2024-04-16 Council Minutes Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16, 2024 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES April 16, 2024 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Mayor Vivian Olson, Council President Chris Eck, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Michelle Dotsch, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Jenna Nand, Councilmember STAFF PRESENT Oscar Antillon, Public Works Director Susan McLaughlin, Planning & Dev. Dir. Rob English, City Engineer Mike De Lilla, Senior Utilities Engineer Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator 1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Mayor Rosen in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, and virtually. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. 2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Councilmember Nand 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. PRESENTATION 1. EARTH DAY 2024 PROCLAMATION Mayor Rosen read a proclamation proclaiming April 22, 2024 as Earth Day in Edmonds and encouraging residents, businesses and institutions to use Earth Day to celebrate the earth and commit to building a sustainable and green economy. Mayor Rosen presented the proclamation to Brittany Ahman, Sound Salmon Solutions. Ms. Ahman said it was an honor to receive the proclamation. She thanked the City for funding the Edmonds Stewards program and Sound Salmon Solutions who manages the program. The Edmonds Stewards are a passionate group of volunteers dedicated to the restoration of City of Edmonds parks through habitat restoration including invasive vegetation removal and planting native trees and shrubs. Their work ensures Edmonds parks are Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16, 2024 Page 2 suitable not only for the community but also for native wildlife such as birds, amphibians, mammals and pollinators. To date, the Edmonds Stewards have successfully cleared over 10 acres of invasive vegetation within City parks and planted over 3,000 native trees and shrubs all through volunteer efforts. Anyone interested in contributing to these efforts is invited to join them this Saturday in celebration of Earth Day at events from 10-noon including beach clean-ups at Marina Beach and Brackett’s Landing North and forest restoration projects at Pine Ridge Park and Yost Park. Full details and registration information is available at SoundSalmonSolutions.org/events. Ms. Ahman continued, Edmonds Stewards are true believers that every day should be in celebration of the earth; not only will they be out this Saturday in celebration of Earth Day, they also invite community volunteers to join them every Saturday at Yost Park, the second Saturday of the month at Pine Ridge Park and the third Saturday of the month at Hutt Park. In addition there is a free training program on June 2 where community members can learn more about the Edmonds Stewards program, what is required to be an Edmonds Steward, and what goes into habitat restoration projects. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Bob Danson, General Manager, Olympic View Water and Sewer District, thanked the City for working with the district to protect the community’s drinking water resources by adopting the City CARA code. He also thanked City staff for collaborating with OVWSD staff, commenting it had been a great experience, the code has come a long way and the code is pretty good although there are still some tweaks needed. He referred to the concern he voiced in the past about infiltration of stormwater in general terms and offered more specifics. Stormwater contains pollutants; for instance, a sample study completed at the Madrona School in Edmonds shows there is PFAS in the stormwater being sent down into UIC wells that ultimately go to the water aquifer layer. The EPA just lowered the maximum contaminant levels of some PFAS elements due to the recognized health risks and it will continue to get worse as the PFAS epidemic continues. The levels at the Madrona School stormwater right now are above those new EPA limits. In a Lake Washington study by Ecology on total PFAS readings done in 2022, the median concentration for atmospheric deposits (rainwater) is 2.0 and 30 in stormwater. PFAS bioaccumulates, does not break down, is considered a forever chemical, and a soil layer is not a good filter as it goes through soil layers. Allowing these substances to infiltrate into the ground risks polluting the drinking water aquifer. At a minimum, OVWSD asks for one final modification, to go back to the proposed code to include the original recommendation of no UICs in the most vulnerable exposed QVA areas. Ardeth Weed, Edmonds, said she has passionately believed in the value of a diverse community her entire life. Her experiences as a California teacher, a small school administrator and the parent of two mixed-race children added to her passion. When city leaders heard about the name-calling of a Black woman on Sunset Avenue years ago and formed a diversity commission, she began attending meetings as a community member. When Donnie Griffin’s term was up and she had been attending meetings for about three years, he convinced her to apply for the vacancy on the commission. She joked she represents old white women in the community. The work the diversity commission does such as providing grants to community groups for projects supporting diversity, and the annual film discussion series is important. None of it would have been accomplished without the support of the talented city staff, Patrick Doherty and Cindi Cruz who were replaced by the equally talented Todd Tatum and Megal Luttrell. She finished her 3-year term last December and did not reapply because as a senior with an aging brain, she believed others could better serve the community. She was right; she attended the February meeting as a community member and was absolutely thrilled to listen to the conversations and interactions of continuing and new members as they Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16, 2024 Page 3 worked through the agenda. Although believing in the case is important, these members have actual experience in their jobs and lives of making their beliefs a reality. The depth of discussion, sharing of ideas and raising of relevant questions was impressive. The discussion included working with neighboring cities, with Snohomish County and with other organizations in the community to continue the work of the diversity commission to improve life in Edmonds for all citizens. She walked home with a smile on her face but also tears in her eyes; she is proud and happy to live in Edmonds, Washington. Theresa Hollis, Edmonds, referred to the CARA code and recommended approving the 2023 version of the CARA ordinance. OVWSD provides her water and she supports their advice, not the Edmonds planning board advice this year. The planning board was given incomplete information during their deliberations. They were told PFAS aquifer contamination was rare in Washington state, two known instances, but they were not focusing on the additional facts that 30 water systems in Washington exceed the state limit and 200 exceed the more strict federal limit. The science on PFAS is lagging behind the regulations from state and local government. Edmonds does not gain anything significant by adopting the 2024 version of the code language in the packet. She encouraged the council to adopt the more strict regulation against drilled wells and infiltration systems. The lack of a stormwater pipe network in parts of south Edmonds is not justification to have more lax regulations. From her perspective, this is not a judgment decision because neither the council nor she has the technical knowledge to evaluate whether OVWSD’s advice or the planning board’s advice is best. She believed it was a strategic decision for council; make the regulation more strict today to buy time for the experts at the state Department of Ecology to define their regulations or make it more lenient and hope nothing bad happens during their watch. If the council is lenient now with regard to stormwater management issue, heaven help us when the council is evaluating citywide mitigations from Herrara’s EIS; what strategy to protect the environment will the council use then? She found it ironic she had to make this argument to the council during the same meeting as the Earth Day proclamation. Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, said she has made her point many times on media, at the planning board and at council. The council needs to rethink some of their opinions about the CARA code. She concurred with Theresa Hollis’ comments. The environment will always be here and the council needs to realize that just one unintended consequence could ruin the aquifer. She learned a lot while on council for 13 years and on the Salmon Recovery Council and believed it would be in the City best interest to approve the 2023 code that restricts digging. Edmonds is very unique and she was sure there would be ramifications from new bills once they were set in stone. She recalled very tough laws were passed related to crumb rubber; this is almost worse than crumb rubber. Clint Wright, Edmonds, a resident at 8th & Bell, suggested councilmembers drive up the hill and look at what’s going on up there to get a good look at future Edmonds. Next, he urged the council to vote against language in the packet and instead support the more strict 2023 planning board recommendation. It is important to think about the environment more than how many dozens or hundreds of people will be moving to Edmonds. Joe Scordino, Edmonds, a 44 year resident of Edmonds and retired biologist, recommended disallowing any and all UIC wells throughout the CARA, both Deer Creek and the one that extends outside the Esperance area due to great uncertainty. It may not be on the council’s watch that those aquifers are polluted, but it may be on someone else's watch. He questioned whether the council wanted to be responsible for what happens in the future. He recalled when dealing with natural resources, if there was any uncertainty, they took the risk adverse approach where risk is considered in decisions to ensure protection, in this case protecting future generations. These pollutants affect infants and fetuses, and the last thing anyone wants to learn 20 years from now is kids are deformed due to what is allowed today. He urged the council to disallow any and all UIC wells over a CARA, commenting allowing them doesn’t make sense. If in the future there is some proof there is no effect, the regulations can be changed. He preferred the council be cautious and not move hastily regarding something there is little known about. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16, 2024 Page 4 7. RECEIVED FOR FILING 1. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FOR FILING 2. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 26, 2024 2. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 2, 2024 3. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 2, 2024 4. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENTS 5. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND WIRE PAYMENTS 6. SNOHOMISH COUNTY - CITY OF EDMONDS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR MEE PARKLAND ACQUISITION 7. HANKINS PB APPOINTMENT CONFIRMATION 8. LI PB APPOINTMENT CONFIRMATION 9. REID ESCC APPOINTMENT CONFIRMATION 10. STINE ADB APPOINTMENT CONFIRMATION 11. HENKES EAC APPOINTMENT CONFIRMATION 12. 2023 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORT 13. APPROVAL OF 5-FT DEDICATION FOR 98TH AVE W RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO 22214 98TH AVE W 14. APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR KPG/PSOMAS TO PROVIDE DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE PHASE 5 STORM UTILITY REPLACEMENT/REHABILITATION PROJECT 15. COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE SECTION 8 16. COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE - SECTION 13 9. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. POTENTIAL ACTION ON CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREA CODE AMENDMENT Mayor Rosen relayed staff planned to display motions and amendments on the screen in real time. Senior Planner Mike Clugston introduced Senior Utilities Engineer Mike De Lilla and Planning & Development Director Susan McLaughlin. Mr. Clugston explained this agenda item related to the CARA code which has been under review for the past year in collaboration with Olympic View Water and Sewer District (OVWSD). Staff does not have any new information to present tonight; everything was in the packet. Staff is requesting council vote to adopt the draft ordinance in the packet with no substantive changes. The ordinance represents best available science (BAS) uncovered over the past year, and is consistent with and exceeds Department of Health and Department of Ecology standards. The critical area ordinance is updated every eight years. If the council adopts the draft ordinance tonight, this and other critical area chapters will need to be updated consistent with BAS in several years. As Mr. De Lilla stated previously, the stormwater portion will be updated as the Department of Ecology gets new information on new contaminates, for example PFAS, and the City would immediately adopt any new Ecology regulations via this ordinance. Councilmember Nand referred to 23.60.030 regulated activities stormwater (packet page 174), commenting the point of most controversy is A.2.a, All new bored, drilled, or driven shaft UICs for stormwater Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16, 2024 Page 5 management purposes are prohibited. During the last presentation it seemed Mr. De Lilla anticipated any new infiltration would be quite shallow to ensure rainwater wouldn’t be swamped. She asked how far into the aquifer this code would allow infiltration and did he anticipate it would allow PFAS into the CARA more quickly. Mr. De Lilla answered as far as ground water is concerned, no infiltration system is allowed to directly discharge into the aquifer. The distance from the actual aquifer is probably hundreds of feet. Ecology uses the term UIC well, in layman’s terms, it is really an infiltration system. Ecology has a list of approved technologies; UICs are the vast majority of the approved technologies to help mitigation and infiltrate stormwater. Approving the previous version at the planning board would limit the City to only one way to try to solve problem, but would probably lead to surface flooding, much less buildable area, take water off site so it literally goes into Deer Creek which does not solve the problem; instead of decades for the water to get there, it is a matter of minutes. Infiltration would be shallow and it would not inject into the groundwater; the groundwater is 100s of feet down. Mr. De Lilla continued, although they say there are areas with exposed QVA, per the report the areas that are not exposed drain to the exposed portions so it is really the entire CARA that goes into that exposed water. The discussion about doing one versus the other does not make a lot of sense. This is just for developed lots; it does not include existing lots which will stay the same and will not be retrofitted. With regard to PFAS, some level of development is desirable so some work can be done. To restrict what is allowed will result in less development and things will continue to be infiltrated the old fashioned way which has absolutely no treatment. Councilmember Nand relayed Mr. Danson seemed to suggest that the critical area designation might not be comprehensive enough to protect the CARA. She asked if there was anything more that could be done with special permitting in this area to restrict what is allowed into the CARA. Mr. De Lilla answered not that he was aware of; this has been coordinated with Department of Ecology and Department of Health to get their buy-in and it is as stringent as it can be short of making stormwater drinkable. The available technologies to deal with PFAS are activated carbon and reverse osmosis; there is no other technology. Councilmember Eck referred to audience comments which included requests not to make changes and to adopt the 2023 code. She asked staff to share the implications to the City of doing that versus making the changes requested tonight. Mr. Lilla answered it would more than likely limit development so the footprint of what would be allowed would be much larger since everything would be at the surface. He was sure there would be legal ramifications and very unhappy people who were unable to develop which he saw as a big minus. If the council adopts what was proposed by planning board, there is a menu of approved technologies to do mitigation and pollution removal, standards that Ecology allows, that are measured according to metrics, etc. Otherwise, there is only one way to do it, treatment is on the surface in a grassy area and everything else is bad even though it is only about 1-2 feet below surface. He did not see the logic of not allowing intrusion 1-2 feet into the soil when there are roots and plants in the soil and the runoff can be in a much smaller footprint so everyone has an equal opportunity to do what they want to their home such as an addition, deck, etc. If all the treatment has to be at the surface, that hogties development. Some say no development is good, but actually it’s not because there is no new treatment and everything stays the way it is which is actually worse. Some development is desirable so there can be mitigation. Councilmember Tibbott referred to Table 23.60.030.1, a very long list of CARA prohibited and restricted uses which he found very encouraging because it had been thought through and was a great reference for anyone doing development. He relayed his understanding that there was a difference between shallow UICs that utilize infiltration pipes versus very deep UICs and it was his understanding deep UICs would be prohibited. Mr. De Lilla answered deep UICs are not allowed anywhere. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding that shallow UICs aid in percolating water from the surface into the soil and from his perspective, eliminate water running down the street and downhill into wherever. He asked the depth of shallow UICs. Mr. De Lilla answered three feet at the most; it is well within the root zones so there is plant life, microbes, etc., that help with mitigation; there is still treatment before it infiltrates. It is not just putting Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16, 2024 Page 6 water in the ground, the 20-30 technologies approved by DOE would be used for which they have metrics for treatment. Since nobody knows what technology can deal with PFAS to a level that makes sense, it would just arbitrarily coming up with something. Councilmember Tibbott summarized shallow UICs would be allowed, deep UICs would be prohibited. Mr. De Lilla agreed. Councilmember Dotsch commented she comes from a background of do no harm. She recalled at a planning board meeting last year someone remarking the City did not even know the Deer Creek CARA existed, so how is it still clean. She recalled Mr. Clugston mentioned the area is predominantly low density single family housing. If rainwater hits the ground, it is low risk; rainwater hitting a roof and then the ground has a 30 times higher risk. If density is increased to 3 units/lot, the idea of rainwater hitting a roof is multiplied instead of hitting the ground and having setbacks. She recalled former Stormwater Engineer Jerry Shuster talking about having quality setbacks. She was trying to understand if density was the goal at the risk of clean water because density will increase the chances of rain hitting PFAS in roofs and gutters and then going into ground and into the aquifer. She asked why change those areas to higher density. Mr. De Lilla answered because none of that is currently being treated. Mr. Clugston responded while the density question will come up over the next year or so, that is not the point of this ordinance. This ordinance is related to management of the two CARAs. There has been discussion about prohibiting some activities and regulating stormwater in a rational way. Density is a topic for 2024 and 2025, tonight is consideration of the CARA ordinance. Councilmember Dotsch pointed out the CARA is related to land use. Mr. Clugston said no land uses are changing with this ordinance. Councilmember Dotsch said there are discussions about changing land use in the future. If there is no contamination now and the City is blessed with two CARAs, the City should be doing the most possible to maintain that. The City has a history of annexing areas and doing nothing related to infrastructure. She questioned why improvement would be expected by increasing density. There is talk about stormwater mixing with wastewater all over Edmonds now during weather events and the aquifer is literally sand. She was trying to figure out the City’s priorities. On Earth Day, the City is talking about clean air and clean water, so why would the City put itself in a situation with insufficient stormwater cleanup. Ms. McLaughlin explained growth and environmental protection are not at odds. The City is supporting density, complying with the state mandate, providing housing affordability and also protecting clean water. The draft code goes above and beyond and provides a nimble response to any regulation in the near future. There will be continued analysis at the federal and regional level that will inform OVWSD to make changes in their treatment as well as inform what can be done at the local level. She summarized the City is nimble, responsive, supporting density and actually protecting the environment and water quality. Just because density is being increased, one cannot assume that will multiply roof surface, the same size house can provide two units based on average square footage of average single family homes these days. She summarized density did not always mean a bigger footprint. Councilmember Dotsch commented ADUS can be 2,400 square feet which is pretty big. The aquifer is clean now, the area is low density, and although there are issues with flooding, this will not fix the stormwater issue. She was trying to understand why not do the things that would be the most protective. Mr. De Lilla answered it was either allowing one tool, or 30 ways to do it. None of these tools have been studied for removal of PFAS. There is some anecdotal efficiency, but no one knows exactly what that is and it needs to be studied. At the same time, things like PFOS and PFOA have been banned since the early 2000s. It is just question of what is actually in the environment. The feds are doing their job, seeing what they can get rid of. Everyone wants all the answers right now; this has been a problem since the 1930s- 1940s and is being worked on. There is no way anyone in this room can do all that science, decisions need to be based on existing science instead of fear. Great progress is being made, for example 3M stopping making anything that contains PFAS. Department of Ecology came out with regulations for food packaging. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16, 2024 Page 7 The work is being done based on BAS. There may be missteps here and there, but it is trending in the right direction. At the same time, limiting technologies would be a disservice. The City doesn’t want to say a raingarden is the only solution which ignores all the other potential tools. The planning board was not given the full picture that there are many other technologies. Everyone uses the term shallow UIC well, in every other engineering stormwater design guidance, those are called piped infiltration system. Water mains use PVC; about 5% of OVWSD’s water mains are PVC which no one is talking about. In his opinion, limiting the toolkit to one solution was a grave mistake. Councilmember Chen observed Mr. De Lilla talked about pros and cons and the 2023 ordinance versus the code proposed today. He observed previously the City did not have any CARA codes. Mr. De Lilla agreed. Councilmember Chen observed this is the City’s first step to regulate and protect the aquifer resources. Mr. De Lilla agreed. Councilmember Chen observed there are three approaches the council can take, 1) not adopt any code and leave things the way they are, 2) adopt the 2023 code which is more restrictive and prohibits any UICs, or 3) adopt the code in tonight’s packet which allows shallow UIC for infiltration purposes. Mr. De Lilla said he would not call the 2023 more restrictive, he would call it less restrictive because it limited the mitigation technologies and allows flows to go directly to Deer Creek and other areas. It is more restrictive in the sense it did not allow the technology. Councilmember Chen observed it was more restrictive because it did not allow any UIC at all. Mr. De Lilla agreed, it did not allow that type of treatment. It was less restrictive, not more restrictive, because it was saying that one technology was the answer to fix everything for which there is absolutely no science. That was proposed in 2023, the change was what the planning board had asked for based on incomplete information. Councilmember Chen relayed his understanding that technologies are evolving as new technologies come out. Mr. De Lilla agreed, Ecology’s TAPE program lists all the mitigation technologies; if the City is saying only one technology can be used, the City cannot defend itself against future possible incoming technologies. Councilmember Chen referred to Mr. De Lilla’s comment that this has been a problem since the 1930s and 1940s. De Lilla said that is how long PFAS has been around. Councilmember Chen asked if there was any value in delaying adoption of a CARA code and waiting to see if newer technologies come up. Mr. De Lilla answered he did not see any value in that; he saw value in using Ecology’s TAPE program, the menu of technologies and new technologies that will be added in the future. If no UICs are allowed, none of those technologies are allowed because they need to go in a catch basin in a pipe; as soon as there is a pipe, it’s not allowed. He did not know of any storm drain system that was completely pipeless. Council President Olson said she has had discussion with the public and experts including Mr. Danson and City staff on this subject. She read this agenda item carefully, a lot of it was scientific sourced from Ecology. She recalled an exercise at a recent council retreat where councilmembers were asked their priorities and the most important things that could not be neglected when considering budget cuts; first on her list was clean water. She has been told the council needs to err on the conservative when it comes to what is done in CARAs. Anything can be taken to an extreme and the suggestions being made are of that nature. For example, everyone in the CARA could be asked to move out and provide a one mile berth which would be more protective. When looked at specifics in the appendix by scientific agencies, the one she paid the most attention to or that resonated with her the most was from Ecology. There are some things that should be done on an environmental front with regard to the CARA and making residents and businesses in those areas partners in protecting the CARA such as not washing cars in the driveway, and not using pesticides and herbicides. Council President Olson referred to Edmonds’ moratorium on crumb rubber, recalling the documentation said crumb rubber was super dangerous for CARAs and it should not be used as a filler on turf if it washes into the CARA. She suggested crumb rubber be an express prohibition in the CARA code. She appreciated that as science, awareness and standards improve, they will automatically be incorporated into the City’s Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16, 2024 Page 8 code without this time consuming process. There was wonderful collaboration by many parties and she thanked them for being engaged in the process. With the caveat of expressly prohibiting crumb rubber, she was supportive of the code as proposed and suggested it go to consent if council was willing to make that change. Ms. McLaughlin referred to an email from Mr. Clugston which stated the moratorium on crumb rubber had been lifted; that may be something the council wants to add as a future agenda item. Mr. Clugston advised the crumb rubber moratorium expired in 2020; at this time crumb rubber can be used on any publicly owned sports fields. Council President Olson asked if there were any publicly owned sports fields in the CARA. Mr. Clugston answered yes, the playfields at the old Woodway High School and at Madrona School. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO PASS THE CARA CODE IN THE PACKET ON A FUTURE CONSENT AGENDA. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO AMEND TO ADD A PROVISION THAT THERE WOULD BE NO CRUMB RUBBER IN THE CARA OR THE CARA BUFFERS. Mr. Clugston suggested adding “crumb rubber in publicly owned athletic fields” under Use/Activity and under CARA restriction, add “prohibited in all CARA.” Council President Olson asked if crumb rubber could be prohibited on private property as well. Mr. Clugston answered in theory, yes. Council President Olson said she wanted to have that happen. Councilmember Nand expressed support for the main motion but not the amendment. It was great that the council was having a public discussion about the use of certain chemicals in the City. For example, she doesn’t like it when she saw her neighbors using Glyphosate in their lawns because it is a neurotoxin and the grates on City streets say Puget Sound starts here. She envisioned Glyphosate would be banned one day. Targeting the use of crumb rubber, especially not knowing existing conditions in the CARA would be unfairly targeting existing homeowners. She questioned what restrictions that would be placed on new development because it was her understanding with new development, underground infiltration-capturing systems would potentially remove more PFAS and other harmful chemicals from the environment. Councilmember Nand continued, this on the fly, last minute amendment regarding crumb rubber was too reactionary for her to support. She was in favor of a citywide ban on toxins that harm human, animals and the environment and would be happy to explore that further with the community, but did not want to confine that to only the CARA. It would make more sense if it were critical area, etc., but that would need to go through a public process through the planning board to have a better understanding of how it would impact property owners. Councilmember Paine expressed her support for the main motion and the amendment related to crumb rubber. She recalled the moratorium on crumb rubber expired during the pandemic and never rose to the top to be addressed again. She agreed there needed to be a citywide moratorium on crumb rubber. She asked if the technology that will be forthcoming would address other harmful chemicals to the water systems. For example, tire dust that kills salmon, 6PPD, is not regulated and other things such as legacy chemicals and new things that come up. She wanted to ensure the City was as nimble as possible with regard to technology and remediation. Mr. De Lilla said that is why the ordinance proposes the code be changed as science comes in which will allow it to be nimble instead of coming to council with every change. Ecology is actively studying things such as 6PPD that is affecting salmon. He was unsure of the timeline, but as soon as standards were developed, the City would automatically adopt them. Councilmember Paine relayed her understanding the way the code is written is as flexible as it needs to be to protect the environment. Mr. De Lilla agreed, relaying in many ways it exceeds what Ecology requires. Ecology has standards for residential units, the City’s standards increase the amount of treatment provided. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16, 2024 Page 9 Councilmember Paine opined this an educational process for the community, because it is not just tire dust, but things people put on their lawn, put in their laundry, etc. With regard to the crumb rubber amendment, Councilmember Tibbott assumed that would apply to new installations, not current installations, and asked that the prohibition be written to reflect that. Mr. Clugston answered as described in the code, existing uses would be allowed to continue, new uses of crumb rubber would be prohibited. Councilmember Tibbott expressed support for the amendment and the ordinance in the packet. Councilmember Chen agreed with the spirit of the amendment as crumb rubber was a dangerous substance, but agreed a broader ordinance was needed that would apply citywide, not just in this defined area. He agreed with the spirit of the amendment, but preferred an approach that would have a bigger impact. He did not support the amendment, but would support a conversation with the entire community. Councilmember Eck commented the council’s job is to deal with complexity so she supported the amendment because it is more protective of the environment and includes crumb rubber. She expressed interest in renewing the moratorium on crumb rubber throughout the City. She supports the ordinance because it keeps the City in sync with science and updates the code as the technology, innovation, and science gets sharper. Council President Olson pointed out the source for her amendment, page 166 of the OVWSD Water Supply Protection Guidelines which prohibit tire crumb rubber. Having a citywide moratorium on crumb rubber might be something for the council to consider, but the council is very busy and it is not on the extended agenda. She favored protecting the CARA and drinking water now and potentially considering a citywide prohibition in the future. AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-2) COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN AND NAND VOTING NO. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-1) COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH VOTING NO. 2. FITCH REPORT: FIRE SERVICES FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT William Sturgeon, Senior Associate and Project Team Leader, Fitch & Associates, explained he modified the presentation in the packet for clarity and brevity and included more high level math to explain the process based on briefings done with groups of councilmembers last week. He reviewed: • Introduction o Fitch and Associates Edmonds Project Team  Steve Knight, Ph.D., Partner  William Sturgeon, MPA, EFO, CPM, ICMA-CM, Senior Associate- Lead Project Manager  Dave Johnsen, MBA, EFO, CFO, NRP, Senior Consultant  Bruce Moeller, Ph.D., Senior Consultant  Dan Gorton, MS, NRP, Consultant o Purpose of the Presentation  Provide the City of Edmonds Council options to make an informed decision on continuing to provide a high level of emergency services to the citizens of the community.  Goals of the project: - Emergency services must support the existing and growing needs of the community. - Emergency services must operationally be citizen centric. - Emergency services must foster fiscal trust within the community. • Finding the Right Balance Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16, 2024 Page 10 • High Risk Occupancies o Edmonds includes more than 19,471 housing units and more than 1,642 non-residential occupancies, including office, professional services, retail/wholesale sales, restaurants/bars, hotels/motels, churches, schools, government facilities, healthcare facilities, and other non- residential uses. Commercial occupancies are classified as (Low, Moderate, High, and Maximum). • Critical Facilities in Edmonds o South County Fire identified 155 critical facilities throughout the service area, 28 of which are located in Edmonds. A hazard occurrence with significant impact severity affecting one or more of these facilities would likely adversely impact critical public or community services. • City of Edmonds: All calls 2019-2023 (FITCH) o Number of Calls Dispatched by Program, Call Type and Reporting Period • Service Type Calls  Busy time, or time on task, was measured from unit dispatch date and time to unit clear date and time.  All units assigned to South County Fire for the City of Edmonds made 6,147 responses and were busy on calls for a total of 6,042 hours.  The department ran an average of 16.8 calls for emergency services a day.  86.2% of the total call volume was requests for EMS. Data retrieved from South County Fire Annual Report to City of Edmonds April 2024 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16, 2024 Page 11 • Call Volume – 3.01% annual increase in calls • Importance of fire and EMS services in Edmonds, WA • Current resources in Edmonds – 3 fire stations o Fitch considers this a lean response model. o Engines – 3  Personnel per unit – 3 o Medic/Aid units – 3-5  Personnel per unit – 2 o Water Rescue Boat  Located at Port of Edmonds • South County Fire – Current Deployment Model o Effective Response Force (ERF) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16, 2024 Page 12 • The Fitch team assessed all possible outcomes to fulfill the purpose of the project. Four options were analyzed; three options presented themselves as the best options to analyze emergency services for the community. o Separating Fire and Contracting out for EMS • FITCH-Financial Comparison of Options Based on Current Level of Service (LOS) Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16, 2024 Page 13 • Estimated Capital and Start-up Costs • Summary of Projected Costs and Savings Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16, 2024 Page 14 • Annexation into the RFA Pros and Cons Pros Cons  Must be voter approved  Maintains level of fire & emergency services.  Paramedic ambulances  Skilled all hazards response  Fire Marshal  Community Paramedicine  Level of service is governed by elected fire commission- not the City of Edmonds • Contracting with Shoreline Fire Rescue o The Fitch team met with the Fire Chief of Shoreline Fire Department to assess the level of interest in entering a service contract with The City of Edmonds to provide Fire and EMS services. o Due to the City of Edmonds being surrounded by South County Fire response area, Shoreline Fire Department is the only logical service available for emergency response.  Many variables within this scenario provide uncertainty and the future cost to the City of Edmonds including debt service, replacement capital funding, and labor rates.  No formal request has been made to Shoreline Fire/EMS from the City of Edmonds. Pros Cons  Shoreline is a professional all-hazards department that provides services like SCF.  Shoreline Fire already has an inter-local agreement with Northshore to provide Fire and EMS services  Annual cost  Would require an interlocal agreement approved by several governing boards.  Initial capital purchases and renovation of facilities.  Hiring personnel (labor shortage)  Ordering fire apparatus (20-36 months) • Forming Edmonds Fire Rescue Based on Current LOS o In 2009, the City of Edmonds dissolved its Fire Department, sold its assets, and merged its personnel to Snohomish County Fire Protection District NO. 1 (South County Fire). o For the City to continue to provide the same level of service as it is currently receiving, It will require 51 operational personnel* and five (5) administrative/ support positions for a total of 56 FTEs o There is a myriad options based on the acceptable level of risk in a community. o Estimated Capital and Start-up Costs Pros Cons  Citizens have direct input via the city council on level of service.  Initial and ongoing costs.  Recruiting, retaining, and hiring qualified personnel. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16, 2024 Page 15  The City would need to purchase apparatus, radios, equipment, and firefighter protective gear.  New apparatus is currently taking 20-36 months for delivery • Station and Staffing Models • Considerations for Reduced Stations and Staffing Models Average Calls per Day o A minimum of 3 resources are needed to handle current call volume o [Stations (3) x 1.10= 3.3 Resources] o Average of 16.8 calls per day o A “One Station Model” would significantly impact RESPONSE TIMES o Add info from recording o Reliability of units (available for the next call) o Effective response force (ERF) – EMS-ALS (3-5 personnel), residential structure fire (14-22 personnel) o Critical tasks (fire-EMS moderate risk, high risk and max risk calls) o Reliance on mutual aid when units are tied up (could be a service charge per month) o Stations would have to be optimized (relocated $$) for maximum effectiveness • Implementation Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16, 2024 Page 16 Councilmember Tibbott referred to the slide regarding high risk occupancies (packet page 212) which indicates there are 109 total high risk occupancy buildings in the City spread fairly evenly in the response zone of the City’s three stations. He asked if that was a good thing. Mr. Sturgeon answered in looking at a risk model, that is a good balance. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the next slide regarding critical facilities in Edmonds which is not quite as well balanced. He recalled Mr. Sturgeon mentioning if one or more stations were occupied with a call, there would likely be adverse impacts. He asked Mr. Sturgeon to elaborate on that. Mr. Sturgeon said he was referring to something happening to critical infrastructure such as a power station, a substation, the waste water treatment plant, information technology hubs, city hall, etc. which would impact the entire City. Councilmember Tibbott relayed his understanding if 1-2 stations were occupied on a call, that could theoretically have an adverse impact on the ability to respond to another call. Mr. Sturgeon agreed, explaining with 1-2 stations, there is no depth. He assured there would be a response via mutual aid, but if the City’s 1-2 stations were occupied, assistance would come from the next closest station such as Shoreline, or SCF which would result in a longer response and things escalating during that time. Councilmember Tibbott observed the adverse effects would be longer response and potentially not enough personnel at least immediately. Mr. Sturgeon referred to the 4-9 minute EMS window for saving brain and heart tissue and managing a structure fire to limit the economic impact on a family or the community. Councilmember Tibbott summarized it appeared three stations were somewhat essential for covering the whole City and being prepared for potential adverse situations. Mr. Sturgeon agreed. Councilmember Nand thanked Mr. Sturgeon for the time he took to meet with councilmembers individually prior to this presentation. She appreciated his confirmation that option 1 would be the most affordable. When the RFA was created, the rationale to the cities in Snohomish County who initially joined was there would be a cost savings to administrative consolidation. With regard to option 2, she recalled him saying several interlocal agreements (ILA) would be required to contract with Shoreline Fire up to a King County board and asked if that would be the King County Council. Mr. Sturgeon relayed his understanding that Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16, 2024 Page 17 Shoreline is contracted by Medic 1 King County to provide fire and EMS and is a special fire district so their board would have to vote. Due to King County EMS’s involvement, the City would have to pay King County’s levy rate and King County would have to approve that. He did not think that would be a heavy lift, but it could be political. Councilmember Nand said she has heard that from friends in Shoreline that taxpayers are taxed at a different rate for EMS and fire than Snohomish County so Edmonds would have to make up that difference because they would not subsidize Edmonds. Mr. Sturgeon agreed, commenting that is why Shoreline is more expensive in the analysis. Councilmember Nand said she is on the Sno911 board and remembered seeing in the contract for Motorola radios that Sno911 was able to negotiate for replacement batteries, etc. due to the volume. She asked if Edmonds as a 2-3 fire station entity would lose the ability to negotiate with vendors based on volume. Mr. Sturgeon answered yes, likely the ability to negotiate special incentives would be lost although he assured everything was negotiable. Councilmember Nand commented this has been a high profile issue politically in Edmonds for a long time and she appreciated his data driven discussion regarding the options. Councilmember Paine pointed out Mr. Sturgeon’s work history also includes working as a city manager in the past as well as in other aspects of public safety which is reflected in his well-rounded presentation. She noted the Implementation and the Summary of Projected Costs and Savings slides were not in the packet. She thanked Mr. Sturgeon for looking at the LEOFF1 and LEOFF2 cost savings if the City joined the RFA. She asked about the timeline for training firefighter/EMS personnel. Mr. Sturgeon answered personnel are already qualified as Firefighter 1 and 2 and EMS/EMT/paramedic. The City would need to determine how many were needed based on the level of service. The challenge is to learn the newly written policies and procedures which is classroom work, rote memory, etc. Then there needs to be training on hands-on skills as a team. Personnel come qualified from the fire academy but the team has to learn to work together with new supervisors, etc. Personnel would also need to familiarize themselves with occupancies within the City, learn routes, hydrant and system locations, etc. He estimated a 4-6 month day schedule for that training. Any good fire department will also learn the mutual aid area. Councilmember Paine recalled Mr. Sturgeon saying in the Shoreline option, Edmonds would be in third position, contracting with a contractor so the City would not have a lot of authority. Mr. Sturgeon agreed it would water down the City’s authority. Councilmember Paine agreed it would be Edmonds versus King County. She requested he send the council the Implementation and the Summary of Projected Costs and Savings slides. Mr. Sturgeon advised he will send the entire presentation to the clerk. Councilmember Chen commented the presentation provided a very clear comparison of the three options. In looking at the South County RFA versus Shoreline, he asked if the firefighters’ schedules was similar. Mr. Sturgeon answered he did not know Shoreline’s schedule. He offered to find out and email Councilmember Chen. Councilmember Chen observed in looking at the cost comparison, the cost to annex into South County Fire RFA is approximately $18 million, Edmonds’ current cost via the contract with SCF is approximately $12 million in 2024. He asked about the difference in cost. Mr. Sturgeon answered Fitch used the RFA’s budget to determine the cost; one of the reasons SCF wants to cancel the contract with Edmonds and get Edmonds to join the RFA is they do not believe the contractual amount the City is paying covers their costs. The first time Fitch met with SCF, he asked what it cost to run Edmonds fire stations and the fire chief said $17.7 million/year. When Fitch did the math, it was $17.8 million which includes personnel, services, operational costs, etc. He pointed out SCF’s value added services such as their paramedicine program, community paramedics, fire prevention, public education, training academy, etc. If Edmonds went with a barebones fire department, there wouldn’t be fire prevention, the City would still have to have a fire marshal, plans review of fire protection systems, inspections, etc. Councilmember Chen said one of contributing factors is the $1.25/$1,000 AV formula. When the same rate is applied in a community where property values are much higher like Edmonds compared to some other communities in the RFA, the cost is much higher. He suggested one of the points of negotiation could be Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16, 2024 Page 18 adjusting the formula so Edmonds pays a fair rate instead of paying a heavier burden. Mr. Sturgeon agreed that would need to be figured out and negotiated. He said Councilmember Chen was referring to equity across the district, how to make it equitable so Edmonds was not covering costs of communities with lower property values. Councilmember Chen commented it was not fair for other communities to bear Edmonds’ costs and vice versa. Mr. Sturgeon said he has never seen a totally fair way of doing that, but as he has said, everything is negotiable and that is the reason for entering into negotiations. It is not a done deal if the council passes a resolution to annex into the RFA; there are things that still have to be negotiated. The parties could reach an impasse and be unable to move forward. Councilmember Chen summarized a lot of details have to be negotiated. Mr. Sturgeon agreed this analysis was high level; the devil is in the details. Councilmember Eck appreciated Mr. Sturgeon’s and Fitch’s objective view in looking at this from an unbiased lens and bringing their expertise to this. She asked about the average days to hire, recalling the trend across the country that these positions are difficult to fill. Mr. Sturgeon said he did not have an average, he just knew it would be a heavy lift. He was not saying it couldn’t happen but the City would need to incentivize, and pay at least comparable to other agencies and provide comparable benefits. He could not provide an average number of days to hire as it would depend on how much was invested in recruiting, marketing, etc. Some people might want to come to a start-up department, but it would be a difficult lift. Council President Olson thanked Mr. Sturgeon for his willingness to make a public presentation that reflected the council’s input. For the sake of the public, she assured the council is still taking input and information. If there is something the public sees or hears that is important to this conversation, she encouraged them to inform the council and/or the administration. She often hears consulting is done to reaffirm the original choice, but the council has told Fitch repeatedly that that is not the council’s mindset, the council really wants to know all the options and everything that is entailed in order to make the best decision for the community. Council President Olson explained one of the inputs from the community was whether formation of a smaller RFA with Edmonds and Woodway was a possible option. The council has spoken to Fitch about that option and she invited Mr. Sturgeon to comment on it. Mr. Sturgeon said it was a great question in trying to figure out the best path forward. The same things that apply to Shoreline and starting a new department exist such as the difficult hiring and purchasing apparatus. In his view of that scenario, Edmonds would be putting themselves in the position of being the big dog on the block, funding the equipment, etc. and responding to Woodway who pays $600,000/year now. It is an option, but high level, it would also be a difficult lift. Council President Olson commented one of distinctions that differs from Edmonds having its own department is the separate jurisdiction for taxation, it would not fall under the General Fund which is a significant distinction between the options. Councilmember Dotsch asked Mr. Sturgeon to explain the cons related to annexation to RFA that the level of service is governed by the elected fire commission. Mr. Sturgeon answered if the City passed a resolution to annex into the RFA, the City would appoint a non-voting member to their board until a fire commissioner was elected to represent the district that includes Edmonds. Councilmember Dotsch asked if there was a standard LOS that the RFA abides by or could they just say Edmonds is further out and the response would take longer. Mr. Sturgeon answered not that he knew of; the fire commission is governed by the laws of the State of Washington. Councilmember Dotsch asked if there was any ability to negotiate the level of service. Mr. Sturgeon reiterated everything is negotiable including the possibility of having another representative from the Edmonds area. His only experience with that was several years ago he was able to negotiate an extra seat and an ex officio member when a community’s utilities were turned over to a regional water authority. He summarized there are options and he recommended considering an ex officio member who although they do not vote, could provide a voice. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16, 2024 Page 19 Councilmember Nand referred to the information provided regarding timelines; in option 1 completing annexation would take 18-24 months, option 2 contracting with Shoreline would take 24-30 months, and option 3 reforming Edmonds’ independent fire department would take 36 months. The RFA informed Edmonds last year they were pulling the contract for service and gave the City a two year timeline to entirely terminate service to Edmonds. Following on discussion at last week’s Finance Committee, she stressed it incumbent on the council and administration to quickly put the question about annexation to the voters so they can inform the City of their decision. If they reject annexation, then the City will need to quickly explore options 2 and 3. When negotiating millions of dollars, the City does not want to be at the end of the rope in negotiations, but should have a lot of time for such major negotiations. To do a good service for community members, especially property tax payers, it is incumbent on the council and administration to put the ballot question to Edmonds voters as soon as possible and coordinate town halls, etc. with the fire chief who offered to participate prior to pulling the City’s contract. Councilmember Chen said he appreciated the conversation on this important decision the City is about to make. Putting himself in SCF’s shoes, they have structures, equipment and personnel in place serving Edmonds; if they discontinue service to Edmonds, they would have excess resources. So another option would be to come to the table with a win-win solution for both parties, continue a contract format, but increase the fee between $12 million and $17 million. Mr. Sturgeon said Fitch would be happy to continue to partner with Edmonds and advocate for Edmonds. He agreed the RFA would have excess equipment. Buying used fire trucks is an option, but they are usually junk and if the City bought trucks from the RFA to establish its department, they could be at 5-10 years of service life and quickly reaching end of life. The City would need to have a replacement cycle and there are criteria for replacing apparatus. The rule of thumb is first run 7 years, 7-15 years as reserve apparatus and then replacement. Funds need to be budgeted for replacement of apparatus as well as SCBAs, radios, etc. He reiterated everything is negotiable and Fitch could be an advocate for the City during that process. Councilmember Dotsch referred to the RFA’s notification of intent to end the contract and asked Mr. Sturgeon to speak to the City not having any fire service. Mr. Sturgeon said he asked SCF’s fire chief if they would leave Edmonds leave high and dry and his response was no, of course not. It would be immoral to leave a city without fire service due to the impact on people’s lives and he did not think anyone in good conscience would do that and he was told SCF would not. Councilmember Nand commented while SCF might not end service in Edmonds after the contract ends, Edmonds would likely pay through the nose for service from them until renegotiations occur which is just an academic exercise. SCF pulled everyone’s contracts in Snohomish County because they want everyone to annex into the RFA or find fire service elsewhere. The City has to be forward thinking and responsible to community members, especially property tax payers and coordinate with the RFA and put the ballot question to the voters as quickly as possible. The annexation process will take 18-24 months, contracting with Shoreline, even if the various bodies approve the ILAs, will take 24-36 months. People from Shoreline have already indicated they will not subsidize fire service for Edmonds when they are paying King County’s higher tax rate. Restarting the City’s own fire department will take 36 months. She feared the City’s costs would go through the roof during an 18 month period without a contract with SCF or without being annexed into the RFA which she found very irresponsible. Mr. Sturgeon advised he will submit Fitch’s final report by next Friday at 3 pm. 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION, RCW 42.30.110(1)(I) At 8:59 pm, the Council convened in executive session to discuss pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i) for a period of 45 minutes. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 16, 2024 Page 20 MEETING EXTENSION At 9:43 pm, Mayor Rosen announced that the executive session would be extended to 9:55 pm. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION The meeting reconvened at 9:54 p.m. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:54 pm.