Loading...
Cmd122022 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2022 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL ONLINE VIRTUAL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES December 20, 2022 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Nelson, Mayor Vivian Olson, Council President Will Chen, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Dave Teitzel, Councilmember Jenna Nand, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Dave Turley, Administrative Services Director Oscar Antillon, Public Works Director Angie Feser, Parks, Rec., & Human Serv. Dir. Todd Tatum, Comm. Serv. & Econ. Dev. Dir. Rob English, City Engineer Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. by Mayor Nelson in the Council Conference Room, 212 – 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Council President Olson read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: “We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.” 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Council President Olson pulled Received for Filing Item 6.3, October 2022 Monthly Financial Report. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN ORDER AND CONTENT AS AMENDED. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed Administrative Services Director Dave Turley planned to do a presentation on the financials. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO MOVE RECEIVED FOR FILING ITEM 6.3, OCTOBER 2022 MONTHLY FINANCIAL Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2022 Page 2 REPORT, TO COUNCIL BUSINESS ITEM 8.1. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CARRIED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Mayor Nelson described the procedures for audience comments. There were no audience comments. 6. RECEIVED FOR FILING 1. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM BERNARD BLOSSER FOR FILING 2. SEPTEMBER 2022 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT 7. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. Councilmember Chen requested Item 7.9 be removed from the Consent Agenda, Councilmember Teitzel requested Item 7.7 be removed, and Council President Olson requested Item 7.5 be removed. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 5, 2022 2. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 6, 2022 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT 4. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT 6. COMMANDER POSITION JOB DESCRIPTION 8. UTILITY RATE EFFECTIVE DATE CORRECTION ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT 1. 2023 EDMONDS CITY BUDGET ORDINANCE (Previously Consent Agenda Item 9) Councilmember Buckshnis suggested moving this to Council Business as there are questions about ARPA funding and she submitted questions in advance. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO MOVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 7.9, 2023 EDMONDS CITY BUDGET ORDINANCE, TO COUNCIL BUSINESS ITEM 8.5. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. 2022 DECEMBER BUDGET AMENDMENT (Previously Consent Agenda Item 7) Councilmember Teitzel explained he emailed Administrative Services Director Turley earlier today and asked him to briefly described what drove down the fund balance from the beginning of 2022 to the end of 2022 by approximately 50%, a remarkable decline in the General Fund fund balance. Mr. Turley responded Councilmember Teitzel was referring to Exhibit A from the final budget amendment. Over the year, there has been a council budget amendment, a carry forward budget amendment and three budget amendments. During that time expenses increased about $4.9 million in the General Fund; about 75% of it is related to Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2022 Page 3 five items, 1) $1.6 million for the fire contract, 2) $1.3 million for the recently approved labor contracts, 3) $167,000 for a WCIA increase that the City did not learn about until spring, 4) $130,000 for the Ebb Tide lawsuit, and 5) $460,000 for facilities repairs and maintenance. He anticipated over the year there would be a 20% decrease in the General Fund fund balance which was perfectly tenable. The year started with about $8 million in excess of the required reserves, spending it down a little does not get close to the reserve requirement. He acknowledged those were pretty substantial increases and approving labor contracts at the end of the year makes it difficult to do a budget. A lot of salary increases were added at the end of the year. If those can be done on time at the end of the year so the numbers are known going into the next year or even earlier in the year, it makes developing the next year’s budget more clear and predictable. The budget for the fire contract increased by $1.6 million this year; it is very likely another increase will be requested in a few months as their costs are increasing, primarily driven by inflation. Most of the cost increases are driven by inflation which is approximately 5-10% now. Unfortunately, there are no revenue increases and there is a hesitancy by council to increase revenues to balance cost increases which will need to be addressed at some point in the future. He summarized budgeted expenses increased a fair amount this year via amendments. He was not worried about it as there is ample fund balance to cover it and expenses always comes in under budget. Councilmember Teitzel relayed his understanding of Mr. Turley’s explanation that the City was not at risk of dropping below the fund balance dictated by policy which he believed was 16%. Mr. Turley answered the required reserve right now is $9.8 million. He estimated the ending fund balance at the end of 2022 would be $14 million, an excess of $4 million in unrestricted reserves. Councilmember Chen said his question may be related to discussion on the 2023 Edmonds City Budget Ordinance. He referred to budget book page 15 where the 2022 General Fund balance is currently stated as $15.1 million. With the most up to date information, the ending General Fund balance will be $6.777 million which will impact the outlook of future years. He asked about plans for updating the General Fund balance on page 15 of the budget book and the reserve policy. Mr. Turley answered he had no plans to update the reserve policy; he anticipated it would be discussed at a future committee meeting. He assumed Councilmember Chen’s question was related to updating the strategic outlook in the budget book. Councilmember Chen answered yes, pointing out the 2022 General Fund balance is significantly different, almost $9 million less. Mr. Turley explained the 2022 numbers in the strategic outlook are estimates created in July/August. In December the estimates made in July/August are fairly pretty accurate; revenues are on target, expenses are off slightly but overall he did not anticipate a lot of adjustment would need to be made. The estimates took into account salary increases that staff knew would occur at some point. He did not anticipate significant adjustment would need to be made to the strategic outlook as a result of amendments made during the year. As a result of the budget process, there was only about $1000 in changes to the General Fund fund balance; the net result was almost identical to the mayor’s proposed budget. Taking that into consideration as well as onetime and ongoing requests, few adjustments will be necessary to the out years. He did not anticipate significant changes would need to be made to the strategic outlook. Councilmember Chen agreed timing was the reason for the difference. He asked if the General Fund balance would change in 2023, 2024, 2025. Mr. Turley said he did not know of input changes that would result in changes to the outputs; numbers may be moved around between departments or categories, but the adopted budget will be pretty close to identical to the proposed budget for the General Fund. Councilmember Chen said knowing that the ending General Fund balance will be $6.7 million, a lower starting point than $15.1 million, would revenue from the General Fund still get to $12.6 million in 2023 and the out years. Mr. Turley said he did not think the ending General Fund would be $6.7 million at year end, he anticipated it would be closer to $12 million. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2022 Page 4 Mayor Nelson requested council discussion relate to the 2022 Budget Amendment. Councilmember Chen suggested the finance committee discuss this at their January meeting. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed this could be discussed at the finance committee meeting in January along with the fund balance policy. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE 2022 DECEMBER BUDGET AMENDMENT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. SNOHOMISH COUNTY AGREEMENT TO RELINQUISH REAL PROPERTY INTEREST(Previously Consent Agenda Item 5) Council President Olson said she discussed this with Community Services & Economic Director Todd Tatum today. This seemed rather straight forward, just changing the ownership entity, but when she compared the current document with the original, provisions in the original document were not carried over, specifically related to if the building is sold, having any of the benefit come back to the city that made the contribution or at least guaranteeing it be used for the purpose of public hearth on behalf of City residents. If this was not time critical, she requested this be discussed at the January committee meeting and have those questions addressed in the meantime. She was interested in including the time value of money and the real estate appreciation in the agreement the way it was in the original version with the health district versus this agreement with Snohomish County. Mr. Tatum said he had not had an opportunity to connect with Snohomish County staff. He recalled Snohomish County wanted to have this wrapped up by January, but if the council needed to discuss it further, he will advise them of that. Council President Olson said that would be her preference. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO HANDLE THIS AT THE JANUARY PSPHSP COMMITTEE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Nand said based on Mr. Tatum’s memo and the memo from County Executive Somers, it seemed while each city provided financial payments to help secure the Rucker building, the health district paid back the acquisition loans. She asked if those were repayments to cities or did each city’s real property interest continue after the acquisition loan was paid off. Mr. Tatum answered the real property interest continued. Councilmember Nand relayed her understanding the City was being asked to sign a quit claim deed with no compensation for losing the real property interest in the Rucker building. Mr. Tatum explained in 2017 the City signed a quit claim deed to forfeit its real property interest for consideration of ongoing public health services. The 2017 memo also includes a provision that should the building be sold, the proceeds go back into public health services. In the latest memo, there is the consideration of public health services, but the provision related to the sale and the investment going back into public health was not included. He will need to work that out with Snohomish County. Councilmember Nand observed Edmonds originally contributed $160,000; she asked if he was aware of any other cities seeking repayment or were they donating it to the health district while relinquishing their real property interest. Mr. Tatum said he did not know, but he could ask that question. 8. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. OCTOBER 2022 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT (Previously Item 6.3) Administrative Services Director Dave Turley reviewed: • General Fund Revenues for 10 months ended October 31 are $370,732 behind budget. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2022 Page 5 • General Fund Spending for 10 months ended 31 is $4,341,054 under budget o Have spent $38,757,475 YTD through October out of $43,038,529 budget, 10.07% below budget. If that continues through the end of the year, General Fund spending will be about $5.3M under budget • Sales Tax Revenues for 10 months ended October 31 are $806,814 ahead of last year and $1,096,637 ahead of budget (Received another $1,000,460 in November) • Sales Tax Analysis by Category • Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenues for 10 months ended October 31 are under budget by $615,029 (partially due to an accounting change) • Noteworthy items: o REET revenues are down a total of $1.2 million from this point in time last year and $615,000 behind budget. o Real Personal/Property Tax is down $(93,507) from this point in time last year (timing difference) o Sales Tax is up $806,814 from this point in time last year o Gas Utility Tax is up $75,941 from this point in time last year, this is not due to a timing difference o Development Services revenues overall are up a total of $80,132 from this point last year o Parks & Recreation Program Fees are up $153,263 from this point in time last year. o Total Interest Earnings for all funds are up a total of $70,164 from this point in time last year. We received $194,604 more in interest with the LGIP from this point in time last year and $166,685 more in interest with the SCIP from this point in time last year • Adopting the budget: Increase (Decrease) To Fund Balance Beginning (Proposed) Fund Balance Fund Balance After Amendments General Fund $(1,081) $9,380,391 $9,379,310 Street Fund 112 $500,000 5,204,957 5,704,957 Municipal Arts Fund 117 585 595,612 596,197 Parking Permit Fund 121 12,000 76,264 88,264 REET Fund 125 (260,585) 1,684,283 1,423,698 Tree Fund 143 (25,000) 236,452 211,462 Water Fund 421 (12,500) 30,484,584 30,472,084 Storm Fund 422 (177,836 16,523,48 16,345,653 Sewer Fund 423 (12,500) 56,726,822 56,714,322 Total (citywide) Fund Balance Increase $23,038 • Budget impacts Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2022 Page 6 o About 40 proposals were approved o Impacts up to 9 different funds and about 75 different BARS accounts o Net impact to General Fund was very minimal (increased net spending by $1,081) o Most changes were to “one-time” rather than ongoing allocations, so they mostly affect the 2023 budget, but not future years (2024, 2025, 2026, etc.) o Because of this there will be minimal impact to the Strategic Outlook as presented in the Proposed Budget Councilmember Buckshnis referred to page 44, General Fund Changes in Fund Balance (a comparison of General Fund 2017-2022), and suggested the council pay more attention to this. Even though this report shows very strong revenues, expenses are outpacing revenues. She looked forward to discussing forecasting tools at the January finance committee meeting. She expressed appreciation to Mr. Turley for all the work he has done. Councilmember Chen echoed Councilmember Buckshnis’ appreciation to Mr. Turley and his team for their hard work. For the members of the public who raised questions about the General Fund ending balance, he referred to packet page 275, Exhibit A, Budget Amendment Summary (December 2022), pointing out the $6.7 million 2022 General Fund ending fund balance is only an estimate, the actual, as Mr. Turley stated, will be closer to $12 million. 2. 2023-2028 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DISCUSSION/AMENDMENTS Parks, Recreation and Human Services Director Angie Feser reviewed the following park CIP/CFP projects, explaining the first four items were discussed, amended and approved during the December 5 budget discussion. A few tweaks were requested at last week’s meeting and staff incorporated appropriate revisions; the following summary indicates the page numbers were changes were made: Councilmember Buckshnis suggested an amendment to Item No. P8, Edmonds Marsh Estuary Expansion and Restoration Plan, A1, P4, D9 and D1 to add a longer narrative. There is plenty of federal money available and since there the dollar amount is TBD and no grant funds will be sought, it is important to have as much information as possible. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, FOR THE EDMONDS MARSH ESTUARY EXPANSION AND RESTORATION A1, P4, D9 AND D1 TO BE EXPANDED AS FOLLOWS: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2022 Page 7 PROJECT SUMMARY: RECONNECT THE PUGET SOUND WITH THE EDMONDS MARSH NEARSHORE ESTUARY BY RESTORING THE NATURAL TIDAL EXCHANGE. THE PROJECT ENCOMPASSES OBTAINING THE OWNERSHIP AND/OR LAND USE AUTHORIZATION OF THE OLD UNOCAL PROPERTY CURRENTLY HELD IN TRUST BY WSDOT. THE PROJECT WILL IMPACT THE EXISTING MARINA BEACH PARK AND AS PROPOSED, RENOVATION AS A TIDAL CHANNEL WILL BE A MAJOR COMPONENT OF THE NEARSHORE ESTUARY RESTORATION AND WILL ESTABLISH A REGIONAL WILDLIFE SANCTUARY AND RECREATION AREA. AN INTEGRATED RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE WILDLIFE SANCTUARY WILL BE DEVELOPED TO RESTORE PROPERLY FUNCTIONING CONDITIONS OF THE TIDAL WETLAND AND ITS WATERSHED FOR SALMON RECOVERY AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISERATE WITH IMPROVED EXPANDED PUBLIC ACCESS FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION USE AND WILDLIFE VIEWING. ESTIMATED CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR THIS PROJECT (INCLUDING POTENTIAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND RESTORATION COSTS) WILL BE DETERMINED AFTER TITLE TO THE OLD UNOCAL PROPERTY IS TRANSFERRED TO WSDOT. PROJECT COMPONENTS TO ENSURE THE INTEGRATED RESTORATION PLAN WILL INCLUDE ALTERNATE RESTORATION APPROACHES AND COSTS AS WELL AS SEQUENCING THE PROJECT COMPONENTS TO ENSURE EFFECTIVENESS AND COST SAVINGS. IN THE INTERIM, RESTORATION WORK THAT IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE LAND TRANSFER ISSUE WILL PROCEED AND VOLUNTEER WORK WITH WSDOT HAS ASSISTED IN REESTABLISHING THE SHELLABARGER CREEK CHANNEL INTO THE MARSH AND CONTROLLING THE EXPANSION OF NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE WEEDS. Councilmember Buckshnis read the project justification: “The marsh estuary nearshore restoration and wetland reserve expansion will allow for a net ecological gain impact as the ecological functions of the Edmonds Marsh have deteriorated over time because of the urbanization of the adjacent land. With the restoration of a properly functioning tidal wetland and expanded wildlife reserve, wildlife will greatly flourish, salmon recovery including Chinook will occur, migratory birds and waterfowl will increase, sea level rise will be mitigated, carbon sequestering will occur and mostly, this regional park will provide educational benefits and create an environmental playground for people who desire flourishing urban wildlife in a condensed setting. Restoration of the ecological function of the Edmonds Marsh estuary requires expansion of the estuary into the old Unocal property and across Marina Beach Park as well as addressing the perturbations that have and are affecting proper ecological functions in the body of the marsh and its watersheds, Shellabarger and Willow Creek. Without access to the Unocal property and the science- based restoration plan, return of salmon and preservation of local wildlife for future generations will not be possible.” She said the next paragraph would be the same as proposed. Councilmember Paine asked for clarification if this was the document the council received last week regarding the Edmonds Marsh Estuary Wildlife Reserve Expansion. Councilmember Buckshnis answered it was a modified document. The document council received last week was from a citizen which she briefly read, but later noticed there was no reference to ecological gain, sea level rise or carbon sequestering. Councilmember Paine observed minor changes were made to the language. Councilmember Buckshnis said she made quite a few changes to what was sent out last week. Council President Olson referred to a redlined version that was provided in an attempt to mesh the original language and input from Councilmember Buckshnis. At a glance, staff’s redline version is similar in length to the description of other CIP items so perhaps the redline version was to shorten the proposed language. She asked Ms. Feser to comment on the redline version staff proposed and the language Councilmember Buckshnis proposed. Ms. Feser displayed the redlined version proposed by staff to incorporate the concept and intent of the proposed revisions: Title: Edmonds Marsh Estuary Expansion & Restoration (Willow Creek Daylighting) – A1, P4, D9 & D1. Project Summary: Reconnect the Puget Sound with the Edmonds Marsh near shore estuary by restoring the natural tidal exchange. This project will impact the existing Marina Beach Park and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2022 Page 8 its proposed renovation including daylighting of Willow Creek within the park and the Edmonds Marsh. In addition, this project encompasses the possible acquisition or use of the adjacent 21-acre parcel known as the Unocal property to support a larger estuary of the tidal wetland for salmon recovery, wildlife conservation and improved public access for recreational use, environmental education and wildlife viewing.” Ms. Feser explained the CIP is a general overview planning document and is intended to be generalized so it remains flexible when seeking grant funding when the intent of the project is known but there are a lot of unknowns. The project summary is intended to provide a basic overview of the project and the project justification describes why the project should be done and includes goals and objectives from the PROS Plan that was adopted in 2022. All the capital projects have a brief summary and project justification. The second part is related to the components, about what year work will begin and a very general cost estimate. The additional detail proposed by Councilmember Buckshnis adds more to the narrative, but it also starts to pigeonhole the project in one direction; the information in the CIP needs to be broad and general. Ms. Feser relayed two other concerns with the proposed revisions. The change to TBD removes all the funding earmarked for this project. In some ways this project does not even need to be included in the CIP because there are no dollar amounts associated with it. If the City sought grant funding for it next year and the granting agency saw there was no funding allocation, that might be detrimental to the grant application as it does not commit to a dollar amount or the year the project would begin. She was also concerned with the proposed change to the title, Edmonds Marsh-Estuary Wildlife Reserve Expansion and Restoration, which is a very different approach to an estuary restoration. For example, she would be hesitant to use that title and go to RCO for recreation grant funding. Different pots of funding will be necessary to make this project work and if it is a wildlife reserve, a very specific function, there may be some question when submitting a grant application in a parks category to provide recreational opportunities. The revision proposed by staff is what staff believes is an appropriate narrative, but it is council’s prerogative to add to it. Councilmember Buckshnis said she had accepted staff’s change to not include “wildlife preserve” in the title. She looks at grants all the time. The CIP is a living document and the values can be changed. She did not support suddenly saying the property will be $8 million when it is unknown whether the cost will be $8 million; including unrealistic dollar amounts does not inform grant agencies. She was surprised net ecological gain was not included in the project justification when that is a hot topic in both the federal and state legislature. She hoped the project justification could be expanded. She would accept staff’s project summary, but thought the project summary she submitted was just as good. She acknowledged the CIP was a high level document, but it is the document the council has as a legislative tool to allow the administration to manage the budget and CIP/CFP planning process. She recalled the project was TBD from 2010 to 2013 and $350,000 was added in 2013. The $1.2 million set aside for the marsh in Fund 017 could be included in the CIP. She summarized it was unrealistic to include numbers until there was an understanding of the project. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (2-4-1), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, AND PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO; COUNCILMEMBER NAND ABSTAINING. Councilmember Chen referred to Ms. Feser’s comment that in order to apply for funding, it is better to have a dollar commitment in the CIP. He asked her to explain which is better, including funding or indicating TBD. Ms. Feser explained grant applications and grant evaluation teams consider the community’s commitment to a project as they want to fund projects that will succeed. One of the ways that is demonstrated is if projects are included in a capital plan and adopted by the council and how much more effort is required. For example, has a jurisdiction spent time to determine the cost estimate. The $8 million that has been used as acquisition for the marsh is the amount WSDOT spent to purchase the property; they Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2022 Page 9 have communicated they want to be made whole so $8 million is a good starting point. Granted, no appraisals have been done, but it is a number to start with and it is based on historic data. The other $6 million listed for that project includes the $5 million cost estimate for the Marina Park which was done last year as well as estimates for other planning process based on historic data. That is what was used to create the $14 million estimate cost. Just like every other project, the cost estimate is based on historic data. The closer a project is in the planning process, the tighter the numbers. It is a step in the direction of showing commitment and accuracy and the attention paid to the project. It is not detrimental, but it is helpful. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO ACCEPT THE LANGUAGE AS PROPOSED ON PACKET PAGE 482 AND PAGE 31 OF THE PROS PLAN, TITLED EDMONDS MARSH-ESTUARY EXPANSION AND RESTORATION – A1, P4, D9 & D1. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO AMEND TO AT LEAST ADD THE PROJECT JUSTIFICATION THAT SHE READ IN TERMS OF NET ECOLOGICAL GAIN. At Councilmember Nand’s request, Councilmember Buckshnis reread the project justification. Councilmember Paine commented the specificity included in Councilmember Buckshnis’ amendment will be limiting and it also focuses on reserve language which is also limiting. Having it as broad as possible will help with funding and leave options open. She requested the council support her main motion. Council President Olson said she appreciated the intent of the amendment, but it seems like language for a grant application instead of the general project summary. She did not support the amendment. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, BUCKSHNIS AND NAND VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT AND PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. Councilmember Tibbott observed the cost estimate was changed to TBD, but it sounds like it is important to include a cost estimate. He asked if a cost estimate could be added next year after the council has had further discussion. Ms. Feser said the CIP/CFP is reviewed and approved annually by council. The council could amend the current motion to add the previous cost estimate or it could remain as TBD and revisit it next year during the CIP/CFP process. Council President Olson said the issue is the City does not own property. Until that is imminent, it does not make sense to commit funds to it. She was comfortable with TBD and agreed with revisiting it when that situation changes. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed that thanks to Director Tatum, this is in the Governor’s budget. She did not think the estimate for the land acquisition was accurate; she was still hopeful ownership could be transferred. The $5 million included for the master planning process should have specified the Marina Beach Master Plan. Ms. Feser explained Marina Beach used to be its own line item in the capital plan; after council declined the grant opportunity for the project last year, it was taken out of the CIP because the project would not happen any time soon. She has been hearing from the council and the community who support marsh project that they want it seen as a whole project – the existing marsh, the Unocal property and Marina Beach Park. This capital item in the CIP encompasses all three; the cost of Marina Beach is included in the cost of the estuary restoration project. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was not aware of that. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO ADD $5 MILLION BACK IN. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2022 Page 10 Councilmember Buckshnis asked when that happened. Although she was unsure the cost would be $5 million, she acknowledged there had been an open process related to the Marina Beach renovation. Council President Olson asked if the fact that Marina Beach is not prioritized in the next five years would be a reason not to change the amount in the short term. Ms. Feser answered that was council’s discretion if they wanted to commit to doing Marina Beach in the next five years, putting a placeholder of $5 million into the capital plan. Marina Beach Park is a bookend to the project. The open air tidal channel from inside Marina Beach Park has to happen in order for water to move in and out of the marsh. Marina Beach Park was at 30% design, RCO grants were submitted, and the City was successful on two grants. That project could have been worked on while the issues with the Unocal property are resolved. The bridge under the railroad is a hard point and Marina Beach Park is between Puget Sound and that hard point. If the Unocal property never comes to the City, there can still be a connection from the bridge up to the marsh and create some form of restoration without the Unocal property. Or if the City gets the Unocal property, the whole thing works with the bridge. With regard to work to be done, Marina Beach Park would be the next step even while the transfer of Unocal property happens. The marsh cannot be opened up without the tidal channel because it is currently in a pipe. If the City wants to do physical improvement into the marsh, Marina Beach Park is the next step while waiting for Unocal to shake out. Council President Olson commented as it relates to the marsh, there is some desire and interest, but it wasn’t a priority recreation area. Both the council and public weighed in about that being a lesser priority than some other projects. Councilmember Buckshnis said putting $5 million back into the CIP would be a placeholder. Marina Beach Park cannot be done until there is an understanding of the entire system. She was fine with leaving the cost estimate as TBD. She was under the impression that Marina Beach Park was a separate component. The City needs to figure out the Unocal property ownership first because a tidal channel through Marina Beach Park cannot be designed until there is an understanding of the entire system. If adding $5 million as a cost estimate was confusing, she suggested it remain as TBD. Councilmember Tibbott said the value of including a dollar amount is as a placeholder for future work. It is a project that a lot of work has been done work on, it is a solid number, and it demonstrates the City has done its homework on that phase of the project. That number represents the due diligence for grant funding. He will support that or exploring it later in the year. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, TIBBOTT AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, PAINE, AND NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. R-19 Yost Park and Shell Creek Councilmember Teitzel proposed the following revision to the project summary: Project Summary: Restorative work on Shell Creek in Yost Park. Scope of this work will be determined based on additional research and recommendations informed by direct input by key stakeholders leading to a study to be conducted in 2023. The goal of the study is to determine what improvements are needed to support a healthy environment for the natural ecosystem within the park. Shell Creek is a salmon-bearing stream with very good water quality, supporting annual returns of chum and coho salmon. The silting issues caused by erosion within Yost Park (driven in part by the presence of old concrete weirs that are redirecting the creek against the southern bank and undercutting it) are causing prime gravel spawning habitat to be covered, undermining the potential for Shell Creek to contribute to salmon recovery efforts in the Puget Sound region. Restoration, including near term actions to address severe erosion issues caused by the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2022 Page 11 creek, may include habitat and environmental protection and enhancement, mitigation opportunities and potential trail and bridge relocation. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE REVISED PROJECT SUMMARY FOR PROJECT R-19. Councilmember Teitzel commented this does not involve just erosion within Yost Park, it also affects fish. Shell Creek is a salmon bearing stream and salmon return to Shell Creek every year. The erosion is causing silting in Shell Creek that flows downstream covering gravel spawning beds and harming the ability for coho and chum to come to Shell Creek to spawn. It is a complex inner-linked problem that needs to be addressed quickly to resolve the silting issue. Salmon recovery is the hook to get grants to help with this project. It will require a lot of work in Yost Park to resolve this problem and he expected the cost would exceed the estimate. It will require a concerted effort by parks, public works, contractors, citizen and scientists. These minor language changes provide more coloring to help secure grant funds. Councilmember Paine said the language draws presupposed assumptions particularly with regard to the causes which may limit the breadth of what needs to be done. She feared the language was very directive when it may need to be worded differently and more broadly. The language as proposed is very prescriptive and may not cover all the needs of Yost once the stream experts determine what the stream needs. Unless she hears differently from Ms. Feser, Mr. English or Mr. Antillon, she was not in favor of making the project summary so prescriptive. Ms. Feser explained the reason she proposed the original study in 2023 at $220,000 was to take an overall look at the issues. The short term problems are bridges have been closed and it will take a lot of work to replace, renovate or move them. She wants to look at the length of Shell Creek within Yost Park as a whole entity and consider the stream, erosion, trails along the stream, the 7-8 bridges, the spiderweb of trails that may not be good for the environment due to soils, and the new infiltration with the storm pipe in the 95th Avenue right-of-way that used to dump huge amounts of stormwater into Shell Creek. The 95th Avenue project is mitigation for Civic Park, but it will capture water out of the pipe and put it into the ground instead of running into the stream. Ms. Feser agreed there are erosion problems, but she wants to look at the problems in a broader sense as well as looking at the trail system, uses along the stream bank, weirs, bridges, etc. This project summary has a more narrow focus on salmon. She acknowledged if salmon cannot survive, the health of the environment is not good. The black text is staff’s recommendation. The added detail focuses on salmon and what is speculated to be the cause, but that is not yet known. Council President Olson said there were aspects of the changes made by Councilmember Teitzel that she appreciated such as addition of stakeholder input into the consultant’s work. She agreed the language provided by staff was a strong foundation, but the addition of that element was important. Councilmember Nand echoed Council President Olson’s comment, finding it important to incorporate input from stakeholders. As Councilmember Teitzel previously mentioned, those stakeholders could be not only park users, but also local tribes, environmentalists, and citizen activists who could support the work of staff and the consultant. That would pull in the community aspect of park usage and ensure various viewpoints are being considered. She will support the amendment. Councilmember Teitzel commented his proposed changes will be a holistic look. The way the project summary is currently written, there is no mention of fish. Fish are a critical issue in addition to the bridges, the weir, and the trails. Erosion caused by the creek undercutting the bank is the most urgent issue and that is what the proposed language is geared toward. To the extent the language he proposed can be used to secure grant funding, that would reduce the burden on local taxpayers to support these repairs. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2022 Page 12 Councilmember Chen asked if the amendment Councilmember Teitzel proposed would impact other work Ms. Feser proposed in DP23, for example, would it take away from the resources. Ms. Feser answered she did not believe so, it just changes the direction of the work related to Shell Creek. Parks has a very full plate next year; her intent was to do the consultant study around Shell Creek to learn what needs to be done for the whole park related to the creek. This requires a lot more effort, collecting input from stakeholders, holding meetings, etc. to form the scope of work so it will delay the work and take staff time. She will have to take things off her plate to do this work such as Mathay Ballinger, Yost playground, the ILA with Mountlake Terrace, etc. She agreed it was well intended and heading in the same direction, but there was a difference of opinion in how to get here. Bridge #6 has been closed, and bridge #2, which provides access across the creek from Main Street into the park, is about 2 weeks away from being closed; those bridges will probably not reopen for 1½-2 years. Her priority is to get the bridges open so the public can have access in the park. She cannot do bridges and salmon and a task force at same time, it will be one or the other. Councilmember Teitzel said it is important to keep the focus on the core problem; the core problem is erosion cause by the stream eating away at the toe of the bank. The stream is being redirected against the bank by the old Edmonds water system concrete weir that was part of City’s first water supply system from the spring fed Shell Creek. Over the years, that has filled with sediment and gravel and is forcing the stream out of the way. That weir needs to be dealt with very, very soon so the stream can be realigned away from the bank. That will support good bridge relocation, paths along the stream, etc. The most fundamental problem is realigning the stream and getting the weir removed so the stream can flow through its natural bed again. There are well informed people in Edmonds who can help direct that work and get the project moving. None of his proposed changes minimize the work that needs to be done; the trails need to be realigned, the bridges need to be rebuilt, but most importantly, the stream needs to be taken care of for park users as well as fish. For those reasons, he urged the council to support his proposed amendment. Councilmember Chen said he toured Yost Park and followed the stream, saw the bridges and erosion, so he knows exactly what Councilmember Teitzel is concerned about. Ms. Feser is right, the bridges need to be reopened to the public, but he agreed with Councilmember Teitzel that erosion is the cause of the problem, including the bridges. He will support the amendment. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBERS TEITZEL, CHEN, TIBBOTT, BUCKSHNIS, NAND AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER PAINE VOTING NO. Councilmember Teitzel explained his second amendment is essentially a bookkeeping issue to ensure the numbers balance properly. On December 5th, the council reduced funding for this item from $220,000 to $120,000 and on December 13th, the council voted on a CIP/CFP amendment that funded $500,000 in total, split to direct $100,000 into 2023 and $400,000 in 2024. It should have been $120,000 as approved previously. The following amendment will balance the CIP with the earlier budget amendment. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO REVISE THE 2023 AND 2024 COST ESTIMATES FOR CIP/CFP ITEM R-19 TO ALLOCATE $120,000 OF THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST TO 2023 AND $380,000 OF THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST TO 2024. THE TOTAL COST REMAINS AT THE COUNCIL-APPROVED LEVEL OF $500,000. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE CIP/CFP AS AMENDED TONIGHT. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. ADOPTION OF 2022 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO APPROVE THE 2022 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2022 Page 13 Senior Planner Mike Clugston advised the amendments that the council approved tonight to the Parks CFP will be incorporate into the final ordinance. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM FOR 2023 COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS NOMINATED COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT AS COUNCIL PRESIDENT. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL SECONDED THE NOMINATION. NOMINATION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER NAND NOMINATED COUNCILMEMBER CHEN FOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM. NOMINATION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS NOMINATED COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON FOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM. COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL SECONDED THE NOMINATION. NOMINATION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. 2023 EDMONDS CITY BUDGET ORDINANCE (Previously Consent Agenda Item 7.9 Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the administration for the ordinance in the packet. She submitted questions about Sections 1 and 2. Her issue with Section 2 was in looking at the original ordinance 4229, council approved $3.5 million for the lower Perrinville Creek alignment. She did not recall the council ever reducing that amount during subsequent ARPA discussions or during the CIP/CFP discussion about Perrinville Creek. She asked for clarification regarding how that amount was removed. Community Services & Economic Development Director Todd Tatum explained there were a number of additions to ARPA. For example, $986,025 for parks support, $1.3 million for police support which was not in any of the previous ordinances, the code rewrite, contribution to the Lynnwood Neighborhood Center and a number of other projects. The way to make those projects fit is to take away from future phases of existing projects. Councilmember Buckshnis said the council probably should have had a discussion about that. She knew as council approved these projects they went into the budget. She understood Mr. Tatum’s reasoning and that items council approved during the budgetary process were added. She assured he had done a great job, but assumed the ordinance would need to be amended to reduce the amount for Perrinville Creek. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the way the ordinance is structured, it completely undoes all the previous ARPA funding allocations. Section 1 states Section 4 of Ordinance 4229 is repealed. That may be where Councilmember Buckshnis found the original $3.5 million. This ordinance is not in conflict with Ordinance 4229 because it repeals the applicable section of Ordinance 4229. The question is whether this ordinance matches the policy preferences with regard to how to spend the ARPA money. Councilmember Buckshnis said Section 1 only refers to Section 4 in Ordinance 4229 and sections of other ordinances. Her question is the amount for Perrinville is now $1.5 million but she did not recall the council saying it could be up to $1.5 million. She was trying to figure out what needed to be done to ensure the vote matches what happened in the ordinance. The council did not talk about Perrinville per se and using ARPA money up to $1.5 million other than there is $681,000, $454,000 and $192,000 so it totals about $1.4 million for lower Perrinville Creek, but the council didn’t really approve that. She understood this ordinance repealed everything, but now the proposed ordinance says up to $1.5 million can be used for Perrinville but she did not recall the council ever agreed to that. Mayor Nelson said that is the proposal, she can agree or disagree with it. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2022 Page 14 Councilmember Buckshnis said all these new items were voted on by council except for this $1.5 million for Perrinville. Mayor Nelson explained there was a set amount of ARPA funds; the number was reduced to provide money for other things; Perrinville was reduced from $3.5 million to $1.5 million. Councilmember Buckshnis acknowledged the $3.5 million had been eliminated but there was never a decision package for the $1.5 million for Perrinville. Mayor Nelson explained if the council already approved $3.5 million and that was removed and replaced with a proposal for $1.5 million, there clearly was support for $3.5 million so the thinking was the council would still support $1.5 million and the rationale is the same. Whether the council thinks $1.5 million is enough is another issue. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was looking at it from a legislative standpoint; the amount was reduced without the council’s authority. Mayor Nelson said it has not been reduced without council authority; this is a proposal and this is council’s opportunity to agree or disagree. Councilmember Buckshnis said she was trying to clarify that all the other items that were added were approved by council in the budget. She thought there should have been a discussion with council to inform that this was reduced to $1.5 million. Mayor Nelson asked if this was proposed to council previously. Mr. Tatum explained he made a presentation to council that showed the amounts in the proposed budget. Councilmember Chen said Mr. Taraday clarified that the previous ARPA designation had been repealed. This is an entirely new designated use of ARPA funding. Mr. Taraday agreed, explaining the prior ARPA ordinances that allocated ARPA to various causes have been repealed and this is the ordinance that replaces all those previous allocations. The reason the ordinances are not repealed in their entirety is in some cases for example, one of the ordinances created the fund so that the ordinance must be retained. As far as the actual allocation of ARPA money, the ordinance the council is considering tonight is the ordinance the council will need to look at to figure out where the ARPA money is going because all the previous ordinances have been repealed and replaced with this ordinance. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF ARPA ORDINANCES AND ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2023. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Nelson thanked the public works crews who have been out day and night plowing, deicing, etc. to keep the community safe. He thanked residents for driving responsibly and being safe. Wetter weather is forecast so he is hopeful the snow will melt. He thanked City staff and the council for their work on the budget. He congratulated and thanked Council President Olson for her service this year as council president, welcomed Councilmember Tibbott as council president and said he looked forward to work with him as well as with Council President Olson as council president pro tem. He wished everyone happy holidays. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Paine wished everyone a good holiday season including Christmas, Kwanza, Hanukkah, and her favorite, New Year’s Eve, a fresh start for a new year. She echoed Mayor Nelson's commendations to public works staff and the police department who kept things moving. She reminded the cold weather shelter can use volunteers and she encouraged the public to support the Edmonds Food Bank. Councilmember Chen wished everyone happy holidays and thanked the mayor, staff, council and everyone for their hard work. He advised January 13 is Korean American Day and encouraged everyone to participate in the celebration at the ECA. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes December 20, 2022 Page 15 Councilmember Teitzel echoed other councilmembers’ comments about their appreciation for all the support and effort the directors and their staffs put into the budget, particularly Director Turley who has been doing yeoman’s work answering questions and doing a wonderful job. He looked forward to working with all the directors in the new year and looked forward to a break over the holidays, getting refreshed and charging into 2023. He wished everyone happy holidays. Councilmember Nand expressed her gratitude to councilmembers for appointing her to this position and to staff and Mayor Nelson who have been very kind to her during her learning curve this year. She was not anticipating the outpouring of sympathy when her rabbit died recently. She showed her rabbit, Raj, on the screen and wished everyone happy holidays with their families, fur babies and humans, and encouraged everyone to care for their neighbors and their community. Council President Olson commented it has been a pleasure serve as the council president this year and she appreciated everyone’s work. A lot was asked of the council this year and everyone rose to the challenge in a big way and they have earned a break. She thanked the public for working with the council and accepting the council being on Zoom tonight due to weather challenges, a good segue into a more inward and homeward focused holiday season. She is available for shoveling and invited the public to email her city email if they needed help getting to their transit stop or out of their driveway. Councilmember Buckshnis echoed everything that was said about staff and the administration. She thanked Council President Olson, agreeing it has been a wild year, the City has gone through a lot, and it has been a wonderful time. She was thankful for Council Assistant Beckie Peterson who is astute and a fast learner. She wished everyone a happy holiday. She remarked the holidays are tough for some; she lost her brother and aunt just like Councilmember Tibbott who lost his sister recently. She thought about the late Councilmember K. Johnson a lot during the budget process. All that can be done is to fill the void with joy, memories and fun experiences. She recalled Councilmember K. Johnson telling her they would need to agree to disagree and then giving a deep chuckle. Councilmember Tibbott said it has been a tough week, his sister unexpectedly passed away on Sunday and it was a difficult, unbelievable time. He appreciated the support of the council, their words of encouragement, their texts and their kindness. He had a chance walk in the snow today with his wife and daughter and felt like he could come to tonight’s meeting. He thanked the council for tolerating his lack of involvement at times, but he felt it was important to be at the meeting. He considers it a great honor to serve on the council and he looks forward to working together on productive projects in 2023 and to supporting City staff in the work they do. Mayor Nelson expressed his condolences for Councilmember Tibbott’s loss. He wished all a safe and wonderful holiday. 11. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:51 p.m.