Loading...
Cmd120622 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 6, 2022 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES December 6, 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 (joined at 7:05 p.m.) STAFF PRESENT Oscar Antillon, Public Works Director Dave Turley, Administrative Services Director Jessica Neill Hoyson, HR Director Susan McLaughlin, Planning & Dev. Dir. Todd Tatum, Comm. Serv. & Econ. Dev. Dir. 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 Paine 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 with the exception of Councilmember Nand who joined the meeting at 7:05 p.m. 4. PRESENTATIONS 1. PRESENTATION OF 2023 PUBLIC WORKS UTILITY RATES Public Works Director Oscar Antillon explained the scheduled utility rate study has not been completed, but a lot has changed over the past year that affects utilities, both the capital and the operations and maintenance programs. Staff projected rate increases from 2019 considering changes to CPI, construction costs; the recommended rates are considered conservative and the minimum to meet the operational and capital needs of the utility. He reviewed: • Enterprise funds o Along with their missions to provide their respective services in an efficient and effective manner, each of the city’s enterprise activities must also work to be financially self- supporting. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 6, 2022 Page 2 o This means that each is expected to cover all costs associated with operations as well as all costs associated with capital maintenance and depreciation by generating the necessary revenue itself (i.e. through user fees). o A completely successful enterprise operation would never need to borrow funds to replace and renew the existing infrastructure of the business. o A key component of enterprise operations is the maintenance of the capital equipment and infrastructure of the “business”. User fees are set to recover operating costs as well as to finance the continuous maintenance (depreciation) of the capital investments supporting the service. o Debt should only be used to expand an enterprise activity’s capacity or level of service, and not to replace or renew the existing infrastructure. • What changed to key assumptions? o Annual cost inflation ▪ General (CPI): 2.5% (2022 average 9 %) ▪ Benefits: 10.0% (New Union contract, pending final negotiations impact TBD) ▪ Alderwood Water Purchase Costs: - 8% in 2020; (21.8%) - 8.5% in 2021; (4.4%) - 8% in 2022; (5%) - 5% Thereafter (2023 Projected at 11.25%) ▪ Construction Costs: 4.0% (1st Qtr. 2022 7.2%) o Recent CIP Needs ▪ Reservoir Inspections (Yost & Seaview): - Potential needs for seismic retrofit per reservoir($7M) - Or new per reservoir($11M) - Values above will be double due to 2 reservoirs needing retrofit/replacement. • Proposed vs. no increase (water) o Results of no increase: ▪ Required increase in 2024 jumps to 10.4% ▪ Net cash flow is negative ($310,220) ▪ Cash operating is reduced from 56 days to 35 • Proposed vs. no increase (sewer) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 6, 2022 Page 3 o Results of no increase: ▪ Required increase in 2024 jumps to 11.1% ▪ Net cash flow is negative ($370,047) ▪ Cash operating is reduced from 58 days to 42 • Proposed vs. no increase (stormwater) o Results of no increase: ▪ Required increase in 2024 jumps to 10.4% ▪ Net cash flow is negative ($184,713) ▪ Cash operating is reduced from 60 days to 31 • Financial Impact o Cash Flow ▪ Total with increase $124,796 ▪ Total with no increase ($864,980) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 6, 2022 Page 4 • Recommendation o Considering the impacts of inflation and to prevent future double-digit hikes necessary to meet the operational and capital needs for each of the utilities while a new rate fee study is completed in 2023 staff recommends setting the rates as projected on the utilities rate model of 2019 with the following increases. ▪ Sewer rate 5% ▪ Water Rates at 4% ▪ Stormwater rates at 4% o The monthly equivalent increase for a single-family home is: $5.535 Single family increase* Current 2023 Change Water** $52.13 $54.24 $2.11 Sewer $50.53 $53.055 $2.525 Stormwater $22.55 $23.45 $0.90 Total $125.21 $130.745 $5.535 *Does not include applicable taxes **Assumes 7ccf per month water consumption plus base rate Councilmember Buckshnis asked if a rate study will be done in 2023. Mr. Antillon answered that is the goal. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the ordinance expires at the end of year, but there was no ordinance in the packet. Mr. Antillon answered the draft will be provided at the public hearing on December 13. Councilmember Buckshnis commented there have been some issues with the language in the ordinance in the past. She was not a fan of increasing rates without conducting a rate study. In 2019 stormwater included the marsh without any grant funding so it was included in the calculation of the stormwater rates. She was not in favor of a rate increase without data to support it, but she may be convinced by fellow councilmembers. Councilmember Nand said she was also concerned with the 5% rate increase with no narrative in the original budget materials, but the slide “What changed to key assumptions” indicates the projected charge from Alderwood Water will be an increase of 11.25% and the 5% rate increase is required to offset the price the City pays for water. Mr. Antillon agreed, relaying that was also true for neighboring agencies who have done a rate increase, their increases average approximately that amount. Councilmember Nand inquired about remedies the City offers for low income households for whom an increase may lead their being late paying their water bill or having their water disconnected. This is a very difficult time with inflation and the increase in the cost of living. To justify adding 5% to customers’ month bills, she believed the City needed to show a really robust way to address the additional cost that is passed on to water users. Mr. Antillon said he believed the City has a program, but was not aware of all the details and could send her that information. Councilmember Paine understood why staff was recommending a rate increase absent a rate study. She asked about plans to address the reservoirs, observing the cost was between $14 million and $22 million and when that would come to council for consideration, recalling it was in the CIP. Mr. Antillon said there are some basic projections, but there should be a better estimate of the actual cost by the time the study is done next year and whether to repair or replace the reservoirs. Those costs will impact the next rate study and will require discussions about how to finance it. Ideally money should not be borrowed for enterprise funds, but a solution may require borrowing money and then pay as you go with rates. Councilmember Paine asked when it was envisioned the rate study would be completed. Mr. Antillon was hopeful it would start earlier in the year, but that is challenging because there are few staff members that project can be assigned to as Mike De Lilla is pretty busy with CIP projects. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 6, 2022 Page 5 Councilmember Teitzel said he has seen in the past where Alderwood wholesale costs increase dramatically one year, decrease the next and then increase the following year. That is true of the proposed increase; 2022 was 5% and the projection for 2023 is 11.25%. He asked what drives those increases and what avenues the City has to challenge the rates. Mr. Antillon answered they are the same things the City faces such as salaries, CPI and inflation, cost of construction, cost of operations, etc. Even as high as Alderwood Water’s rate is, the other choice is Seattle Water which is much more expensive. Councilmember Chen said he was originally against any rate increase without a rate study, but in looking at the presentation, the utilities at least need to least break even. Under the current circumstances, with increases in labor, materials, fees charged by providers, etc., it is reasonable to recoup the cost. Perhaps ARPA funds can be used to supplement City programs to help households in need. He expressed support for the recommendation. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD A RESOLUTION OF RETAINING RIGHTS OF SELF- DETERMINATION OF LAND USE TO COUNCIL BUSINESS ITEM 9.1. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND SECONDED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AS ITEM 8, BETWEEN AUDIENCE COMMENTS AND APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA TO DISCUSS POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(I) FOR 25 MINUTES. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson described procedures for audience comments. Theresa Hollis, Edmonds, said she read the 2016-2017 council and planning board minutes regarding the Highway 99 subarea plan. Edmonds residents participated in public hearings and made similar comments to her neighbors’ comments over the last two months, but their comments made no difference. The recommendations sent to council in 2017 were very biased toward the developer. The context for those recommendations included that development had been sluggish in Edmonds for decades; at the July 18, 2017 meeting, the planning director stated, “The challenge to adding more stepback or setback requirements is to not add so many requirements that building is discouraged.” Today’s context includes years of low cost money available to development, significant development in Lynnwood and Shoreline, and work at home policies that have changed the housing market. Why are the neighbors still asking council to debate one sentence in the development code about step-backs with the fear it might discourage development when major regional influences drive development in Edmonds today? The council’s concern is no longer will the projects come, the concern should be whether the character of the single family neighborhoods that surround Highway 99 have been adequately protected. Key planning assumptions of the planned action didn’t materialize; at the April 12, 2017 planning board meeting, the consultant reported that several property owners expressed interest in redeveloping their properties into five or six story mixed use buildings. The commercial building redevelopment and the job described in the planned action report hasn’t happened. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 6, 2022 Page 6 Ms. Hollis continued, the more she reads past meeting minutes, the more questions she has about process. Why wasn’t the Architectural Design Board involved in the CG design standards? There is nothing in their meeting minutes for that two year period about CG design guidelines, yet that is the only group in the City that includes licensed architects. Why was the developer from Terrace Place asked to measure the size of the area affected by the emergency ordinance? Decisions should never be made using unaudited data from a party who has a financial interest in the data. She counted 55 residential parcels across the street from CG parcels using the map. She questioned whether the affected area is really 39 acres. The development director advised council on October 4, 2022 that there used to be transition zones but they were eliminated and so the blunt line between CG and single family needs to be mitigated. She was emphatic about the following two points, 1) council has not yet been presented with the most forward thinking approach to design so tall buildings transition to residential neighborhoods, and 2) please get the ADB involved to recommend a broader set of mitigations. Judi Gladstone, Edmonds, a resident adjacent to the Highway 99 subarea plan, urged the council to vote against the ordinance to vacate the emergency ordinance requiring step-backs when across the street from single family residential neighborhoods. The emergency ordinance unanimously approved in October is really the only option to preserve the character of her neighborhood. Waiting for future consideration in the 2024 comprehensive plan update will be too late. She understood the planning and development department may have discretion to mandate step-backs in building permits, however, that discretion must be based on some justification and not arbitrary. At the last meeting, Director McLaughlin said, “Staff has researched thoroughly and finds the step-back is not warranted from a design perspective.” With that kind of public statement, she was concerned if left to an administrative decision to now require step-backs for any particular project could leave the City vulnerable to a legal challenge. Further, administrative decisions have no legal binding and no public accountability. It is common for city planning and development departments to negotiate during the permitting process about what the city can get in conjunction with the development in exchange for concessions on what the developer wants. For example, if the City wants the developer to contribute to the green street currently envisioned for 236th St SW between 84th and Highway 99, they might forego step-backs in exchange. Unlike the ADB review, administrative decisions do not have public process and decisions cannot be appealed. Council could rely on administrative discretion and express concerns they want addressed and can even say how they want it addressed, but that is not binding. She urged council to allow the emergency ordinance to stand so they can give due consideration to step-backs as an appropriate mitigation to the mass and bulk of 75-foot high buildings when across the street from single family residences and to give Highway 99 residents the same consideration as was done in the BD2 zone. Randy Hollis, Edmonds, a resident near the Highway 99 gateway district, said for many years he picked berries on the proposed Terrace Place building site. Neighbors have long been curious about what would be built on the undeveloped lot and the developer who owned the parcel for 24 years received a windfall when the upzoning change the maximum allowed housing units from 52 to 261. Publicly available information shows the developer had submitted a 4-story assisted living project to the City in 2021. He advertised the parcel for sale at $8 million, received a purchase offer and then submitted the 6-story Terrace Place project to the City. He said during recent public comments that the sale was scheduled to close this month, but the emergency ordinance has affected that. The same developer’s Willowbrook Apartments on 236th were upzoned to CG; he closed the sale of Willowbrook property in December 2020. The developer sold a second apartment complex, Woodridge, located about a half mile northwest of Highway 99 planned area to the same buyer. That new building owner is the Curtis Capital Group. He wondered what the focus of Curtis Capital will be in Edmonds; their website states we have achieved excellent returns for our investors without losing sight of our number one goal, the preservation of our investors’ capital. Mr. Hollis continued, he was not criticizing the investors or the interests of the property development industry; there is an opportunity for both big profits and big losses, but he contrasts the interest of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 6, 2022 Page 7 developers who realize profits and then move on to other opportunities with the interests of his neighbors who are not here to make a buck, this is their life. His family has lived in the same home for 22 years and other neighbors have lived in their homes for up to 60 years; their needs have to be met. The comprehensive plan provided direction especially when evaluating competing interests. One Highway 99 corridor goal is to encourage development that is sensitive to the surrounding neighborhoods. New developments should contribute to the residential quality of the adjacent neighborhoods. A policy related goal is where intense development adjoins residential areas, site design and building design should be used to minimize adverse impacts on residentially zoned properties. Edmonds needs better design criteria so that buildings in the CG zones and especially those on the boundary transition to the single family neighborhoods that are so fiercely valued in Edmonds. Glen Douglas, Edmonds, a resident across the street from the CG zone, relayed he and his partner are in the shadow of this building. He realized when looking out his bedroom window recently that he will no longer be able to sunrises in the wintertime which is just wrong and is wrong for the neighborhood. Although he is mostly known for his squeaky wheel approach to 84th Avenue speeding, he acknowledged some actions have been taken albeit those include signs that do not work, but he was pleased to report a 4- way stop will be installed at 236th & 84th. He thanked the City’s traffic engineer for paying attention to the study provided to them by the Terrace Place developers that required that 4-way stop. The exit route from the buildings to Highway 99 has been changed to southbound only so people will have to worm their way around their neighborhood to find their way out and in. That is insane and he has renamed the development to the Behemoth Terrace Place. Driving south on Highway 99 to Greenwood, he paid attention to six and seven story buildings on Highway 99; that is where they belong, on Highway 99 where there is easy entry and exit and people driving by at 50 mph don’t care if there is a big wall beside them. He summarized he was very disturbed by this whole process. Sue Osowski, Edmonds, a resident of the residential area west of the Highway 99 Gateway subarea, said this is the first home she has owned. She did not chose to purchase a home on Highway 99 and is haunted by the plans for a 6-story 271 unit apartment on 84th Avenue W & 236th. She was an apartment dweller for many years and supports the current need for more affordable housing. She researched aesthetics as design elements that address a design’s pleasing qualities; visual aesthetics include factors such as balance, color, movement, pattern, scale, shape and visual weight. Upzoning in the Highway 99 subarea eliminated the multi-residential zone transition between the CG zoned properties with a maximum of 75 feet and single family residential properties’ maximum 25 feet. Step-backs are a tool to positively affect the aesthetics of massive developments and a lack of transition between zones. She requested council consider upholding the CG step-back interim ordinance. Amy June Grumble, Edmonds, commented on the history of how and why the Terrace Place parcel and many others came to be zoned CG and housing fairness. In her early statements, she expressed concern with the impacts this construction will have on pedestrian traffic because it disproportionately affects children, the elderly, disabled residents and low income residents, many of whom are minorities. Looking at the 2020 census data, Edmonds residents living in the tract where council chambers are located are 14% nonwhite, but residents in the area where Terrace Place is proposed, census tract 508, are 33% nonwhite, an enormous difference, and she suggested considering what that means in terms of language barriers, wealth disparity and access to resources. Councilmembers have already acknowledged that a 6- story edifice like this would never have been approved in the bowl; people would have been informed and residents would have the knowledge and experience about how to object. Residents in the gateway area by and large do not know that this rezone happened and do not know this structure will be build almost literally on their doorsteps. The question is why are the residents of this area, who pay taxes for City projects and improvements that never touch their neighborhood, not treated with the same regard as people in the bowl? Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 6, 2022 Page 8 Ms. Grumble continued, the neighborhood wants this development to happen; the lot is well-suited for multifamily housing and adding additional housing, especially with lower cost options the proposed building may contain, will directly benefit everyone. These people and their neighbors deserve to live in a community that has been consciously and carefully planned and siting a giant CG zoned structure across the street from single family homes does not match that vision. Equity in Edmonds will not happen passively; we need to actively decide to make our neighborhood work for every resident. Requiring step- backs on buildings of this size may not be the only way to ameliorate the physical and visual impacts they have on their neighbors, but it is a start. She hoped voting no to vacate this emergency ordinance will give the time necessary for developers, residents and planners to come together and agree on a solution. The council has a responsibility to fairly represent the interests of every citizen of the City. Susan Pool, Edmonds, said although she doesn’t live in the Edmonds bowl, she often hears and smells the Edmonds beach including ferries, seagulls and train whistles; Edmonds is a charming city in many ways. However, she is concerned that residents in the bowl seem to be protected from construction of high-rise building in their neighborhood. Living in the gateway neighborhood, she sees the disparity between the way their area is treated compared to downtown. She is pleased with the improvements on Highway 99 in the gateway neighborhood, however, the latest property development proposed for Terrace Place on 84th & 236th has shocked and upset her. First, she is concerned about the lack of infrastructure to compensate for an additional 1,000 units within a square mile of her home. There are no sidewalks on 84th or 236th, traffic is often speeding at 40 mph on 84th despite a 25 mph zone, children are let off at school bus stops on the highway and disabled people in wheelchairs have to travel in the street. There are no parks in their area; there should be a park within one mile but there isn’t and she questioned where these additional children will play and whether it will be in the street. She was fine with development in her neighborhood, especially for lower income, but theirs is not the right neighborhood for a 75-foot building built on the corner of 84th & 236th. She urged the council to vote no on abandoning the step-backs as suggested by Susan McLaughlin. Natalie Seitz, Edmonds, spoke regarding equity and public noticing and asked the council to reconsider agenda item 8.3, Ordinance to Repeal the Emergency Interim CG Step-back Ordinance 4278, and consider repeal of the planned action if needed to update the EIS and mitigate for this upzone. She, like many of her neighbors, foundationally believe all people deserve an affordable place to live and want to see a range of housing options here and in all areas of the City. She supports low income housing. The SR 99 corridor is by far the commercial sales tax driver for Edmonds, so what does it mean to the council when it is earmarked for community renewal and declared a blight. It is nothing short of a profound admission that the City has been redirecting the hard-earned tax dollars of this predominately blue collar and diverse community to support the bowl. There is no question in the council’s minds that new development would need to meet the needs of the surrounding community in the bowl so why is the City and council continually telling them what they think is adequate. With regard to noticing, she read how the SR 99 planned action upzone was described to the community with regard to the upper story step- backs, “Across the street from single family zones, provide 8-foot step-backs for the portion of the building above 25 feet, provide 16-foot upper story step-backs from the lot line for the portion for the building above 55 feet.” She could find no evidence that the City re-noticed the SR 99 community that the council changed the description of the planned action when it failed to adopt the required step-backs into code. The emergency ordinance only puts into place what was promised to the community in 2017. The City can and should do better, but that doesn’t stop the council from keeping its promises today. The council’s action is needed now. She reviewed ECC 20.11 and did not think the code grants the City the ability to require step-backs once projects vest. Council action is needed to reconsider the repeal of the emergency interim CG step-back ordinance. She urged the council to give this community at least the same due consideration they gave to BD2. 7. RECEIVED FOR FILING Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 6, 2022 Page 9 1. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION At 7:43 p.m. the council convened in an executive session to discuss pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). This session is closed to the public and will last approximately 25 minutes. At 8:08 p.m. Mayor Nelson announced the executive session would be extended for 15 minutes. At 8:23 p.m., Nelson announced the executive session would be extended for 5 minutes. At 8:28 p.m., the executive session was concluded. No action was taken. The meeting reconvened at 8:29 p.m. 9. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO REVISIT THE AGENDA FORMAT AND MOVE APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA TO THE LAST ITEM. Council President Olson explained the above motion was based on the following motion: COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO ADD AN ITEM TO COUNCIL BUSINESS, 10.4, INTERIM EMERGENCY ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CG DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS FOR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION. Council President Olson explained the council wanted to look at a different approach and moving the consent agenda to the last item as there was interest in removing consent agenda item 9.3, Ordinance to Repeal the Emergency Interim CG Step Back Ordinance 4278, would allow discussion of putting a better process place via an emergency ordinance. Councilmember Nand expressed support for the motion, explaining this is a little procedurally complicated, but doing it this way would move the entire agenda including 9.3 to follow this new council business item 10.4, interim emergency ordinance regarding a design process. That discussion would occur before consideration of Repeal of the Emergency Interim CG Step-Back Ordinance and allow council to consider a different emergency design ordinance with a different procedure before repealing the other ordinance. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Council President Olson relayed there needs to be a plan to adjourn this meeting to a date certain if the agenda is not completed by 10 p.m. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained there are a couple ways to do that, the council can decide now to adjourn at 10 p.m. regardless and resume the business at a time that would need to be determined or the council could agree when tonight’s meeting ultimately adjourned, whatever unfinished business remains on the regular meeting agenda will be adjourned to an adjourned meeting and the council would need to determine the date and time for that adjourned meeting. Tonight’s meet does not have to have a hard stop at 10 p.m. tonight, it can be whenever the meeting ends tonight. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO ADOPT THE CHANGE PROPOSED BY MR. TARADAY TO BE WHEN WE ADJOURN TONIGHT. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 6, 2022 Page 10 Councilmember Nand commented changing the order of council business gives the council an opportunity to review and have a robust discussion on item 10.4, interim emergency design ordinance, that President Olson added to the agenda, and have that drafted and publicly available for a robust discussion before the council considers the consent agenda and possibly continue passage of item 9.3, Repeal of the Emergency Interim CG Step-Back Ordinance to a future date. Council and staff discussed a date and time for the adjourned meeting and agreed on Saturday, December 10, 2022 at noon. Mr. Taraday explained tonight’s meeting is a regular meeting; at the end of the meeting, it will be adjourned to an adjourned regular meeting which will be at a time and place specified in the order of adjournment. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, THAT THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING WILL BE HELD AT NOON ON SATURDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2022, IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. RESOLUTION OF RETAINING RIGHTS OF SELF-DETERMINATION OF LAND USE Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Jim Ogonowski for assisting her with preparation of the resolution. She read the resolution A RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL IN SUPPORT OF RETAINING RIGHTS TO SELF-DETERMINATION AS IT PERTAINS TO LAND USE, ZONING, BUILDING CODES AND ORDINANCES AND TO URGE COUNTY AND STATE ELECTED OFFICIALS TO NOT TAKE THESE RIGHTS AWAY THROUGH LEGISLATIVE ACTION WHEREAS, Edmonds is a code city within the State of Washington as encoded by Title 35A RCW; and WHEREAS, code cities were created by the State Legislature in order to grant the greatest degree of local control to municipalities possible under the state constitution and general law; and WHEREAS, code cities are authorized to perform any function not specifically denied them in the State Constitution or by state law and may perform any function granted to any other city classification under Title 35 RCW; and WHEREAS, Edmonds’ Comprehensive Plan recognizes and adheres to Growth Management Act (GMA) requirements and contains a wide variety of housing options in addition to specific sub-area plans and Edmonds is comfortably exceeding current and projected GMA targets for housing capacity; and WHEREAS, Edmonds has an engaged volunteer Planning Board of citizens to guide growth; and WHEREAS, in 2019, a 23-volunteer Citizens’ Housing Commission met for 18 months and provided 15 recommendations to the City Council that included robust and flexible zoning and building codes to meet a changing environment; and WHEREAS, Edmonds has a land area of 8.9 square miles and has consistently met GMA growth targets with 2035 population projected to be 45,550; and WHEREAS, Edmonds is a waterfront community with a built-out city that has a unique topography with large watersheds and public spaces which limits our land capacity for new structures; and WHEREAS, our buildable lands report reflected 23 years of constant growth and current permitting projections are exceeding all prior forecasts; and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 6, 2022 Page 11 WHEREAS, residents have clearly spoken that we value neighborhood character and are increasingly protective of watersheds, critical areas and our environment and; WHEREAS, a survey conducted by our Citizens’ Housing Commission, showed 78% of respondents strongly desire to retain single family zoning as currently codified; now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Edmonds City Council adopts this resolution to express its official position in support of retaining local control of our zoning and building codes without modification by County or State legislation. Section 2. The Edmonds City Council opposes legislation, or other outside mandates, which changes or attempts to influence local zoning or building codes or any definitions associated with them. Section 3. The Edmonds City Council further resolves that, by its legislative policy, single family zoning will continue to be a component of our zoning codes. Section 4. The City of Edmonds accepts responsibility for our land use and zoning codes to be in compliance with all current federal, state and county laws. Section 5. The Edmonds City Council directs that copies of this Resolution shall be sent to our Snohomish County representatives, Governor Inslee, and our State representatives as a means of affirming our City’s support of our right to self-determination of our land use, zoning and building codes and ordinances. Section 6. The Edmonds City Council reaffirms our commitment to our citizens to reject any intervention by County and State Legislators to dilute any of City Council’s authority in all land use matters. RESOLVED this 6th day of December 2022. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1610, A RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL IN SUPPORT OF RETAINING RIGHTS TO SELF- DETERMINATION AS IT PERTAINS TO LAND USE, ZONING, BUILDING CODES AND ORDINANCES AND TO URGE COUNTY AND STATE ELECTED OFFICIALS TO NOT TAKE THESE RIGHTS AWAY THROUGH LEGISLATIVE ACTION. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, AND NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER PAINE VOTING NO. 2. DELIBERATIONS ON THE 2023 EDMONDS CITY BUDGET Administrative Services Director Dave Turley provided a brief recap of yesterday’s decisions: • Overall impact of approximately $145,000 • Increase to General Fund fund balance: $79,644 • Reduction to REET 125: $200,000 • Decrease in Tree Fund 143: $25,000 Mayor Nelson requested in the interest of time, councilmembers make a motion prior to describing their amendment, because that will save time if there is no second. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease) Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 25 New Olson ARPA Electric leaf blower subsidy program Comm Svc 250,000 250,000 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 6, 2022 Page 12 Council President Olson explained based on an email she received today from Councilmember Teitzel at 10:11 a.m., based on level of the level of spending last night and to cut some corners, she would accept his amendment to her proposal. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT REQUESTED TO $50,000 AND CONSTRUCT IT AS REBATE PROGRAM WHEREBY OWNERS OF GAS BLOWERS TURN IN IN EXCHANGE FOR A GIFT CARD. Councilmember Teitzel opined this would be as effective as the original proposal to signal to constituents that the council is serious about the environment. Gas blowers, which are typically two or four cycle engines and have no pollution controls, emit far more pollution than a standard vehicle and are extremely noisy so there is also noise pollution. To the extent some can be removed from circulation, it will improve the City in many ways. There could be subsequent steps such as legislation that could be considered, but this is a first step. Mr. Turley said the initial motion is supposed to reflect the original proposal. Council President Olson relayed she was accepting the change to her proposal in an attempt to cut out the extra step of a motion followed by an amendment. Councilmember Paine asked if this would be a reimbursement program. Councilmember Teitzel answered the program could be classified as a reimbursement exchange as it would be in exchange for bringing in a gas powered leaf blower to get those out of circulation. Councilmember Paine asked if the person would need to present a receipt. Councilmember Teitzel responded the person would bring in a used gas blower in exchange for a gift certificate and would also need to present a receipt for the purchase of an electric powered blower. Councilmember Nand referred to the Edmonds residency requirement, relaying a large number of the leaf blowers in Edmonds are operated by professional landscapers who may not be residents of Edmonds or have their business licensed in Edmonds. She asked if they would be included in the program, commenting if the intent was to make an impact on pollution emitted by internal combustion engines and noise pollution, it would make sense to expand the program to people who are not necessarily domiciled in Edmonds but are the people who operate leaf blowers in the City. Councilmember Teitzel commented this is the initial phase of a program; it could be expanded to incorporate what Councilmember Nand suggested. The initial intent is to benefit the council’s direct constituents. Council President Olson explained the initial decision package (page 316 of the November 22, 2022 packet) prioritized business owners because they use gas powered blowers more often so are a much greater contributor to pollution. They would need to show evidence that they have jobs in Edmonds in order to be part of the program. She read from the original decision package: “This program will incent residents and operators of gardening and landscaping businesses to part with their gas leaf blowers by making the high-quality electric blowers very affordable, and thereby removing approximately 500 gas blowers from operation in Edmonds. This supports our community climate goals by improving air quality (reduced carbon emissions) and improves our quality of life (by reducing noise). This decision package supports public health, and helps households and businesses, all of which are allowable uses of ARPA funds.” The amendment lowers the amount from $250,000 to $50,000 and the way the $200 gift certificate is provided could be worked out, but the program would require turning in an operational gas blower in order to receive the rebate. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 6, 2022 Page 13 Councilmember Nand asked if there was any other vendor in Edmonds besides Edmonds Ace Hardware that sells electric gas leaf blowers and asked if this would be considered as subsidy to Ace Hardware. Council President Olson explained Ace Hardware was referenced in the original decision package but it was left open to include other retailers. She spoke with Edmonds Ace Hardware and they expressed their willingness to be part of the program where they would receive 10% from the customer and 90% from the City of Edmonds. That approach would be abandoned for the approach Councilmember Teitzel suggested because it would be easier to administer; upon turning in a gas blower, regardless of whether the person chooses to replace it, maybe they choose to use a rake, they would receive a rebate or stipend of $200. Mayor Nelson commented the key word was administer, he hoped whatever budgetary amount the council approved that City staff could be involved in how it would actually be administered. Councilmember Chen said he totally supports the concept, but wondered whether any thought had been given to the City’s uses of gas blowers and the City taking the lead in reducing the use of gas blowers. Council President Olson responded at some point in the near future legislation will be proposed to ban gas blowers which will include public input on that possibility. If gas blowers were banned, the City of course will not be using them. Councilmember Nand asked who would take responsibility for the gas leaf blowers and what would happen to them and whether the City was committing to recycling or scraping them which would be an additional cost. Council President Olson answered she already arranged with public works who were willing to be involved in coordinating the disposal with Snohomish County. Councilmember Paine said she loved this idea because it was great for the environment; an hour of blowing leaves was equal to 1200 miles driven by a regular sedan. She would like to see more firmness about the reimbursement being for an electric blower, not just $200 for whatever someone can purchase from somewhere like Ace Hardware. She preferred the reimbursement require a receipt for the purchase of an electric leaf blower. As proposed, the person would only need to turn in gas blower to get a gift card which could be used to purchase anything. It would be much better and stronger for the environment to have it be up to $200 as a reimbursement for an electric leaf blower. Councilmember Teitzel agreed with Councilmember Paine, relaying a receipt would be required to show they have purchased an electric leaf blower in concert with turning in the gas powered blower. Mayor Nelson commented this is very detailed for a budget amendment. Council President Olson suggested she could agree with that, her intent was to get gas blowers out of operation versus requiring that people use electric blowers. She suggested leaving that as an administrative detail for the administration to figure out. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Turley said for the sake of efficiency and in the interest of time, all that is needed tonight is a dollar amount, the purpose and the fund. He respected that councilmembers may want to discuss the proposals and that the discussion may sway their vote, but the details of the proposals can be worked out in committee in January before programs are rolled out. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 26 New Paine ARPA Home Improvement Grants 50,000 50,000 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 6, 2022 Page 14 COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO AMEND THE BUDGET TO ALLOW HOME IMPROVEMENT GRANTS FUNDED THROUGH ARPA IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 TO ALLOW LOW INCOME HOMEOWNERS TO APPLY FOR GRANTS UP TO $5,000 EACH FOR NEEDED HOME REPAIRS. Councilmember Paine relayed low income homeowners need to have work done to repair roofs, install ramps, tree work, interior work, etc. prevent them from becoming unhoused. The proposal would fund improvements for at least ten homes. She understood from talking with providers in the community that there is not a great deal of capacity because some providers such as the Homage program are no long doing this work. Other nonprofit providers have the capacity such as Habitat for Humanity Snohomish County whose director said they could do up to 10/year. It is important to keep people in their homes; one of the biggest barriers is getting home repairs done. Councilmember Teitzel observed the decision package was $50,000 from ARPA, but the description of ongoing costs is a halftime time FTE and salary/benefits. He recalled the intent was not to fund ongoing FTEs with ARPA funds. Councilmember Paine said that was a typo, there is no FTE associated with this. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how this differed from the home improvement program under the existing ARPA funding, whether this added to that or did it create a new category. The ordinance regarding the ARPA funds would need to be changed if this is a new category. Councilmember Paine said it would be in support of home repairs via the ARPA funds. Community Services & Economic Development Director Tatum answered this would be very similar to the current ordinance, but there would need to be budget authorization for 2023 to spend the funds. Council President Olson asked for clarification that the program already exists and it has been used. Mr. Tatum answered a similar program was included in the ordinance but it has never been implemented so no funds have been spent. Councilmember Nand asked if this would fall into the category of household support or would it be a separate category of household improvements. Mr. Tatum answered in Account B household support in the original ordinance, there were three separate subaccounts, household grants, utility support and housing repair. Councilmember Nand recalled there was a proposal to remove funds from household support and asked how this would change what would be allocated to household support under the 2023 budget and what the council initially authorized. Mr. Tatum answered there was no funding in the 2023 budget for housing repair. Councilmember Nand asked the total amount allocated for housing support in Account B. Mr. Tatum answered the original amount in household support was $4.5 million. Councilmember Nand observed this program was not pursued in 2023. Mr. Tatum agreed. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 27 New Paine GF ORCA Card Rebate Comm Svc 10,000 (10,000) Councilmember Paine explained this is a new program that she would like to have put in place; it is proposed to be funded with $10,000 from the General Fund, a 50% reimbursement for people who have an ORCA card. The use of public transportation helps the environment by taking cars off the road and this incentive will help increase bus ridership. Community Transit was very excited by the possibility of increasing ridership. It is good for the environment and helps support the climate action plan that will be presented early next year. This a 50% reimbursement for the amount paid for the ORCA card. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 6, 2022 Page 15 COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO ADOPT THE ORCA CARD REBATE PROPOSAL. Councilmember Paine continued, if a resident paid $50/month for their ORCA they could come to the City and receive a reimbursement of $25. Councilmember Buckshnis said this sounds like it could be a very tedious, time consuming process as there could be up to 400 people asking for a $25 rebate. She asked if consideration had been given to how this would be managed from an administrative standpoint. Mr. Turley envisioned it would be handled like parking passes at the front desk. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she liked this out of the box idea, but did not think 400 people would be asking for it so $10,000 was too much. Council President Olson said she may be open to it as a trial, but the decision package says ongoing and she was not ready to commit to it as an ongoing program. She asked whether it was a trial or an ongoing budget commitment. Councilmember Paine answered she was open to either; she wanted to get the program underway to take advantage of the new Community Transit routes coming into Edmonds. Councilmember Nand said she was inclined to support the motion, but had questions about implementation, acknowledging that Mr. Turley suggested the council focus on budget allocations and not implementation. Speaking in support of the idea, she said Seattle decided to pursue allowing everyone under the age of 18 to ride public transit for free and agreed that encouraging this behavior was healthy for the community. She asked if there would be a way to interact with the ORCA administration and deposit a subsidy directly into Edmonds’ resident’s ORCA cards. That would be much less administratively burdensome for staff and for the bus riders instead of presenting a receipt at city hall which she did not envision many people who ride the bus would take the time to do. Mr. Turley answered it is not required to indicate your city of residency when purchasing an ORCA card. He has an ORCA card that he pays for online and is tied to his credit card so they would have his billing address. He worked with ORCA in his previous job and he did do not believe that would be an option with the way ORCA is structured. Councilmember Nand questioned how ORCA card holders in the City would be aware of this program and whether it would be worthwhile for them to come to city hall to ask for a $25 reimbursement. Councilmember Paine envisioned they would show proof of payment and that they are an Edmonds resident and could get reimbursed for half of their monthly payment. The actual administration of the program would need to be determined. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE MOTION SINCE THIS IS A ONE TIME TRIAL, TO MAKE THIS AN ARPA FUNDED PROGRAM UNDER HOUSEHOLD SUPPORT BECAUSE A LOT OF HOUSEHOLDS IN NEED USE TRANSIT FOR THEIR COMMUTING. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT TO $5,000. Councilmember Buckshnis commented $5,000 would be 200 individuals. If the trial program is successful and more money is needed, more can be budgeted via the budget amendment process. Councilmember Nand spoke against the amendment to reduce the amount as funds to administer the program will reduce the amount that can be provided to ORCA card holders and a reduction to $5,000 would reduce it even more. She questioned the divide between funds needed to administer the program versus how much would be provided to ORCA riders. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 6, 2022 Page 16 UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE AND NAND VOTING NO. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 28 New Paine ARPA Contribution to Lynnwood Neighborhood Center Non- Dept. $150,000 $150,000 COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO SUPPORT THE LYNNWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $150,000. Councilmember Paine explained the Lynnwood Neighborhood Center is an up and coming group that is looking for contributions for their capital campaign. They have a large number of associated nonprofits; this will be a service hub adjacent to Highway 99, about 3 blocks outside Edmonds city limits but within the service area of the Highway 99 corridor that transects all communities. It will provide extensive social, education, behavior health, medical services and they anticipate having dental services, a health clinic and a pharmacy as well as a community kitchen and a broad community gathering place. It will also help support the motel that is coming in to help support the unhoused population. The nonprofits who will be involved and who have their own grant funding include the Boys & Girls Club, Center for Human Services (behavior health), Medical Teams International (dental, medical, prescriptions), the Korean Services Center, the Latino Educational Training Institute, and will include a commercial kitchen supported by a local restaurateur, space for tutoring, gymnasium, playground, community gardens and community rooms. This center will service many community members’ needs, families who are below 200% of the federal poverty level. This need was identified in the Kone Report and it would be great to be able to provide support for this operation, a need for the low income community in Edmonds. Councilmember Tibbott said he has seen designs for the neighborhood center, what is envisioned is an amazing Swiss army knife kind of operation but he struggled with the proposed amount. He asked about the remaining need to fund the center. Councilmember Paine answered she did not know. Councilmember Tibbott asked about the basis for $150,000. Councilmember Paine said she chose $150,000 because it was proportionally smaller than the $1 million that the City of Lynnwood provided from their ARPA funds. The center is conducting a fundraising campaign and aggressively seeking donors. This will help support the City’s services as well as ancillary needs outside what the City’s human services program offers. Council President Olson said she was very excited about this center. It is on Edmonds’ border and she supported looking at solutions regionally. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO CHANGE THE EXPENDITURE TO $100,000 INSTEAD OF $150,000. Council President Olson commented $100,000 is a very generous contribution, she was excited to support the center and felt $100,000 was the right level for the City for today. Councilmember Chen said he was also excited about this neighborhood center. Although this center will be located in Lynnwood, it is just outside of Edmonds and Edmonds residents, especially the minority populations, notably Korean Americans, Chinese Americans, and Vietnamese Americans, living on Highway 99 will benefit from this center. He enthusiastically supported $150,000 and would not support a reduction to $100,000. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 6, 2022 Page 17 Councilmember Buckshnis said $100,000 was a good start. Capital campaigns do not happen overnight so there will an opportunity to contribute next year. She asked whether asked whether this would be from the ARPA funds allocated to nonprofits or would a new category need to be created. Mr. Tatum responded it would fit under nonprofits. Councilmember Nand expressed support for the amendment. There is a street population along the Highway 99 corridor that shifts between 196th and the City of Edmonds that is significant underserved and generates a great burden on the police which is not the most appropriate avenue to contact people who are low income or experiencing the crisis of homelessness. She has volunteered at nonprofits in Lynnwood and knew Lynnwood can be very restrictive in the way they allow permits for nonprofits to provide services to vulnerable populations. She asked what the City would get in terms of its investment; this location is very close to Edmonds’ geographic border, but wondered because it will be in the City of Lynnwood, whether there will be an agreement in place so Edmonds has a say about the nonprofits that will be housed in the center and how they administer services. From a human services aspect, she envisioned Edmonds would want to have a say in how the nonprofits interact with the community. Before providing these funds, she wanted to have strings attached so the City could stay involved at an administrative level. Councilmember Paine answered in her conversations with the Lynnwood Neighborhood Center group that is putting this together, it is operated by the Volunteers of America, a standalone nonprofit, and there are no ties to the City of Lynnwood or obligation to do what Lynnwood says should be done. Edmonds would be contributing to the nonprofit, recognizing the need in the community and supporting low income people in need of these services. She concluded although it is called the Lynnwood Neighborhood Center, it is not operated by the City of Lynnwood. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND COUNCILMEMBER PAINE VOTING NO. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 29 New Teitzel General Fund Annual Contribution to ECA Non- Dept. 50,000 (50,000) COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE A $50,000 CONTRIBUTION TO THE EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS OPERATIONS FUND. Councilmember Teitzel explained the City has supported the ECA for several years and for several years has contributed $50,000 toward their operations fund which matches the amount the City contributes to the Waterfront Center/Senior Center. The ECA is a great resource in the community and draws people from not only Edmonds but also neighboring communities who come to shop, dine, eat and drink and support the City’s tax revenue base. This is certainly a worthwhile investment in a resource that returns many times that amount in tax revenue. Councilmember Tibbott expressed support for the motion. The ECA serves the entire city including students in educational ways and provides exposure to diverse cultures and diverse and creative artistic opportunities. This is a great way for the City to participate in those programs. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 6, 2022 Page 18 Council President Olson suggested taking “annual” out of the description in the budget, acknowledging of late the contribution has been annual. This is exactly what the ARPA funds were designed for. She has been in meetings with the EPFD board where they said attendance has not returned to pre-pandemic levels. She definitely did not want to lose this gem in the community, but to the extent they become self- sufficient, she did not want there to be an assumption that the City intended to be a long term benefactor. Mr. Turley said it was listed as a onetime item so he will change the description to remove “annual.” MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 3- New Paine GF Downtown Parking Lot Leases Econ Dev 40,000 (40,000) COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO ALLOW THE CITY TO LEASE DOWNTOWN PARKING LOTS FOR SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS DURING THE COMING YEAR WITH A BUDGET $40,000. Councilmember Paine explained this is similar to what was done last year during Walkable Main and through the end of the year where the City leased the Diamond parking lot next to 3rd Ave and other parking lots on 6th Ave off Main. The amount of money seemed nominal and would provide the ability to use existing parking year round to support the spring, summer and winter markets, downtown events, etc. and potentially free up street parking. It will provide more parking downtown where the City regularly hears concerns about parking. Council President Olson thanked Councilmember Paine for proposing this decision package, recognizing it has been an ongoing issue with patrons abandoning the idea of coming downtown due to the lack of parking. This is money well spent that will potentially come back to the City in sales tax when patrons do not go to Lynnwood instead. Councilmember Nand asked how this differed from Ed!’s voluntary afterhours parking program where property owners offer their lots for free outside of business hours. Councilmember Paine answered those parking spaces are often occupied and this would supplement that parking on Saturdays and Sundays. Councilmember Chen expressed support for the amendment, agreeing parking in downtown Edmonds is a challenge. He recalled the City collected some streateries fees that, to his knowledge, had not been used and asked if those could be used for this expenditure. Planning & Development Director Susan McLaughlin said former Community Services & Economic Development Director Patrick Doherty was involved with those lease agreements; those funds have not yet been used and she agreed perhaps they could be used for this. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO USE THE FUNDING FROM STREATERIES RATHER THAN THE GENERAL FUND. IF IT IS NOT ENOUGH, IT COULD BE COVERED WITH MONEY FROM THE GENERAL FUND. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the motion. She asked how the $40,000 was determined, relaying $40,000 divided by 52 weeks would be a lot of money for parking on the weekend. Councilmember Paine said she asked Mr. Tatum to contact the vendors and the amount provided was $42,000. Mr. Tatum advised the amount paid previously for leased parking was used to determine a year round amount. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if that was just the parking lot by Bank of America that Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 6, 2022 Page 19 the City leased. Mr. Tatum answered yes. Councilmember Buckshnis said she thought the intent was for more parking lots. Mr. Tatum said he did not have the email with him that contained all the calculations. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REDUCE THE FUNDING TO $30,000. Council President Olson said in addition to using the streatery fees, additional funding could be provided via the budget amendment process. She anticipated the prices paid in the past for summer would be higher due to the expectation parking would be full and a year round rate should be lower. She preferred to fund the parking with $30,000 and provide additional money via a budget amendment if a better deal was not available off-season when there was not as much demand for parking. Councilmember Paine wanted to ensure this got programmed. She preferred an amount of not to exceed $40,000 funded via the streatery fees and supplemented by the General Fund. This is a great opportunity and coming back for additional funding may make it more difficult. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, AND NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL AND PAINE VOTING NO. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 31 9 Chen/Tibbott ARPA Remove DP9 for ARPA grant manager Admin Svc (120,000) 120,000 COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO REMOVE DECISION PACKAGE #9 FOR ARAP GRANT MANAGER. Councilmember Chen said this is straightforward, since the ARPA funds were already used for General Fund purposes up to $10 million and throughout this budget, ARPA funds are being used and he did not see a need for this position. Councilmember Tibbott, co-author of this budget amendment, said he learned over the last few weeks that an ARPA manager would be helpful especially in administering some of the social programs. He requested input from staff regarding how the funds would be used and whether the amount could be reduced from $120,000 to $60,000 to administer what is becoming a smaller and smaller amount of the funding source. With regard to the ability to reduce the amount below $120,000, Mr. Turley explained the City has a contract with a person providing this service as an independent contractor. She works on as an needed basis and bills the City every two weeks. For example, her last invoice was 37.5 hours for two weeks, the two weeks before that was 40-42 hours. This is not like an FTE, it is only on as needed and is already less than budgeted. He offered to figure out how much less, pointing out that having funds in the budget does not mean they will be spent, but allows the City to continue using this independent contractor. Mr. Tatum said he recently signed about $100,000 worth of invoices for household improvement grants; at $2500/each, that is a large number. This person conducts the audits to ensure the vendor is keeping up with documentation, making sure the grants are going to the right people for the right reasons and that Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 6, 2022 Page 20 need will not go away. If this position goes away, he or someone in Mr. Turley’s office will be doing that work and the money will be spent one way or another. Programs like the leaf blower reimbursement will require secondary checks and audits. There is a lot of money going out to programs the City does not usually do and he found it very valuable to have her as a second check and balance and common sense measure. COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REDUCE FUNDING TO $60,000. Councilmember Paine did not support removing this decision package or reducing the funding. This a position in response to an audit finding this past year. This person provides checks and balances and a different set of eyes to ensure ARPA funds are being distributed to the right people at the right pace and ensuring they meet the qualifications as outlined in the ARPA program. As this position was associated with an audit finding, she did not support removing or reducing the funding of up to $120,000. She summarized it may be pennywise and pound foolish to cut off access to this resource. Councilmember Nand recognized there have been significant concerns with the misuse of CARES Act money and the level of fraud perpetrated through unemployment in Washington and other states in 2020. She asked how likely it was that the City would be audited by the county, state or federal government regarding the use of ARPA funds and how likely the City was to be targeted by fraudulent individuals attempting to misuse funds from programs. With regard to the probability the City will be audited, Mr. Turley answered 100%; anytime the City expends over $750,000, a complete audit is required. With regard to the misuse of funds, he used the electric leaf blowers subsidy as an example, if strings are attached to that program such as asking that people show proof they live or work in Edmonds, that will require a copy of a driver’s license or business license. He would be embarrassed if someone stole gas leaf blowers from their neighbors’ garages and turned them in and the City paid them $100 for each one. Mr. Turley continued, an ARPA grants manager is needed to ensure programs are set up properly to avoid that kind of fraud and to do an audit after the fact to ensure money is spent in accordance with the council’s wishes. For example, the City has been giving out money through Washington Kids in Transition, a fabulous program and the City is very happy with how that is working out. To qualify for those funds, a person has to be an Edmonds resident, a certain income level and meet other requirements. The grant manager has to audit WKT’s files to ensure they are distributing funds based on that criteria. There are a lot of ways these funds can be spent improperly or fraudulently and ensuring that doesn’t happen is one of the grant manager’s responsibilities. With regard to the amendment to reduce the funding to $60,000, Councilmember Nand how much the grant manager cost in 2022. Mr. Turley answered he did not have that number off the top of his head. Councilmember Nand asked if he would guess it would be over $60,000. Mr. Turley said the $120,000 would be approximately 40 hours/week. She has recently been working half of that; however, in the beginning she worked a lot more. When the program ramps up again, she will probably be working more hours than she is now. Councilmember Nand asked if there was any capacity in the administrative services department to take on these duties if this decision package were removed and this contract position eliminated. Mr. Turley answered there is zero capacity. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND TIBBOTT VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, BUCKSHNIS, PAINE, AND NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO CHANGE THE FUNDING TO $90,000. UPON ROLL CALL, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 6, 2022 Page 21 MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, AND NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, BUCKSHNIS AND PAINE VOTING NO. UPON ROLL CALL, MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, TIBBOTT, AND NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND PAINE VOTING NO. Mayor Nelson announced the motion to retain the position and fund it for $90,000 was approved. Councilmember Chen said the prior vote for $90,000 was approved. The main motion was to remove the position and that passed. Mayor Nelson asked Mr. Taraday for input. Mr. Taraday said the goal is clarity of legislative intent. If that not clear, the council should revote. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED TO RECONSIDER THE VOTE. City Clerk Scott Passey explained the amendment to reduce funding to $60,000 failed, the amendment to reduce funding to $90,000 passed and as amended, the $90,000 passed 5-2. When the motion is amended, that becomes the motion, it does not go all the way back to eliminating the position. Due to the confusion, Mr. Taraday suggested a roll call vote on the main motion, with the main motion articulated as keeping the position at $90,000. UPON A SECOND ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (7-0), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, PAINE AND NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 32 New Teitzel 121 Increase parking permits 25% and rename fund Admin Svc 12,000 12,000 COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO INCREASE PARKING PERMIT FEES BY 25% FOR RESIDENTIAL, EMPLOYEE AND VISITOR PARKING AND DEDICATED THE INCREASED REVENUE FUNDING TO FUND 121. Councilmember Teitzel explained the annual residential parking fee is $25 and the employee parking permit is $50/year, just pennies on a per day basis. The fees have not been increased since 2005 and the CPI in this area has more than tripled in the past three years so it is time to look at these fees. Parking downtown is tight and there is a need to free up additional spaces. The proposed increase is substantial, but not overwhelming, and may require some permit holders to make an economic decision whether to continue to pay the fee and park downtown or seek free parking beyond the permit zones. He proposed allocating the annual revenue, approximately $12,000, to street striping, signage, and additional disabled parking in the downtown core. The council has heard clearly from people with mobility challenges that they often cannot find parking downtown, especially during peak times. This would free up additional ADA parking spaces which are certainly warranted. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO EXTEND TO 10:20. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, BUCKSHNIS, PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT AND NAND VOTING NO. Councilmember Paine expressed appreciation for this decision package; it is something she has had in mind. She wondered why 25% was selected and not 50%. Councilmember Teitzel answered 50% seemed Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 6, 2022 Page 22 like a very significant increase in the fee. He selected an amount that he believed would cause some permit holders to make an economic choice to seek free parking. The goal is to free up parking downtown for other purposes such as visitors and disabled parking. Councilmember Nand commented a lot of permit holders are workers in the bowl and it was not appropriate to significantly burden them for trying to park within a certain block radius of their employment. Some of them are older and it is an accessibility issue. She felt 25% would be an appropriate update, but a 50% increase would be overly burdensome and actual rather hostile. Councilmember Teitzel suggested keeping in mind the fee for employee permits would increase from $50/year to $62.50/year, still a nominal cost. For those with mobility issues or who are older, continuing to purchase an employee permit is certainly attainable. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCREASE PARKING PERMITS BY 50%. Councilmember Paine said she knew for a fact that some condominium associations market the opportunity to purchase a parking permit to provide parking not available onsite. She would rather see City streets prioritized for businesses or visitors. The permits are undervalued and although she understood this added an additional burden for employees, the necessity of valuing the right-of-way in a way that is meaningful undermines that. Council President Olson commended Councilmember Teitzel for noticing the permits were undervalued and for proposing a decision package. She was struck by the small amount charged for parking permits when everyone knows what parking costs are when parking in other communities with paid parking. It is still a very low amount even with a 50% increase. She acknowledged it was hard to talk about these percentages, but the permit fees have not been increased since 2005. Looking at that in the context of the utility rate increase, it is hard to take these big bites which is why it is better to have incremental increases. She summarized the 50% increase brought the parking permits to the right level. Councilmember Nand disagreed with Councilmember Paine and Council President Olson. The council should not ask people who are working part time or at minimum wage jobs for an increase when many of them are worried about increased gas prices and on a whim the council doubles their parking fee, making it more burdensome and difficult for them to drive to work, park and do their job. This is a time when people are making cutbacks on how much they spend on Christmas or not traveling to be with family during the holidays due to increased cost of living. A 25% increase and devoting the additional $12,000 to increasing disability access and signage in the downtown area is appropriate and measured especially when the burden is applied to workers in the community. Small businesses and their employees are still feeling the impact of the pandemic and increasing the parking permit by 50% is unnecessarily hostile. Councilmember Teitzel thanked Mr. Turley for the data which is current through October 2022. There are approximately 1,000 residential permits for downtown parking and about 450 business and employee permits. If a quarter utilize the spaces daily and 20% decide move to free parking which is available east of 6th Ave, that will free up spaces downtown. He concluded this is a very worthy proposal. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (2-4-1), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS AND NAND VOTING NO; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON ABSTAINING. MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. No. DP# or Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Proposed Revenue Increases (Decreases) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 6, 2022 Page 23 New Increase (Decrease) Increase (Decrease Fund Bal 33 New Buckshnis GF 5% increase for Prosecuting Attorney contract (placeholder) Admin Svc (16,000) 16,000 Councilmember Buckshnis removed this amendment. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 35 New Nand GF Consultant for “Charter City” ballot measure exploration Council 30,000 (30,000) Councilmember Nand said she had hoped to have this presented along with Councilmember Paine’s amendment regarding districts as they are tangentially related. There are a lot of potential changes that people would like to see in the way City government is run. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED TO SPEND $30,000 TO ENGAGE A CONSULTANT WITH AN EYE TOWARD EXPLORING WHETHER THERE IS POLITICAL WILL AND IMPETUS TO BECOME A CHARTER CITY. IF THE CONSULTANT THROUGH A TOWN HALL OR PUBLIC FEEDBACK PROCESS DETERMINED THIS WAS SOMETHING VOTERS WOULD LIKE TO PURSUE, IN THE 2024 BUDGET SHE WOULD PROPOSE SPENDING $200,000 TO PUT IT BEFORE THE VOTERS AS A BALLOT INITIATIVE. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease) Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 36 New Chen GF Add new REDI Manager FTE HR 155,677 (155,677) COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO ADD A FULL-TIME REDI MANAGER. Councilmember Chen said the dollar amount is for information only, the actual budget impact for 2023 is actually zero because in 2021 the budget included a three-year contract for the same amount so there would be a carryover from the 2021 budget. Mr. Turley responded the REDI manager position was pulled and defeated last year and replaced with an independent contractor for a lower amount so the dollar amount is different. Councilmember Chen said the amount proposed is exactly the same amount in the 2021 budget. Mr. Turley said the dollar amount is what an FTE would have been paid, but it is different than what was included in the 2022 budget. Councilmember Chen said he forwarded the same amount that was in the 2022 approved budget. He observed possibly inflation, price adjustments, etc. will impact the amount by a slim margin, but the idea is there was a carryover amount to cover it so the net impact is very minimal. Councilmember Chen explained the reason for this proposal is the City had a 3-year contact position. He talked to HR Director Neill Hoyson about the process for hiring a contract positions and she said because of the short-term nature of the position, it was difficult to fill. With that reality, he proposed returning to the original plan to fill this position full-time. He attended REDI training today; some of the benefits realized by cities with such a position such as Lynnwood and others in Washington include more community engagement, DEI work is more intentional in bridging gaps, and bringing equity to everything the City does. That training pointed out this is a long term investment, change will not happen overnight, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 6, 2022 Page 24 and even a 3-year commitment will not drive the changes that would potentially come with a full-time position. There are other reasons for funding the position. Council President Olson referred to the proposed budget for this position, $155,677, advising there is $80,000 in the mayor’s professional services budget from that contract that was approved last year that had an allocation for three years. The difference between the $80,000 allocated for this year for the contractor and the FTE would be an increase of $75,677. She wanted to take the approach of a 3-year contracted employee and if after three years there was a need for it to be ongoing, at some point it lives in the entire organization and is led by the mayor. She sent an email to the HR Director about search for a contracted option, acknowledging if it is impossible hire that way, obviously it needs to be reconsidered. Her takeaway from HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson’s response was the efforts have not been ongoing or long enough to know whether the position can be hired that way. Council President Olson read from Ms. Neill Hoyson’s email, “I put out an RFP for this work in August. Unfortunately due to the amount of items on my plate, that did not get attention until later in the year. I tried to very broadly get the RFP out and used a lot of my networking channels. We only received three responses to the RFP. Those proposals are still in the review process. This work is very important but it is also on the back burner right now with all the labor work that I am doing.” Council President Olson said she did not feel like a fair shot had been given to approaching it from a contract standpoint and for that reason she would not support the decision package. Mayor Nelson added those three applicants were companies, not individuals. Councilmember Chen suggested inviting Ms. Neill Hoyson to provide input. Ms. Neill Hoyson asked if the council wanted her to comment on adding this as an FTE. Councilmember Chen answered yes. Ms. Neill Hoyson said when this was first proposed as an FTE in the last budget cycle, after consultation with the equity consultant the City had been working with to create an equity roadmap as well as consultation at state level, the best approach for ensuring this work moves forward consistently is an employee of the agency dedicated to that work. She understood Council President Olson's thought that it should eventually move through the whole organization which it definitely should, but it has been shown time and time again when there is no one dedicated to moving the needle forward and making sure everyone is meeting the goals that have been set, it tends to falls by the wayside. Ms. Neill Hoyson continued, as she said in the email, there was significant outreach to get a robust response to the RFP. The fact that the City still only received three proposals is indicative of while there might be some interest by consultant companies to do the work, there may not be anyone interested in staying on and continuing the work after three years. She concluded it was still in the best interest of the City and the people who live in the City to focus some effort and money on this as a full-time position. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND UNTIL 10:30. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (4-3) FOR LACK OF A SUPER MAJORITY, COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT, PAINE AND NAND VOTING NO. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-3-1), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, AND NAND VOTING YES, COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO; COUNCILMEMBER PAINE ABSTAINING. Mr. Taraday read the key paragraph in the Order of Adjournment: In accordance with RCW 42.30.090 and ECC 1.04.020, the December 6, 2022 regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council has been adjourned until noon on Saturday, December 10, 2022. The adjourned regular meeting will occur at the Council Chambers located at 250 5th Avenue N, Edmonds, WA 98020. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 6, 2022 Page 25 3. COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF CIP/CFP 4. INTERIM EMERGENCY ORDINANCE TO AMEND CG DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS 5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (previously Agenda Item 9) 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 22, 2022 2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS 3. ORDINANCE TO REPEAL THE EMERGENCY INTERIM CG STEP BACK ORDINANCE 4278 4. 2023 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA 5. STREET VACATION ORDINANCE PLN2022-0045 6. RESOLUTION OF RETAINING RIGHTS OF SELF-DETERMINATION OF LAND USE 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS 11. ADJOURN In accordance with ECC 1.04.020 and RCW 42.30.90, as the Council had not completed its business by 10 p.m. (extended to 10:20 p.m.) by Order of Adjournment, the Council meeting was recessed and adjourned until noon on Saturday, December 10, 2022. The meeting will resume at the point in which the December 6, 2022 meeting was adjourned. The meeting was recessed and adjourned at 10:20 p.m.