLilla answered no, the culverts transmit flows from Shellabarger Creek from the east side to the west side; these are the catch basins in SR-104 and there are very specific small culverts that daylight into the marsh at various locations. This project will capture seven of them to mitigate flows. Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the Nuvoda predesign for $300,000 to address nitrogen levels at the WWTP and requested staff provide an update on that. Mr. English offered to work with Director Antillon on that. Councilmember Buckshnis commented that is a big topic of conversation for many people. Parks, Recreation & Human Services Director Angie Feser introduced Deputy Parks, Recreation & Human Services Director Shannon Burley who is participating remotely. She reviewed: • 2023-2028 Parks CIP/CFP Framework o PROS Plan Capital Recommendations 1. Acquisition to Fill Park System Gaps ‐ Secure additional land for neighborhood parks to address gaps 2. Open Space & Conservation Acquisitions ‐ Pursue acquisitions that adjoin city properties or conserve unique natural areas 3. Park Development & Enhancements – significant repairs needed for aging infrastructure 4. Yost Pool Replacement ‐ Refine options for the replacement of Yost Pool 5. Trail Connections – Needed to help link destinations across the community 6. ADA, Accessibility & Other User Convenience Enhancements ‐ Remove barriers and improve universal access o PROS Plan Goals (9) 1. ENGAGEMENT ‐ Encourage and facilitate meaningful public involvement in park and recreation planning. 2. DIVERSITY, EQUITY & INCLUSION ‐ Decrease barriers and provide increased opportunities for participation and representative cultural, heritage and art programs, events representing the diversity of Edmonds demographics. 3. PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE ‐ Provide an interconnected park system that offers a wide variety of year‐round recreation opportunities and experiences which support and enhance Edmonds’ cultural identity and the natural environment. 4. WATERFRONT USE & ACCESS ‐ Preserve and pursue opportunities to expand public access and enjoyment of Edmonds’ waterfront. 5. NATURAL RESOURCE & HABITAT CONSERVATION ‐ Conserve and provide access to natural resource lands for habitat conservation, recreation, and environmental education. 6. CLIMATE CHANGE, ADAPTATION & RESILIENCY ‐ Adapt to climate change and increase local park system resiliency by improving environmental conditions, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 27 stewardship and sustainability in parks, trails, open spaces and recreation facilities within planning, development, maintenance, and operations. 7. RECREATION PROGRAMS & FACILITIES ‐ Provide a varied and inclusive suite of recreation opportunities and experiences to promote health and wellness, year‐round activity and social engagement. 8. CULTURAL SERVICES ‐ Provide arts and cultural opportunities and experiences to promote an engaged and vibrant community. 9. PARK OPERATIONS & ADMINISTRATION ‐ Maintain and operate a modern, efficient park system that provides a high level of user comfort, safety and aesthetic quality, and protects capital investments. • Parks 2023-2028 CIP/CFP – based on PROS Plan o Project‐based versus Fund‐based o 2023 Projects = Decision Packages o 37 CIP/CFP Projects (9 last year) o 3 Programs (4 last year) o 5 Parkland Acquisition o Projects coded ▪ A – acquisition ▪ P – planning ▪ D – development ▪ R – renovation o Park CIP Revenue ▪ REET – Fund 126 ▪ REET – Fund 125 ▪ Park Impact Fees – fund 332-100 ▪ Tree Fund 143 – Land Acquisition ▪ Cemetery Trust Fund 137 – Columbarium expansion ▪ Operating Contribution – General Fund ▪ Investment Interest (3%) ▪ Donations ▪ Bond Proceeds ▪ Secured Grants ▪ Unsecured Grants/Funding • Current/ongoing Capital Projects o Complete Civic Park Redevelopment o 96th Ave Infiltration Project (Civic Park SW mitigation) o Greenhouse Installation o Deferred Maintenance/ Small capital projects • 2023-2028 Parks CIP/CFP Project Distribution Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 28 • Parks 2023-2028 CIP/ CFP Projects o Johnson Property – R2, P5 (DP#82) ▪ Demolition and Securing 1‐acre Property ‐ 2023 ▪ Master Plan / Public Input Process ‐ 2025 ▪ Estimated Cost $282,000 o Meadowdale Playfields – R3 ▪ Inclusive Playground ▪ Dugout roofs ▪ Light Fixtures ▪ Estimated Cost TBD o Mathay Ballinger Park – D5, D6, D7 (DP#80) ▪ Paved Loop Pathway ▪ Shelter with Picnic Tables ▪ Permanent Restroom ▪ Estimated Cost: $499,300 ▪ May be possibility of doing infiltration project at same time o Yost Park & Pool – R9, R4, R6, R11 (DP#81) ▪ Playground Replacement* – 2023 ▪ Trail/Bridge Repair – 2024 ▪ Tennis Court resurface – 2025 ▪ Pool Upgrades – 2025 ▪ Estimated Cost: $985,200 *Part of annual inclusive upgrade program o Columbarium Expansion Phase II– R8 ▪ Design Complete ▪ Fund 130 & 137 (Cemetery Trust Fund) ▪ Estimated Cost: $159,000 o Olympic Beach Park – R7 ▪ Renovation of existing restroom ▪ Estimated Cost: $53,000 o Pine Street Park – D10, D11, D12 ▪ Shelter with Picnic Tables – 2024 ▪ Paved Pathway – 2024 ▪ Canopy Shade Trees – 2024 ▪ Estimated Cost: $164,400 o Sierra Park – R8 ▪ Playground Replacement* – 2024 ▪ Estimated Cost: $187,500 o Neighborhood Park SE 1 – P2, D3 ▪ Park Planning – 2024 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 29 ▪ Park Construction – 2025 ▪ Estimated Cost: $899,100 + Parkland Acquisition (2023) o Waterfront Walkway Completion – Ebb Tide Section – P3, D14 ▪ Provides Continuous Accessibility ▪ Connect Brackett’s Landing North to Marina Beach Park ▪ Estimated Cost: $819,500 o Maplewood Hill Park – R12 ▪ Playground Replacement* – 2025 ▪ Oldest Playground in Park System, 38 Years ▪ Estimated Cost: $144,900 *Part of annual inclusive upgrade program o Marsh Estuary Restoration – A1, P4, D9 & D1 ▪ Estimated Cost: $14,642,500 + Restoration + Marina Beach Park Renovation o Elm Street Park – D16, D17, R14 ▪ Habitat Restoration – 2026 ▪ Nature Playground – 2026 ▪ Shelter with Picnic Tables – 2026 ▪ Estimated Cost: $225,100 o Neighborhood Park SR 99 – P6, D15 ▪ Planning – 2025 ▪ Construction – 2026 ▪ Estimated Cost: $926,100 + Parkland Acquisition (2024) o Neighborhood Park SE 2– P7, D18 ▪ Planning – 2026 ▪ Construction – 2027 ▪ Estimated Cost: $953,900 + Parkland Acquisition (2025) o 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor – P8, D19 ▪ No funding identified ▪ Parks project? ▪ Estimated Cost: $9,206,600 o Park & Facilities Maintenance Building – P1, D2 ▪ 40+ Year Old Building ▪ Estimated Cost: $5,762,600 ▪ Parks & Planning Board Recommendation: Begin project sooner than 2026 o Seaview Park Restroom – R16 ▪ ADA Improvements ▪ Replacement or Renovation of Restroom ▪ Estimated Cost: $417,900 o Yost Pool Replacement – R15 ▪ Pool is 50 Years Old ▪ Funding Source TBD ▪ Estimated Cost: $23,881,000 o Citywide Park Improvements/Capital Replacement – R17 (DP# 79) ▪ Backlog of 50+ Projects ▪ Small Capital Projects and Deferred Maintenance ▪ Job Order Contracting ▪ Estimated Cost: $2,700,000 o Signage & Wayfinding – R10 ▪ Trail identification, orientation markers, safety & regulatory messaging, park hours, park rules and etiquette, interpretive information and warning signs. ▪ Estimated Cost: $51,500 o Playground Upgrade Program – R13 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 30 ▪ Playground Replacement / Inclusive Upgrades* ▪ Locations to be determined ▪ Estimated Cost: $608,900 *part of annual inclusive upgrade program o Parkland Acquisition – A2, A3, A4 ▪ Neighborhood Parks SE1, SR99 & SE 2 ▪ Acquisition as Feasible ▪ Estimated Cost: $5,230,500 o Interurban Trail Expansion – A5 ▪ Acquisition of Lands, Easements and/or Rights‐of‐Way ▪ Estimated Cost: $985,585 • Operating Budget Notes o Yost Park / Shell Creek Study: $220,000 (DP #23) ▪ ARPA Funded ▪ Existing Conditions Analysis - Critical Areas Report - Cultural Resources Analysis ▪ Recommendations and Action Plan ▪ May become capital project • Prioritization of 2023 Projects 1. Civic Park completion (incl. 96th Ave Infiltration) 2. Greenhouse completion In process 3. Mathay Ballinger Park improvements 4. Yost Park Playground 5. Johnson Property demolition 2022 PROS Plan Projects 6. Yost Park/Shell Creek Study* (operating DP) o Ongoing ▪ Land acquisition ▪ Citywide improvements ▪ Deferred maintenance Council President Olson said she was excited to see the Yost Park Study, specifically the environmental aspects such as erosion. In that location, she would prioritize environmental issues over the playground. She thanked staff for signage on the marine sanctuary to remind people of the importance of keeping their dogs leashed there. She encouraged the public to keep their dogs leashed on the marine sanctuary, there will be enforcement because there is a lot at stake. She was also excited to hear about connection from Mathay Ballinger to the Interurban Trail which will be a wonderful improvement for the residents in that area. Councilmember Chen thanked Ms. Feser for the great information, relaying his excitement for the emphasis on ADA access including Mathay Ballinger and the connection to the Interurban Trail. He asked about the possibility of an interlocal agreement with Mountlake Terrace. They are doing a lot of work on the former golf course including a walking trail, playground, and fishing pier. He asked what an interlocal agreement process would look like. Ms. Feser answered she has had conversations with Mountlake Terrace staff over the last few years about that project. The project is progressing well, they are doing a lot of work, and have secured a lot of grants. There is a section on the northwest corner of the park in the design that Edmonds residents could have better/easier access to that is in the next phase of development. Mountlake Terrace has secured some grants for that but there is still a funding gap. They are going out to bid soon to finish drawings and construction so it is an ideal time for Edmonds to partner with them and bring resources to the table to provide park amenities for Edmonds residents on the edge of that park. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 31 Ms. Feser displayed a graphic of the park, identifying the northwest corner of the lake, the road, and the portion that is technically in Edmonds. In the next phase of development Mountlake Terrace is proposing a new formal entry to the park, an asphalt path along the edge and access to the water with dock, viewing platform and boardwalk, a gravel path and a soft natural fiber path. Next steps would include having a conversation with Mountlake Terrace to see how much money they need to partner with Edmonds, what improvements are needed, and the long term maintenance. Partnering with neighboring jurisdictions is one of the goals and objectives of the PROS plan. Councilmember Chen commented it sounds like a great opportunity. Observing there was no decision package in the budget, he asked if the council should propose a budget amendment for that. Ms. Feser answered yes, it could be part of the budget discussion. A preliminary number the council could consider is $200,000. If the council includes that in the capital program, she can approach Mountlake Terrace about forming an interlocal agreement for those shared improvements. Councilmember Paine thanked Ms. Feser for referencing how projects address goals and objectives in the PROS Plan. She asked about the schedule for reevaluating park impact fees. Ms. Feser answered it is usually done every 8-10 years; it is an in-depth process that usually includes hiring a consultant to consider the different approaches to park impact fees and determine if the existing fee should be changed. Councilmember Paine asked the vintage of the existing park impact fee modality. Ms. Feser estimated it was 2013 but she will confirm and email council. Councilmember Paine suggested due to the new PROS Plan, it may be a good time to consider that. Councilmember Nand said her questions relate to the playground upgrades at Sierra and proposed Neighborhood Parks 1, 2 3. One aspect of the pandemic is a lot of people do not feel comfortable working out in indoors gyms. Edmonds has a large senior population; some parks in Europe are specifically designed for seniors to exercise. She suggested, as an aspect of ADA accessibility and inclusion, that parks include all age accessibility. There is also interest in community gardens and parklets. Flowerbeds such as the ones downtown that have been adopted by businesses would improve walkability in areas of Highway 99 where there are proposals to add density. Places that have previously been commercial will become residential, raising the question of improving walkability. She envisioned she, Councilmember Chen and other councilmembers who are interested in more green, more walkability and natural beauty on the Highway 99 corridor could provide budget amendments to accomplish that. Ms. Feser answered it would be worthwhile to have a conversation regarding what that would look like. The $450,000/year that is budgeted for smaller projects could be used to identify projects on Highway 99. Councilmember Nand suggested consideration also be given to other areas of the City that do not have as many parks. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE AND SECONDED TO EXTEND FOR 10 MINUTES. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY (4- 3); COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS 13. ADJOURN The council meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.