The URL can be used to link to this page

2024-04-23 Council Minutes Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2024 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPROVED MINUTES April 23, 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 Michelle Bennett, Police Chief 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 Paine read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: “We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.” 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Scott Passey called the roll. All elected officials were present. 4. PRESENTATIONS 1. RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING NATIONAL TRAILS DAY Council President Olson read a resolution recognizing National Trails Day which was brought forward to the council on behalf of the Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group (EBAG). Gordon Black, EBAG, thanked the council for acknowledging the role of trails in the community and agreeing to the resolution. Converting old railways into trails is a long-term vision and he was happy to report has already happened in the Edmonds community. He hoped long-term the full potential of the Interurban Trail will be realized. 5. JOINT MEETING Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2024 Page 2 1. ANNUAL JOINT MEETING - SOUTH COUNTY FIRE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Acting Fire Chief Shaughn Maxwell introduced Board Chair Jim Kenny, Commissioner David Chan, Commissioner Edward Widdis, Vice Chair Mark Laurence, Commissioner Michael Fearnehough, Assistant Chief of Operations Jason Isotalo, Immediate Past Fire Chief Thad Hovis, and Assistant Chief in charge of the Fire Marshal’s office Todd Anderson. Acting Chief Maxwell reviewed: • Proud to be Edmonds’ fire department for the past 14 years, providing high-quality fire and emergency medical services. • In addition to fire and EMS services, SCF provides exception and unique services o Community resource paramedics o Whole blood for in-field transfusions o Home and business fire escape planning o Community outreach o ACT first aid and CRP o Falls prevention o Disaster preparedness • Life Saving Difference o SCF’s overall cardiac arrest survival rate is double the national average  “I am alive thanks to you. My wife and two young boys will continue to have a father and husband, all thanks to you.” – Galen Callahan, Cardiac Arrest Survivor • More Help is on the way o Legislature provided additional funding to address opioid crisis  $350,000 University of Washington grant will expand opioid outreach - Only agency in state awarded maximum amount • Fire Station Open House – EMS Week o May 18, 11 AM – 1 PM o Downtown Edmonds Station 17, 275 Sixth Ave N, Edmonds o Food Drive  Bring food donations benefitting the Edmonds School District Nourishing Network Pantries Councilmember Tibbott thanked SCF personnel and commissioners for attending the meeting, remarking it was nice to see commissioners in person. He commented as the council is considering what to do with the fire contract and had a consultant look at options, a question arose regarding how commissioners determine an adequate and required level of service for the City of Edmonds. Acting Chief Maxwell answered there are standards of coverage and certain requirements and SCF looks at responses times and a multitude of things. He asked Operations Chief Isotalo to respond. Councilmember Tibbott said he wanted to hear from commissioners, recalling in the voters’ pamphlet, several commissioners claimed to be fiscal conservatives and wanted to hold the line on expenses. For example, the opioid program was concerning to him; if it is completely funded via grants he was interested, but if it took personnel off the beaten track and putting them into “the deep woods,” he was concerned. Acting Chief Maxwell answered the grant is structured to fund two FTEs and ancillary equipment and the funding is expected to continue. Chair Kenny answered SCF generally tries to respond with an initial unit on scene within 8 minutes 90% of the time for a basic call. There are a number of event categories up to a full-fledged fire. Operations Chief Isotalo responded SCF is consistently tracking data including time of dispatch, time to get en route, time to get first units on scene, etc. They work hard to get a paramedic, the most advanced life support level, there as quickly as possible. The goal is an initial response within 8 minutes 90% of the time followed by additional personnel to support the operation. Consideration is given to how busy units are, not just how long a response takes but how busy they are, how many calls they run and how many minutes/hours of the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2024 Page 3 24 shift personnel are on a call and not available for a second or third call. As that number rises into the 23- 30% range, that is an important trigger to add staffing and apparatus. The goal is to dedicate fire engines with a minimum of 3 personnel, ladder trucks are the same. When there is extra staffing, that number is increased to 4. A myriad ALS and BLS units are staffed across the RFA as well. In Edmonds there is an engine company at Station 20 with 3 people, 3 people at Station 17, and 5 at Station 16. The 5 personnel were previously at Station 20 and were moved to Station 16 due to the need for additional coverage and quicker response times. SCF constantly watches the levels and has triggers for when staff goes to the board to request funds for additional positions. Councilmember Tibbott asked the commissioners to report on cost containment efforts. Chair Kenny responded firefighters are unionized and their contract is negotiated typically every three years, currently there is a five-year contract, which involves working with comparable agencies and negotiating with IAFF Local 1828, the union for firefighters at SCF. The commission tries to stay at the median of the comparables so neither too high nor too low, but have to pay a competitive wage to keep firefighters employed and to attract firefighters from across the region to work at SCF. Commissioner Laurence advised 80% of SCF’s costs are labor. The state has set them up for failure with the collective bargaining act. It is a game of leapfrog with the uniformed personnel and matching other fire departments wages and benefits. The only way to reduce costs is to reduce services. He did not envy the council’s task of telling citizens they will need to pay a lot more in taxes to have the fire service they have now. Commissioner Chan said he is a fiscal conservative and supports lower taxes by efficiency and improved services. He referred to dispatch time and turnout time on page 216 of the report, which are completely controlled by SCF, and need to be reduced. At one time, it took SCF three years to resolve the contract which shows the commission is not just rubber stamping the contract. He remarked only three people in the room were here when Edmonds began contracting for fire service. At that time SCF used a cost plus model for all the contract cities, labor costs plus administrative costs. SCF is not a for profit entity. He referred to the Fitch report which indicated one of the pros of Edmonds establishing its own fire department is citizen control, but SCF treats everyone in the system the same. Councilmember Nand commented for the record she is a fiscal conservative, something everyone will hear later in the meeting when the council discusses red light cameras. The council held a town hall last week where two community members stated their vote would be to remain in the RFA due to lifesaving calls they received from SCF firefighters and wanted the City to maintain that level of service. She wanted to pass on that compliment from the community SCF serves in Edmonds. She also complimented SCF for receiving the maximum grant. She relayed her partner used to be a homeless outreach coordinator with the Downtown Seattle Association Second Chance Employment, and he often described finding people dead and dying on the sidewalk to whom he administered water and Narcan until the fire department came. The opioid epidemic is a cost crisis, costing over 100,000 lives per year due to policy failures from the federal level down to the local level where cities and fire departments are trying to clean up the mess and save lives. She recognized SCF was trying to throw a bandaid on a gaping wound in society and she appreciated everything they do. Councilmember Nand recalled discussions last year of what to do with Edmonds’ portion of the opioid settlement, about $70,000, and Acting Chief Maxwell’s suggestion for wide distribution of Narcan. She expressed interest in funding voluntary entry into treatment for people experiencing homelessness due to opioid addiction. There is a lot of trauma associated with people afraid to go to sleep. She talked to someone today who said he has trauma when he wakes to someone standing over him after a friend woke up to an angry resident pouring acid on his face. She suggested the City use those funds to remove barriers for voluntary entry into treatment for people experiencing the crisis of homelessness. Acting Chief Maxwell Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2024 Page 4 agreed there is a co-occurring crisis of mental health issues that is woven into the issues of opioids and the unhoused which drives call volumes up. That was the catalyst for the community paramedic program with community healthcare workers funded by millions of dollars in grants. SCF runs a lean response and often there isn’t time to slow down to help people that need more time. The community health workers can slow down and spend time to work through those issues and often they are willing to go into treatment. That is the approach and he envisioned it would be easy to collaborate with Edmonds’ team on that. Councilmember Nand commented the City has human services in Parks that are doing targeted referrals. She thanked SCF for everything they do in the community, especially saving the lives of people experiencing opioid addiction as well as their friends, family and community. It is a weight that everyone bears. Acting Chief Maxwell explained the reason SCF was awarded the grant was due to the well thought out plan submitted by SCF to address these issues. Councilmember Paine commented it was great to have the two meetings close together to provide continuity between the information. Following onto Councilmember Tibbott’s question about managing costs and programs, she asked if there was data showing ultimate savings as a result of the community resource paramedic program and were there other national models that do it differently. She recalled the program targeted people before they entered the hospital; she could envision people needing care after leaving the hospital and asked if there was support for that. She asked if there had been any decline in calls from residents participating in the community resource paramedic program. Acting Chief Maxwell answered SCF was one of the leaders in starting the community resource paramedic program over a decade ago and received a national award for innovation and creating a new best practice. For over a decade, on average both emergency room visits and 911 calls have been reduced by 50%. Emergency EMS response and emergency room visits are some of the most expensive aspects of healthcare. SCF has a decade of data showing a reduction in the number of calls for the people SCF works with. There are a lot of unseen consequences because the more overdoses SCF goes on means another medic unit or another fire engine is needed to keep up with concurrent calls. Keeping call levels down prevents the need for more emergency resources. Councilmember Paine expressed appreciation for all the work SCF does. She attended one of their events and will have an opportunity to do a ridealong with the community paramedics. Councilmember Chen expressed his appreciation for all the great work SCF is doing, all the emergency calls and even human services. He also thanked commissioners for their service. Edmonds is facing a decision about fire service such as contracting with another agency, joining the RFA or starting its own department. The City currently pays about $12 million for fire and EMS services; based on the calculations of $1.25/$1000 assessed value, residents will pay close to $19 million based on assessments for the entire City. He asked why the cost increased when Edmonds has the same three stations and receives the same high level of service. Chair Kenny responded as Mr. Sturgeon from Fitch stated during his presentation, it costs SCF around $18 million to provide service to Edmonds and Edmonds is paying about $12 million so SCF is picking up the difference in a subsidization and that has to come to an end. Other cities in southwest Snohomish County such as Lynnwood, Brier, Mountlake Terrace, Mill Creek and the unincorporated area are all part of SCF and it isn’t fair to them to subsidize Edmonds in that manner. The cost is what it is and something needs to change and that is the reason for the increase in the cost. It is not suddenly more expensive; that is the cost and SCF needs to do something different because the full cost is not being covered. Councilmember Chen asked if an adjustment in the calculation of the cost per $1,000 AV could be considered for a higher value community like Edmonds. Chair Kenny answered the two cities that recently joined SCF, Brier and Mill Creek, have higher valuation than Edmonds. While Edmonds has a higher valuation than many other cities in Snohomish County, in south Snohomish County other parts of SCF have Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2024 Page 5 higher valuation. Commissioner Chan recalled when SCF first contracted with Edmonds and other cities, it was on a cost plus formula. SCF was expending a lot on programming such as prevention, etc. There is a misconception that SCF spend all the money they assess, SCF has established a reserve fund. With regard to property assessments, Mill Creek has the highest value. Some areas of Edmonds have high property values but areas near Highway 99 may be lower. He suggested Edmonds talk to Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Brier regarding why they agreed to join the RFA and why the voters approved it. Councilmember Eck commented the council must think about the cost to community members as well as their safety. She is a fan of the community resource team and had the pleasure of meeting with one of the team members recently and talking with him at length. It seems there are quite a few seniors that show up on their radar either because they are isolated, have mental health or medical issues, or a combination. People may have a stereotype of what someone who is an addict looks like, but in her view and from her human services experience, high school students, seniors, middle-aged people like herself, all walks of life and all income levels can be the victim of opioids. She was blown away that SCF’s cardiac arrest survival rate was double the national average and SCF seems interested in ways to increase support to the community such as carrying blood and being one of the first to offer that because it is another way to save lives. There is a price attached to all those things and the question is whether the City wants to be equipped to keep everyone safe. Councilmember Eck recognized the number of overdoses are increasing, and asked if SCF was seeing a greater variety in the types of community members who overdose. Acting Chief Maxwell answered her assessment was spot on; the data from community paramedic shows there is a higher elderly population in the Edmonds area so they may get more of the community paramedic services. There is a hidden epidemic in the opioid issue; post pandemic kids are suffering from mental health issues which is melded into the opioid issue. Councilmember Eck commented in the end it was about empathy and making sure people are well taken care of and that the community is safe. Councilmember Dotsch asked how SCF determines if more staffing, trucks or stations are needed. Acting Chief Maxwell answered SCF has pretty sophisticated GIS modeling that looks at 5, 6, 8, 10 minutes from each station. As the consultant pointed out, services need to be started in at least 10 minutes, whether it is a fire or somebody who’s heart has stopped, 10 minutes is the goal. GIS modeling considers speed limits, traffic density, etc., to determine the best station locations. Another consideration is what happens when there is a second call; for example, Edmonds has over 40,000 people and only 3 stations; consideration has to be given to what happens if 3 calls come in at the same time. For example in the summer when the weather is hot, SCF is inundated with calls. Station modeling is one issue, but calls stacking on top of each other is also an issue. Councilmember Dotsch referred to growth planned for south Snohomish County including a 13,000 increase in Edmonds population as well as people recreating in Edmonds. She asked how SCF’s anticipates the needs of an increasing population. Acting Chief Maxwell answered there are pins on a map where every fire call, BLS call, ALS call is which can illustrate hot spots or higher call density and if personnel are not getting there in time and the call volume is increasing, that is used to strategically plan for future stations. Chair Kenny answered from a board level, they use that to consider what the future looks like and whether something can be done. Building a station is extremely expensive as it requires buying land, building the station, etc. Consideration can be given to adding a medic unit or transport unit at one of the current stations to avoid building a new station. The area around Swedish Edmonds has been identified for a future infill station because that area has the need and will continue to grow. A new station makes a difference and has repercussions across the region. Doing less expensive things to mitigate and still provide increased service are considered before building an infill station. At the end of the day, the area will continue to grow and the road system probably won’t grow; dealing with that is a challenge that is considered regularly. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2024 Page 6 Councilmember Dotsch asked if the location and opportunity to expand existing stations is evaluated. Chair Kenny answered it is easier to leave a station where it is, but consideration has to be given to where growth is occurring and what makes sense for the future. The big challenge for Edmonds is there is no assistance from the west so everything has to come from the north, east or south. Keeping track of growth and infill station needs or more units in current stations is an ongoing consideration. Council President Olson thanked SCF staff and commissioners for the answers they have provided and for questions councilmembers have asked. Something she hoped SCF has heard from other cities that annexed into the RFA is there is only so much money in residents’ wallets. It is a huge bonus when someone needs services that SCF offers such a platinum standard, but there are many things people value in the community and there is only so much money to pay for all those things. For example, the City cannot pay for its police force with what is collected in property taxes; the City’s budget situation is real. To the extent it has not already been voiced as a source of concern, SCF has amazing programs, but at some point the residents of Edmonds and all members of the RFA cannot afford them and they may need to be prioritized. Recognizing that SCF is an elite troop and the best at everything, she wondered if at some point residents get so squeezed that they become homeless because they don’t have enough left. Council President Olson hoped SCF commissioners were considering that and the reason the City feels such trepidation about losing control. She expressed appreciation for the level of service SCF provides; it’s impossible to put a price tag on it, but yet the City and its residents only have so much money. Acting Chief Maxwell answered for example SCF’s extremely high cardiac arrest save rate, that is focus and dedication to the training. A big part of that is choreography, efforts to shave off a second if that means the heart will come back when it’s shocked. A lot of the costs are standard costs such as a fire truck or ladder, but the programs come from a dedication to the craft. SCF receives millions in grants for a lot of the programs; the staples of the service are what are really expensive. Council President Olson referred to the benefit charge currently on the ballot. She asked about the commission and fire leadership’s openness to transferring to that model in the future. Chair Kenny answered the fire benefit charge is between 5-8% or $6-7 million of the budget which SCF has found to be a good level. That tool is about the future and a future recession because it can be increased by the board without a vote of the people if necessary. For example, if there were a huge recession and SCF faced huge budget cuts, the fire benefit charge would help mitigate the decline in revenue. It will not replace huge declines in revenue like were seen in the 2008/2009 recession but it would help. It is a tool that the voters approved in the past and SCF is going back to the voters for reapproval this year. It is a tool that reduces a certain amount of property tax. It is not a tax, it is a fee based on a formula of risk depending on the square footage of a structure, not the value. Council President Olson observed the formula considers the difficulty of fighting a fire in a building and equipment. Chair Kenny continued it also considers the type of occupancy, residential or commercial, which has more risk than single family. Councilmember Nand said Fitch validated the numbers SCF provided that the cheapest option by millions of dollars to maintain the current level of service would be for voters to approve annexation into the RFA. One topic that came up was if the ballot question wasn’t put to the voters before the end of the contract and Edmonds was in a holdover situation, where would being out of contract with the RFA put Edmonds financially with the RFA. As a councilmember, she would feel the council had been derelict in its duty if it hadn’t contracted or presented the annexation question to the voters. If the voters decide to turn down annexation, the City will have to look at Options B and C. She asked what happens to Edmonds’ fire service if the voters did not have an opportunity to vote and the December 31, 2025 deadline is reached. Chair Kenny answered at a policy level, SCF does not want to leave Edmonds without fire and EMS services, but at that point the contract would need to be renegotiated. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2024 Page 7 Councilmember Nand observed contracting is no longer a model that the RFA commissioners support offering to any city in Snohomish County. Chair Kenny said he has encouraged the City many times to considering joining the RFA and that is what SCF would prefer. Councilmember Nand reiterated this is a decision for the voters. If the voters choose to annex into the RFA, what does representation look like. She recalled discussions in the past about town halls to discuss the impact to property taxes. With regard to representation, Chair Kenny explained if Edmonds voters approved annexation into SCF, the City would have one non-voting member on the board until the next odd year election which can be an elected official. There are currently two staff members from Mountlake Terrace and Brier who serve as non-voting members on the board. Prior to the next odd-year election, redistricting would be done. The board currently has 7 members and 7 districts with about 49,000 people in each district, and 2 at large positions. He explained the member does not represent only that district; they have to live in the district in order run for the position. Voters in the entire RFA vote in the primary and general election. The residency requirement ensures geographic representation from all the areas served by SCF and there are also two at-large seats. Chair Kenny continued, hypothetically if it were 2 years until the next redistricting, when that happened, at a minimum Edmonds would have one district representative due to its size and two at-large members so there could perhaps be three Edmonds residents on the board or even four depending on redistricting. Edmonds residents, just like residents of Mill Creek, Lynnwood, Brier and Mountlake Terrace, would vote on all seats at the primary and general elections. Board members do not represent just one district, they represent all residents served by SCF. For example, he is in District 5, the northeast part of SCF, but he represents everyone in SCF even though he has to live in District 5 to file for the position. Councilmember Nand commented some districts are more urbanized, primarily in proximity to King County, South Snohomish County is very urbanized versus the more rural parts of Snohomish County. She asked if there was any consideration in districting and how costs are allocated to property owners based on call volume. Chair Kenny answered no, the U.S. Constitution requires one person one vote. The districts are comparable such as within 1-2 percentage points of each other. Councilmember Nand asked if it was based on per capita. Chair Kenny answered it was solely based on population, not value or call volume. How stations are distributed or where stations are built is based on call volume, but voting is one person one vote. In response to Councilmember Nand’s question if the council approves a ballot measure for annexation into the RFA, Commissioner Laurence explained SCF would be more than willing and would spend a lot of effort and time to help educate citizens about reasons to annex into the RFA. Councilmember Nand relayed her understanding the resolution the council passed previously did not trigger that process under the RCW. Chair Kenny answered that was his understanding. Councilmember Nand asked if the resolution the council approved last summer requesting information on annexation triggered the process of town halls and gathering information. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the resolution adopted by the council did not contain the exact language the statute contemplates and as a result, the RFA may not have followed through in the way the statute contemplates. He suggested the RFA respond to that question. Chair Kenny explained the council amended the resolution prior to passage and so it effectively did not move annexation forward. He assumed the council would need to pass a resolution that contained the magic language in order to activate the process which involves negotiations, scheduling a ballot measure, and other processes. It starts with the council indicating it wants to proceed. Councilmember Nand said she has been wondering when the town halls would start and now realizes the council would need to pass a resolution with the legally operative portion requesting annexation. She hoped the administration and council leadership would bring that forward soon so this can be handled in a responsible fashion before the end of the contract on December 31, 2025. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2024 Page 8 Commission Chan commented the Fitch report is very objective and the council should consider all its options. To Councilmember Dotsch’s question, he said SCF thinks 10 years ahead in its strategic planning. SCF has a capital facilities plan and have been looking at options. The SCF purchased land in Mukilteo, are in the planning stages of the Value Village site on Highway 99, and the siting of Station 10 in Lynnwood is important for the entire region. The concept of RFA began 20 years ago with discussions of combining resources for all cities. To Council President Olson’s comment about SCF’s programs, every program helps SCF; prevention programs provide education. The idea is to eliminate the need for calls to be made; for example if a person doesn’t fall or if a fire never starts, they don’t need to call 911. Fire commissioners live in SCF and pay the same rate for fire service and are diligent about ensuring there is no fat in the budget. He relayed an experience from a Brier councilmember who had a heart attack and was thankful that SCF arrived in time and he wasn’t thinking about the taxes he pays. Commissioner Widdis explained he was the fire chief when Edmonds first contracted with Fire District 1 and has enjoyed being a partner ever since. He lives in Mill Creek and a couple years ago their city considered annexing into the RFA, knowing with the city’s high tax values, residents would hurt a little. The vote passed by 76%; the biggest thing many residents talked about was how to lower the property tax and raise the benefit charge. He wasn’t sure how Mill Creek residents would respond because a lot of people were concerned about paying higher property taxes when they already pay the highest sales tax in the state. Everybody felt in their heart it was something that it was hard to put a price tag on a life. Councilmember Paine asked how the Mill Creek city council decided to allocated the cost to annex into the RFA, whether it was 100% paid by the residents or some kind of a split. Commissioner Widdis answered he was uncertain what Mill Creek did; if the city doesn’t change anything, there is a significant extra amount the city retains. The biggest issue in Mill Creek was contracting with the fire department and every year costs increased, creating issues between the city and the fire service provider (not SCF at that time). It was an easier sell for Mill Creek to annex to SCF because they liked that fire department better even though it cost more, but there wasn’t any argument about whose station it was, etc. It was a radical change after contracting with one agency for 20 years and totally changing to annex into another. Councilmember Paine said her interest was in how the dollars shifted from the city funding fire service through its budget to residents paying directly to SCF. Commissioner Widdis answered there is a point where it is entirely shifted to the taxpayers paying the RFA, he was unsure exactly how that worked as it depends on when the election is and when the change actually occurs. He recalled within a year, residents assumed the cost for fire and EMS. Councilmember Paine summarized 100% of the cost was paid by the residents. Mayor Rosen summarized this is a very important, serious issue to the community. He expressed appreciation for SCF personnel and commissioners spending time with the council. Although this was a joint meeting, he noted there had not been an opportunity for SCF to ask questions. He thanked them for indulging the council and looked forward to the next conversation. 6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Joe Scordino, Edmonds, said as he pointed out in his written comments which should be part of the administrative record, there is a serious obstacle to the council approving the CARA code as proposed in the consent agenda. Most of what the council has been presented regarding environmental health hazards is essential de facto hearsay because it has not been properly documented according to state law. Further, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2024 Page 9 the statements made about the environmental consequences of the proposed stormwater allowances in the Deer Creek CARA are equivocal and not supported by science or the legal custodian of the CARA, Olympic View Water & Sewer District (OVWSD). OVWSD has voiced their concerns to the council and have not agreed to the exact wording of the proposed CARA code. There are serious deficiencies in the chronology of the SEPA Checklist used in the Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) dated November 29, 2023 which he understood the city was using as their SEPA documentation for this proposed action. First, the SEPA Checklist for the DNS is dated January 2023, over a year a half ago and a lot has changed since then. That change is noted in the November 29, 2023 planning board meeting packet which specifically states the proposed action had been changed in a number of ways since July 2023 to make the regulations more protective. Mr. Scordino asked why the SEPA Checklist wasn’t updated to reflect those protective changes, how they make the environmental consequences less and how they justified not going that next step of a full blown Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). That is not documented anywhere and the council is relying on a 1½ year old document that is inadequate. Further the SEPA Checklist repeatedly states the proposed action is a non-site specific action. The proposed code provides very site specific actions in the Deer Creek CARA. The obvious question is since the proposed code is very site specific related to stormwater allowances into the Deer Creek CARA, how does this SEPA document even apply to what the council is considering. The council needs to ask where the required SEPA documentation is for this proposed regulation and how can the council legally proceed to approve the proposed code without applicable SEPA documentation in accordance with state law. With the city’s current budget situation, he wondered if the council could take the risk of a costly lawsuit. Janelle Cass, Edmonds, a Port of Edmonds Commissioner, invited everyone to a ribbon-cutting ceremony this Friday, April 26 at 11 am at 471 Admiral Way where the Port along with federal, state and local elected officials and members of the community will gather for a brief speaking program and conclude with a ribbon-cutting. The completion of the administration and maintenance building is a key phase in the Port’s multilayer effort to expand the public port walk and rebuild the failing seaway. Members of the community are invited to join in the celebration and learn more about project phasing and see the new building. The Port is in its 75th year. Diane Buckshnis, Edmonds, wished the Port a Happy 75th Anniversary. She referred to an email she sent the council and mayor today about the WRIA 8 walkabout that included five cities. She recommended the city not allow digging in the CARA and go back to the 2023 CARA code. One scientist on the WRIA 8 Walkabout asked whether the council realized the CARA was different dirt, an aquifer is an extremely unique soil and should be protected. Another said it’s easier to keep something pure than try to fix it; if the aquifer is contaminated, it will not be easily restored. Another said there are new stormwater codes coming out and the council should wait until they see those new codes. Another said science is just now being brought forth as PFAS is just now coming to the federal and state governments and so the council should take a cautionary approach. She opined most of the major watershed in Edmonds have been destroyed, the most recent, Perrinville, which will cost a lot of money. She encouraged the council to listen to the experts, give it some time because no one will be building because interest rates are not going down anytime soon. She urged the council not to allow digging in the CARA. She recognized Mayor Rosen was deep into a lot of work and she prayed for him every night. The mayor can veto the CARA code. Staff needs to start giving the council complete, unbiased packets. She recalled former Mayor Earling vetoed the original CARA code. She commiserated with and recognized how ingratiated the council was in the city’s financials, staffing, etc., and urged them to listen to the experts including the people she talked to today on the WRIA 8 walkabout. Edmonds is unique in terms of topography, but should be conscious of the fact that the city should take care of the aquifer and not allow building. 8. RECEIVED FOR FILING Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2024 Page 10 1. CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FOR FILING 2. WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS 3. OUTSIDE BOARDS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS 4. SUMMARY OF MARCH 26, 2024 MEETING WITH GOVERNOR STAFF REGARDING EDMONDS MARSH 5. MOU FOR LOWER PERRINVILLE REACH PROPERTY OWNERS 6. FEBRUARY 2024 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT 7. MAYOR'S CLIMATE PROTECTION COMMITTEE 2023 ANNUAL REPORT 9. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. Councilmember Dotsch requested Item 9.8, Ordinance to Adopt Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) Code, be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed under Council Business at a place the council president deemed best. Council President Olson began describing where the item would be placed on the agenda. Councilmember Paine raised a point of order that this was not the time for discussion. Mayor Rosen ruled point taken, and asked where it should be placed on the agenda. Council President Olson said she needed to speak to staff to know where to place it on the agenda. She suggested bringing it to another meeting. City Attorney Jeff Taraday said until a motion made regarding where to put it on the agenda, anything pulled from Consent is taken immediately following the vote on the Consent Agenda. He recommended the council vote on the Consent Calendar and then decide whether to discuss the pulled item now or move it elsewhere on the agenda. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: 1. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES APRIL 9, 2024 2. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 9, 2024 3. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS AND WIRE PAYMENT 4. RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING NATIONAL TRAILS DAY 5. ARLINGTON AIRPORT USE AGREEMENT 6. CJTC CONTRACT FOR PART TIME INSTRUCTORS 7. ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER (EFT) POLICY ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT 1. ORDINANCE TO ADOPT CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREA (CARA) CODE (Previously Consent Agenda Item 9.8 Senior Planner Mike Clugston advised he and Senior Utilities Engineer Mike De Lilla were present to answer council questions. Council President Olson asked whether staff felt adequately prepared to have this conversation today or if it should be postponed to another meeting. There were emails sent today and she had not received the reply so did not want to assume staff was prepared. Mr. Clugston answered they were comfortable answering any questions council may have if council is comfortable asking them. COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ARE REVIEWED AND RESOLVED, THE REMAINING ISSUES WITH OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT TO ALIGN WITH THE RECOMMENDATION. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-2-1), COUNCILMEMBERS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2024 Page 11 CHEN, TIBBOTT AND DOTSCH AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS ECK AND PAINE VOTING NO; COUNCILMEMBER NAND ABSTAINING. 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. OPIOID SETTLEMENT PARTICIPATION FORM Deputy Director of Administrative Services Kim Dunscombe explained for the City to participate and be eligible for compensation under the state’s new settlement agreement with Johnson & Johnson, the City needs to be able to sign and submit their participation form. She requested the council authorize the mayor to sign and submit the form for the City to be eligible for the funds. COUNCILMEMBER PAINE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO ACCEPT THE ONE WASHINGTON MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN WASHINGTON MUNICIPALITIES APPROVING THE PARTICIPATION OF EDMONDS IN THE BROADER OPIOID SETTLEMENT. Councilmember Paine commented this is a really good idea and she commended Ms. Dunscombe for bringing the participation form to council prior to the deadline. Councilmember Chen echoed Councilmember Paine’s comments that this is a good thing for Edmonds to accept and to use the resources to do the work that needs to be done. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. ORDINANCE AMENDING ECC 8.10 TO INCLUDE STOPLIGHT INTERSECTION CAMERAS Council President Olson introduced this item, advising the subject matter experts are also available. The council passed ECC 8.10 February 2023 related to school zone speed cameras. That code did not specify an allowance for stoplight intersection cameras, a topic the council has revisited at several meetings and had robust discussion in the community, via email and in council chambers. She requested the city attorney speak to the most recent house bill passed by the legislature and signed by the governor that will become effective June 6, 2024 and how that effects how funds can be used. The topic is unchanged from previous conversations other than the recently approved bill and she anticipated council would want to have that information before voting. City Attorney Jeff Taraday referred to HB 2384, explaining he did not think there was anything in the bill that would require an amendment to the ordinance in the packet. There are potential consequences regarding the use of the traffic safety camera revenue; the bill speaks to how revenue can be used or how its use is limited in certain circumstances. He clarified he will preface many of his statements tonight with likely or probably because this is a brand new bill and there is no case law that interprets it and there are things in it that he finds ambiguous so he is unsure how it will ultimately be interpreted. The bill distinguishes programs, automatic traffic safety camera programs that are in effect before January 1, 2024 and those not in effect before January 1, 2024 but does not define the word program so some might ask whether the City’s program was in effect. Mr. Taraday continued, he would argue it probably was in effect because the ordinance was approved in 2023, but he did not know exactly when the cameras were installed or whether that was relevant because the state legislature has not defined what a program is. It is unknown whether the program is the ordinance, the day the cameras are functioning or something else. Probably because the council adopted the ordinance in 2023, the program was in effect prior to January 1, 2024. Section 2, subsection 13(d)(1) of the bill speaks Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2024 Page 12 to revenue limitations. For cities new to automatic traffic safety cameras, they can only use the revenue in limited ways; it cannot just go into the General Fund for general purposes. Because Edmonds started before the threshold cutoff date, the City probably has a continuing ability to use the revenue according to the council’s discretion with the following limitation: for cities with programs in effect, up to a 10% increase in each kind of camera, distinguishing school zone versus red light cameras, and for those with fewer than 10 of each kind, they can add one camera of each kind. That is how he read the law. The City can quite clearly add one traffic safety camera for school zones because the City had its program in place but had fewer than 10 before January 1, 2024. With respect to red light cameras, any automated traffic safety camera program in effect before January 1, 2024 with fewer than 10 red light cameras in effect, the City had zero which is few than 10, but the City had a program in effect. He could see an argument that the City could add one red light cameras and retain the unlimited revenue discretion under this law, but it is clear there would be some limitation on use of revenue if more than one of either category is added. The law doesn’t say whether the City gets to compartmentalize the old camera revenue from the new camera revenue and continue to have discretion on use of the old camera revenue; the new camera revenue is limited to what the state law states. It is possible if the City exceeds the one new camera of each kind threshold that the state would say the City had crossed the threshold and now all the revenue has to be used in accordance with these limited methods. Mr. Taraday continued, for all the cities that are just now doing traffic safety camera programs and those that will cross the threshold, the money must be used for traffic safety activities related to construction and preservation projects and construction and operation purposes including but not limited to projects designed to implement the Complete Streets approach as defined in RCW 47.04.010, changes in physical infrastructure to reduce speeds through road design, and changes to improve safety for active transportation users including improvements to access and safety for road users with mobility, sight or other disabilities. The second category of limitations on the use of the revenue is the cost to administer, install, operate and maintain the automated traffic safety cameras including the cost of processing infractions. He summarized cities limited in the way the revenue can be used can spend the money on road safety improvements or camera maintenance and infraction processing. Mr. Taraday continued, one might say if General Fund dollars were used for that anyway, isn’t the net effect the same because it unburdens the General Fund by using the revenue to pay for things the General Fund would paid for anyway. He did not know if that was true with respect to the road safety improvements because it isn’t always General Fund dollars that fund that, sometimes they are funded by grants. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE IN THE PACKET AMENDING CHAPTER 8.10, AUTOMATED TRAFFIC SAFETY CAMERAS, TO INCLUDE STOPLIGHT INTERSECTIONS AT AUTHORIZED AUTOMATED TRAFFIC SAFETY CAMERA LOCATIONS. Council President Olson commented for her, the new law was immaterial. There are so many sidewalk, road and transportation improvements that need to be done, most of them speed abatement related so it ties in and segues nicely. Certainly at this point when the City is so strapped financially, she would not want to put limits on how it was used, assuming there is an option which the City most decidedly might not have. Regardless, she was personally in favor of having red light cameras at two intersections she purported in a different agenda memo, but this is a more general conversation about whether to have any red light intersection cameras at all. Councilmember Nand referred to Section 2, subsection 13 (b)(i) on page 7 of HB 2384. Councilmember Tibbott raised a point of order. Councilmember Nand asked if she was not allowed to ask questions. Councilmember Tibbott said he would like to follow Councilmember Nand’s argument or point Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2024 Page 13 of information but the page numbers from the HB are covered by the packet numbers. He asked what packet page she was referring to in order to have a viable discussion. Mayor Rosen advised it was packet page 359. Councilmember Nand read the paragraph, “The automated traffic safety camera program revenue used by the county or city with a population of 10,000 or more for purposes described in (a)(i) of this subsection must include the use of revenue in census tracts of the city or county that have household incomes in the lowest quartile determined by the most currently available census data and areas that experience rates of injury crashes that are above average for the city or county. Funding contributed from traffic safety program revenue must be, at a minimum, proportionate to the share of the population of the county or city who are residents of these low-income communities and communities experiencing high injury crash rates. This share must be directed to investments that provide direct and meaningful traffic safety benefits to these communities. Revenue used to administer, install, operate, and maintain automated traffic safety cameras, including the cost of processing infractions, are excluded from determination of the proportionate share of revenues under this subsection (13)(b).” Councilmember Nand asked if this would be construed as a geographic restriction on at least a portion of the revenue generated. Mr. Taraday said subsection (b) begins with the phrase, “except as provided in (d) of this subsection:” Subsection (d) talks about the January 1, 2024 program creation threshold. That is what he was explaining previously. The school zone camera program existed prior to January 1, 2024 and it stands to reason that the school zone cameras would not be implicated in what subsection (b) is requiring unless the City were to add more than one of them. The City is allowed to add one, but cannot add more than one without triggering the requirement that Councilmember Nand just read. Councilmember Nand explained for the edification of the public, the school zone cameras were turned on January 1, 2024 and then there was a one month warning period. Mr. Taraday said he was not up to speed on those facts and was not sure they were relevant. The city council adopted an ordinance in 2023, contracted with a company in 2023; there is nothing in the law that states exactly when the program was put into effect. He cannot definitively conclude one way or the other whether the school zone camera is before or after the January 1, 2024 threshold date. He would assert it probably should be treated as before that threshold date given all the work done in 2023, but he cannot say definitively that that’s how a court would interpret this or how the State of Washington would interpret it. Councilmember Nand thanked Mr. Taraday for his input, commenting she was not trying to cast him in the role of an adjudicator. Councilmember Nand continued, as a member of the public, she would expect the program was implemented when it started issuing tickets which was in 2024. In the state’s update to the 2005 bill is directing that money be distributed proportionately toward the lowest quartile of average income according to the census. In the police department’s previous presentation, the lowest quartile is clearly aggregated around the Highway 99 community in terms of income. This is where eight of the proposed nine red light traffic cameras are located. She interpreted this as direction from the state to ensure the city is equitably and proportionately redistributing any revenue collected through the red light or school zone cameras to benefit people experiencing the lowest quartile income in the community. In light of that, she offered the following amendments. Mr. Taraday commented at the risk of saving the council time, none of the limitation in subsection (b), however one might interpret them, are required to be specified in the ordinance. Councilmember Nand can proceed with her motion, but it is not a requirement that the ordinance contain any of the limitations. The state law, if it applies, will apply whether or not these items are in the ordinance. Councilmember Nand said she would like to bring the amendment forward for a discussion about equity with the council. In expanding the potential presence of this program throughout the state, the legislature wanted to acknowledge that red light and school zone camera programs, because the communities blighted by the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2024 Page 14 presence of state highways moving through them in the first place, were disproportionately bearing the burden of having to generate traffic safety camera revenue, but not proportionately receiving reinvestment into traffic safety in the intersections affected by the presence of the cameras. Mayor Rosen declared a five minute recess. Councilmember Nand explained in light of the geographic restriction recommended by the updates to the House Bill which she believed were intended to meet certain equity challenges about the desperate impacts of cameras when placed in working class and multiethnic neighborhoods, she made the following motion: COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHEN, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD TO THE ORDINANCE SECTION G, REVENUE RESTRICTIONS. ALL OF THE EXCESS REVENUE GENERATED BY THE ADDITION OF AUTOMATED TRAFFIC SAFETY CAMERAS IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS SHALL BE RESTRICTED WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND AND MAY ONLY BE USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF TRAFFIC SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AND TO FUND PUBLIC AMENITIES WITHIN 0.5 GEOGRAPHIC MILE OF THE LOCATION OF EACH OPERATIONAL TRAFFIC CAMERA. THE REVENUES IS TO BE DIVIDED PROPORTIONATELY AMONG THE LOCATIONS OF ALL OPERATIONAL CAMERAS IN EACH BUDGETARY CYCLE UNTIL THE REVENUE IS EXHAUSTED. Councilmember Nand clarified this would require the Edmonds Municipal Court to code all the revenue generated by the automated traffic cameras, both school zone and red light cameras, and for the Edmonds Finance Department to apply a project number to traffic safety camera revenue, divide the total amount of revenue generated by the number of operational cameras and earmark each of these funds for use in the neighborhoods affected by the presence of the cameras. For example, the revenue generated by the five operational school zone cameras would become restricted and would have to be divided in each budgetary cycle to fund traffic safety improvement and public amenities in each affected neighborhood. The Edmonds Public Works Department could only apply the restricted funds toward projects that improve traffic safety in the neighborhoods surrounding these intersections. Additionally these funds could be used to help fund publicly owned facilities in the neighborhood and the Edmonds Park Department could access these funds to finance open space acquisition and right-of-way improvements such as landscaping in those neighborhoods. If the red light cameras have to be pursued to enhance revenue in the City, she wanted to make sure the neighborhoods burdened by the cameras at the most dangerous intersections in the City receive dedicated funding to improve the traffic safety experience of residents, workers and visitors until such time the cameras are no longer necessary and the intersections will no longer be the most dangerous in the City. Councilmember Paine commented it would be very difficult to disaggregate all the information from all the infractions because all infraction revenue, whether a citation issued by an officer or a parking ticket, are all treated similarly and it is almost impossible to disaggregate it. She was not able to fully support the amendment, primarily because it is too administratively burdensome. The part she liked was the geographic locations around the traffic safety cameras and the school safety cameras; that is appropriate because it is allowed by HB 2384 for Complete Streets and active transportation and to recover the administrative cost related to the infractions. Instead of saying all excess revenue, she preferred 75% of the revenue which would be generous and would not strictly go to those programs and could also cover some of the City’s overhead costs. She did not support the amendment as proposed. Councilmember Nand thanked Councilmember Paine for her conditional support for the concept. Under the new requirements in HB 2384, the administration, courts and finance will be required to go through a disaggregation process for the traffic camera revenue anyway. She would defer to the administration and would be happy to table the amendment until the administration could provide a presentation related to the new requirements under HB 2384 in terms of disaggregation so the council can understand its obligations. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2024 Page 15 She reminded the council the state is responding to intense criticism from the perception that money is being generated in multiethnic and lower income neighborhoods and not being reinvested into those communities which is why Representative Donaghy included these geographic restrictions and these restrictions on revenue in expanding the scope of where cameras can be placed. As she stated in the letter she distributed to council, she had no problem voting for school zone cameras because there was a strong drive from the community and a lot of community members felt drivers in school zones were reckless and unsafe during those times. She hasn’t been able to locate a single positive comment from anyone in any of the neighborhoods targeted for red light cameras in which they are requesting cameras to address red light runners. This could be a way to copy the model the state is adopting in reforming traffic camera programs to ensure the funding mechanism used to bolster the City’s General Fund is being equitably restricted and reinvested in the communities that have to bear the burden of the presence of these cameras. Councilmember Dotsch asked with the new state law, would the City have to set up a new fund for the monies to go into instead of the General Fund. Mr. Taraday answered it depends on whether the City is implicated by the January 1, 2024 date or not, that is the first step of the analysis. Assuming for the sake of discussion that the City is and that the state will treat the City as instituting a program after that date, as long as there is a way to account for the money that comes from the cameras and the ways it’s being used and as long as the City can demonstrate the funds are being used in the way that state law requires, he did not think a new fund would be required. He relayed Ms. Dunscombe agreed with him. He summarized a new fund would not be required, but there would need to be an accounting for the money as it is received and expended. Councilmember Dotsch asked due to the difficulty interpreting this bill at this time, would it be wise to wait to implement a program until more is known. Mr. Taraday answered he did not know when that would be. Legislatures draft ambiguous law all the time; that’s what keeps him employed. If not for legislatures drafting ambiguous laws, lawyers wouldn’t be necessary. Such laws can remain on the books for a long time and the legislature often lets courts correct their mistakes. Councilmember Dotsch asked the impact of being out of compliance. Mr. Taraday answered assuming the council went with the most reasonable in accordance with the best effort interpretation of the law and somebody later concluded the City was not in compliance, although he was unsure who that would be, he did not know what the remedy would be. He would need to research the remedy for being out of compliance. Councilmember Dotsch commented the new legislation kind of muddied the waters. She also concurred with Councilmember Nand that there has not been an outcry from the public for enforcement of red light runners. In reviewing the data, there were no injuries in any of the five accidents at the three intersections that were discussed. She was still trying to understand if those were the highest volume intersections or the riskiest intersections. Councilmember Eck raised a point of order, questioning whether the comments were germane to this agenda item. Mayor Rosen ruled point taken. Councilmember Dotsch concluded she felt the council did not have enough understanding about how funds from any red light cameras program would be distributed. Council President Olson said she understood the appeal of this idea, everyone cares about the equity and appearance of fairness the amendment would help solidify, but at the same time she had concerns; one is at this time staff is spread so thin and doing all this historical reconstruction along with day-to-day operations, it was a mistake to volunteer for more administrative work. Councilmembers need to be responsible and ensure the equity lens is used and could address this during the budget. She did not mind being on record saying 84th is one of her top priorities for speed abatement. She preferred to address this in a way that did not require a lot of additional staff time. She cautioned councilmembers on the concept of going down the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2024 Page 16 rabbit hole of trying to directly connect revenues and expenses. The City is currently just trying to keep the lights on and pay for the most basic services and it is to everyone’s benefit that that happens. She concluded the amendment was not well timed and cautioned against volunteering for more administration. If the bill applies, it takes care of that without adding so much laborious separation and division, especially adding the 75% even though she liked that idea because it allowed for overhead, it is just another layer of work and math to get to the right numbers. Councilmember Paine relayed councilmembers have had about a dozen neighborhoods across Edmonds complain about speed and traffic safety; from the county line to the north end of Edmonds 76th is a hazardous road and there have been people injured in unregulated intersections. There may not have been complaints specifically related to red light cameras, but a dozen neighborhoods have complained about traffic safety and drivers not paying attention. Councilmember Eck relayed her understanding the recommendation is just to ensure the language is consistent with state law which the City will have to follow regardless. It seemed to her a little more straightforward if that is addressed tonight and then table the revenue piece and working out the long term plan should the council move forward with red light cameras. She agreed with Councilmember Nand that there are obvious areas of the City that have been historically underserved. With the revenue that is potentially gained, it is completely appropriate and she supported having that full conversation. It was not a conversation she wanted to have tonight without more opportunity for further discussion. In her mind, the council was tangling steps and tasks that need to be done and she preferred to keep it tidier and have the in- depth conversation that Councilmember Nand recommends. The council should absolutely have that conversation, but she was unsure it was an appropriate topic for tonight. Councilmember Chen applauded the concept of using the revenue generated by the red light cameras to improve traffic safety in the affected area. His concern was the difficulty with implementing it. He suggested tabling this discussion to allow staff time to develop a workable solution. COUNCILMEMBER CHEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NAND, TO TABLE THE AMENDMENT. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS ECK, CHEN, DOTSCH, PAINE AND NAND VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH, TO TABLE AGENDA ITEM 10.2 UNTIL WE CAN GET FURTHER INFORMATION FROM THE ADMINISTRATION REGARDING OUR OBLIGATIONS TO DISAGGREGATE TRAFFIC CAMERA REVENUE UNDER HB 2384. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS CHEN, TIBBOTT, DOTSCH, AND NAND VOTING YES; COUNCILMEMBERS ECK AND PAINE AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON VOTING NO. 3. AUTHORIZING USE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY CAMERAS AT SPECIFIC SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN CONTRACT Councilmember Nand commented in light of council tabling the ordinance, she did not want to direct the mayor to sign a contract that is not yet legal in the City and offered the following motion: COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO TABLE ITEM 10.3 UNTIL SUCH TIME AS 10.2 IS BROUGHT BACK WITH INFORMATION AS REQUESTED BY THE COUNCIL FROM THE ADMINISTRATION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. ELECTED OFFICIAL TRAINING Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2024 Page 17 City Attorney Jeff Taraday requested councilmembers either make a motion to table and do not say anything after the word table or make a motion to postpone something until and fill in the blank after until. He explained it makes a difference; if the word table is used, it is interpreted as a motion to table which makes the motion non-debatable, but there really is not such thing as a motion to table until. A councilmember either tables something or postpones something until a date certain or until something else happens. A councilmember can postpone indefinitely or to a date certain. The distinction matters because there is a difference on whether the motion is debatable. Councilmember Paine asked how this training came about, whether it was in response to something the council did. Mr. Taraday answered the motion training was due to something the council just did. Councilmember Paine clarified, how did the Elected Official Training come about. Mr. Taraday said he was requested to provide training and suggested Council President Olson answer that question. Council President Olson said she felt the council needed training based on things that were occurring or that she was concerned would occur. Recognizing she was the guilty party with regard to motions to table, Councilmember Nand asked if a motion to postpone required a certain date or could it be to a certain event like she attempted to articulate. Mr. Taraday answered there can be a motion to postpone to a date certain or to postpone indefinitely. City Clerk Scott Passey said a motion to postpone to a date certain is debatable and amendable; a motion to postpone indefinitely is debatable but not amendable and is often used to kill an item. A motion to lay on the table or table is not debatable or amendable. It must be taken from the table at the same meeting or the next regular meeting and is often used to kill an item incorrectly, but an item can be killed in that manner if it is not taken from the table at the next meeting. In response to Councilmember Paine’s question, Councilmember Nand said she has been requesting training of this nature since she was a very new councilmember last year. She thanked Council President Olson and Mr. Taraday for scheduling it and looked forward to the training. With regard to Mr. Passey’s explanation about taking a motion from the table at the same meeting or the next regular meeting, Mr. Taraday explained after that point, the motion to table no longer has any effect. Even if something was tabled, the council president could schedule it on the agenda at the second regular meeting after the motion to table whether the council had taken it from the table or not because each council meeting is a new session under Robert’s Rules of Order and a lot of the rules that apply to continuous legislative bodies do not work as well with a legislative body like a city council. Mr. Taraday reviewed: • Presentation prepared by Beth Ford, Patricia Taraday and Jeff Taraday • Topics o Councilmember use of social media (practical considerations and SCOTUS) o Serial meetings and the bcc field o Ballot measures Mr. Taraday commented he was most prepared to discuss serial meetings and the bcc field and ballot measures. It was the consensus of the council for Mr. Taraday to focus the training on those topics and have training on councilmember use of social media another day if there wasn’t time tonight. Mr. Taraday continued: • Disclaimer: This training is not intended to be a replacement for newly elected official training or the Attorney General’s OPMA training. You should seek complete training, as needed, outside of a city council meeting. Councilmembers are obligated to take OPMA training outside a council meeting and this not a substitute for that. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2024 Page 18 • Serial Meetings o A quorum of councilmembers are not permitted to meet outside a council meeting  A serial meeting is when that occurs via progressive communications which essentially results in a meeting of four or more councilmembers  In the age of email, text messages, and telephones, it is easy to accidentally wade into serial meeting territory  The city strives for good governance and citizens expect a certain level of transparency. Serial meetings instead of debating on the dais, citizens do not get the transparency they expect o Citizens Alliance v. San Juan County  But [Plaintiff] asserts that a serialized e-mail and telephone exchange involving members of the Council constituted a “meeting” of the Council because four council members were “present” during the communications. …The communications that [Plaintiff] describes as a “meeting” consisted of two e-mails and a telephone call that occurred over the course of a 14–hour period.  Council member Peterson, who did not attend any of the CAO Team's in-person meetings, sent the first e-mail on which [Plaintiff] relies; the recipients were Fralick and Miller, who were on the CAO Team.  Fralick responded to Peterson later the same day, copying Miller. In his e-mail, Fralick alluded to a telephone call between himself and Pratt (another CAO team member) that apparently had occurred earlier in the same day. Both the e-mails and Fralick's summary of the telephone call reference the CAO update. o Court’s determination:  These communications did not constitute a meeting of the Council because they contain no indication that the participants had the requisite collective intent to meet - Subjective element is whether there was “collective intent to meet” o Mr. Taraday’s evaluation/caution  Miller was only receiving information, according to standard, Miller did not have a collective intent to meet because they were a passive recipient  Unknown if “collective intent to meet” will be the standard the court uses to determine serial meetings for the next 20 years  This standard is somewhat problematic. Imagine a scenario where the arrows go to Miller and the three green ovals (representing the other 3 councilmembers) and the Peterson, Fralick and Miller continue their conversation, he would question whether the court’s standard would hold up and regardless, it doesn’t look good if three councilmembers are actively participating in email communication. He did not want councilmembers to be too comfortable in relying on the standard the court articulated in this case. Bad facts make bad law and he was uncertain this standard would be upheld in the future. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2024 Page 19 • Egan v. City of Seattle o Plaintiff “contends city council members “met” serially between June 9 and June 11, 2018, in small groups or in one-on-one meetings, telephone calls, e-mails, and text messages, for the purpose of obtaining a collective commitment of a majority to vote in favor of repealing the EHT.” o “To establish that this conduct constitutes an OPMA violation, [Plaintiff] must show (1) a majority of the council “met” (2) with the collective intent to transact official business, and (3) during the “meeting,” the council members took “action” as defined by the OPMA— specifically, they discussed or deliberated on repealing the EHT.” o “Extending the reasoning of Citizens Alliance to this case, the in-person meetings, e-mails, phone calls, and text messages between and among the city council members could constitute a “meeting” under the OPMA if there was evidence that at least five members (a quorum) participated in and were aware that four others were participating in conversations about repealing the EHT.” o [T]here is evidence that … seven council members signed on to a draft press release stating that the EHT repeal bill had “the support of a majority of the City Council.” o Each of the seven council members submitted a declaration in which they stated that they “did not discuss with any other [c]ouncilmember the substance of the statement (whether in draft or final form)” and that by joining the June 11 press statement, they “did not understand or intend that doing so represented or indicated how [they] would vote with respect to proposed legislation.” o The text of what each was asked to review and approve, however, seems to express a very different sentiment:  We heard you. It is time to hit reset. This week, instead of prolonging a fight, we are moving forward with legislation to repeal the current tax on large businesses to address the homelessness crisis – this bill has the support of a majority of the City Council. o There is certainly sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of fact as to whether the council members’ decision to approve this press release constituted a collective decision on the part of more than five members to vote to approve the EHT repeal legislation. o We thus conclude if a quorum of a legislative body, such as the City Council, collectively commits or promises to each other to vote—as a group—in favor of or in opposition to a piece of pending legislation at a future public meeting, then such a commitment may be evidence that a majority of the body attended a “meeting” with the collective intent to take an “action” in violation of the OPMA. o There is sufficient evidence here from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the seven members who agreed to join Mayor Durkan's press statement, indicating that the pending bill had the support of a majority of the council, were expressing their collective decision to vote to repeal the EHT outside of a public meeting. o Here, … there is evidence to suggest that seven council members privately expressed to each other their collective intent to vote to repeal the EHT. If each individual council member “pre- decided,” ahead of the June 12 public meeting, how they intended to vote, that fact would be insufficient to establish the collective intent to deliberate or discuss pending legislation. o But if [Plaintiff] can prove that, through their serial approval of a draft press release, they “pre- decided” how they intended to vote and then expressed that intent outside of a public meeting to a sufficient number of council members to constitute a quorum, then a trier of fact could reasonably conclude a majority of the council “met” with the collective intent to transact official business—specifically, to discuss or deliberate on repealing the EHT. o Mr. Taraday’s evaluation:  The safest way for councilmembers to communicate with their constituents is from the dais. Communicating individually is probably fine, but anytime they communicate to constituents outside the dais and not as an individual but as a member of some subset of Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2024 Page 20 council, it is problematic in that there could be a fact pattern like in Egan v. City of Seattle where a trial would prove to a jury there was not an OPMA violation. Councilmember Paine asked the consequence of an OPMA violation, noting the City had already been sued once. Mr. Taraday recalled the last time he provided OPMA training there was information regarding the exact fine amounts. Councilmember Paine recalled $500 for the first violation. Mr. Taraday explained first, councilmembers face individual fine liability which he believed was $500 for the first violation which councilmembers are potentially paying out of their own pocket. Second, it has the effect of invalidating anything the council has done. For example, if the council passed an ordinance after pre-deciding outside an open meeting that they would pass the ordinance, the ordinance itself can be invalidated. Third, councilmembers can also be subject to a recall petition. Councilmember Nand commented councilmembers often use bcc to share information with each other. She asked about best practices to use that correctly so councilmembers do not fall into the serial meeting trap. Mr. Taraday answered he has long recommended the use of bcc because it prevents to some degree an accidental meeting from occurring. For example, if a councilmember sent an email to their fellow councilmembers via the cc field, and three councilmembers hit Reply All, that looks pretty bad, nice clean documentary evidence that maybe there was collective intent to meet. Putting councilmembers in the bcc field and someone replies, their reply is only going to the initial sender. If someone overrides the bcc field, the initial intent of initiating an email to a colleague and bcc’g councilmembers so they do not accidentally Reply All is lost. A councilmember responding and also adding a bcc to the entire council makes him nervous because it can look like collective intent to meet. If everyone responds to everybody and puts everyone in the bcc field, it still looks like collective intent to meet. Mr. Taraday continued, if the council wanted a black and white rule, if a councilmember sends a colleague an email alerting them to an ordinance in another city and suggesting it be discussed at a future council meeting and bcc’s other councilmembers, that is a clean communication that will not get anyone in trouble. He recommended councilmembers not use the bcc field when responding to an email. He acknowledged his advice was conservative and he did not want to suggest that by responding and using the bcc field would be an OPMA violation; as a general rule of thumb, his conservative advice to keep councilmembers out of trouble would not to use the bcc field when responding to an email, and only respond to the one person they received the email from. He sometime encounters this himself; he receives an email from a councilmember asking for legal advice and asking him to inform the whole council. When receiving a request like that, he usually informs the council via email, but will generate a new email to all seven councilmembers saying here is some advice on this topic. He acknowledged these were marginal differences in practice, but those practices can keep councilmembers out of trouble and reduce the risk. Mr. Taraday continued the elected official training, relaying his hunch a ballot measure of some type was likely coming up although it was probably several months away. • Ballot Measures o RCW 42.17A.555 – The Rule (being recodified in new Title 29B)  No elective official nor any employee of his or her office nor any person appointed to or employed by any public office or agency may use or authorize the use of any of the facilities of a public office or agency, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition. Facilities of a public office or agency include, but are not limited to, use of stationery, postage, machines, and equipment, use of employees of the office or agency during working hours, vehicles, office space, publications of the office or agency, and clientele lists of persons served by the office or agency. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2024 Page 21 Council President Olson asked if that meant councilmembers were not to send emails on the City server on the subject, among other things. Mr. Taraday agreed. He referred to examples in RCW 42.17A.555 of facilities of a public office or agency. Although it does not expressly say email, he recommended if a councilmember ended up wanting to support a ballot measure in the future, not doing it from a City of Edmonds email address, but from a Gmail of some kind or other email set up by a campaign. Mayor Rosen suggested “equipment” would probably qualify. • RCW 42.17A.555(1) – The Exception (being recodified in new Title 29B) o However, this does not apply to the following activities: Action taken at an open public meeting by members of an elected legislative body or by an elected board, council, or commission of a special purpose district including, but not limited to, fire districts, public hospital districts, library districts, park districts, port districts, public utility districts, school districts, sewer districts, and water districts, to express a collective decision, or to actually vote upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance, or to support or oppose a ballot proposition so long as (a) any required notice of the meeting includes the title and number of the ballot proposition, and (b) members of the legislative body, members of the board, council, or commission of the special purpose district, or members of the public are afforded an approximately equal opportunity for the expression of an opposing view; COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAINE, TO EXTEND TO 10:15. MOTION CARRIED (6-1) COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT VOTING NO. With regard to the email, Council President Olson asked if an exception to discussing the ballot measure with residents or each other would be if it was an agenda item. Mr. Taraday answered it depends on the nature of the discussion. For example, if the council president and mayor were exchanging email about a resolution and it was just logistical such as who is drafting the resolution and agenda memo, that is not supporting or opposing the ballot proposing. However, if the communication was something that hinted toward having it done in a certain way so the ballot measure had a greater chance of passing, that could get murky and he recommended staying neutral in the use of public facilities except for the carefully prescribed exceptions in the statute. Council President Olson asked what happened if a resident told a councilmember they didn’t want them to do something, was it okay to engage in conversation about the agenda item. Mr. Taraday suggested saying the city council wants to hear from its constituents on this issue and intends to hear from supporters and opponents of the ballot proposition and invite them to come to the council meeting to ensure their voice was heard; something neutral like that would not be problematic and would not be seen as supporting or opposing a ballot proposition. Council President Olson summarized councilmembers should direct the public to the public forum. • RCW 42.17A.555(2)&(3) – More Exceptions (being recodified in new Title 29B) o However, this does not apply to the following activities: (2) A statement by an elected official in support of or in opposition to any ballot proposition at an open press conference or in response to a specific inquiry; (3) Activities which are part of the normal and regular conduct of the office or agency. In further response to Council President Olson’s question, Mr. Taraday explained if a councilmember received a specific inquiry from a constituent such as “do you support ballot measure such and such?” according to this exception, a councilmember could respond specifically to that inquiry. With regard to exception 3 above, Mr. Taraday did not think it would apply to councilmembers on a regular basis. For example, every year the mayor does a state of the city address which could be considered normal and regular Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2024 Page 22 conduct of the office so possibly a mayor at the state of the city could say something they were not allowed to say at other times. Councilmember Tibbott provided an example, if during the conduct of business he sent an email from his personal email to a listserv of 500 constituents in support of a topic. He asked if that would be allowed. Mr. Taraday answered yes, as long as no city facilities were used. Councilmembers can use their own mental energies as long as they are not using any city facilities. Councilmember Tibbott asked if that would be considered normal and regular conduct. Mr. Taraday answered it wouldn’t matter because the normal and regular conduct is an exception to the city facility rule. The rule is no use of city facilities; the exception is normal and regular conduct. Because councilmembers do most of their work at the dais or privately, it was difficult for him to hypothesize a normal and regular conduct that would apply to a councilmember that would give them the ability to use a city facility to support a campaign. Councilmember Nand asked if Mr. Taraday recommended the council adopt best practices or communication policy related to social media or email. Mr. Taraday said the first part of the presentation that wasn’t covered was regarding social media. Because it was prepared by Beth Ford and Patricia Taraday, he wanted to be more prepared before providing that information. The slides are in the packet; between now and when he is invited to do that part of the training, he encouraged councilmembers to read the slides and reach out to him with questions. If the question is regarding SCOTUS, he will put the councilmember in touch with Beth and if it’s a more practical consideration, he can put the councilmember in touch with Patricia; they are the experts on those topics. The slides are fairly self-explanatory and may not warrant an in-person training but he was happy to do it if there was time on a future agenda. 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Nand relayed Arnie Lund, Edmonds Historical Museum, is seeking volunteers. Anyone interested in participating can visit HistoricalEdmonds.org/volunteer. Glen Douglas who is involved with implementing the new Housing Hope project at the Edmonds Lutheran Church asked her to relay that Housing Hope is seeking volunteers for all aspects of operating the project including offering wraparound services to people who need support in their housing journey. Anyone interested in volunteering can reach them at HousingHope.com. She recalled at the council’s town hall, a community member asked how people interested in volunteering could engage with the City. The City is blessed to have wonderful non-profits like Housing Hope and the Edmonds Historical Museum. She encourage community members who have a passion or idea to reach out to councilmembers who would be happy to connect them with a community partner if there is not a City board, committee or commission serving that need. Councilmember Paine expressed her sincere thanks to the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee for their report in the council packet, a consolidated summary of all the activities they were involved in last year. The committee is interested in providing information and education to the community about the Climate Action Plan. She invited community members to attend their meetings most Thursdays at noon. Councilmember Dotsch commented on the great Earth Day events at the beaches last Saturday and great weather. She is enjoying being the council liaison to the youth commission and there was a good turnout of youth commission members to help clean the beaches. Council President Olson referred to the Memorandum of Understanding for Lower Perrinville Beach Property Owners in the packet this week under Received for Filing which represents a lot of work from many dedicated people. She gave a shoutout to Public Works Director Antillon, the City and Stormwater Engineers, the City Attorney and most of all, Mayor Rosen for getting this project unstuck. This is a huge environmental issue for the City that has been stuck for a long time. She thanked everyone who has been involved and did a great job and she encouraged everyone to read the MOU which is very comprehensive about the stakeholders and actions that will be taking place to move it forward. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes April 23, 2024 Page 23 Councilmember Chen thanked the community members who attended the council town hall last Thursday. The format allowed two-way conversation instead of just a one-way, three minute comment. He looked forward to having more dialogue like the town hall. Councilmember Eck gave a shoutout to community engagement, to the community members who attended the town hall either virtually or in person and encouraged everyone to spread the word regarding future town halls. She would love to see community members from all over Edmonds attend. She was excited to see the number of volunteers at Yost Park planting trees with her at the Earth Day event remarking she could only take credit for 6 of the 60 saplings that were planted that day. She commended the fantastic Edmonds community who continue to participate in such events. She thanked the Edmonds Stewards, Sound Salmon Solutions, Edmonds Tree Board and the City’s Park Department. 12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Rosen reminded there is no council meeting next Tuesday as the council does not normally meet on the 5th Tuesday of the month. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the council meeting was adjourned at 10:13 pm.