The URL can be used to link to this page

Cmd121022 adjourned mtg Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES December 6, 2022 Adjourned until December 10, 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 ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Jenna Nand, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Dave Turley, Administrative Services Director Oscar Antillon, Public Works Director Susan McLaughlin, Planning & Dev. Dir. Todd Tatum, Comm. Serv. & Econ. Dev. Dir. Rob English, City Engineer Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 12:00 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. 2. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Nand. 3. COUNCIL BUSINESS COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO ADD THE MADRONA LAW GROUP FUNDING REQUEST TO THE AGENDA. Councilmember Teitzel explained the council has contracted with Madrona Law Group to assist with the evaluating the Lighthouse contract for 2023. The City has received several public records requests that Madrona is reviewing and there is a need for additional funding to complete their work. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO AUTHORIZE UP TO $1,500 IN FUNDING FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND TO PROVIDE SERVICE FOR THE MADRONA LAW GROUP. City Clerk Scott Passey advised the council first needed to vote on adding the item to the agenda before making a motion to fund it. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 2 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was unfamiliar with adjournment meetings, and asked City Attorney Jeff Taraday whether the council was allowed to add an agenda item during the middle of a meeting. Mayor Nelson advised Mr. Taraday was delayed due to traffic. Mr. Passey advised this is an adjourned regular meeting, not a special meeting, so there is not a problem with adding an agenda item as long as it passes by a majority vote. Mayor Nelson agreed. Councilmember Teitzel requested this be added as Item 3.1 and move the Adjourned Regular Meeting to Item 3.2 and the Emergency Interim Ordinance to Item 3.3. 1. AUTHORIZE FUNDING FOR MADRONA LAW GROUP Councilmember Teitzel continued, the council is contracting with the Madrona Law Group to assist with reviewing the 2023 Lighthouse contract. That contract verbiage needs to be finalized as well as respond to public records requests as Lighthouse cannot. The full $1,500 may not be needed, but this would authorize spending up to $1,500 if needed. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, THAT COUNCIL AUTHORIZE UP TO $1,500 IN ADDITIONAL SPENDING FOR MADRONA LAW GROUP TO ASSIST WITH THE LIGHTHOUSE CONTRACT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DELIBERATIONS ON THE 2023 EDMONDS CITY BUDGET (CON’T) Administrative Services Director Dave Turley advised there were two HR related amendments, however, as the director was not here, they will be addressed at Tuesday’s meeting. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease) Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal New Paine Consultant to investigate council districting COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED TO APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO HIRE A PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANT TO INVESTIGATE WHAT SEVEN COUNCIL DISTRICTS LOOKS LIKE. 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 38 8 Staff GF Remove DP8 for in-house prosecuting attorney proposal (136,750) 136,750 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO APPROVE THIS STAFF REQUEST. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease) Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 3 39 Staff GF ED/CS ARPA Household Support Grant Program (previously approved) 500,000 (500,000) 40 Staff GF ED/CS ARPA Business Support Program (previously approved) 50,000 (50,000) 41 Staff GF ED/CS ARPA Tourism Support (previously approved) 75,000 (75,000) 42 Staff GF ED/CS ARPA Non-Profit Support (previously approved) 79,000 (79,000) COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED COUNCIL BUDGET IMPACTS. Councilmember Teitzel said he has been discussing ARPA funding for general business support with Community Services/Economic Development Director Todd Tatum. He asked if amendments to the ordinance will be required to support this change. Mr. Tatum responded language will need to be included in the budget ordinance that accounts for this in fiscal year 2023 and any changes to the direction for spending will also need to be included in the budget. From previous discussions, he did not see a need to change what was in the previous ordinance related to these four. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease) Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 43 21 Buckshnis GF Remove $50k from Planning & Dev. Prof. Srvcs. P&D (50,000) 50,000 Councilmember Buckshnis requested Items 44 or 50 related to Mr. Tatum’s two remaining items be moved up. Mr. Turley advised the ones he received emails about removing during the last 3-4 days have been removed from the spreadsheet. Councilmember Buckshnis said the Community Cultural Plan and the Economic Development Comp Plan are overseen by Mr. Tatum and she wanted those moved up so he could address them. This $50,000 comes from the Planning & Development Department. Mr. Turley agreed they could be done out of order if Councilmember Buckshnis wished. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease) Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 50A New Buckshnis GF $75,000 for Community Cultural Plan Update Econ Dev 75,000 (75,000) A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND SECONDED, TO APPROVE $75,000 FOR THE COMMUNITY CULTURAL PLAN UPDATE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Councilmember Buckshnis explained the Community Cultural Plan is usually done as part of the PROS Plan, but the PROS Plan took a different direction this year so the Community Cultural Plan was left out. It needs to be updated; the last one was done in 2014. It is an important component of the comprehensive plan and deals strictly with the community cultural aspect under the arts and culture division. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 4 No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease) Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 50B New Buckshnis GF $75,000 for Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Econ Dev 75,000 (75,000) COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO ADD $75,000 FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Councilmember Buckshnis explained this is a component that falls under Director Tatum’s area and is a very important aspect of the comprehensive plan. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease) Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 43 21 Buckshnis GF Remove $50k from Planning & Dev. Prof. Srvcs. P&D (50,000) 50,000 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO REMOVE $50,000 FROM THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. Councilmember Buckshnis explained she went through the budget and scrubbed all the professional services and gave the directors an opportunity to explain why their professional services didn’t balance. The decision package for this item is $300,000; page 120 of the budget lists $300,000 DP21 Comprehensive Plan Update and page 121 reflects a change between the 2022 and 2023 estimate of $350,000. She knows the comprehensive plan is very important, however, in reviewing all the departments’ professional services, this was an out of balance situation, which is why she moved for this change. Planning & Development Director Susan McLaughlin asked Councilmember Buckshnis to articulate what she meant by out of balance. Councilmember Buckshnis said she went through all the professional services in every department and cost center. Some of the PowerPoint presentations matched the professional services, but there wasn’t a decision package for those professional services or the increase in the PowerPoint. On this item, there is a decision package for $300,000 for the Comprehensive Plan update, yet there is a $350,000 change. The estimates of the professional services only shows $63,960 for 2022. The $50,000 hasn’t been identified in the PowerPoint presentation, therefore, it looks to be in excess of the $300,000. Ms. McLaughlin responded the professional services budget for planning and development needs to be nimble and available because the department often pivots based on policy direction that council advises on. Having nimble funding has been critically important in the past year and historically. Professional services has been a discretionary budget in the past; she itemized it in the PowerPoint as a courtesy to show in 2023 what the department anticipates spending in the professional services budget. Although it may not align penny for penny, having that additional $50,000 will help the department to be nimble in responding to moratoriums, emergency ordinances or shifts in policy direction. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the previous director used carryforwards in her budget. She acknowledged every budget is different. In tracking the PowerPoint presentation, the department already has $300,000 for the comprehensive plan update and there is always the ability to increase funding via a budget amendment. She summarized she was trying to get each department to look at excess amounts that may/may not be recognizable. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 5 Councilmember Paine said she would not support the motion for the reasons Ms. McLaughlin stated. Things shift around and things come up and the department relies on consultants to assist with decision making and policy direction. The nimbleness helps everyone and eliminating that would cut them off at the knees. Council President Olson said this was a situation where she could see the value of both arguments. There is an effort to tighten our belts, so there is value in taking out some of the discretionary items and if things come up, handle it through the amendment process. She was leaning that way, but definitely understood the point of having a little extra in the budget. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-3), COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN AND PAINE VOTING NO. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease) Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 44 72 Buckshnis ARPA/ GF Remove DP72 for Green Streets projects Street Cap Proj (297,744) (312744) (15,000) COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO REMOVE DP72. Councilmember Buckshnis commented when the council looked at this during the ARPA funding discussions in March, $400,000 was removed from the ARPA funding and the council has yet to see the impact, definitions, zoning, right-of-way issues, or design standards for green streets. She referred to green streets as a sidewalk with a rain garden attached because that is what she has seen in Portland, Oregon. Seattle has a really good green street plan, definition and code. Even if this is approved, under the CIP/CFP, the City is committing about $2.4 million from the City’s coffers in addition to ARPA funding for green streets. She did not have enough information to support the green street projects. Council President Olson said her proposed amendment, further down in the list, was to remove the Dayton Street project and leave only the 236th & 84th project so it could be an example and there could be an additional amenity in that high density area. However, as conversations have continued with residents, she wondered how much they value that versus undergrounding of utilities on Highway 99 and the sidewalks on 236th and 84th that have been repeatedly requested. Some of the amenity value, such as corner flower beds and hanging baskets that she was excited about, in addition to the stormwater value, could be funded by the Goffette donation so some of the sense of place that would be achieved with the decision package could still be delivered. This was a very recent development and she sent an email to staff to avoid them being blindsided by her change of heart because she had supported this project at 236th & 84th until very recently. She was leaning toward not funding it to make sure there are General Fund monies available for park amenities and sidewalks which seems to be what the neighborhood is really asking for. Councilmember Chen said he likes the concept of green streets; the reason he changed course was due to conversations with residents in the area whose top priority is public safety in terms of sidewalks due to children walking to/from Madrona and potential development in that area. He preferred to delay this project, and see how the development turns out and put emphasis on improving the traffic situation and sidewalks in 2023. Councilmember Paine said as someone who lived near the Seattle green streets and it was an Edmonds resident, a terrific engineer and guiding light on this topic who developed those, she was surprised more Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 6 was not known about green streets. The environmental impacts of green streets are enormous; having green streets on 236th will help build sidewalks from 84th to Highway 99, infrastructure the neighborhood has been asking for. This is a great opportunity to put in green infrastructure in a neighborhood that does not have parks. There are ditches in the neighborhood which are very old-school but are helpful in managing stormwater without hardscaping. Having green streets on Dayton Street and SR-104 would provide a little bit of nature in an area adjacent to the marsh to help mitigate stormwater flows, infiltrate the water in areas that will be beneficial to the entire neighborhood. People live in that area and it would be a nice place to walk, a nice space for everyone. Councilmember Paine continued, green streets would be funded through ARPA funds. The bipartisan infrastructure bill, which can be used to fund sidewalks, will be beneficial for all neighborhoods including on 84th and around Lake Ballinger. She hoped the decision package that funds green streets will be retained as sidewalks and green spaces build community. She was also interested in having more sidewalks constructed through the bipartisan infrastructure bill because that is what residents have been asking for. She did not see this as an either/or but as an and. She did not support removing any of the green streets from the budget. Ms. McLaughlin commented zoning has nothing to do with green streets; green streets are in the right-of- way which is not dictated by zoning. She considered green streets as any other capital project, it is not guided by zoning or legislation; it is just by right that the City improves its streets and luckily there is a process to do so. Regarding sidewalks, she agreed this it is a yes/and as Councilmember Paine mentioned. More sidewalks are needed, but there also need to be more funding sources to build sidewalks. ARPA specifically mentions stormwater; this is an instance of surplus infrastructure. That concept means stormwater infrastructure can be installed with ARPA funds to improve water quality and in return, the City gets a sidewalk that would not have been infilled by private development. There are gaps on 236th that private development is not obligated to build. ARPA funding allows the City to build surplus infrastructure, a signature green street in an under-represented community that has begged for infrastructure. The City’s sidewalk budget is negligible; even quadrupling it would not equate to the ARPA allocation for green streets that was adopted last year. Ms. McLaughlin referred to the tree canopy gaps analysis which indicated this area has the lowest tree coverage in the City. Surplus infrastructure through green streets also includes street trees. The City’s climate action plan demands more street trees. A green street is surplus infrastructure and provides for sidewalks, stormwater management, and street trees using federal funds. She guaranteed if the City had to fight for funding next year for sidewalks, they would not be built until 2024 or 2025; grant cycles are long, and require resources to achieve those funds versus ARPA funds which are at the ready. Councilmember Teitzel said he was feeling very conflicted. There are four amendments that are all slightly different; he has also has a proposed amendment regarding DP72. He understood Councilmember Buckshnis’ interest in the council having more information and knowledge about the green street program. He was leaning toward pausing this, returning the funds to the ARPA bucket, and bringing it back next year after council has the information it needs. For example, his question related to green streets is whether permeable pavement could be used for the sidewalks to help with stormwater infiltration, something he has not heard discussed. The reason he was interested was due to concern with stormwater in the Highway 99 subarea and plans to implement an infiltration project at Mathay Ballinger Park. To the extent stormwater can be addressed further uphill would be a good thing from his perspective. He wanted all those things considered holistically before signing a check to provide funding for a green street project. Councilmember Teitzel asked Ms. McLaughlin to help the council better understand all the details about green streets to assist with making a decision about funding. Ms. McLaughlin said it was unusual during a budget process to provide design plans in advance of allocating funds to do the design and the work. With Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 7 regard to permeable paving, that is often done when there is no other choice for infiltration or to achieve stormwater benefits. The 236th design allows for an 8-foot landscape planted area that also serves as bioretention. A permeable sidewalk is not necessary because everything drains through natural means. Permeable pavement also creates an asset management issue as they require occasional vacuuming. They are good to consider in some instances, but they are not necessary on 236th. Councilmember Buckshnis clarified she was not against green streets. When the $89,000 came through as a budget amendment which Councilmember Tibbott pulled, the council asked for information, descriptions, right-of-way issues, etc. so that the council had a better understanding. She has sent Seattle’s code to staff, commenting the City could mimic that code. She referred to PWT-64 which indicates the City will be on the hook for $2,386,994 over and above ARPA funds, money that could be used to construct a lot of sidewalks. The statement that green streets are totally funded with ARPA is incorrect, the City is on the hook for $2.4 million in 2024 and it is unknown whether the City will have infrastructure funds available. Further, the design, descriptions and other information are not available to help council make those decisions. Ms. McLaughlin responded that dollar amount is for Dayton and 236th combined; she anticipated through policy discussions that those designs will be modified to prioritize investments in 236th and the dollar amounts can be reduced. It is very unusual at 10% design to have complete cost estimates. The estimates are ballpark and can be modified based on design alterations. Councilmember Tibbott agreed with councilmembers who would like to pause this project. He asked the difference in cost between a green street sidewalk and a sidewalk with landscaping and garden features; how much extra would a green street cost. Ms. McLaughlin answered every site, every block, every design is different; the 10% design estimate for the 236th project is more expensive for various reasons, but underground infrastructure is a component of the cost. As she has said at previous council meetings when she defined green streets, it does not need to be legislative, it can be rolled into a street design package. There are varying scales of what a green street is; sometimes it is an expanded landscape that improves infiltration and can be 10% or 70% more. Councilmember Tibbott said he was struggling with whether it was 10% more or 70% more. He does not know the need for stormwater improvements on 236th; it may be better to take that 50% extra and put in stormwater wells in places where they are needed in the City and get a bigger bang for the buck and at the same time, be able to fund a regular sidewalks with gardens and better lighting. He supported pausing green streets and although he was open to it, he currently did not enough information. Mayor Nelson questioned continuing to discuss this because he could already count the votes. Councilmember Paine was opposed to pausing green streets. The reason for getting something underway and learning more about the variety of green streets is because they are needed and pausing the project will delay getting them built. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER PAINE VOTING NO. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease) Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 45 72 Teitzel ARPA/ GF Remove Dayton portion of project but spend on sidewalks Street Cap Proj -- -- -- 46 72 Buckshnis ARPA Remove $89,250 for 10% deign Green Streets Street Cap (89,250) (89,250) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 8 Proj 47 72 Olson ARPA Remove Dayton portion of project Street Cap Proj (78,027 (78,027) Councilmember Teitzel said the council’s action on the previous amendment, removing funding for DR72, obviates the above three. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease) Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 48 New Teitzel ARPA Edmonds Code Rewrite Project P&D 300,000 300,000 Councilmember Teitzel recalled his proposal to reduce the number of police vehicles by four to fund the code rewrite was not successful. However, the issue still exists, there is a major effort in 2023 to rewrite the code. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO SET ASIDE $300,000 IN ARPA FUNDING AND DEDICATE IT TOWARD THE CODE REWRITE. Councilmember Teitzel relayed he had discussed this with Ms. McLaughlin; there is currently a term limited employee on staff focused on permitting. This person has a very good understanding of the code and is a good tech writer. A portion of the funds would be used for that person through 2023 to focus 100% on the code rewrite effort and a portion of the funds would be used to bring in expert contract help to focus on this effort. Council expects substantial progress to be made on the code rewrite in 2023 and with this funding, that can happen. Council President Olson expressed support for the amendment, recognizing that some of the consulting time may need to be dedicated to parts of the code that are not development related. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease) Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 49 New Teitzel GF IT support for planning board hybrid meetings P&D 14,000 (14,000) COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO APPROVE FUNDING TO SUPPORT HYBRID PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS IN 2023. Councilmember Teitzel recalled the planning board requested council provide funds to allow them to conduct meetings in council chambers which would be available for the public to watch on channel 21 as well as allow the public to participate in person if they choose. He wrote the amendment in that vein, however, since then in discussion with Ms. McLaughlin, he learned the Brackett room in city hall has been equipped to support hybrid meetings. The technology in the Brackett room would allow for the same streaming function via Zoom and would be less costly. Rather than $14,000, he requested the amount be reduced to $5,000 to fund a monitor person to allow people to enter and exit city hall during meetings. He summarized the cost would be less and the facility for the planning board would be roughly equivalent. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 9 COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO SET ASIDE $5,000 FOR SUPPORT FOR PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS TO BE HELD IN THE BRACKET ROOM AT CITY HALL. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 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 51 New Olson GF Remove $67,500 from Prof. Srvcs. -Aquifer Code P&D (67,500) 67,500 COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO REMOVE $67,500 FROM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DEDICATED TO THE AQUIFER CODE. Council President Olson explained this amendment left some of the money dedicated to the code rewrite. The aquifer code is critical, time sensitive, and something she wanted done right away, but Olympic View Water & Sewer (OVWSD) indicated Snohomish County’s code regarding the Critical Area Aquifer was adequate. One of the aquifers in the Snohomish County code is in Esperance and is the same aquifer referred to in the Edmonds code. Therefore what Snohomish County has in their code to protect that aquifer is probably what Edmonds needs. Instead of writing a new code from the bottom up, it would be much less expensive to modify Snohomish County’s code to ensure it works for Edmonds and then adopt the slightly modified code. Ms. McLaughlin commented it is one thing to have a model code and another to customize it for Edmonds which may not require much tweaking. However, the expense is not necessarily in the writing but in the process itself. Edmonds’ code process is lengthy; the bare minimum is 2 planning board and 2-3 council meetings if no issues arise following a robust community outreach process. Community outreach on this subject which has already proven to be of public interest and a lengthy public process is where the money goes, not necessarily the code writing itself. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the PowerPoint presentation indicated a cost of $75,000 so technically Council President Olson was leaving $8,500 in the budget for this item. She asked whether the aquifer code was separate from the global code rewrite. Ms. McLaughlin answered the code modernization work includes a minor code package that staff is trying to streamline. The aquifer code would not be part of the minor code package and would be included in the major code amendments. Major code amendments are unlikely to be grouped together, they will be addressed individually because they have enough technical content, policy implications and public interest that they need to stand alone. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the City received a resolution from OVWSD saying the City needed to act on this sooner rather than later. Ms. McLaughlin said that is why it was included in the budget. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO REMOVE $50,000 RATHER THAT $67,500FROM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IN LIGHT OF THAT NEW INFORMATION. Council President Olson said after hearing Ms. McLaughlin’s explanation, she thought this would be adequate to cover staffing dedicated to the process. Councilmember Paine did not support the motion. Slashing the professional services budgets when there is a specific request removes the ability for staff to move quickly and nimbly. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 10 Councilmember Chen did not support the amendment or the motion when there was a need and a request to rewrite the aquifer code. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (2-4), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, TIBBOTT AND PAINE VOTING NO. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-4), COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, TIBBOTT AND PAINE VOTING NO. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease) Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 52 New Buckshnis GF Remove $30,000 from Prof. Srvcs. – Building Incentive Program (30,000) $30,000 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO REMOVE $30,000 FROM THE GREEN BUILDING INCENTIVE PROGRAM PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was not sure what this meant. It says encourage decarbonization of existing and new buildings and incentives to LEED. She asked how it would be determined who gets an incentive, how criteria would be established, etc. Ms. McLaughlin answered green building incentive programs are very common across the country; Edmonds is quite late to the game. It incentivizes developers to build green, above and beyond the standard building codes with regard to materials, construction waste, transportation, energy and air quality, stormwater, etc. LEED is the most common example, but there is also a local program, Built Green, through the Master Builders Association. This would enable staff to work with local jurisdictions to model a green building incentive program. It is not giving money away; some of the options include streamlining permits for developers that build green buildings, but other jurisdictions offer incentives like bonus density. These funds would be used to develop options for an incentive program which is also part of the climate action plan. Councilmember Buckshnis acknowledged such a program was needed but she did not have enough specifics and $30,000 did not seem like a lot of money for incentives. She recalled the City has tried to streamline the green permitting process for years, commenting if anyone wanted to hear a horror story, they should talk to Val Stewart about her experience with green permitting. She asked if this would be to provide a specific program or was this still in the incubator stage. Ms. McLaughlin clarified the $30,000 would not go into the hands of developers; the $30,000 would be used to create an incentive program that would be legislated, and would require buildings to meet certain levels of green building to qualify for incentives such as a streamlined, expedited building permit. That is a very common incentive in other jurisdictions. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease) Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 56 New Buckshnis GF Remove $96,839 from Prof. Srvcs. (Admin Cost Center) P&D (96,839) 96,839 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 11 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO REMOVE $96,839 FROM THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE COST CENTER 524.10. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she has done this in past budgets when she saw excessive amounts in professional services. She referred to page 117 of the budget book where the 2021 actual is around $200,000, the 2022 budget was 2.5 times that and the estimates for 2022 are $318,000; this amendment would lower the amount closer to the estimate. If the amount of professional services needs to be increased, that can be accomplished via a budget amendment. There is still $350,000 in professional services to be nimble with. Ms. McLaughlin explained that is the administrative portion of the development services department. An example of what the professional services were used for in the past year was support for process improvements such as the equitable engagement framework; there was no outright funding to improve the inclusive outreach process which she felt was a huge gap. There are also no funds budgeted for things like translation, interpretation, converting materials to multilingual access, etc. She summarized there are a lot of department process improvements to ensure best practice, with a focus on equity. Councilmember Paine did not support the amendment as those are things needed for the broader community and without them, the City would be going backward at a rapid pace. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-3-1), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT AND PAINE VOTING NO; COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON ABSTAINING. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease) Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 56- 1 Staff GF SEIS (Supplemental Environmental Impact Study) P&D $250,000 ($250,000) Mr. Turley advised this was previously approved by council, but the amendment is necessary to include it in the budget. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO APPROVE FUNDING FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 SUBAREA PLAN. Councilmember Teitzel asked if this could be funded with ARPA rather than the General Fund. This is a fairly sizeable investment and there are concerns about the General Fund balance. Mr. Turley advised it could be. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND TO SHIFT THE FUNDING TO ARPA INSTEAD OF THE GENERAL FUND. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 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 57 31 Teitzel GF Remove vehicle from DP31 Fleet (30,000) 30,000 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 12 Councilmember Teitzel explained DP31 was related to adding a new capital projects manager and a vehicle for use by that employee. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO REMOVE THE REQUEST FOR A VEHICLE FROM DP31. Councilmember Teitzel commented a substantial number of vehicles are being added to the fleet in 2023. The vehicle for this purpose will not be as heavily used as the police vehicles. There are also pool vehicles available for use as well as surplus police vehicles going to auction, some of which are still in pretty good condition. His proposal was to bypass purchasing a new vehicle for this new capital projects manager and use one the City already has. Councilmember Paine asked how much this vehicle would be used. City Engineer Rob English answered it is a tool for this person’s work; project managers go out in the field quite a bit, especially during the construction season, to check on projects, do project inspections, etc. There are currently 7 vehicles for 7½ FTE. Fortunately several projects have been close to city hall in the past few years such as Civic where project managers were able to walk to the job site. The problem staff is encountering now is often the inspector has to pick up the project manager, which is not an efficient process. The vehicle is very critical to this position performing its work. Councilmember Paine commented many of the upcoming projects are further from city hall. She did not support the motion because the car was needed. Councilmember Teitzel said he did not dispute the need for a car, but there are at least two pool vehicles in the public safety building parking lot that are intended for shared use by City employees, primarily directors. One of those vehicle could be used as well as possibly one of the surplused police patrol vehicles. For example, he recently saw the Crown Victoria on 220th, a very nice, classic car that still runs well so possibly this position could use that car. He reiterated he did not dispute the need for a vehicle but preferred to repurpose an existing vehicle. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT AND PAINE VOTING NO. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease) Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 60 59 Teitzel Fleet Do not surplus 2 vehicles on the replacement schedule Fleet (150,000) 150,000 COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO RETAIN THE TWO 2017 FORD POLICE VEHICLES SCHEDULED FOR RETIREMENT. Councilmember Teitzel commented the City was significantly increasing the size of its fleet in 2023, primarily through ARPA funding, which is a unique opportunity. He appreciated that the police department and the fleet manager do a good job keeping vehicles in service and maintaining them well. These vehicles are approaching the age and mileage threshold where they should be retired, but he did not mind if Edmonds was a leader in keeping police vehicles in service a bit longer than the average. For that reason, he proposed extending the life of these two vehicles. Doing that would allow the City to defer the purchase of two new Ford SUVs. However, council has already decided to buy all the requested vehicles so this issue may not be as critical. If this motion does not pass, he asked the fleet manager and police department to take a look at extending the life of vehicles to spread the $75,000 purchase price over more years to give the taxpayers a break from purchasing new vehicle so often. He encouraged the council to support his request to retain these two vehicles in the fleet for one more year. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 13 Councilmember Tibbott inquired about the transferability of a police vehicle, commenting they did not seem configured for common activities. Public Works Director Oscar Antillon answered it is a transferable vehicle, but it is not a preferred choice. He has done a couple of those, donating them to nonprofits and they turned out to be problematic for them. Transfer of police vehicles is not recommended. Councilmember Tibbott said for that reason he would not support the amendment although he commended the idea of stretching out the use of vehicles which was part of the explanation for the decision package approved for the police department. Council President Olson said she would not support this proposal. Hybrid and electric vehicle technology may change the profile of how long vehicles can be used. If there was an expectation that vehicles could be used longer than traditional engines, she hoped staff would consider that. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-4), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, AND PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease) Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 62 78 Teitzel REET, Storm Remove Elm Way Walkway $766,684 and spend on sidewalks PW -- -- COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO REMOVE FUNDING FROM THE 2023 ELM WAY SIDEWALK INSTALLATION AND TRANSFER THAT INVESTMENT TO ADD SIDEWALKS IN THE BALLINGER BOWL AREA. Councilmember Teitzel explained DP78 is $766,684 to install about 700 feet of new sidewalk and curb ramps on Elm Street between 8th Ave S and 9th Ave. Although this is clearly a need that has been identified in the CIP for some time, there is an equal or greater need on the east side of Highway 99 in the Ballinger bowl where there will be a lot of people walking to the Safeway. The need has existed there for a long time and will increase with development in that area which justifies moving the funds. He recognized the Elm Street sidewalk is needed and funding for it the CIP should be moved to 2024 or 2025. Council President Olson said she was strongly opposed to this amendment for multiple reasons, but all are due to significant pedestrian safety. This project has been in the CFP/CIP for some time; this is a very dangerous area, there is no shoulder, the same situation that exists elsewhere in the City where the roadway is only the width needed for vehicles in two directions and it is at the bottom of a hill. The intersection was modified and improved to change it from a 4-way stop to a signal. When the light is green, vehicles going downhill are going too fast by the time they see a pedestrian on Elm Way which has no sidewalk on either side of the street. It is an extremely precarious situation that has to be addressed from a public safety standpoint. She was wholly in favor of sidewalks in the Ballinger Bowl area and would find a way to fund them, but this project has been delayed previously so it could be aligned with the bike lane project due to cost benefits. The bike lane project will be constructed soon and the City should take the advantage of the opportunity to get the walkway constructed at the same time. She urged councilmembers not to support this amendment. Councilmember Paine asked what percentage of the design had been completed. Mr. English answered it is at 90% design and as of November 1st, $133,000 has been spent to date between staff and consultant costs. Another $20,000-$30,000 will be necessary to finish the design and put it in the bid package for the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 14 bike lane. Councilmember Paine agreed there needs to be sidewalk there so she would not support the motion. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled DP93 last year for $349,900, but she did not see a carryforward. She asked if those funds were spent. Mr. English recalled $35,000 was spent this year on design. There was about $900,000 budgeted in 2022, anticipating the project would be constructed. The project was not constructed and a small amount was spent to get to 90% design. The project is included in the 2023 budget for construction. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the carryforward was included in the budget. Mr. English answered the entire amount is budgeted in 2023 via a decision package. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (1-5), COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease) Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 63 New Paine GF Fund half of Recycling Coord. position PW 50,000 (50,000) COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO FUND HALF THE RECYCLING COORDINATOR POSITION. Councilmember Paine explained this was to bring back the recycling coordinator position. Half the money comes from a Department of Ecology grant, the position is supported by the climate action plan to ensure the City is doing all it can to reduce/reuse/recycle. Due to the grant cycle, the grant is not available until midyear. Everyone misses the recycling coordinator who was a part of the Edmonds community and widely used across all departments to help with environmental issues and outreach. She encouraged councilmembers to support this position. Council President Olson said she was on fence about this and was interested in hearing from other councilmembers. This position existed in the past and was partially funded by grants, but when those grants disappeared, it was not prioritized enough to fund it from the General Fund. The gas blower exchange program is an example of something this position could oversee. Although the City has a great restaurant scene in Edmonds, there is no composing program. If this position was added, she asked if a composting plan could be developed to address compostable waste from restaurants throughout the City. Mr. Antillon said that could definitely be one of the opportunity for the position. There is a lot of coordination with Snohomish County on recycling and what is sent to the landfill, but there is not a staff person assigned to that. There is a lot of outreach and a new program like that would be perfect for the position. Council President Olson said she would be more likely to support this position if that would be one of the ways the City prioritized the use of the person’s time. She asked if that would be something the administration would prioritize if this position was funded. Mr. Antillon answered yes, if that is the direction council provides. He was unsure about Washington’s requirements related to food waste composting, it will be a requirement in California next year. Council President Olson answered there is at least one vendor that picks up compostables, but they would need to do a collection in Edmonds. Councilmember Buckshnis said she has always supported this and has tried to include it in previous budgets, but was told staff did not have enough time to facilitate it. Since this position is grant funded, but the grant will not be available until midyear, instead of including it in the budget, she suggested funding it via the amendment process to ensure the administration could facilitate the position. The City’s previous Recycling Coordinator Steve Fisher did a great job and the position has been vacant since he left three years ago. She Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 15 suggested remanding this to administration to look into whether there is grant funding available and pause until more information is available. Councilmember Paine said when she met with Mr. Antillon to ask if he would like to have a recycling coordinator position, he indicated he had been talking about it with HR Director Neill Hoyson. The grant funds available from Department of Ecology were never eliminated; when the previous recycling coordinator left, the grant application was never submitted. As a result, the recycling coordinator position needs to be reestablished and the job description put back in place. There are many programs the recycling coordinator can be involved in such as zero waste, etc. The position can help reduce greenhouse gases from food waste and there is an opportunity to pick up compostables from restaurants. She anticipated the position could help kickstart a lot of climate action plan goals this year. Council President Olson asked staff to comment on the suggestion to handle this as a budget amendment. She asked if there was any downside to handling it that way at the time a grant application was submitted. It would also give council an opportunity to see the total budget before making this decision. Mr. Antillon said staff could return with a midyear budget amendment. Mr. Turley was hesitant to add positions during the year, the intent is to add positions as part of the budget process but that is not a hard and fast rule. A position could be added at any time, but it is cleaner to do it during the budget process. Councilmember Buckshnis said this is not a new position, the position has been vacant for a long time. The amendment shows the cost as $50,000 but it was unclear whether it would be partially or totally grant funded. She wanted to know the General Fund impact and would prefer it be handled as a budget amendment. Mr. English said although he had not supervised the position previously, he recalled it was shared with the City of Lynnwood which is why the amount may be less than a normal FTE. The position was 50% City of Edmonds and 50% City of Lynnwood. Mr. Antillon said the position could be contingent on getting a grant. Mayor Nelson clarified if the council authorizes funds for this position, it will only be funded if the City obtains a grant. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-3), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, BUCKSHNIS AND PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND TIBBOTT AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease) Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 64 New Chen/Tibbott ARPA Sidewalk construction 84th Ave from 238th to 234th Eng. $160,000 $160,000 COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO ADOPT A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO START THE DESIGN PROCESS FOR SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION BETWEEN 238TH AND 234TH ON 84TH. Councilmember Chen explained there is a high demand for sidewalks in the uptown area for obvious reasons including traffic and public safety in that corridor where development will occur in the foreseeable feature. This budget amendment is for design in 2023 and construction in 2024. He hoped the council would support this budget amendment. Councilmember Tibbott said this amendment is moving a project in the transportation plan forward a year with a request to start design work as soon as possible and to look at construction the following year. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 16 Councilmember Buckshnis asked if this project was already in the transportation improvement plan (TIP) and whether that was the source of the dollar amount. Councilmember Tibbott answered yes. Council President Olson commented this is for everyone who needs a sidewalk in that area, but especially for the gentleman in a wheelchair who has been brave enough to travel in the street in that stretch. She supported moving this project up in the TIP. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease) Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 67 New Buckshnis Remove $562,544 from prof. srvs – Water Utility Water (562,544) 562,544 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO REMOVE $562,544 FROM COST CENTER 534. Councilmember Buckshnis commented this is starting to be real money. The 2022 budget was $1.8 million and the actual was about $200,000. The estimate for 2022 is $1.2 million, the 2023 budget has $1.8 million, an increase of $562,544. Even if this funding is removed, the administration will still have $1.3 million in their professional services budget. The decision packages already have professional services embedded in the them. This is amendment is saying the 46% increase does not seem realistic according to the trend. A large amount was approved in 2022 and she wanted to bring it back down to $1.3 million for the 2023 budget. Council President Olson asked Mr. Antillon to explain why the requested amount was correct. She did not want to encourage a use it or lose it approach to the budget or for staff to worry the council will not fund something at the same level the next year if all the funding is not spent. If there isn’t a need, she preferred not to allocate the funds, but wanted to hear from staff why this amount was requested. Mr. English said the bulk of the professional services, over $1.3 million, is the capital program. When the finance department combines the professional services, there are other amounts included that are tied to capital of approximately $300,000, staff time for capital projects. The bulk of the professional services is staff’s estimate to move the capital program forward in 2023. Obviously, if the funds are not needed they won’t be spent as evidenced by the $1.8 million budget and the yearend estimate of $1.2 million. That is staff’s best guess of the professional services that will be needed in 2023 for the capital program. Councilmember Paine referred to the two leaky reservoirs and asked if any of the funding would go toward that critical work. Mr. Antillon answered evaluation of the two reservoirs was completed and now design and the future of those reservoirs needs to be determined which will be another effort. Things like the waterway study will be paid from this. This was staff’s estimate, and if it is reduced, staff can always ask for additional funds. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-3), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS TIBBOTT AND PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 17 68 New Buckshnis Sewer Remove $332,627 from prof. services – WWTP Sewer Councilmember Buckshnis explained this is the same concept as 67 above so she will remove her proposed budget amendments and see how next year’s budget comes out. The professional services appear to be over and above what is necessary and it was her understanding all the projects include professional services. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 69 Staff REET 125 DP75- increase budget for Ped. Safety Program PW 60,585 2,085 (58,500) Mr. English explained approximately $20,000 has been budgeted in previous years for this program. The proposal is to increase it to approximately $80,000 to enhance the pedestrian safety program. The type of improvements built with this program are the Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB) that improve pedestrian safety at crosswalks as well as signage, striping, and sidewalks bulb outs that reduce the pedestrian crossing distance and make pedestrians more visible at intersections. In 2023, the intent is to increase that program and do more improvements throughout the City. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO INCREASE DP75 BY $60,585. Councilmember Paine commented council has received numerous emails and requests for pedestrian safety especially around schools and she recognized Transportation Engineer Hauss’ efforts to visit neighborhoods. She appreciated staff’s request to increase the funding, citing areas that need pedestrian safety improvements such as 9th Ave N, 220th, 212th near Edmonds-Woodway High School, etc. There are a lot of pedestrians in those areas and pedestrian safety is a critical need these days. Councilmember Chen expressed support for the amendment. It was his impression the pedestrian safety program is moving at a slow pace. He acknowledged funding was critical and asked if there was enough staff to implement the improvements. Mr. English agreed that was a challenge, the project manager proposed in the 2023 budget should help take some of the workload off Mr. Hauss who has had a significant role in the Highway 99 improvements. Until that position is filled, staff will try to make this program a priority but there are challenges with getting it fully implement. The goal in 2023 will be to free up Mr. Hauss so these improvements can be constructed. He pointed out staff was able to respond quickly to add an RRFB at the crosswalk on 80th. Councilmember Chen agreed with Councilmember Paine, the council has received many emails and phone calls about speeding and pedestrian safety. He hoped this could be implemented at a reasonable pace. Councilmember Tibbott asked if this would also include radar feedback signs. Mr. English said those have typically been funded via the traffic calming program as they address speeding issues. This program is focused on pedestrian safety. Councilmember Tibbott summarized this program funds bulb outs, striping and improved visibility at crossings. Mr. English said the RRFBs have been a big improvement for high volume pedestrian crossings. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease) Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 18 70 Staff GF Commute Trip Reduction PW 18,000 (18,000) Mr. Turley said this is typically included in the budget every year. It is a program to increase the number of employees using commuting alternatives such as walking, biking, carpooling or riding transit. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO APPROVE THE COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,000. Councilmember Paine recalled talking about this every year she has been on council. CTR allows employees to get bus passes and participate in other programs that support non-vehicle transportation. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled the late Councilmember K. Johnson never supported this program. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease) Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 71 Staff GF 29-N Engineering – Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Improv. PW 30,000 30,000 Staff Storm 29-N Engineering – Edmonds Marsh Water Quality Improv. PW 366,843 214,007 (152,836) Mr. English said this project, which was omitted from the 2023 capital projects, will install new catch basins with water quality treatment features on SR-104. A Department of Ecology grant will provide 75% of the project funding. This budget amendment is to program that project with $366,000 in 2023. Councilmember Buckshnis commented there was a $190,000 carryforward at one point for this marsh water quality improvement and asked if that was included in the $366,843. Mr. English said it reprograms quite a bit of that. At one point ARPA funds were to be used for the east side of SR-104. Approximately $15,000- $20,000 of the fund programmed for 2022 have been spent; this is a reprogramming of that project in 2023. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO APPROVE THE TWO 29-N ENGINEERING – EDMONDS MARSH WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. Councilmember Tibbott expressed support for the project, but was trying to understand how the money that was approved last year was accounted for. Mr. English explained there was $190,000 budgeted in 2022; to date approximately $15,000-$20,000 has been spent for survey work and other design work. The balance is unspent so the amount expected to be spent to move that project into construction is being programmed in 2023. Councilmember Tibbott asked if it was in addition to the $190,000 or did it include the $190,000. Mr. English answered it does not include the $190,000. Councilmember Tibbott observed it was an additional $152,000. Mr. English said the amount is the $336,843. Councilmember Tibbott observed $336,843 was necessary in addition to what was budgeted last year. Mr. English explained the total cost of the project is approximately $420,000. If $20,000 is spent this year, $366,843 is programmed in 2023, that brings the total to $386,843. There is a possibility there may be some carryforward from 2022 to 2023 to get it back to $420,000 amount. Councilmember Tibbott asked about the grant funding. Mr. English answered the grant provides 75% of the match of that dollar amount. Councilmember Tibbott asked the amount of the City’s 25% match. Mr. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 19 English answered approximately $100,000. Councilmember Tibbott said he was supportive of the budget, but wondering why it was not represented on the second line of the proposed amendment. Mr. Turley said this was one decision package but because it affects the stormwater fund and the General Fund, he divided it into two lines. Council President Olson pointed out column N shows the impact less the grant. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 72 Staff GF 28-N Public Works design costs for new roof material bunker PW 25,000 (25,000) 73 Staff Street 111 28-N Public Works design costs for new roof material bunker PW 25,000 25,000 74 Staff Water 28-N Public Works design costs for new roof material bunker PW 12,500 (12,500) 75 Staff Storm 28-N Public Works design costs for new roof material bunker PW 25,000 (25,000) 76 Staff Sewer 28-N Public Works design costs for new roof material bunker PW 12,500 (12,500) Mr. Turley explained this is one decision package but he divided it into five lines because it affects five funds. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE FIVE AMENDMENTS REGARDING THE MATERIAL BUNKER ROOF DESIGN COSTS. Council President Olson said she shared her concern with Mr. Antillon that this seemed like a very large amount to design a roof and he was hopeful some of the funds could be parlayed into construction if the amount budgeted for design was more than needed. However, he anticipates the design will be this expensive. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease) Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 77 Staff GF 64 Engineering 2023 Pavement Overlay Program PW (18,400) (18,400) 78 Staff Street Cap 64 Engineering 2023 Pavement Overlay Program PW (500,000) 500,000 Mr. Turley explained when finance was preparing the budget, the grant amount was miscalculated, so $500,000 in costs need to be removed. This amendment removes approximately $500,000 from the street capital project fund for the pavement overlay program. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 20 COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE AMENDMENTS 77 AND 78 THAT REMOVE MONEY FROM THE PAYMENT OVERLAY PROGRAM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess at 1:59 p.m. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease) Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 79 Staff GF 27-N Public Works Street Vehicle Configuration Equip. PW 208,000 (208,000) 80 Staff Fleet 27-N Public Works Street Vehicle Configuration Equip. PW 208,000 208,000 Mr. Turley explained this would configure the dump truck into a hook-lift truck, allowing the truck to quickly and safely convert from a dump truck to a plow and sanding truck and a cement mixer truck. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE 27-N PUBLIC WORKS STREET VEHICLE CONFIGURATION EQUIPMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease) Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 81 32 Teitzel Water Remove DP32 Utility Rate Increase – allocated between 4 fund Utility (125,152) (1,370,371) (1,245,219) 82 32 Buckshnis Water Remove DP32 Utility Rate Increase – allocated between 4 fund GF (125,152 (125,152) COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO REMOVE DP32 REGARDING THE UTILITY RATE INCREASE. Councilmember Teitzel said he struggled with this because he understood the need to ensure critical utilities are funded correctly. He was aware of cost inputs such as water wholesale rates that are increasing and a 9% increase in the CPI in the past year. On the other hand, a rate study has not been done so there is no way to be sure exactly how much the rates should increase. He expressed support for denying the rate increase at this point, pending the upcoming rate study. Councilmember Paine said she understands the pressure on everyone’s finances, everything is expensive. However, she did not want to get into a situation of chasing additional funding to stay current on the needs. She recalled a decade ago the City spent a lot of time catching up to keep utility rates at a level that funded the work that needed to be done. After thinking about this long and hard, she preferred to keep the proposed increase and was certain the rate study would be done in the coming year. Councilmember Buckshnis said she also proposed this amendment and was probably one of few councilmembers who read the entire 2019 rate study. In 2019 the marsh was in stormwater as well as the full amount of the sewer project in sewer instead of the bond payment so she felt the 2019 rates were based on inflated variables. She recognized there is a new sewer project that will probably be more costly and probably warrant the rate increase proposed by staff. She preferred to have a cleaned up CIP/CFP; commenting her efforts to streamline the professional services in the three utilities were not supported by Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 21 council. She was interested in seeing the rates recommended by a rate study; rates can always be increased via a budget amendment if the study is done sooner rather than later. After giving a lot of thought to this, Council President Olson said she would not support the motion. No one is excited about having their utility rates increased, but they will be less excited to have double digit increase. In spite of not having the specifics about the exact number, there is a definite need for an increase, likely a significant one. Taking some of the bite out of that increase this year rather than a double digit increase next year is in the City’s best interest. Councilmember Teitzel found the tracking spreadsheet very useful to show how amendments impact the bottom line. He asked if there was a way to post the spreadsheet to finance’s webpage in a read-only format similar to the decision packages. Councilmember Buckshnis raised a point of order, stating Councilmember Teitzel’s comments were not germane to the motion on the floor and should be a separate topic. Councilmember Teitzel said he would bring it up as a separate topic, but did not want to lose the issue because it is very important to council. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-4), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT AND PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. No. DP# or New Submitter Fund Description Resp. Dept. Proposed Cost Increase (Decrease) Proposed Revenue Increase (Decrease) Increases (Decreases) Fund Bal 83 New Teitzel GF Add incremental funding for Lighthouse contract for 2023 Admin Svcs. 35,699 (35,699) Councilmember Teitzel requested this amendment be deferred until after Tuesday’s meeting. Councilmember Teitzel commented it would be very useful for council and citizens to have the tracking spreadsheet posted online in a read-only format to see how the amendments have impacted the budget and the fund balances. He asked if that could be done without too much extra effort. Mr. Turley said it could be done without too much extra effort. Councilmember Teitzel asked if it was reasonable to expect it to be posted by Monday. Mr. Turley said he did not want to make any commitments but it would not take a lot of extra effort. Mayor Nelson requested councilmembers avoid directing that kind of detail. Councilmember Teitzel took exception to Mayor Nelson’s comment, stating this budget is extremely important, there has been a lot of citizen comment and input and all councilmembers are concerned about it and need to know where they stand relative to the budget, not only this year but in the out years so this is critical information. Mayor Nelson reminded the council needed to vote if they wished to have staff take action on items. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, THAT BY THE END OF THE DAY ON MONDAY, THIS WILL BE POSTED TO THE WEBSITE UNDER THE BUDGET DISCUSSIONS FOR THE PUBLIC. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER PAINE VOTING NO. Mayor Nelson declared a 5 minute recess. When the meeting reconvened, Mayor Nelson advised that request would be taken under advisement. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 22 Councilmember Teitzel said he appreciated the fact that staff does not report to council. However, council took a vote, this is the council’s budget not the mayor’s budget, and this is a critical piece of information with regard to impacts on the budget. This is very important and he would appreciate a commitment, more than taking it under advisement, to actually providing the information on Monday. 3. COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF CIP/CFP Mayor Nelson asked who was leading discussion of this item. City Engineer Rob English answered it was his understanding the council was leading the discussion. Council President Olson said the council was not prepared to lead the discussion. She was aware of a couple CIP/CFP amendments proposed by councilmembers and suggested those could be addressed. Some of the votes taken today during the budget discussion such as green streets will impact the CIP/CFP and she suggested staff could make those amendments to the CIP/CFP behind the scenes. Mr. English agreed. Council President Olson advised Parks, Recreation and Human Services Director Feser is not here today and some of the CIP/CFP amendment are related to parks so only amendments related to public works should be discussed. She asked if staff was aware of CIP/CFP amendments submitted by council related to public works. Mr. English advised there were a couple amendments related to public works. After conferring with Councilmember Buckshnis, Council President Olson said it appears council may not be prepared to move forward with this agenda item. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO POSTPONE DISCUSSION OF THE CIP/CFP TO A FUTURE MEETING. Councilmember Paine asked when it would be discussed, noting it is already the middle of December and this is an essential part of the budget. Council President Olson said she had planned to discuss it today but did not realize there was an expectation that council would lead the discussion. Mr. English advised the council’s administrative assistant put this item on the agenda and attached the amendments proposed by Councilmembers Teitzel and Buckshnis. Staff did not expect to provide a presentation and anticipated the discussion would be regarding those amendments. The CIP/CFP is also scheduled for 30 minutes at Tuesday’s meeting. Councilmember Teitzel shared Councilmember Paine’s concern that the council is running out of time to get through the discussion of the CIP/CFP. He was prepared to discuss a few of his amendments if council wanted to entertain them, which would reduce the number that would need to be handled later. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Councilmember Buckshnis commented many of hers are related to parks. She suggested councilmembers announce their amendments to inform citizens. PWT-18 COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO SEPARATELY IDENTIFY THE PROJECT COSTS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT 9TH AND MAIN. Councilmember Teitzel explained the project is identified as Main and 9th Avenue Intersection Improvements. One of the improvements is a potential roundabout and the other is a signalized device to regulate traffic. It would be unusual if those costs were identical so the costs should be identified separately. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the motion. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 23 UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND PAINE VOTING NO. PWT-35 COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO MOVE THIS PROJECT UP TO BEGIN IN 2024 AND BE COMPLETED IN 2025. Councilmember Teitzel explained this project is a walkway on 218th Street SW from 76th to 84th Avenue W. This is a high priority in the long walkway list in the 2015 TIP, but funding is not programmed to begin until 2027 and 2028, approximately $1.7 million in total funding. It is a high priority to that neighborhood and should be moved up. Councilmember Paine asked what other things are planned for 2024. Mr. English provided background on how projects are programmed in the CIP/CFP; there is a constrained list for the first three years, projects with secured funding or reasonably expected secured funding. On the spreadsheet that lists all the transportation projects, everything is backloaded because there is no funding. Similar to this project, it is shown as unsecured funding so if council wants to move it to the constrained list, funding would need to be identified if the intent is to maintain that past practice. That project is programmed in 2027 and 2028 but is unsecured and there no funding in those years. To Councilmember Paine’s question, a lot of what is programmed in the transportation plan is related to improvements on Highway 99 using grant funds, REET and utilities as well as preservation. Councilmember Paine asked if the project could it be moved up later in the year if money was available from the bipartisan infrastructure bill (BIL). There are federal dollars for sidewalks and she would love to take advantage of them but was not certain what design of level was required to obtain those funds. She was excited sidewalks were specifically mentioned in the BIL and loved the idea of this sidewalk, but did not want to make it impossible to fund or get ahead of ourselves. She would like more information about how federal money can be used to assist with these high priority projects. She suggested coming back to this in 2023 and being more thoughtful and strategic. Projects like this will require more staff and capital managers. Councilmember Tibbott asked if staff had applied for grants for this project. Mr. English said staff has not applied for grants for this project. Staff has applied for grants for several long walkway projects in the past via sources that typically fund walkway projects such as Safe Routes to Schools, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, and TIB program, but unfortunately have not able to secure grants for those walkway projects. Staff has had some success on the shorter walkway project list. With regard to Councilmember Paine’s comments, having the project in the CFP/CIP allows staff to apply for grants and if a grant was secured, it would be moved into the next year’s budget or a budget amendment could be done if the funding was provided via the state’s budget in July . Councilmember Tibbott asked if staff had applied for a grant for a long walkway project like this. Mr. English was not certain if staff had submitted a grant for this particular project, but staff has applied multiple times for at least 5 long walkway projects since 2016, but the projects have not scored high enough to receive funding. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding staff would continue to apply for grants to complete these projects and as soon as funding was approved, some of the projects would be moved up. Mr. English said two applications were submitted for walkway projects this year and decisions should be made this month. Councilmember Tibbott summarized with that explanation, he would not support the motion. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 24 Councilmember Teitzel clarified he was not asking to move the project to 2023; his proposal was to start it in 2024 and complete it in 2025. That should provide sufficient time to apply for grants and move the project forward. He encouraged council to support the motion. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-3), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT AND PAINE VOTING NO. PWT-42 COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO DEFER FUNDING THIS PROJECT UNTIL BURLINGTON NORTHERN’S PLANS FOR THAT AREA BECOME CLEAR. Councilmember Teitzel read his rationale: PWT-42 is a request for sidewalk improvements between Dayton St. and the ferry terminal at Main St. and is programmed to begin in 2026 and be completed in 2027, for a total cost of $980,000. However, a project is pending by Burlington Northern for double tracking along Railroad Avenue, and this project may include some form of pedestrian overpass over the track. The double tracking effort may require use of the eastern portion of Railroad Avenue which is owned by Burlington Northern. It is not clear what effects these efforts by Burlington Northern will have on the configuration of Railroad Avenue, nor on the existing sidewalk on the western side of Railroad Avenue. In addition, there a sidewalk in good condition already exists on the western side of Railroad Avenue, and more pressing needs exist for sidewalks elsewhere in Edmonds. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, AND PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER CHEN VOTING NO. PWT-65 COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO DELETE PWT-65 FROM THE CIP/CFP. Councilmember Teitzel explained his rationale: PWT-65 is request for an investment in 2023 through 2025 of approximately $1.7 million to construct a “green streets” prototype on Dayton St. between SR 104 and 2nd Ave. S. This is a worthwhile concept, as there is a clear need to better address stormwater management and heat island effects in urban areas. However, we are now embarking on a major Highway 99 revitalization project as well as addressing how to better handle stormwater in that area. This item should be deleted from the CIP/CFP and the funds redirected to the eastern portion of the Highway 99 subarea. Councilmember Paine said she did not support the motion, clarifying the cost was not $1.7 million, it was closer to $1.6 million. The motion is to remove the concept of green street from the CIP/CFP which is a terrible loss for the environment and she was disappointed this was even being considered. Green streets need to be included in the CIP/CFP so the City can apply for grants. She did not support the motion, finding it very un-environmental. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION, INSTEAD OF 2023 TO 2025, TO HAVE THE PROJECT START IN 2024 TO 2026 SINCE THE BUDGET WAS ALREADY REMOVED FOR 2023 TO BUY MORE TIME. AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember Buckshnis commented just because the council votes something down does not mean they do not believe in green streets. The estimated total project cost is $1,722,652 for one small section on Dayton where 7-8 trees were removed. A lot of money was spent on the Dayton Street pump station which addressed a lot of the water issues and there is the wonderful Salish Crossing project across the street. She Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 25 suggested keeping the area as is and adding more tree which Director Feser indicated was the plan prior to the green street proposal. She expressed support for the motion to remove this project because there are other areas that could benefit from it. Councilmember Paine pointed out removing this project from the CIP/CFP eliminates the ability to apply for grants. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND PAINE VOTING NO. Councilmember Buckshnis said she has two park related CIP/CFP amendments, but did not think it was necessary that Director Feser be present because one of them was already approved via the budgetary process. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO PUT $200,000 IN THE CIP FOR AN ILA BETWEEN MOUNTLAKE TERRACE AND EDMONDS. Councilmember Buckshnis commented this was already approved in the budget, so this would be a placeholder in the CIP/CFP and Director Feser can determine the description to include in the CIP/CFP. Councilmember Chen asked for clarification, this was already approved for 2023; the CIP/CFP is for long term planning and Director Feser is already moving forward on this. Councilmember Buckshnis answered the CIP/CFP ties directly to the 2023 budget so it must be included. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. P-8 & D-19 Councilmember Buckshnis said the 4th Avenue Corridor is a wonderful project that has been in the CIP for a long time and needs to be changed so that Community Services & Economic Development Director Todd Tatum is responsible for it. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO CREATE A COMMUNITY SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY IN THE CIP AND MOVE THE 4TH AVENUE CORRIDOR TO THAT CATEGORY. Council President Olson asked if this was something the administration needs and wants to happen. She did not know enough about the CIP/CFP to know whether a section should be added for a department that has not traditionally had CIP/CFP projects. Mr. Tatum said he did not know the right answer procedurally, but he was fine with having it under his department as they will need to manage it, do the fundraising, etc. Councilmember Buckshnis said the reason she brought this forward was when Director Feser gave her presentation, she recommended it be moved to community services & economic development so it would be managed by Director Tatum. Mr. English suggested as Director Feser was not present, this be discussed at Tuesday’s meeting. He recalled Director Feser’s request was to move it out of the parks CIP/CFP; it could be added to the public work CIP/CFP with an indication it will be managed by community services & economic development. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 26 COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO MOVE THE 4TH AVENUE CULTURAL CORRIDOR TO PUBLIC WORKS. Councilmember Paine recalled one of the reason Director Feser wanted it moved out of parks was it affects park impact fees. She asked if moving it to public works would affect traffic impact fees. Mr. English advised the transportation plan update will begin soon and this project will be excluded from the fee calculation list. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PWF-01 COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO SCALE DOWN THE FUNDING FROM $300,000 TO $50,000. Councilmember Teitzel explained this item requests approximately $300,000 in funding to improve the existing Boys and Girls Club building at Civic Field. The project description states the building “...is expected to be in operation for another 10 years.” However, Council has learned the Boys and Girls Club has plans to demolish the existing building and construct a new structure on that site. For those reasons, he did not believe a $300,000 investment in that structure was necessary and the building should simply be maintained in a safe condition until it can be demolished. Mayor Nelson said Director Feser may want to speak to this. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (3-2-1), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, TIBBOTT, AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND PAINE VOTING NO; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON ABSTAINING. Mayor Nelson did not recommend council continuing to make amendments without staff present. Councilmember Teitzel said his presumption was public works would play a part in maintenance of the Boys & Girls Club facility in concert with parks. Mayor Nelson advised parks has been the point of contact with the Boys & Girls Club. Mr. Antillon said in talking with Facilities Manager Thom Sullivan about this, the plan is to do minor upgrades to the stairs and windows, but they are not life safety issue. He did not have information about the plans for the Boys & Girls Club, that is being handled by parks. Once their plans are known, work on the building can stop if necessary. P3 & D14 Councilmember Teitzel explained this is the elevated walkway in front of the Ebb Tide Condominium. He asked Mayor Nelson if he would prefer this be delayed or to proceed with asking questions. Mayor Nelson recommend delaying. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson thanked City staff who made today’s meeting possible and who attended this meeting on a Saturday. He appreciated their dedication and commitment. He thank public works staff for their tremendous work during the snow storm to make sure roads were safe to drive on and for helping clear trees and tree branches that littered the City. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 27 Councilmember Teitzel echo Mayor Nelson’s comments about staff, agreeing council and staff have gone above and beyond. He thanked Edmonds citizens for their patience and bearing with the Council during the budget process. Councilmember Chen echoed the previous comments, thanking citizens who have actively participated in this process and acknowledging the hours they spend reading ordinances and even studying information back to 2017. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff and everyone for showing up today, acknowledging it was difficult to coordinate, but the council got a lot done. She thanked Director Antillon and his staff for their efforts, recalling she received a couple criticisms about why public words was driving around when there was no snow, but once she explained why, they were happy. She relayed former environmental steward and fellow Rotarian Janice Freeman passed away recently. Ms. Freeman and her husband Bob were very instrumental in the Mayor’s climate protection committee and many environmental issues; she is now in heaven with Bob. Council President Olson echoed the previous comments. For those shopping for the holiday season, she encouraged them to keep shopping local in mind and to support local Edmonds businesses. Councilmember Tibbott said he loves shopping local and it is one of the highlights of the season. He echoed the comments about the work that goes into the budget process; it takes a long time and a lot of comments and deliberation goes into it. As a councilmember, he found it very instructive, he learns about councilmember’s priorities and it sets the City up for a prosperous and productive 2023. He was enthusiastic about what the council has achieved. Councilmember Paine said knowing Janice Freeman as well as she did, she would be spinning at the thought of going into heaven. Ms. Freeman was a dear friend of hers, her next door neighbor and confident. One of her favorite stories was the tea party Janice and Bob held to keep Brightwater from locating at Pt. Edwards. Early in the pandemic she and Ms. Freeman’s sister took her to Canada which was a huge production that Ms. Freeman loved to recount. She was a lovely woman with a great sense of humor and she will be missed. 4. INTERIM EMERGENCY ORDINANCE TO AMEND CG DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS Council President Olson said the council’s legislative intent was for the consent agenda to happen after action was taken so there was knowledge about the outcome of this prior to approving the consent agenda. She was confused with how the agenda was set up, the last item under Council Business following the Adjourned Emergency Meeting is Emergency Interim Ordinance Adding ADB Review for Certain CG Zoned Projects. City Clerk Scott Passey explained when the ordinance was added to the packet, there is no simple way to reconfigure the agenda to reflect all the changes. The council could move approval of the consent agenda, pull the CG Ordinance, and leave the CG item. City Attorney Jeff Taraday recalled the council amended the agenda on Tuesday to add this emergency ordinance. The emergency ordinance is already technically on the December 10th regular meeting agenda and was placed on the agenda prior to the consent agenda. Council President Olson agreed. Mr. Taraday continued, Mr. Passey explained why the agenda packet was created the way it was, but as far as the order of events, because the regular meeting already had, 1) consideration of an emergency ordinance, and 2) adoption of the consent agenda, it is appropriate to keep them in that order. Planning & Development Director Susan McLaughlin explained this emergency ordinance is pertinent to the Subarea Plan (Ordinance 4077), it pertains to updated Chapter 16.60 ECDC (Ordinance 4078) and the Environmental Impact Statement & Planned Action (Ordinance 4079). This planned action received a VISION 2040 Award from the Puget Sound Regional Council. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 28 Ms. McLaughlin reviewed: • Interim Ordinance Process regarding step backs o October 4, 2022 – Council adopted an emergency interim ordinance (Ordinance 4278) o November 15, 2022 – Council held a public hearing o November 22, 2022 – Council determined to repeal Ordinance 4278 • Proposed Code Revisions – 16.60.030 o 16.60.030 Site development standards ▪ Design Design review by the architectural design board is required for any project that includes buildings exceeding 75 feet in height as identified in ECDC 16.60.020. Projects not exceeding this height may be reviewed by staff as a Type I decision. Regardless of what review process is required, all projects proposed in the CG zone must meet the design standards contained in this section. • Proposed Code Revision – 20.12.010 o 20.12.010 Applicability ▪ The architectural design board (ADB) shall review all proposed developments in the Downtown Business (BD) zones that requ8ire a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.020. All other developments in the Downtown Business (BD) zones may be approved by staff as a Type I decision using the process set forth in ECDC 20.12.030. When design review is required by the ADB under ECDC 20.12.010, the application shall be process as a Type III-A decision. ▪ In the General Commercial (CG) zone, design review by the architectural design board is required for any project that includes buildings exceeding 35 feet in height as identified in ECDC 16.60.020, regardless of whether a SEPA threshold determination is required. When design review is required by the ADB, the application is processed as a Type III-A decision using the procedure in ECDC 20.11.010. Projects not exceeding this height may be reviewed by staff as a Type I decision using the process in ECDC 20.12.030. Regardless of what review process is required, all projects proposed in the CG zone must meet the design standards contained in ECDC 16.60. Ms. McLaughlin explained there would be a two-phase process, a Type III-A decision. In the first step, the project goes to the ADB for a hearing. It is intended that preliminary information will be provided by the applicant at that hearing which gives the public an opportunity to respond to the information and the parameters as outlined in chapter 16.60 development regulations so things like massing and scale, materiality, setbacks, green space on site, etc. are evaluated. After that first hearing, the applicant has the ability to redesign the project in accordance with comments from the community and the ADB. A second ADB meeting is anticipated to result in a decision. No building permits can be issued until the applicant successfully passes the ADB process. As mentioned last week, requiring design review in the CG zone will afford three things, 1) more publicly facing design discretion, 2) a public process, and 3) a decision appealable to the hearing examiner which is not currently possible. Ms. McLaughlin continued, this was not an oversight in 2017; having staff be the administrative reviewer and offering staff the discretion to apply 16.60 and the design standards is normal and done by other jurisdictions for a myriad reasons, one of which was attractive in 2017 was to streamline the process. While that is unsavory at the moment, it was intended to stimulate and facilitate development which was not seen in 2017. She summarized it was discussed, it was intentional and perhaps times have changed. Offering the public an opportunity to comment on projects is certainly beneficial and having the ADB weigh in on design decisions can also be beneficial. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 29 Councilmember Buckshnis asked about 20.12.010 applicability section that was rewritten. From her understanding, Ordinance 4079 streamlines the SEPA process so this paragraph is irrelevant due to Ordinance 4079. She acknowledged she was not happy with Ordinance 4079 and wanted to revisit it, but was confused how this worked with the ordinance. Mr. Taraday answered SEPA and design review are two different processes. A design review process can occur while the planned action ordinance is maintained, which is the SEPA piece. This language acknowledges that even with the planned action ordinance remaining in place, there would still a public design review process before the ADB even when there is no need to do a SEPA threshold determination. That is the reason for the phrase, “regardless of whether a SEPA threshold determination is required.” It acknowledges the existence of the current planned action ordinance and basically says even with that planned ordinance in place, a project will still have to go to the ADB if it is over 35 feet in height. Councilmember Buckshnis said if some people wanted to re-review the planned action ordinance and maybe change it to require SEPA reviews, this section of the chapter would need to be reviewed. Mr. Taraday answered the council asked for and budgeted for a SEIS; the long term plan is to do the SEIS and use the information in the SEIS to update the planned action ordinance. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE IN THE PACKET. Council President Olson said she made the main motion with the intent of making amendments to clean up the language as recommended by the city attorney. Councilmember Teitzel complimented Ms. McLaughlin and Mr. Taraday for the good work they did in a very short period of time to put this together and move the issue forward a substantial degree. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO AMEND 16.60.020.D, REVISE THE WORDING TO BE ENTITLED, BUILDING STEP BACK WHEN ADJACENT TO OR DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM RS ZONES. Councilmember Teitzel explained the emergency ordinance the council is considering vacating requires step backs in this situation without any flexibility at all. Currently the planning & development director has the discretion to require them if local circumstances dictate. He will propose an amendment that still provides discretion regarding whether step backs are required but it will be more clear and in this case, the discretion will reside with the ADB through the design review process. Councilmember Teitzel read the proposed D.1 as amended, “The portion of the building above 25 feet in height shall step back no less than 10 feet from the required setback adjacent to an or directly across the street from an RS zone. That portion of the building over 55 feet shall be step back no less than 20 feet from the required setback to an adjacent RS zone. These requirements shall apply unless deemed not to be necessary pursuant to a design review by the Architectural Design Board as referenced in ECDC 16.60.030. Councilmember Teitzel explained this would provide flexibility for a developer to make a case if they strongly believed step backs were not required and the ADB would have the discretion to agree or not. Councilmember Tibbott said his concern is the level of flexibility that would be applied. He did not find step backs to be a particularly desirable architectural feature although he understood what it achieved in terms of buffering. He asked if the purpose of this amendment was there would be a second amendment that would allow the ADB to remove that requirement. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 30 Councilmember Teitzel agreed there would be discretion if a developer could make the case that it is not required for whatever factors, the ADB would have that discretion. Mitigation measures include things like planting trees, awnings, glazing, building materials, etc., but the only physical things that can be done to minimize mass are to reduce height or implement step backs which terrace the building. Especially where there is a building so close to single family residents, step backs are a good measure to be considered, but there should be discretion not to require them if local situations dictate. Councilmember Tibbott said discretion based on other options would be key for him. Ms. McLaughlin said while she did not go into it during her overview presentation in the interest of time, it is important to recognize that this was intentionally discussed in 2017. She recognized that may not hold much water now, but it happened because of the design justification that these affected building are 80-100 feet or more across the street from single family. At that point the step back measure may not be the greatest design tool to make the building architecturally interesting and to mitigate the massing. It becomes a fairly arbitrary design tool on which a lot of emphasis is placed without a lot of design rationality especially with the history of discussing it and saying it isn’t actually the most important tool to mitigate massing due to multiple factors. She agreed it could be the appropriate tool in certain situations. With that type of language on the books, when a developer is scoping a project, they are doing so at great risk, risking if they do not include step backs, even if they don’t think it is the appropriate tool, it could set the project back a couple meetings which equates to time and money. As a result, developers won’t use the other tools they have at their disposal in the way you want architects to use them. You want architects to marry the tools to develop an interesting architectural design. Just notching a building back may be the cleanest process for them and not result in debate at the first meeting and risk not getting approval at the second meeting. It adds expense and great risk for the developer with a fairly unsubstantiated rationale for step backs across the broad. She was not opposed to step backs both vertically and horizontally when they are appropriate Councilmember Teitzel said he wanted it to be clear that this language was not requiring that step backs be implemented; there is discretion. If the emergency ordinance on the consent agenda is vacated, that leaves 16.60 which gives the development services director discretion whether or not step backs are required. Mr. Taraday said the existing design standards that apply to buildings in CG, 16.60.030.D.2 is entitled building design and massing. D.2.b states one of the design criteria that all CG buildings have to meet, whether staff or the ADB does the design review is “The bulk and scale of buildings of over 3,000 square feet in footprint shall be mitigated through the use of massing and design elements such as façade articulation and modulation, setbacks, step backs, distinctive rooflines or forms or other design details.” This provides a menu of tools that architects can use when trying to mitigate the mass of their building. Without any further amendments, assuming the emergency ordinance is passed that changes the process, the ADB would have this language in front of them and would be able to, in an appropriate instance, to recommend a step back, setback or articulation and possibly there would be a building with a substantial courtyard where part of it is at the sidewalk and another part is significantly setback to create a courtyard. This would allow the creative process to unfold in a less prescriptive manner than the proposed amendment. Councilmember Teitzel understood there was a menu of things that could be selected to mitigate mass, step backs are one of those at the development service director’s discretion. Mr. Taraday answered as the process exists today, it would be a staff decision to determine whether a step back was required. If the ordinance in the packet is adopted, it is an ADB decision whether a step back is required because the ADB would be the decision maker on the design review process, it would no longer be a staff decision. Councilmember Teitzel said the driver for this amendment is the way the language is written now, the language Mr. Taraday read, there is discretion by either the development services director or the ADB. However, it puts the burden on the constituents in the area to make the case whether step backs should be considered or implemented. With his amendment, it puts the burden on the developer to make the case that Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 31 step backs are not required due to local circumstances. There is discretion either way, but it is a matter of who carries the burden to make the case. Councilmember Buckshnis recalled when the tree board wrote the tree code and how it blew up because the tree board are volunteers. She was concerned with putting pressure on the ADB to be the deciding factor. She feared the ADB making a decision and citizens objecting. She was unsure that that much power should be given to a citizen volunteer group even though there are architects on the ADB. She recalled Councilmember Tibbott was on the planning board and Councilmember Paine was on the tree board when the tree code was proposed. Ms. McLaughlin agreed this would be a discretionary decision by a volunteer board, something that has been debated in the past. Some of the ADB’s discretionary authority was intentionally taken away in 2019 largely for legal reasons, the risk when there is public pressure and design decisions in a development review process need to be justified and based on design rationale and impact. It is difficult to balance public comments in association with factual design impacts and how they are perceived. The council also had a quasi-judicial role up until 2019 which was minimized for the same reason. She has worked for many jurisdictions that have gone through this and she assured staff and the design team still work collaboratively before it gets to the ADB. Ms. McLaughlin continued, staff ensures that this section, 16.60.030, is met so when it goes to the ADB during phase 1, it is consistent with the code. ADB decisions are appealable to the hearing examiner which provides a fair, third party decision. The reality is this is currently a staff administrative decision; staff are the subject matter experts in architectural design review as well as planning, but a little of that is lost when it goes to a volunteer board. If this ordinance passes, she suggested looking at the composition of the ADB to ensure there was more architectural representation, currently only one architect was required. If this ordinance passes, she would want more confidence in the design professionals on the board. Mr. Taraday clarified with a Type III-A process, there is an open record public hearing before the ADB and he did not believe there was an appeal to the hearing examiner with that decision type. The final decision would be made by the ADB and it any appeal would go to court. Council President Olson said it was hard to argue with the language proposed in the amendment. Obviously the council wants to do everything possible to offer protections for every neighborhood that will be affected by this code. She was concerned about the specificity of the step back language. As Ms. McLaughlin stated, the step back mitigation may be arbitrary in some circumstances and if it is not arbitrary based on the distance between the building or other reason, that will be vetted and discussed during this public process so the burden is on the developer. To tighten the language in the code, she will propose share alternate wording so that the burden is still on the developer to ensure it is properly mitigated with the design choices, whatever the design choices end up being and that the ADB accepts with the input of the community, staff and other stakeholders. Another reason she likes this change is the ability to appeal the decision. She agreed with the suggestion to consider representation on the ADB and suggested also considering who is present at the time decisions are made because sometimes boards operate on a quorum situation. Council President Olson offered to read her amendment, finding it relevant because if the council passed the current amendment, the council will not be passing a different amendment later. She began to read proposed language for 16.60.020.D that was provided by a resident, “When there is no transition between intense CG zones and single family neighborhoods… Councilmember Teitzel raised a point of order, there is a motion on the floor that the council needs to vote on before making further amendments. Mayor Nelson said he would normally agree, but the councilmember introducing the amendment provided a rationale he found convincing. He ruled point not taken. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 32 Council President Olson provided revised language for 16.60.020.D that she would propose if Councilmember Teitzel’s amendment failed, “When there is no transition between intense CG zones and single family neighborhoods, projects across the street or adjacent to single family zoned parcels shall be intentionally designed with mitigation to that transition in mind.” Councilmember Tibbott said he found this review process a really good idea and one of the ways that the City can appropriate develop. This is the largest redevelopment project in the history of the City. Introducing a review process that includes the ADB and will involve citizen input is good. He was quite involved with the review process in 2016 and vividly remembered attending public meetings. He was also involved with it previously as a planning board member and recalled there was a lot of enthusiasm for the plan. Some characterize standing in front of the council at the microphone as a threatening experience, but that is not how it went down. There were table discussions, a meeting in one of the hospital’s conference rooms, lot of pictures and design opportunities and many people in the room, younger and older, and a lot of input into the design that was eventually approved in 2017. Councilmember Tibbott explained the reason he mentions the process was because a lot of work was done as a community to provide input into what became the subarea plan which included enthusiasm for this grand redevelopment project and painting a picture of what it could become. The medians and the landscaping features are the beginning of what was hoped to be an important redevelopment that will be great for the whole City. He reminded the council as they voted that this applies to all the CG zone, not just one area or neighborhood. He liked the flexibility in Section 2B in terms of the ADB having input but also for citizens. He found it difficult to support this amendment, and preferred to see flexibility at all levels. He was fearful of a volunteer board having as much authority as this would suggest. There are times when the pressure to make a design decision should be put on the electeds and professionals. Councilmember Buckshnis echoed some of what Councilmember Tibbott said, relaying she only recalled a lot of controversy about bulk and size in the hospital district. In reviewing the minutes, she was never happy with the ordinance about SEPA. She plans to introduce returning the council to a quasi-judicial role because she was also concerned with putting volunteer boards, even though some of them are experts, in the driver’s seat for something that could have a tremendous impact on the zoning. She recalled the council has voted themselves in and out of the quasi-judicial role several times. If there is a decision to give the ADB all this leeway, the council needs to move back into a quasi-judicial role. Councilmember Paine thanked staff for putting this together so fast. She asked how the ADB hearing would be noticed. Ms. McLaughlin answered it would be the traditional notice specified in the code, a postcard to a specific range of property owners. Mr. Taraday agreed it would be whatever is called out in the code for a typically Type III-A design review process. Councilmember Paine pointed out if it is sent via bulk mail and the person has a post office box, they do not get it. She never receives any notices because she has a PO box and everything is sent by bulk mail. For things like this, it will be important to ensure all the neighborhoods are involved. As Councilmember Tibbott mentioned, this is the biggest project in the City and she wanted there to be some sensitivity about that. She feared it would be a serious imposition on the ADB and the weight of a lot of voices coming at a volunteer group. She encouraged the council to be thoughtful about that. Councilmember Teitzel commented it was important to keep in mind that this would put a burden on the ADB to make important decisions about development. This situation currently exists in the downtown BD zones; the ADB has that burden now to make these sorts of decisions. There have been a lot of discussions about equity between the bowl and Highway 99; this would basically emulate a process that currently exists in the BD zones and create a way for citizens to have meaningful input to the ADB early in the process. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 33 Whether or not his amendment passes, this process will create an additional burden on the ADB to make important decisions. Councilmember Chen thanked Ms. McLaughlin and Mr. Taraday for putting this together on short notice. He appreciated other councilmembers’ thoughtful comments and Councilmember Teitzel’s amendment. During the 2016-2017 subarea planning, he attended meetings at the hospital and the golf course and was excited to see this plan come together. Some of the citizens, residents, and business owners who may be impacted are people who have no voice; in some cases they do not speak English well or they do not have the time to get involved in a public process. He was grateful for the citizens who have the time and knowledge to get involved, but recognized not everyone has the time. He particularly appreciated this amendment because like Councilmember Teitzel pointed out, it puts the burden of proof on the developer rather than the citizens. For that reason he will support the amendment. Councilmember Buckshnis said a 75 foot building across from a single family residence is way different than the buildings in the BD zones. She disagreed with equating the ADB’s consideration of the BD zones with looking at 75 foot buildings. She reiterated her concern and hoped to have a discussion with council next year about the quasi-judicial process. She did not want people to think it was okay to move this to the ADB because it was the same as the BD zone when in reality they are totally different. Councilmember Teitzel restated the amendment: RETITLE 16.60.020.D TO READ BUILDING STEP BACK WHEN ADJACENT TO OR DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM RS ZONES AND ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC WORDING HE DESCRIBED AFTER THE AMENDMENT. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, BUCKSHNIS AND PAINE VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. Council President Olson said with approval of that amendment, she was unsure the amendment she shared earlier still applied. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO AMEND TO ADD 16.60.020.D THAT READS, “WHEN THERE IS NO TRANSITION BETWEEN INTENSE CG ZONES AND SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS, PROJECTS ACROSS THE STREET OR ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY ZONED PARCELS SHALL BE INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED WITH MITIGATION TO THAT TRANSITION IN MIND.” Council President Olson said this amendment may be trying to achieve the same thing that was achieved by the previous amendment, but it is a more general statement that speaks to all the potential design approaches which would have included step backs. Councilmember Teitzel said this amendment works in concert with the amendment that was just passed. It provides a bit more coloring to what the ADB may consider with regard to options to mitigate the mass. Councilmember Chen said he liked the idea but the comment is very broad. There is no actual requirement, just a general comment which the prior amendment already accomplished. He did not find the amendment necessary. Councilmember Paine said the amendment was redundant to the previous amendment. It was also something that could possibly be considered in the SEIS and the comprehensive plan. She preferred to leave it on the to do list with the comprehensive plan and the SEIS once that information is available. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 34 Mr. Taraday relayed his concern that the amendment contains very general language. There has been a lot of comment about not making life difficult for the ADB; one of the worst things the council can do is give a volunteer board difficult to administer criteria. If he was an ADB member, he was not certain he would know what to do with this language because it is fairly vague. Design criteria are quite difficult to draft in short order. What staff has been able to develop on short notice is the process; with design criteria, the exact wording needs to be carefully drafted to ensure it gives enough direction to be objectively useable and not vague, aspirational concepts. He recommended to the extent the council was looking for an additional tweak to the design criteria, that be brought back when this comes to council within six months and the proposed amendment not be entertained now due to concern with its vagueness. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Council President Olson said that had occurred to her even before Mr. Taraday mentioned it, this is an interim emergency ordinance and the council can improve on it during the process of getting to a final ordinance. Ms. McLaughlin asked for clarification, when council voted on the first amendment, the title was read but not the details of the dimensions. Mayor Nelson said council was provided a handout which he will provide to staff. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (previously agenda item 9) COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. Councilmember Buckshnis requested Item 8.3, Ordinance to Repeal the Emergency Interim CG Step Back Ordinance 4278, be removed from the consent agenda so she could vote against it. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE WITHDREW THE MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. Council President Olson requested Items 9.2, Approval of Claim Checks and Wire Payments, and 9.6, Resolution of Retaining Rights of Self Determination of Land Use, be removed from the consent agenda. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 22, 2022 4. 2023 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA 5. STREET VACATION ORDINANCE PLN2022-0045 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA 1. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS (Previously consent agenda item 2) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 10, 2022 Page 35 Council President Olson said due to the timeliness factor, the code authority for the council president to approve the claim checks and wire payments was used in lieu of council approval so they have already been approved. 2. RESOLUTION OF RETAINING RIGHTS OF SELF-DETERMINATION OF LAND USE (previous consent agenda item 6) COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND FOR 5 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council President Olson advised the council voted on this item during the December 6, 2022 meeting so the resolution has already been passed. 3. ORDINANCE TO REPEAL THE EMERGENCY INTERIM CG STEP BACK ORDINANCE 4278 (Previously consent agenda item 3) COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO PULL ITEM 8.3, ORDINANCE TO REPEAL THE EMERGENCY INTERIM CG STEP BACK ORDINANCE 4278, AND VOTE NO. Mr. Taraday requested an executive session. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 4:20. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Executive Session Regarding Pending or Potential Litigation RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) At 4:02 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 10 minutes. At 4:08 p.m., the executive session was concluded. The meeting reconvened at 4:10 p.m. Council President Olson advised the Ordinance to Repeal the Interim CG Step Back Ordinance 4078 that was on the consent agenda was pulled and the council is now taking a vote. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, TIBBOTT, PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 4:12 p.m.