Cmd111522
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
November 15, 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
Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., & Human Serv. Dir.
Susan McLaughlin, Planning & Dev. Dir.
Todd Tatum, Comm. Serv. & Econ. Dev. Dir.
Rob English, City Engineer
Shannon Burley, Deputy Parks, Rec. & Human
Serv. Dir.
Mike De Lilla, Senior Utilities Engineer
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
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
Council President Olson 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. PRESENTATION/UPDATE ON LOWER PERRINVILLE CREEK RESTORATION AND
PERRINVILLE CREEK BASIN ANALYSIS
City Engineer Rob English introduced Senior Utilities Engineer Mike De Lilla and John Ambrose and
Paul Schlenger, ESA.
Senior Utilities Engineer Mike De Lilla explained his presentation is a summary of the Perrinville Creek
Basin Work 2013-Present and ESA will describe what has happened so far with the Lower Perrinville
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 2
project. In his presentation, the text in italics is updated November 2022, the other text has been provided
in previous presentations.
Mr. De Lilla reviewed the Perrinville Creek Stormwater Flow Reduction Retrofit Study:
• Current Basin Limits (Tetra Tech – Figure 5)
• 2015 Report Project Criteria
o 30 possible projects (14 Edmonds/16 Lynnwood) feasible sites
o 12 recommended (7 Edmonds/5 Lynnwood) (Meeting all 3 criteria below)
▪ Project cost below $450,000* per cfs of 2-year peak flow reduction
▪ Overall 2-year peak flow reduction greater than 0.15 cfs
▪ Limited siting and construction constraints
*2015 dollars
• Perrinville Flow Reduction Projects/Studies/Agreements (City)
o Completed
▪ (2013) Talbot Road Drainage Impr/Perrinville Creek Mitigation
▪ (2015) Perrinville Flow Reduction Study
▪ (2015) Drainage Improvements (Dellwood & 191st - Raingardens and Infiltration)
▪ (2016) Discussions with SCCD* for Municipal Raingarden Program
▪ (2018) Seaview Infiltration Project (Phase 1)
▪ (2019) Interlocal Agreement with SCCD*
▪ (2020) 83rd Ave Raingardens
▪ (2020) 81st Ave Raingardens
* Snohomish County Conservation District
o 2022/2023
▪ Seaview Infiltration Project (Phase 2) Nov 14,2022 Start
▪ 83rd Ave Raingardens (Phase 2) Delayed due to Staffing
▪ Geomorphology Study (Completed)
▪ $150,000 DP to further review Edmonds Portion of Basin
▪ $500,000 DOE Grant Application with Lynnwood to further expand Basin Analysis and
cover entire basin.
▪ Submitting for USDOT grant due Feb 6, 2023 for Lower Perrinville project.
▪ Begin negotiation of 2023 Contract with SCCD* ( Late Fall)
▪ Continued progress on SMAP (due March 2023)
• City/Snohomish County Conservation District Improvement
Private Raingardens # Year Installed Watershed
7905 189th Pl. SW 1 2019 Perrinville
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 3
8011 180th St. SW 1 2019 Perrinville
18605 79th Pl. W 1 2019 Perrinville
18505 83rd Ave. W 1 2017 Perrinville
7910 187th Pl. SW 1 2021 Perrinville
19011 78th Pl. W 1 2021 Perrinville
7904 191st St. SW 1 2021 Perrinville
7628 191st St. SW 1 2021 Perrinville
8204 182nd Pl. SW 1 2021 Perrinville
7912 191st St. SW 1 2021 Perrinville
• Updates to City Codes Specific to Perrinville Basin
o Development Retrofit (applies to existing unmitigated impervious surfaces to remain):
▪ 25% => 50% (currently 25% citywide)
▪ 0% in 2015
o Flow control: Match 50-year peak => Match 100-year peak (ie. King County Level 3
Standard) for developments of 10,000sf or more impervious surface area
o Edmonds currently in discussions with Lynnwood to make code changes so that these
requirements are applicable there as well.
o Since June 7, 2022 Debrief
▪ Lynnwood staff recommending to their council for approval these same updates for their
portion of the Perrinville Basin.
• Perrinville Basin decision packages for 2023
o DP#39 Lower Perrinville Creek
▪ $750,000 (get permanent design to 60% and submit for grants)
o DP#40 Seaview Infiltration Project Phase 2
▪ $10,000 (project construction closeout
o DP#43 Lower Perrinville Creek Restoration Project
▪ $150,000 (Edmonds basin analysis specific work)
o DP#44 Perrinville Creek Flow Management Project
▪ $120,000 (Raingardens/Flow Reduction/SCCD Work)
o DP#45 Storm & Surface Water Comp Plan Update
▪ $600,000 (portion of these funds will finish DOE required SMAP, which has to be part of
Comp Plan)
• Lynnwood Accomplishments
o Completed
▪ (2016) Maximizing the volume of stormwater going into the Lynndale Park infiltration
gallery under the dog park. Exceeding its design capacity and performing well.
▪ (2016/2017) Retrofit to the Blue Ridge Pond.
▪ (2017) Lynnwood Elementary School is 100% infiltration.
▪ (2017) 12 rain gardens with the Snohomish County Conservation District
o 2022/2023
▪ Stream Keepers plan on installing 6-10 rain gardens with the Perrinville Creek Salmon
and Trout Relief fund this summer.
▪ Teaming with Edmonds for $500,000 DOE grant to study basin to find additional
mitigation areas.
John Ambrose, ESA, reviewed:
• Project Team
o Environmental Science Associates (ESA)
▪ Hydrologic and Hydraulic Modeling/Design
▪ Geomorphology
▪ Restoration Engineering
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 4
▪ Fish Ecology
▪ Permitting
o Hanson Professional Services
▪ Railroad and Road Bridge Engineering
o Shannon & Wilson
▪ Geotechnical Engineering
o Duane Hartman & Associates
▪ Survey
• Scope of Work for Interim Action and 60% Design of Long-term Solution at Railroad and Talbot
Road (red items complete)
o Preparing Necessary Information for Infrastructure and Stream Design
▪ Topographic survey (utility locate), hydraulic modeling and hydrology, geotechnical
investigation, geomorphic analysis/sediment transport, and cultural resources assessment
o Design of Interim Action (stream channel and diversion structure modification)
▪ Meet with landowners, develop multiple alignment approaches, stake out alignments for
property owners, modify alignment per input
o 60% Design of Long-term Solution Railroad Crossing and Talbot Road
▪ Structural engineering, bridge design, stream channel design, permitting
o Public Engagement and City Council Engagement; Stakeholder Meetings
• Proposed Sequencing
1. Interim action – in summer 2022 (2023), excavate new stream channel from diversion
structure to BNSF culvert
2. Long-term solution design – replace undersized culverts through BNSF embankment with
properly sized bridge or box culvert
3. Watershed management recommendations/activities
4. Fish passage at Talbot Road – replace undersized culvert at Talbot Road with properly sized
bridge or culvert
• Interim Alternatives
o Dashed lines show three alternative alignments for interim action
o Blue box is City’s diversion structure
o Maintenance of diversion under 2/3 alternatives
o These have been presented to WDFW, tribes, and landowners
o Yellow and green alignments deemed unfeasible
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 5
• Currently Proposed Alternative
Existing Trees
o Attributes of Currently Proposed Alternative
1. Accommodates the potential future, final channel location through private property.
2. Maintains viewshed and privacy of landowners to the degree practical
3. Improves flood and sediment conveyance to railroad culvert
4. Restores fish access to Lower Perrinville Creek most of the year (diversion needs to be
maintained)
o Hydraulic Analysis of Currently Proposed Alignment
• Long-term solution in Lower Perrinville Creek
o Properly sized replacement structure through BNSF railroad embankment
o Properly sized channel and stream mouth
o Eliminate diversion
o White alignment proposed
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 6
• Talbot Road Culvert Replacement
o Properly sized replacement structure at Talbot Road
o Sediment management upstream
o White alignment proposed
Paul Schlenger, Fisheries Biologist, ESA, reviewed:
• Salmon and Trout Potentially in Perrinville Creek
o Coho salmon
o Steelhead
o Cutthroat trout
o Rainbow trout
o Chinook salmon (estuary and lowermost reaches only)
▪ Would not use Perrinville for spawning but juvenile will use lower parts of stream
o Photo of Coho salmon in Shell Creek this year
• Will salmon be able to access Perrinville Creek?
o Yes, the restoration alternatives all include stream slopes less than 5%
o This is below the slope limit Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Fish
Passage Guidance identifies as the maximum slopes for salmon and trout
▪ Coho salmon up to 7% slopes
▪ Steelhead and cutthroat trout up to 12% slopes
o WDFW guidance is consistent with slopes at which coho were observed in study by Tulalip
Tribes and Skagit River System Cooperative in Skagit and Samish Rivers
o This is below the slope limit for young Chinook salmon identified I steam-mouth study by
Tulalip Tribes and Skagit River System Cooperative
Council President Olson thanked staff and the consultant for the color coding in the presentation. She also
expressed her appreciation for the replies she received to questions she submitted.
Councilmember Paine asked whether eelgrass could be expected in the nearshore when the lower end of
Perrinville Creek is built out. Mr. Schlenger answered beyond the stream mouth, patchy or continuous
eelgrass could be expected. Councilmember Paine asked if the City was engaging with BNSF on any
funding opportunities. Mr. Schlenger answered yes, relaying they are also working with BNSF on a
regional study. They meet with BNSF every two weeks and have talked to them specifically about this
project and the City’s pursuit of a U.S. Department of Transportation grant. Councilmember Paine
expressed her pleasure that Edmonds was working with Lynnwood who is a key participant in this
watershed. She appreciated the updates and hoped they would occur every six months.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 7
Councilmember Teitzel thanked the team for their very interesting presentation. With the current
diversion structure, he observed it was not possible for fish to access Perrinville Creek beyond that
structure. Mr. Schlenger agreed, advising the structure starts with a vertical drop which fish cannot cross.
Councilmember Teitzel asked if the original stream bed traversed the McLaughlin property before the
diversion structure was placed. Mr. Ambrose answered there is no data available to determine exactly
how the stream channel moved over time. Perrinville Creek carries a high sediment load which is natural
for streams like this along Puget Sound, cutting through glacial sediments and depositing that material in
the same area it is deposited now. Those channels move over time because they do not have the power to
move a large amount of sediment so it deposits in an alluvia fan and the location varies over time. There
is indication of low lying depressions to the south, beyond the Robinson property, so it is likely the creek
occupied that position for some time. Without accurate records, it is difficult to say where the original
streambed was. Available photos only date back to the 1930s when modifications had already made. Mr.
Schlenger commented the railroad has been in that location since late the 1800s, but there has not always
been the embankment. Mr. Ambrose explained the first original impact was the railroad, followed by
Talbot Road and then development of the properties.
Councilmember Teitzel said he is very interested in salmon recovery in all the streams in Edmonds.
Presuming the streambed issue and the culvert under Talbot Road can be resolved, the stream aligned
properly, and a box culvert under the railroad, he asked how far salmon could realistically be expected to
travel upstream beyond Talbot Road. Mr. Schlenger said he hasn’t walked the entire stream but current
databases show about .2 miles from Talbot Road or 1,000 feet upstream. The stream extends a long way
beyond that and he did not know if it was in a natural state or if it could be modified to improve how far
salmon travel. There are natural barriers in streams and he was unsure if the endpoint defined in the data
was a natural or manmade barrier.
Councilmember Nand explained she just joined the council and her awareness of culverts and the issue
comes from the huge controversy with salmon access for Orcas, the state and local municipalities playing
political football with who is responsible for restoring natural habitat streams before Orcas become
extinct. She asked the team to comment generally on upstream partners and the quality of water coming to
Edmonds and if the water and habitat would be healthy enough to support salmon spawning. Mr.
Schlenger responded water quality and quantity is definitely a challenge in urban settings. He stays
optimistic as there are still salmon in a lot of coastal streams and if they have access, they use the habitat.
There are plenty of examples where providing good habitat can extend the reach and that aspect can be
maintained despite the upstream development. Water quality is an important issue and they are learning
more about contaminants and particulates that get into the water; that can be more challenging to address
because it may require lifestyle changes. He intentionally separated his answer in terms of habitat as there
are meaningful things that can be done to improve the structure of the steam; the water quality is a
different challenge that requires different tools.
Mr. Schlenger asked if the City had data about Lynnwood water quality. Mr. De Lilla answered there is
whatever is required by Ecology and then there is a basin by basin analysis like the City is doing with
Perrinville where an issue has been identified and the City needs to go over and above what is required by
the state. That is where discussions need to happen because the state sets the overall ground rules, but it is
up to the entities, such as Edmonds and Lynnwood, to address problems over and above. The other issue
is how far to go, for example 6PPD which a hot topic that deserves a lot of attention. Although not an
issue for human water quality, it is an issue for fish habitat. That discussion is in its infancy; everyone
wants to do the right thing. The intent with whatever is put in is to make it as future proof as possible so
something different doesn’t need to be done in 2-3 years. Although he hates to say it, sometimes waiting
for the data is the right answer.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 8
Councilmember Buckshnis commented although she is not a scientist, she knows a lot of scientists. She
asked for a copy of morphology report. She relayed WRIA 8, Puget Sound Partnership, Salmon
Recovery, etc. are interested in what’s going on. She suggested inviting Senator Cantwell’s team to visit
the stream, recalling U.S. Representative Larsen’s team already visited. She recalled Senator Cantwell
included $3.5 million in the transportation budget for the Meadowdale project. There is also a lot of
money available in the infrastructure bills.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the Tribes have given a certain date to restore the stream. Mr. De
Lilla answered those discussions are still in process, no date has been set. Councilmember Buckshnis
asked if there are plans to look at the post office area and whether a diversion pipe will be needed. Mr. De
Lilla answered the post office area will be considered, but the ground water is very high there, which
prevents infiltration and requires consideration of other alternatives. At the same time, it is federal
property so it will take time. Councilmember Buckshnis reiterated her suggestion for funding via the
infrastructure and inflation bills.
Council President Olson referred to the sequencing slide, observing the interim project would be done
first and the final after. She expressed concern with getting grant money for infrastructure before it is all
obligated to other projects. Mr. De Lilla answered the interim and permanent alignments are actually one
in the same. Once that work is done, the railroad culvert or bridge would be done and then the work on
Talbot Road and on the diversion structure. The goal is to minimize doing double work. The work being
done now is to get the design to about 60%, the level that makes the most sense for submitting for grants
and the level BNSF wants for their funding.
5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson described procedures for audience comments.
Kristy Flynn, Edmonds, representing herself, her husband Todd and their neighbors Jackie and Charles
McLaughlin, explained they live at the lower basin of Perrinville Creek and the creek flows through their
yards prior to passing under the railroad and into the Salish Sea. She emphasized an interim and long term
solution for Perrinville Creek is a highly complicated project. They believe a solution can be implemented
that balances a healthy creek habitat with homeowner interests. She encouraged the council to consider
their interests as both citizens and homeowners and to ask themselves what they would want if they
owned these properties. They have been in continuous discussion with the City on a solution and they and
the City have had many concerns and questions along the way. They have not delayed the project; for
example, the City’s original proposal, which they had concerns about, was later determined by the City
and consultants to be inoperable due to sewer lines on the west side of their properties. From that point
forward, they have worked with the City on an option that is workable for all parties including the Tribes
and the Department of Fish and Wildlife and until recently it seemed like the effort was headed toward an
agreeable solution.
Ms. Flynn continued, however, they have now been informed of a potential change in the City’s position
which is concerning as they thought this was headed toward an interim solution that would be beneficial
to all parties and was consistent with history. Perrinville Creek will never be a spawning habitat for
salmon unless the following happens: BNSF opens a wider outflow to the Salish Sea than the current 32”
pipe, the pipe west of Talbot Road is redone to allow fish passage, and the amount of stormwater in the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 9
creek is drastically reduced to perhaps 1984 era conditions. These stormwaters originate in Lynnwood
and starting in 2019 began to send massive amounts of water through South County Park, scouring the
creek bed and now sending tons of rock and sediment into the lowest part of the creek through their
properties and onto the beach. They appreciate Mike De Lilla’s collaborative work style and are confident
a reasonable agreement for an interim solution can be reached and achieved that satisfies all involved
parties by adequately addressing all the concerns and does not misconstrue history.
Joe Scordino, Edmonds, referred to comments in the Perrinville Creek presentation such as alternative,
proposal and may be different than originally discussed, questioning whether this should be a council
decision and whether it should have been a presentation to council and how the alternatives affect citizens
as well as the natural resources. He also heard in the presentation that consideration is being given to
leaving the diversion structure. With the diversion structure, juvenile salmon in the creek are shot out into
saltwater during high flows; they can make it back but they die if that happens a couple times. He
supported a totally thought out plan that protects the natural resources, protects citizens, and finds a way
to address the issues. In March 2021, the mayor’s put out a press release stating there would be a council-
approved restoration plan. The proposed approach is wrong because it does not look at the big picture. He
suggested the City consider a diversion structure upstream of the post office where the pipe starts and
divert water under 76th Avenue. There is a similar structure on Daly Street for Shell Creek. Leaving the
diversion structure at the lower end is ridiculous as it relates to natural resources. This should be a council
decision with citizen input. He was concerned about natural resources, but he was also concerned about
the citizens of Edmonds. He was troubled that every year there was a new CIP, it is supposed to be a 6-
year plan.
Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, thanked Mayor Nelson for joining other mayors in Snohomish County to
advocate for enhanced safety measures, and although that is a good first step, it is not enough. The
council needs to consider what additional legislation it can pass to help law enforcement; the council
should seek input from the police chief and act accordingly and quickly. The no camping in public spaces
was a good first step and more needs to be done. He was disappointed the decision package regarding the
prosecuting attorney was withdrawn and suggested it was a worthwhile discussion for the council to have.
In his opinion, the City would be better served by a different prosecuting attorney.
7. RECEIVED FOR FILING
1. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM JAEBEOM KOH FOR FILE
8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1, 2022
2. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 2, 2022
3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7, 2022
4. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS
5. PERMANENT BD2 DESIGNATED STREET FRONT MAP AND BD USE TABLE
CLARIFICATIONS
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 10
1. PUBLIC HEARING - CG STEP BACK INTERIM ORDINANCE
Planning and Development Director Susan McLaughlin explained this item is before the council as a
result of discussion with the community, staff and council about the Highway 99 subarea plan and 5-year
action. Subsequent to that community members researched materials in the EIS, recognizing that step
backs were discussed in the draft EIS, but were not included in the subsequent final EIS mitigation
measures or in the development code update to Chapter 16.60.
Ms. McLaughlin explained the subarea plan was adopted in August 2017 and was the result of a
significant amount of public engagement and mobilizing around goals for the corridor which included
fostering revitalization on the corridor. One of key points at that time was recognizing that adjacent cities
were yielding good benefits from development along the corridor including not only housing but also
public improvements. Recognizing that interest and the need, the City engaged in the subarea plan. At the
end of that process, chapter 16.60 was updated and some of those development regulations included more
stringent development regulations for the CG zone such as ground level transparency, streetscape
requirements, step backs adjacent to residential, and fostering transit oriented development. In parallel
with those recommendations, a draft EIS was created which was a planned action, basically recognizing
the cumulative impacts of upzoning the area and mitigating against those impacts in the draft EIS and
subsequently in the final adopted EIS. There are discussions in the draft EIS about step backs adjacent to
and across the street. At the last council hearing, staff recognized the concern from the neighborhood and
wanted to support quick action similar to what was done in the BD2 zone. She commented the City
received a VISION 2040 award from the Puget Sound Regional Council for this plan.
Ms. McLaughlin acknowledged there was some confusion about the draft EIS as it relates to step backs
across the street from single family residences which resulted in:
• Interim Ordinance process
o Council adopted emergency interim ordinance (Ordinance 4278) on October 4, 2022 to put in
place step backs across the street
o Council public hearing within 60 days (November 15)
o Council must issue findings to retain or vacate interim ordinance.
• Interim CG Step back across from RS zone
2. For buildings across the street from RS zones, the portion of the building above 25 feet in
height shall step back no less than 8 feet from the required street setback. That portion of
building over 55 feet in height shall step back no less than 16 feet from the required street
setback.
o Diagram of step back
• Critical information discovered since emergency interim ordinance
o Step backs across the street from RS zones were considered and dismissed in 2017
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 11
▪ Council discussed on June 20, July 18, and July 31, 2017
- July 18 staff agenda memo offered step back options of an even lesser extent of 5’;
Council did not include step backs in their recommended draft language although it
was discussed at hearing and staff made explanation of why they were not
recommended.
▪ Council unanimously approved CG code without step backs across the street from RS on
August 15, 2017 (along with unanimous approval of Subarea Plan and Planned Action
SEPA FEIS)
▪ Step backs adjacent to RS zones were included in the CG code in revised ECDC 16.60,
those across the street were not included
Ms. McLaughlin explained most rights-of-way are 60’ wide. When adding 10-20 feet setbacks on either
side for residential or the new CG zone requirements, results in a 80’ separation across the street from a
single family residence. It was concluded via consultant analysis and review and discussion with council
that 80’ of separation provides sunlight, respect of privacy, etc. The council also confirmed the
importance of a robust streetscape design to beautify the street edge which was subsequently adopted in
chapter 16.60.
Staff has learned a lot since October 4th and she talked to some of the neighborhood stakeholders today.
She validated that change is difficult, especially the transition between single family and seven stories
allowed in the CG zone. She was not negating that concern, but wanted to pinpoint a solution that did not
go back on robust conversations and decisions made with developers and the neighboring communities
along with staff and consultant analysis because it is important to have developer confidence and
partnerships with developers to get public improvements in this neighborhood.
Ms. McLaughlin reviewed:
• Permanent ordinance process
o Emergency ordinance valid through April 6, 2023
o Council must issue findings to retain or vacate interim ordinance.
▪ Direct staff to draft findings for discussion at December council meeting
o Based on new information, staff recommends vacating the interim ordinance
▪ Recognizing benefit of early collaboration with neighborhood, staff recommends
neighborhood meeting requirements at the onset of projects as part of the minor code
amendment package anticipated to go to Council in early Q1
o If retained, staff will take project through the planning board to consider modifications, and
back to council in early 2023
Councilmember Buckshnis commented it was helpful to see the minutes of the council vote. That
planning process took a long time and she did not recall the step back issue in this area. She recalled
discussing it ad nauseum for the downtown business area. She recommended continuing with this
ordinance and expressed her support for step backs. Ms. McLaughlin advised the minutes were circulated
to council today, recognizing that was a critical part of staff’s recommendation tonight.
Councilmember Nand recalled Ms. McLaughlin mentioned at previous meetings concerns with developer
confidence about proceeding with projects if there are zoning changes or if the community and planning
board recommend changes to the subarea plan approved in 2017. She asked if any developers have
expressed qualms or a desire to pull back if the neighborhood and planning board process recommends
significant changes to the subarea plan reflective of the considerable pushback council has received from
the community. Ms. McLaughlin answered one of unfortunate things about an emergency ordinance is it
does not go through the required notification process. Staff has heard concerns from the development
community who already have projects in pipeline; however, there has not been a large scale notification
to the other affected parcels, a total of 39.3 acres of development potential. She would love to have an
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 12
opportunity to do that depending on the council discussion tonight. She anticipated the council would
likely hear from the development community during the public hearing testimony.
Councilmember Tibbott said he was very interested in the public testimony. He asked staff to review the
decision the council is being asked to make and the timeline. Ms. McLaughlin answered tonight is a
public hearing; typically on public hearing evenings, council listens to the community and staff,
deliberates and ask questions, but does not make a decision. Staff will come back to the council in
December if council decides tonight to move forward with an emergency ordinance. Staff will also come
back to council after taking this through the planning board in early 2023. Councilmember Tibbott
relayed his understanding of the process: the council will be listening tonight, forming opinions over the
next couple weeks and sometime in December, make a decision whether to retain the interim ordinance or
abandon it. Senior Planner Mike Clugston responded the council’s decision will be whether to uphold the
interim ordinance and send to the planning board for further review/recommendation or to
vacate/eliminate it.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday pointed out section 3 of the interim ordinance states no later than the next
regular meeting immediately following the hearing, the city council shall adopt findings of fact on the
subject of this interim ordinance and either justify its continued effectiveness or repeal the interim
ordinance. While the council does not have to give him that direction tonight, some action needs to be
taken at next week’s council meeting with regard to either continuing with the interim ordinance or
repealing it.
Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding that means the council would not wait until December,
but taking action next week. Mr. Taraday said he was not clear if Ms. McLaughlin was referencing some
other action that would occur in December, but the decision whether to continue with the interim
ordinance is a decision that needs to be made next week.
Councilmember Paine agreed the minutes would be very helpful. She asked if the Supplemental EIS will
still be pursued. Ms. McLaughlin answered yes, as the council took action on the SEIS.
With regard to a permanent decision being made in December, Council President Olson asked if the
council wants to continue the interim ordinance because councilmembers are not ready to make a decision
on the permanent ordinance, would that be a finding of fact to continue the interim ordinance. Mr.
Taraday answered yes, that is the reason for an interim ordinance, to finalize the planning process. He was
not clear from Ms. McLaughlin’s remarks whether the reference to December was adoption of a new
permanent CG or something else. The interim ordinance can remain in place until a permanent ordinance
is ready to be adopted. There is nothing that requires the interim ordinance remain in place during the
continued analysis. The council has a decision to make during this period of time the City is reevaluating
development in the corridor about what is best for the community during the next few months, whether it
is better to have the interim in place or have no interim ordinance in place and go back to the preexisting
regulations. That is fundamentally the council’s choice.
Council President Olson asked for clarification, if the council maintains the interim ordinance, the council
still has the option at the end of the interim period or any tine between now and then to vacate it. The
council is not locked into the entire interim period. Mr. Taraday answered even if the council decided
next week to leave the interim in place, it is not obligated to leave it in place for the full six month period.
At any point in time if the council gets new information or becomes aware of a change in circumstances
that requires the interim ordinance to repealed earlier, the council is not prevented from repealing it
earlier.
Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 13
Stanley Piha, Seattle, one of owners of the vacant land at 84th & 236th, said he learned about the CG
emergency interim ordinance after its passage by council on October 4, 2022. For nearly one year, they
have been under a purchase and sale agreement with a builder/developer to acquire the site. During the
period of this agreement, they have been working diligently on plans to construct a multifamily transit
oriented development in accordance with the zoning code and rules put in place by the City. They have
not requested any deviations from the code and have applied the requirements as mandated by the code
and development plans. The intent was to close at the end of December; the interim ordinance has thrown
this into an abyss and they do not know what the possibilities of this process will be. He was taken aback
to learn of the implementation of the CG interim ordinance. First, the subject of step backs was fully
vetted in the public hearing process in 2017. Public hearing presentations to the city council by the
consultant, senior planner, and FEIS consultant concluded that step backs for residentially zoned
properties across the street were not warranted due to the separation generated by the required setbacks on
each property plus the width of the City right-of-way. A step back for single family residential properties
adjacent to CG zoned properties were warranted and were included in the planned action.
Mr. Piha continued, proof of this is clearly found in the public record and video of the city council
meetings occurring on June 20, July 31, and August 15, 2017. The presentation to the council by Kernen
Lien on October 4, 2022 that resulted in the passage of the CG interim ordinance was misleading and
inaccurate. Contrary to his assertions as evidenced by the public hearing noted previously, the step backs
across the street from single family zoned properties was fully presented, discussed and vetted during the
public hearing. Councilmembers Teitzel, Tibbott, Buckshnis and then-Councilmember Nelson were in
attendance and provided comment and questions. At the conclusion of the August 15, 2017 public
hearing, the city council voted unanimously to approve the planned action. It is understandable with so
much City business to attend to that the institutional memory of prior public hearings and council
meetings can get lost, but the record is clear. The subject of step backs for residential properties across the
street was not missed and was thoroughly discussed and vetted by the council before passing the
ordinance.
Brian Bergstrom, Synergy Construction, owner representative of the developer of the property at 84th &
236th, commented they were quite surprised to learn of the passage of the emergency ordinance on
October 4, 2022 and immediately mobilized their architects to analyze what this meant to the feasibility
of their project. The impact was significant, 40-50 housing units may potentially be lost if the emergency
ordinance were to stand as currently implemented. They recognize this issue arose due to concerns from
the community and hope this project will become part of this community. He expressed their willingness
to work with City staff to find a workable solution for the project, the City and the community. They
chose Edmonds due to its wonderful attributes and hope to continue and close their transaction with Mr.
Piha. He hoped a timely solution could be found as every day this continues has a significant impact on
their project. Their project is currently in for design review which has now been placed on hold.
Theresa Hollis, Edmonds, a resident in the neighborhood where the Terrace Place Apartments are
proposed, expressed her appreciation for the historical context Ms. McLaughlin provided today about the
robust public engagement process in developing the subarea plan for Highway 99. She asserted none of
the neighbors on 84th Street who participated in the 2017 public engagement process asked the City to get
rid of the transition between single family and general commercial or high rise multifamily. Yet, that is
what happened in the council decision making. The lots on 84th between 238th and 236th were upzoned
from multifamily 1.5 to CG. It will be a huge change to have a 6 story structure plus underground parking
on the corner of 236th & 84th. She preferred the project proposed a couple years ago, a 4-story adult family
home as there needs to be more supportive housing units, but that project did not move forward. There is
no rush to make a decision; she recognized from the business perspective, this is rehashing past decision
making. A single family home on this site was razed about 20 years ago and the property has remained
vacant. There is no longer a transition zone between single family and high rise multifamily on 84th. The
most significant mitigation to address that is the step backs. She requested the council permanently codify
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 14
step backs for high rise buildings across the street from single family where the transition zone has been
eliminated.
Judi Gladstone, Edmonds, a resident adjacent to the Highway 99 subarea planning area, voiced her
support for making the emergency ordinance passed in October 2022 a permanent revision to the
Edmonds zoning code. She recognized there was some history to this issue but hoped the council
appreciated those who participated in that process were not representative of the impacted neighborhoods
adjacent to the subarea plan. In her opinion, one of the main reasons for the step back was to provide the
transition that was taken away by changing the area from multifamily to CG and mitigating the bulk and
mass. Siting multifamily across the street from single family residential has a significant impact on
transportation, parks and sidewalks and aesthetically. The zoning changes would not have been needed if
it had not been upzoned to General Commercial and it remained multifamily as was done on the northern
part of Highway 99 corridor. While the council may have discussed this, she assumed the neighbors did
not voice their opinions. She lived in this area at the time and knew nothing about it. The step backs are
important and provide the mitigation needed to provide for a transition. In other areas along Highway 99,
the single family residential is not adjacent. It is not about shadows and distance, it is about aesthetics,
traffic, parks, etc. This is one of the only mitigations available; she appreciated the developers offer to
have a conversation. She supports multifamily in this corridor but wants to preserve the sense of
neighborhood as described in the comprehensive plan and the subarea plan. She hoped the council would
honor that even if the wrong decision was made in the past.
With no further public testimony, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing.
Council President Olson commented in light of the information provided, she sensed the council needed
more time to make a decision.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT FINDINGS OF FACT AND RESOLUTION TO
EXTEND THE INTERIM ORDINANCE.
Council President Olson commented there is also the option to ask the city attorney to draft finding of fact
to retain and to lift the interim ordinance.
Mayor Nelson asked if the motion needed to state the timeline for the extension. Mr. Taraday answered
the six month limit under state law would be the default unless the council directs him otherwise. Section
2 of the interim ordinance states it has a 6 month duration.
Council President Olson clarified her motion was to extend the emergency ordinance.
Councilmember Teitzel said he was unsure what the motion would accomplish. His understanding was
the council will vote next week whether to extend the emergency ordinance for six months and during
that six months, the council could choose to lift it, eliminate it or something else.
Council President Olson explained findings of fact need to be adopted next week to extend the ordinance
and they will not be prepared unless the council asks for them.
Councilmember Tibbott clarified the motion is for the city attorney bring back findings of fact next week.
Council President Olson agreed.
Councilmember Chen relayed his understanding that community members and certain developers are
seeking solutions for a win-win. If the council extends the emergency ordinance for six months and a
workable solution can be reached, he wanted to be certain that the council had the option to lift the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 15
interim ordinance sooner. Council President Olson assured the council can lift the ordinance as soon as
resolution is reached.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED 2023-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN &
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
City Engineer Rob English advised Senior Utilities Engineer Mike De Lilla, Public Works Director Oscar
Antillon, Parks, Recreation are available to answer questions. He reviewed the following, highlighting
several projects:
• 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
• Public Works & Utilities – Transportation
o 2023 Pavement Preservation Projects
▪ 2023 Pavement Preservation Program DP#64
- Decision package will be reduced from $1.5 million to $1.1 million
▪ 76th Ave Overlay Close-out DP#65($15k)
▪ Main St. Overlay 6th Ave – 8th 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 244th St-238th St DP#67 ($1.1M)
▪ Hwy 99 Stage 4 224th St-220th at 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)
▪ 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)
▪ Elm Way Walkway DP#78 ($901K)
*increase from decision package in budget
• Public Works & Utilities - Utilities
o 2023 Water Utility
▪ 2022 Replacement Program DP#34 ($10k)
▪ 2024 Replacement Program DP#35 ($506K)
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 16
▪ 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)
▪ Inadvertently left out of 2023 decision package
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 the City owns and maintains
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
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
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 17
▪ 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)
Parks, Recreation & Human Services Director Angie Feser advised Deputy Parks, Recreation & Human
Services Director Shannon Burley was also available to answer questions Ms. Feser reviewed:
• 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
• 2023-2028 Parks CIP/CFP Project Distribution
• 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
o Yost Park & Pool – R9, R4, R6, R11 (DP#81)
▪ Playground Replacement* – 2023
▪ Trail/Bridge Repair – 2024
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 18
▪ Tennis Court resurface – 2025
▪ Pool Upgrades – 2025
▪ Estimated Cost: $985,200
*Part of annual inclusive upgrade program
• Parks 2024-2027 Capital Projects
o Sierra Park – R8
▪ Playground Replacement* – 2024
▪ Estimated Cost: $187,500
*Part of annual inclusive upgrade program
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 Playground Upgrade Program – R13
▪ Playground Replacement / Inclusive Upgrades*
▪ Locations to be determined
▪ Estimated Cost: $608,900
*part of annual inclusive upgrade program
o Pine Street Park – D10, D11, D12
▪ Shelter with Picnic Tables – 2024
▪ Paved Pathway – 2024
▪ Canopy Shade Trees – 2024
▪ Estimated Cost: $164,400
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 Neighborhood Park SE 1 – P2, D3
▪ Park Planning – 2024
▪ Park Construction – 2025
▪ Estimated Cost: $899,100 + Parkland Acquisition (2023)
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 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 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
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 19
▪ Shelter with Picnic Tables – 2026
▪ Estimated Cost: $225,100
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 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor – P8, D19
▪ No funding identified
▪ Parks project?
▪ Estimated Cost: $9,206,600
• Parks 2023-2028 CIP/CFP Capital Programs
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
• Parks 2023-2028 CIP/CFP Parkland Acquisition – A2, A3, A4
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
• 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)
Council President Olson inquired about demolition and replacement of the library drop chute. Ms. Feser
answered it is not large enough to be considered a capital project. Public works facilities committed to
doing the work sooner than parks would be able to do it. Council President Olson asked public works
about the status of the demolition/replacement of the library drop chute. Mr. English answered he will
check with the facilities manager and report back.
Councilmember Nand asked if the greenhouse was purely for City staff usage or was there any public
accessibility for community gardening or for programs. Ms. Feser answered the greenhouse supports the
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 20
City’s flower program and is primarily used by City staff. It is inside the City’s maintenance yard and is
not accessible to the public for safety and security reasons. Plants for the corner parks and flower baskets
are grown in that greenhouse and there are occasional volunteer work parties such as the Floretum Garden
Club.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to an excerpt from the October 12, 2022 planning board minutes (packet
page 701), “He asked about the level of allocation for the Boys & Girls Club since the building is going
away. Director Feser replied that they just learned last week that the Boys & Girls Club intends to
demolish the existing building and build a new one on that site.” Councilmember Teitzel asked if that had
been confirmed and whether there was any sense of the timing. Ms. Feser said the Boys & Girls Club
have communicated that to staff and there have been discussions about the 12,000 square feet dedicated to
their facility, but it is not in writing and the lease agreement with the Boys & Girls Club has not been
completed. The Boys & Girls Club have stated they would like to demolish the building and start
construction next year; she would be surprised if it happened that soon.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to CIP/CFP project PWF-01, maintenance of the Boys & Girls Club
building, which includes $300,000 for improvements to that building through 2028. He asked if that
project would be modified depending on what the Boys & Girls Club does with their building. Mr.
English said depending on the schedule, those funds potentially would be removed. That was the planning
board’s second recommendation, to remove that funding if the schedule for the Boys & Girls Club
building is expedited.
Councilmember Teitzel said he was excited about the improvements planned for Mathay Ballinger Park.
He asked about the plans to install an infiltration facility in that park and the impact it could have on the
park improvements. Ms. Feser answered she met with public works staff last week to discuss their project
and the park improvements. She looks forward to moving forward with the parks improvements next
year, but did not think the timing of the public works project will align with the parks project to do them
at the same time. The park improvement designs will be shared with public works to ensure they do not
prevent their project. Mr. De Lilla explained the design for a regional facility is being reassessed because
soil conditions were not conducive to handling the area originally planned. Public works will coordinate
with parks to ensure the impacts are as minimal as possible and to ensure things do not have to be
reworked.
Councilmember Chen referred to $1.5M allocated in 2023 for land acquisition, and asked how far along
the City was in terms of identifying land or was there a possibility that would be pushed back to a future
year. Ms. Feser answered the City is always looking for land, especially around Highway 99 and in
southeast Edmonds. Until a purchase and sale agreement comes forward, those conversations are kept
confidential. Some potential properties have been identified and there have been discussions with
property owners. Councilmember Chen summarized there is no purchase and sale agreement yet. Ms.
Feser answered nothing that she could share at this time.
Councilmember Chen explained Councilmember Tibbott and he prepared a decision package that would
reallocate $200,000 out of that funding so he wanted to know how firm that commitment was. Ms. Feser
answered $900,000 has been accumulated for land acquisition with a $200,000 allocation each year, plus
there is money in the tree fund that is eligible for land acquisition for the preservation of trees. She
summarized money earmarked for land acquisition tends to be retained for that purpose. Councilmember
Chen observed if the City did not find land to purchase, those funds would be carried forward to future
years. Ms. Feser answered yes.
Councilmember Paine expressed her appreciation for the work staff has done. She expressed interest in
seeing details regarding overlay projects and pedestrian infrastructure projects. She was interested in
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 21
pedestrian pathways in areas of City that do not have sidewalks like the Lake Ballinger area. She was glad
to see funds had been set aside for the transportation plan update.
Council President Olson commenting she has been listening to podcasts and reading news reports about
the terrible water quality in Jackson, Mississippi, due to not maintaining their infrastructure. People often
dwell on things there is not enough progress on or wish for more sidewalks, but she wanted to give a
shout out to former administrations and former councils that are responsible for the fact that the City’s
water mains have been maintained and replaced. The clean water that comes out of residents’ faucet is a
result of that and she was personally very grateful and was sure she was speaking on behalf of a lot of
people in the community. Mayor Nelson reminded this is a hearing on the 2023-2028 CIP/CFP and
council commentary should reflect that.
Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing.
Joe Scordino, Edmonds, commended Mr. English and Mr. De Lilla for the well laid out CIP/CFP and
good justifications. He would like to see the consequences of not doing a project added to help identify
which things are essential and which are nice to do. He could not say the same for the parks CIP/CFP, it
only justified things based on objectives “that came out of the blue.” He recommending the council delete
the following projects: page 18 Waterfront Walkway Completion – Ebb Tide Section), page 20 (Marsh
Estuary Restoration – Willow Creek Daylighting, and page 28 (Yost Pool Replacement). With regard to
the Marsh Estuary Restoration, it is premature and technically flawed. Looking at Google Earth, Google
Maps and the City’s own GIS map, Willow Creek is already daylighted next to the hatchery. Before
spending $5 million on a restoration plan, he recommended developing a good, integrated restoration
plan. He has been working with NOAA scientists to develop that for the City. With regard to the Ebb
Tide Walkway completion, many people wonder what that is, where it will be and whether it will violate
the Shoreline Management Act or other laws. He suggested deleting that project until it is defined and all
Edmonds citizens support it. With regard to Yost Pool replacement, the materials do not document why it
is necessary to spend $25 million on a pool that everyone already enjoys. The CIP/CFP is an annual plan,
not a 6-year plan; it looks out 6 years, but it is revised annually.
Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, said there is only one identified sidewalk project through 2026 and that is in
the bowl area. Twice that amount is allocated to bicycle lanes in the same time period. He recommended
rethinking green streets and redirecting that initiative along Highway 99. Highway 99 is the worst
polluting highway in the City; work is being done in the median and he suggested working with the state
to do green streets there, using state money instead of the city’s money, and then expand it to other areas
if it is as good as it is claimed to be. He suggested consideration be given to the useful life of City
buildings versus further expenditures on those buildings such as Frances Anderson Center. He suggested
assessing what is necessary to complete the current wastewater treatment plant project before allocating
additional funds and to get a holistic view of the plant, particularly in light of new state mandates and
capacity issues. With regard to the waterfront walkway, he said those costs continue to increase and he
questioned $1.3 million for 100 feet of walkway. He preferred to use those funds differently and better,
particularly with the inflationary pressures the City will be under for all projects in the next few years.
Amy June Grumble, Edmonds, a homeowner and parent on 236th Street SW, requested the CIP address
existing traffic safety issues in and around the intersection of 236th Street SW & 84th Avenue West where
a large development is proposed. Although the CIP has great improvements already underway for the
Highway 99 corridor, traffic issues off Highway 99 need to be addressed. The intersection of 236th Street
SW & 84th Avenue West is a 2-way stop with no crosswalks despite being adjacent to at least two
elementary school bus stops and two Community Transit bus stops. Both streets have peaks of heavy
traffic as 236th Street SW is an access street for Madrona Elementary to the west and the Safeway loading
dock to the east and both streets are feeders to Highway 99. Both street also experience heavy foot traffic
from students, transit commuters and elderly or disabled shoppers, yet neither have sidewalks or paved
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 22
shoulders, forcing pedestrians to wade through mud or walk directly in the street, problems that
disproportionate impact residents who cannot drive. Twice a day she walks her son ¼ mile to his school
bus stop, dipping in and out of the street right past where this development is proposed; her son often tells
her they are not supposed to walk in the street. Now even more families will be required to walk in those
streets. She is glad to see construction projects improving Highway 99, but that isn’t fixing her street. The
improvements are needed now, not after more building are constructed. She is proud Edmonds is a
forward-thinking community and wants to use this opportunity to develop wisely and mindfully, to build
projects that fit and blend into the community rather than towering over them, and for the CIP to improve
the surrounding area with safe walking paths, crosswalks and green space rather than putting huge
buildings with hundreds of new residents into an intersection that is already unsafe and walking away.
She urged the council to help make safety in this neighborhood a priority within the current 6-year
planning period.
With no further public testimony, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing. He declared a brief recess.
3. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2023 PROPOSED BUDGET
Mayor Nelson opened the public hearing.
Joe Scordino, Edmonds, referred to decision packages #16 and #21 and urged the council not to accept
verbatim what is in the decision package but include policy direction in the budget. He made the
following recommendations:
• DP#21, the council should be directly involved in the approval of the scope of work as well as the
consultant selection as it is a huge process that affects a lot of people and there needs to be some
policy oversight.
• Delete DP#23 as the City does not need more consultant reports to tell us what we already know.
There are problems in Yost Park that need to be fixed, the City already has a report from another
contractor that did a bridge assessment. Use that instead of doing another study.
• Delete DP#24, the Salmon Safe report was inadequate and there is no reason to do anything
suggested in that report.
• Increase funding for DP#25 to fund more seasonal park staff.
• DP#27, council should include its priorities for bench placement; for example, there are not
enough benches on Sunset Avenue.
• Delete DP#32, citizens do not need more utility increases and the City needs to do a better job
with the money it has.
• Retain DP#45, this is something the City needs and was what Salmon Safe was supposed to do.
• Increase funding in DP#75 to buy more white paint for crosswalks
• Delete DP#81, we know what the erosion problems are, projects are needed to fix them
• DP#79, move forward with fixing erosion problems in Yost Park
Jim Ogonowski, Edmonds, expressed concern with the strategic forecast in the budget that shows fund
balances will be spent down from over $9 million in 2021 to near zero in 2026. He was interest in
understanding the assumptions that went into the forecast and how the decisions the council is about to
make in the 2023 budget will affect the forecast. This is an unsustainable path that leads to future layoffs
or property tax increases. This year’s budget is extremely important with regard to reoccurring and non-
reoccurring expenses. He expressed concern that ARPA funds are proposed to fund reoccurring projects
and/or staffing. Using one-time revenues for reoccurring expenses is a dangerous path and he suspected
the forecast in out years is the result of that type of spending. He was unclear on the process for the
budget consideration, he proposed first balancing the budget within the expected revenues and then
determine how much of the fund balance needs to be spent to cover expenses above revenues. Instead he
sees a bottom up process where the council spends up to an unknown amount.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 23
With no further public testimony, Mayor Nelson closed the public hearing.
10. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. 2023 ARPA ALLOCATIONS
Community Services/Economic Development Director Todd Tatum explained his presentation will
highlight proposed changes in ARPA allocations including decision packages for the 2023 budget,
proposed changes to account allocations and out year funding. He recognized it is complicated to put this
together with the budget and to make those simultaneously. He originally thought the council could
discuss and vote on proposed changes tonight, but realized that may not be possible. Instead, he will
present this tonight so the council can understand how the changes affect the ARPA ordinance and bring
the language back as the council votes on amendments and adapt them as the budget process proceeds and
have the final language adopted with the adoption of budget. He was also open to other options. He
reviewed:
• Review: Subdivision of Funds by Ordinance 4259
o City Expenditure Reimbursements: $750,000
o Edmonds Rescue Plan Household Support: $4,150,000
▪ Household Support
▪ Utility Bill Support
▪ Housing Repair
o Edmonds Rescue Plan Business Support: $1,125,000
▪ General Business Support
▪ Tourism Support
▪ Small Business Support
o Edmonds Rescue Plan Nonprofit Support: $500,000
o Edmonds Rescue Plan Job Retraining Program: $600,000
o City Green Infrastructure: $4,768,099
▪ Edmonds Marsh
▪ Lower Perrinville Creek Realignment
▪ Green Streets and Rain Gardens
▪ 96th right-of-way
• Use of Funds
o Recipients may use SLFRF funds to:
▪ Replace lost public sector revenue, using this funding to provide government services up
to the amount of revenue lost due to the pandemic. Standard allowance of $10m.
▪ Respond to the far-reaching public health and negative economic impacts of the
pandemic, by supporting the health of communities, and helping households, small
businesses, impacted industries, nonprofits, and the public sector recover from economic
impacts.
▪ Provide premium pay for essential workers, offering additional support to those who have
and will bear the greatest health risks because of their service in critical sectors.
▪ Invest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure, making necessary investments to
improve access to clean drinking water, to support vital wastewater and stormwater
infrastructure, and to expand affordable access to broadband internet
• Ten decision packages associated with this year’s ARPA budget:
o DP 9: Continue ARPA Grant Manager Consultant
o DP 13: Expansion of PD Criminal Investigations Division
o DP 14: Police Department – Patrol Support
o DP 15: Police Dept – Nine New Patrol Cars
o DP 22: Façade Improvement Program
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 24
o DP 23: Yost Park/Shell Creek Study
o DP 24: Salmon Safe Certification Program
o DP 26: New Park Maintenance Services (Hwy 99 and Civic)
o DP 39: Lower Perrinville Creek Restoration Project
o DP72: Green Streets
• Changes to allocations by account:
o Account A: Changes to allocation
▪ Increase due to ongoing funding of ARPA consultant and ongoing cost for OpenGov
software
o Account A: Proposed language
o Account B: Changes to allocation
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 25
▪ Reduction in total allocation from funds not spent in 2021
▪ Shift in spending for inactive accounts, utility support and housing repair. Snohomish
County has a similar program
o Account B: Proposed language:
o Account C: Changes to allocations
▪ Transfer money not spent for Tourism and General Business Support to other
programs
▪ Lowers the Tourism Support funds in 2023 and 2024
▪ Changes the focus of Business Grants subaccount to focus on façade improvements
as outlined in DP#22 and carries those forward to 2024
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 26
o Account C: Proposed language:
o Account D: Changes to allocations:
▪ No change to amount, final $79,500 in grants will be awarded in 2023
o Account D: Proposed language:
o Account E: Changes to allocations
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 27
▪ No change proposed to amount
▪ Once opportunities to use funds more effectively are identified, staff will present to
council for changes within existing allocation
o Account E: No change to language
o Account F: Changes to allocations
▪ Removes Edmonds Marsh project from list (other funding options available)
▪ Lowers total expected amount for Perrinville Creek
▪ Provides additional funds for Green Streets
▪ Adds the 96th right-of-way project
▪ Adds Yost/Shell Creek and Salmon Safe Program implementation
o Account F: Proposed language:
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 28
o Account G: Addition to allocations
▪ Costs associated with DP#13, 14 and 15
o Account G: Proposed new language:
o Account H: Changes to allocations
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 29
▪ Costs associated with DP#26
o Account H: Proposed new language:
Mr. Tatum explained staff proposes to include this language or language amended through the budget
process into the budget ordinance as an attachment in order to keep the overall budget and ARPA budget
tied together more cleanly. He anticipated there will be changes during the budget cycle and staff will
keep the language updated to reflect those changes so the council has a clear idea of how ARPA and the
budget impact each other.
Councilmember Paine commended Mr. Tatum on the format of the presentation. With regard to Account
B, Household Support, she recalled Mr. Tatum stated there had not been much use of the housing repair
subaccount and that Snohomish County has funds for that. Mr. Tatum explained Snohomish County has a
program that does some house repair such as weatherization. When this program was original considered,
the intent was to contract with Snohomish County, adding this pool of funds to theirs and have them
administer that program, but that was never done.
Councilmember Paine suggested the City consider allocating funds for housing repair. The City did not
do a lot of advertising regarding the availability of household support and there may have been more
interest if people knew the funds were available. She was unsure if housing repair would include tree
mitigation, but has heard that is a need as well as repairs for low income homeowners. She expressed
interest in reconsidering that funding or finding good viable options. She asked staff to email her a
response whether removal of a hazardous tree on someone’s property would be considered housing
support. Mr. Tatum was unsure how removal of a hazardous trees would be addressed, particularly since
the City does not have a housing repair program. He offered to email her about the availability of other
programs.
Councilmember Tibbott concurred with Councilmember Paine’s comments, noting some of the programs
funded by ARPA have not been well advertised and there may be people who could benefit by access to
those funds, including increasing what is available for nonprofits. It was his understanding the $10
million had been moved into the General Fund. Mr. Tatum responded the $10 million is accounted for in
the accounts set forth in the ordinance. Cities can elect to take the standard allowance which is different
than putting the money into general accounts. Councilmember Tibbott observed there is no accounting for
the ARPA in the revenue structure and asked where the ARPA funds reside in the budget. Mr. Tatum
answered they are in the Coronavirus Relief Fund.
Councilmember Tibbott asked why an ARPA consultant was needed if decision packages are used to
access that fund. Mr. Tatum answered the ARPA consultant is incredibly important and is involved in
audit programs. When grant programs are funded, she is there on front end to say how programs should
be structured to ensure they are in line with the rules in the Final Rule, and to right proof documentation
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 30
so they can be audited; on the backside, she audits a portion of the awardees to ensure they are operating
in line with the City’s guidance. He summarized it was super critical to maintain that position.
Councilmember Tibbott questioned the need when decision packages are presented in regular budget
requests. Mr. Tatum responded for example, if the City continued doing nonprofit grants, she would audit
the programs and grantees to ensure they are in line with guidance and law. With the household support
grants, she audits the grantee’s awards with regard to the grantee’s execution of the program and it
provides a tool/help for the grantee if someone is validating their processes and procedures.
Councilmember Tibbott said he may follow up with an email regarding this question.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to the use of ARPA funds for law enforcement decision packages. He
understood using ARPA funds for purchasing vehicle, one time funds for resources that can be used for
many years. Funding officers with ARPA funds seems unwise, because once those funds are spent, City
revenues will need to be identified to cover those costs in the outlying years. He asked Mr. Tatum’s
opinion on the use of ARPA funds for ongoing expenses. Mayor Nelson clarified no police officers are
funded with ARPA funds in any decision package that he is aware of. Mr. Tatum said he would need to
consult the decision packages. Mayor Nelson said only police equipment and police cars are funded with
ARPA funds.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to DP#13 and 14. Mayor Nelson asked Mr. Tatum to display the
decision package related to police support. Mr. Tatum displayed DP#13, 14 and 15. Councilmember
Tibbott asked about the funding mechanism for those decision packages. Mayor Nelson said this question
this is beyond the Mr. Tatum’s presentation and would be an excellent question for Administrative
Services Director Dave Turley. The intent was not to get into specific decision packages.
Councilmember Nand said the presentation answered some of her questions about allocation of ARPA
funds but she has general questions about government transparency and accountability for taxpayers and
constituents. Looking at the proposed budget, the Treasury’s Final Rule states cities are allowed to use up
to $10 million as “free money’ for lost revenue. However, instead of losing revenue from 2020 to 2021,
the City increased revenue by $13 million and experienced a decrease from 2021 to 2022, but the City
was already receiving Coronavirus funds from the CARES Act and ARPA to bolster revenues. She asked
if there was a way to demonstrate lost revenues as it seems like the City did quite well during the
pandemic. Mr. Tatum said he did not think that was the intent of the Final Rule; the Final Rule gives a
presumption of lost revenues and allows cities of a certain size to take a standard allowance in presumed
impact. He was unable to speak to how the federal government determined that was an appropriate thing
to do.
Councilmember Nand said her understanding from reading the Final Rule was if a city had to decrease its
operational budget for any reason such as lost sales tax, they could add those funds back and spend the
money to stimulate the local economy. She asked if he would regard that as a correct use of the free $10
million. Mr. Tatum answered no, the standard allowance allows a presumed impact and allows cities to
take a $10 million allowance for presumed impacts to their revenues.
Councilmember Nand referred to the Account B proposed changes, the amount stated in the ordinance is
$3 million and that is proposed to be reduced to $2.25 million. As only about 1/10th was spent, she asked
if that was the reason for the proposal to reduce it to $500,000 in the 2023 budget. Mr. Tatum said the
ordinance amount for Account B was $4.15 million, a portion of the funds allocated in 2021 were not
spent because the programs did not get up and running as quickly as anticipated and it was later in the
year.
COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY CHEN TO EXTEND TO 10:30.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 31
Council President Olson asked if it was legally acceptable to extend the meeting at 10:01 p.m. City
Attorney Jeff Taraday answered it is not an ideal practice, but he did not think anyone would sue the City
over it or determine the deliberations after 10 p.m. were illegal. Council President Olson said she thought
the council should do things by the correct method and not extend.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN,
BUCKSHNIS, PAINE AND NAND VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember Nand referred to the underutilization of the household grants and utility support, and
relayed that her independent research discovered some cities chose to direct block grants to distressed
members of the community who were negatively affected by the pandemic, not require them to go out of
their way to find programs to accrue benefits from the funds congress set aside to mitigate the effects of
the pandemic, but affirmatively find distressed people and give them money, similar to what Wellspring
was doing with rental assistance in 2020. For example, if the council wanted to retain the $3 million in
household grants and affirmatively offer property tax rebates to distressed homeowners and task the City
with finding those individuals rather than tasking those individuals with finding City programs. She asked
if that was something the City could do under the ARPA regulations. Mr. Tatum said he would need to
consult the Final Rule to determine whether that could be done legally or what the procedure for doing
that would be. He acknowledged some programs could be operated differently.
Councilmember Nand said she had a corresponding question for utility support, if the council were to task
City employees with identifying who was distressed or delinquent in paying utilities to the City and
forgive their delinquencies or reimburse their late fees. She asked if that the City could pursue that to
more effectively grant funds to distressed individuals in the community rather than placing the onus to
seek out City programs on people already experiencing financial and possibly personal distress. Mr.
Tatum responded he has not researched the ability to do direct granting; he can do that after the meeting
and respond by email. With regard to utilities, in many cases the people who were struggling the most are
renting and their utilities are included in their rent and their names are not necessarily associated with the
utilities.
Councilmember Nand responded, as a public policy issue, she wanted to explore whether the onus for
distributing funds to individuals could be on sophisticated members of City staff rather than people
experiencing financial distress who may be too stressed out to seek out programs or realize that help is
available. Mr. Tatum agreed the City should be more active and that is part of the plan in 2023.
Councilmember Nand said she will follow up him via email and looked forward to his suggestions about
how to more affirmatively push down money from the federal government to distressed members of the
community.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented there are quite a few inaccuracies between what was presented
and what is in the budget. For example, DP#13 and 14 related to police services say they are General
Fund operating expenses. Likewise, the funding source for new park maintenance services for Highway
99 is General Fund. She agreed with Councilmember Tibbott that ARPA funds should not be utilized for
ongoing expenses such as police support services. It was her understanding ARPA funds would only be
used for police cars.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Account F, pointing the Edmonds Marsh was initially $750,000 in
the ordinance and Green Streets was $1 million, but $400,000 was removed because there was no design
standards, definition, etc. for green streets. She wanted to ensure the numbers are accurate because she
plans to make amendments. She expressed interest in adding allocation for nonprofits and agreed with
Councilmember Nand's suggestion to add money for people in need. She was also interested in funding
more training, including English language training. She does not support the Salmon Safe Certification or
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 32
funding for Yost Park. She asked how the council should propose changes. Mr. Tatum anticipated the
council will be voting on amendments and decision packages which he can track. At end of the process,
there will be a relatively thorough accounting of the changes and amendments. Mayor Nelson suggested
when councilmembers submit decision packages to Mr. Turley, they can identify if they want all or a
portion of it funded with ARPA funds.
Councilmember Chen said he and Councilmember Buckshnis are on the finance committee and have
discussed ARPA funds many times. With regard to where the ARPA reside in the budget, he referred to
page 18 of the budget book, Fund 142. He appreciated Mr. Tatum’s efforts to identify the ARPA fund
allocations by account which correspond to the ordinance. With regard to the $10 million that according
to congress could be used as if it is General Fund even if the City did not suffer revenue loss, the City is
allowed to use the $10 million as General Fund money to run the City. The Council can direct how the
funds will be spent; in his opinion, the best way to do that is through decision packages. The council has a
new template for decision packages with the description, reasoning, and funding source. If a
councilmember wants to fund an expense with ARPA funds, that can be identified on the template and
provides Mr. Tatum a tracking mechanism to identify expenses funded with ARPA fund.
Councilmember Chen referred to DP#13, 14 and 15, those are one-time expenses, not personnel. Since
the City is already heading toward using up to $10 million out of $11.893 million as General Fund, he did
not see the necessity of spending another $100,000 for an ARPA consultant when Mr. Tatum and Mr.
Turley are already overseeing it.
Councilmember Teitzel thanked Mr. Tatum for the email exchange they had today regarding his concerns
about a drycleaner in Edmonds. He relayed his discussions with a drycleaner in Edmonds who, not
surprisingly when COVID hit, his business was reduced in volume by over 50% and that reduction
continues because people are not going into the office and his business is hanging by a thread. He is a
small business with fewer than five employee and is minority owned so he certainly qualifies under
Account C small business support.
Councilmember Teitzel continued, English is second language for this business owner and he wondered
what outreach had been done to businesses like that to make them aware that ARPA funds are available to
help them weather the storm. This business has been in Edmonds for 20 years, the owner works six
days/week and does not have time to dig into the requirements to apply for a grant. Mr. Tatum answered
pretty significant outreach was done, in the original grant rounds, multilingual materials were prepared
and then-Community Services/Economic Development Director Patrick Doherty went door-to-door
handing out information. Oftentimes he would leave a business and find the grant application in his email
when he returned. It was also advertised in the newspaper, but ground level outreach was key.
Councilmember Teitzel commented in this case, this person’s business is hanging by a thread and is at
imminent risk of going under. He asked how businesses like this would apply for a grant, if they needed
to wait for the next round or could apply anytime. Mr. Tatum answered the grants were opened and closed
and grantees were selected. Businesses would need to wait until the next open grant round. Based on
council decisions in the budget process, he will try to get grant grounds open as soon as possible in 2023.
Councilmember Teitzel asked if that would be first quarter 2023. Mr. Tatum said that would be his intent.
Council President Olson pointed out in the allocations in the mayor’s proposed budget, there were
numerous and in some cases extraordinary changes to the council created and approved ordinance
regarding how ARPA funds would be spent. There was no conversation or ask from the mayor about a
different plan or change to the allocation. She was not saying that there was not a better allocation and in
the end, the budget process is in council’s hands and modifications will be made to the ordinance. She felt
the legislative intent was ignored and she found it disrespectful to receive a budget that had the ARPA
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 33
funds spent in such a different way than the council’s intent that was previously determined via
ordinance.
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Nelson thanked the City employees, particularly those hanging holiday lights on trees and fixtures.
As it begins to get colder and dark earlier, he urged drivers to please keep an eye out for kids heading
home from school. Unfortunately people, particularly kids, like to wear dark clothes which do not mix
well with nighttime driving.
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Nand thanked the engaged citizens who reach out to the council every week with
comments and suggestions about budget allocations and things that concern them in their neighborhoods
such as zoning changes. She also thanked the volunteers working on City boards and commissions to
make the process work. The reason Edmonds’ government functions so well is due to hardworking City
staff as well as the incredible work of the volunteers and engaged citizens. She thanked them for making
serving on council a lively and enriching process.
Councilmember Tibbott echoed Councilmember Nand’s appreciation for citizens’ comments about the
budget and priorities. He looked forward to a robust discussion on the City’s draft vision. The Porchfest
roll out was exciting and fun, but also a meaningful time to introduce an important topic.
Councilmember Paine thanked staff for the time they have devoted over the last several weeks to
collecting and presenting information to council. This is an awesome amount of work and it takes a lot of
dedication and time. She also expressed appreciation to community members who provide input during
public hearings and during public comments at meetings.
Councilmember Paine echoed Mayor Nelson’s plea for drivers to exercise extra care and caution, relaying
there was an injury accident where someone was crossing Highway 99 in the dark. She has also seen
people wearing dark clothing trying to cross Highway 99. She encouraged community members to visit
the WeAllBelong.org website and volunteer at the cold weather shelter to ensure unhoused people in the
region have a place to go as well as utilize the hygiene center at the old emissions site on 196th.
Council President Olson reminded of the fun things going on in Edmonds: ArtWalk on Thursday,
November 17, 5-8 p.m., the movie “Disclosure” showing for free at the Edmonds Theater on Saturday,
November 19 as part of the diversity commission film series, the Hispanic Heritage Art Exhibition on the
second floor of the Waterfront Center through Saturday, November 19, and the Heroes Café for veterans
on the last Tuesday of the month at the New Life Church in Lynnwood (6519 188th Street SW), doors
open at 9 a.m. and lunch at 11 a.m.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked all the veterans who are currently serving or are serving. She missed
the Veterans Day ceremony on November 11 as she was volunteering at the senior center.
Councilmember Chen added his appreciation to staff, council, mayor and the public for their hard work
and dedication on the day-to-day functions and the budget process. He highlighted a newly formed
nonprofit, the Chinese Service Center. They just obtained 501(c)3 status and are located in the Northern
Seattle Chinese Church on Highway 99 across the street from the 85 Degree Bakery. The aim of this
organization is to serve new immigrants, people who come to the United States seeking a better life, many
of whom have different needs and like the business owner Councilmember Teitzel mentioned, may have
language challenges and do not know about available resources. They are currently offering programs like
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 15, 2022
Page 34
citizenship classes, English as a second language, and helping people identify resources. He encouraged
the public to apply to be a board member.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
EXTEND FOR 5 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Chen continued, the intent is to serve this pocket of the population that is often hard to
reach. Snohomish County Public Health will be giving COVID boosters at the church from 10-12
tomorrow; the public is welcome.
Councilmember Teitzel relayed this week the council received an email from a citizen regarding a request
to make a commitment not to pass ordinances that are incomplete or are missing exhibits. That is a
reasonable request and something this and future councils should commit to. To accomplish that, it needs
to be memorialize in the code of conduct or rules of procedures. He committed to drafting language to
that effect for council consideration in January.
13. ADJOURN
With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 10:31 p.m.