Loading...
2024-09-17 Council Special MinutesEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES APPROVED MINUTES September 17, 2024 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Mayor Vivian Olson, Council President Neil Tibbott, Councilmember Will Chen, Councilmember Susan Paine, Councilmember Michelle Dotsch, Councilmember Chris Eck, Councilmember Jenna Nand, Councilmember 1. CALL TO ORDER STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Acting Planning & Development Dir. Mike Clugston, Acting Planning Manager Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Scott Passey, City Clerk The Edmonds City Council special meeting was called to order at 7 pm by Mayor Rosen virtually and in the City Council Conference Room, 121— 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. 2. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. 3. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. DISCUSSION OF FUTURE PROPERTY TAX LEVY IMPLICATIONS OF AN RFA ANNEXATION Councilmember Tibbott explained the council has been considering this question for some time including a robust discussion at the August 16 budget retreat, and soliciting community input at a public hearing, via email and other sources. He recalled when the South County Fire (SCF) fire chief telling the council this was one of most important question for councils to consider before voting to put annexation on the ballot. The Edmonds City Council is at the point where it could make a decision tonight regarding its approach to some, none or all related to annexation. To focus tonight's discussion, he recapped last week's presentation: Fire/EMS Service Options Considered o Join the Regional Fire Authority via annexation o Contract Fire/EMS service with another city o Contract Fire/EMS service with the RFA o Form Edmonds Fire Department The specific question for discussion: If the City of Edmonds joins the RFA via annexation in 2026, should the Edmonds City Council change the amount levied for the General Property tax for 2026? Fire/EMS Contract 2024 — 2026 Funding Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 17, 2024 Page 1 2024 Fire Service Contract Expense $11.5M City EMS Levy I I General Fund Funded with ARPA $4.35 M $1.2 M $6M T,,eupert Ras 2025 Fire Service Contract Expense $12. 1 M (assuming 5%) City EMS Levy I I General Fund $4.4 M $1.2 M $6.5M "__,i n I - 1 T,.ilup,0 rcas 2026 Fire Service Contract Expense $19.5 M (SCF letter6/18/2024) City EMS Levy GeWal Fu ??? $4.44 M $1.2 M $13.9M Councilmember Tibbott explained in 2022, SCF asked the City to increase its investment in the EMS unit at Station 20. That unit and the personnel required to provide the service cost the City an additional $1M. The council approved that increase and it went into effect in 2023. During 2023, the net effect of union negotiations increased the cost of fire service by $1.5M. The cost of the City's contract with SCF in 2022 was approximately $9M which meant the EMS levy ($4.35M in 2024) and transport fees ($1.2M in 2024) provided slightly more than half the funding. By 2023 those sources provided slightly less than half and the difference was paid out of general fund reserves which cause reserve levels to decrease in 2023. In 2024 the general fund portion of the fire service contract was paid using ARPA funds which is one-time money. In 2025, the contract is expected to go up 5%, the EMS levy and transport fees remain roughly the same and the cost to the general fund is $6.5M; the source of those funds is currently unknown. In 2026 there is the possibility of a contract with SCF or the City will annex into the SCF RFA; that cost is estimated to be $19.5M and the general fund portion would be $13.9M. If the fire service is funded as a contract in 2026, the funding source is unknown. If RFA Annexation 2026 — Taxpayer Impact (2024 valuations) o Annexation taxpayer cost impact on an average home (SCF Fire letter dated February 6, 2024) ■ Scenario 1 "All": The City of Edmonds retains the dollars in its general fund that paid for the fire contract, a total of $5,965,492. ■ Scenario 2 "None": The City of Edmonds reduces its general fund levy by $5,965,492, the amount currently funding the fire contract. ■ Scenario 3 "Some": The City of Edmonds reduces its general property tax levy by a different specific absolute dollar amount. o Calculations based on 2,000 sq. ft. home with $836,183 AV (2024 Valuations) General/Fire Benefit Total Annual Levy EMS Levy Charge Increase Monthly Scenario 1: City does not reduce general levy $ 1,303.36 $ 290.72 $ 71.64 $ 809.24 $67.44 Scenario 2: $5,965,637 general levy reduction $ 978.46 $ 290.72 $ 71.64 $ 484.33 $40.36 (SCF Fire Letter dated February 6. 2024) Councilmember Tibbott continued, the difference between Scenario 1 and 2 above is about $27/month. The question is whether to retain the full amount of the general fund levy, reduce the general fund levy by some amount, or reduce the general fund levy by the entire amount. The $5,965,637 amount has been used over the last three years to fund other portions of the City's municipal responsibilities. He summarized without any reduction in the general fund levy, the increase is $809/year, if the levy is reduced by the entire amount, approximately $6M, the increase is $484.33/year, a difference of $27. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 17, 2024 Page 2 Councilmember Tibbott reiterate the question, whether to reduce the general levy in some amount and if so, what amount, or retain it and use it for general fund expenditures as has been done over the last few years. Despite the fact these funds are already being used, the City will need to adjust its budget even more in the coming years. Mayor Rosen has indicated in working with staff, approximately $4M has been trimmed from the budget. He explained retaining the full amount that is already being used for general fund expenditures and putting forth a very clear proposition for the voters to consider is one way to eliminate ambiguity and address the lack of clarity. The council can then be fully focused on whether joining the RFA is a good idea and how annexation would provide fire and EMS and eliminate the general fund tax question. Councilmember Dotsch asked why a 2,000 square foot home was chosen for the calculation when that is at the lower end rather than an average size. Councilmember Tibbott answered it was intended to be a median priced home which in Edmonds is approximately that size. These are 2024 valuation; the median price in Edmonds is now higher which means the levy amount would be higher. Councilmember Dotsch asked about the benefit charge for apartments and multifamily units. Councilmember Tibbott answered the EMS levy is 6% of the valuation. Mayor Rosen responded the ratios between AV and benefit charge remain the same in this formula. There has been discussion about changing that ratio in future, but that decision has not been made. Property owners would be charged at the current ratio based on the formula displayed. Councilmember Dotsch observed the percentage can go up to 60%. Mayor Rosen agreed. In response to Councilmember Dotsch's question whether apartments or multifamily would be charged more than a residential unit, Councilmember Tibbott advised that will be part of discussion. Negotiations with SCF include a rethinking of commercial parcels in the City that may have more risk and as a result would have a higher benefit charge, but that has not yet been fully vetted. Mayor Rosen advised the fire benefit charge must be the same for all cities within the RFA. Councilmember Chen explained based on his understanding, the assessed value doesn't matter because the way fire services is paid is SCF does an overall assessment and uses the overall assessment of how much money they need divided by the entire assessed value of everyone within SCF to develop a rate and apply the rate to individual homes. The key is the total amount of the assessment. The more important point is the amount Edmonds will be assessed, $19M, how that is determined and whether there is room for a more realistic number. SCF is allowed to assess up to 60% for a benefit charge, a decision that will also impact the per household charge. Councilmember Nand expressed interest in demonstrating to the voters what $5.9M in cuts for 2026 would look like and asked if there was a simple model to show the depths of per capita staffing and program cuts as a hypothetical impact of retaining some, none or all. Mayor Rosen answered that is part of what the council will receive on October 1 with his recommended 2025/2026 budget and the council will determine whether they like those cuts, want more cuts, want different cuts, or want fewer cuts. This reason for this conversation is to make an assumption in the budget if annexation takes place, whether the City is retaining some, none or all of the general fund levy. Councilmember Nand asked if the administration was seeking a motion from the council tonight regarding what underlying assumption the administration will use for the 2025/2026 budget. Mayor Rosen answered yes, recognizing it is conditional because the council has not decided if they want to put annexation on the ballot. If the council decides to put annexation on the ballot, then this decision has already made for purposes of a budget assumption. Councilmember Paine recognized the council's decision is conditional, but it provides abundant and dense information. She thanked Councilmember Tibbott for developing this information to explain to the community what they can expect. She asked why the cost for SCF in 2024 is dramatically higher, Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 17, 2024 Page 3 recognizing if the council did nothing, the general fund portion would be approximately $14M. Councilmember Tibbott answered SCF has consistently said their service requirements across the district have increased in ways that the City's previous contract does not address. When that contract was written in 2018 or 2017, it reflected the cost of delivering fire services at that time and incremental increases have occurred due to increases in the union contract and to even out the unit utilization factor. SCF has also said EMS services have increased significantly. Councilmember Tibbott continued, another factor is "shared resources" that SCF provides across the district that the City does not pay for such as education resources or resources to prevent accidents or reduce the use of EMS services. That service is partially funded via a Verdant grant, but at least half is funded by SCF. With the additional services, the increase in EMS calls and increased staffing levels, the full amount the City's would pay would be approximately $14M more. SCF has indicated the other cities in the RFA are paying that amount already via their assessed values. SCF is also planning ahead for future needs, including actively purchasing land, preparing to provide other fire services such as high rise apartment complexes, etc. Councilmember Paine commented that information has not been socialized. That is a significant increase and although not the question the council is addressing tonight, people are relying on the council to vet these numbers and make decisions. She was satisfied this was a good way to start and for the community to have a fuller discussion. Mayor Rosen added SCF also suffered from CPI increasing 21% in 3 years which has impacted their costs. SCF is also experiencing impacts to their staffing models to cover for firefighters experiencing PTSD, transitions, illness, etc. Councilmember Eck thanked Councilmember Tibbott for the work he did and clearly laying out the information. She referred to the Fire/EMS Contract 2024-2026 Funding slide which tells a great story; it shows the City used ARPA funds in 2024 which was one-time money, and the significantly increased costs in 2026. She recognized the importance of discussing the City's financial situation separate from the fire service contract, but they converge from a general fund standpoint. Not only has it been difficult for the City to fund fire/EMS in the past, as the City is trying to right -size its budget, it needs to show residents the implications to the budget of the council not retaining all of the general fund levy such as sacrificing services, staffing, etc. She concluded it is a complicated story, but this bar graph provides a very clear illustration. Councilmember Tibbott explained the EMS levy was intended to cover more of the EMS services. He recalled when he was first on council, the EMS levy and transport fees covered a large percentage of the total amount, more like 60-70%. In 2022, the EMS levy and transport fees paid a little more than half of the fire service contract. The EMS levy can only increase by council action 1 %/year. The EMS levy in 2024 generated $4.35M, $4.4M in 2025 and $4.44M in 2026, but those increases have not kept up with inflation or the increased EMS demand. The State could empower cities to increase the EMS levy by 100-200% so it provided the revenues required for emergency services, but that hasn't happened. Councilmember Nand asked if a motion to express the desire to retain the full general fund levy lift and place the RFA annexation on the ballot would need to specify a certain ballot date. Councilmember Tibbott responded the question before the council is about the levy, not about putting annexation on the ballot. The City is still negotiating with SCF regarding a plan they would approve and that will be brought to the council. The issue for the council to discuss tonight is whether to retain the full levy. Such a motion would solidify the variable for future decisions, remove ambiguity and lets voters know exactly what the council is approving, and it will also help with the budgeting process that the council will begin next month. The upcoming budget will be a biennial budget so it is important for the administration to know what funding is available. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 17, 2024 Page 4 City Attorney Jeff Taraday referred to page 4 of the packet that contains the three scenarios and a sample motion for each. To the extent the council wants to take action, the motions directing the city attorney to draft a resolution would be a step in that direction. Councilmember Nand observed there was no requirement for an if/then statement; if the council places annexation before the voters, then the council intends to levy all, some or none of the general fund levy. Mr. Taraday explained the reason the sample motions direct the city attorney to draft a resolution is because the finer points would be set forth in the resolution. In terms of the bigger picture question of some, none or all, those are the motions he was referencing. COUNCILMEMBER NAND MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION STATING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL INTENDS TO LEVY THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LEVY AMOUNT FOR COLLECTION IN 2026. Council President Olson acknowledged the cost of fire service will feel impactful to residents regardless of whether the City contracts with the RFA, annexes into the RFA or proceeds with one of the other options which were also very expensive. The cost of fire and EMS was significant enough that the City was already having difficulty affording it. In 2024, the City used $6M in ARPA funds to the close gap in the cost and in 2023 the City closed that gap with reserves. This is not money the City has or can be applied to other things, it is money the City hasn't had. The total gap has been identified to be $22M, but today's conversation is about $6M. The City has been cutting and there will be more cuts. The prospect of getting down to $6M is unfathomable and really not possible. This revenue is needed and the council needs to be completely unambiguous, clear and up front regarding their intent related to levy so there are no surprises. As Mayor Rosen said, taking a council vote today is the right thing to do. She supported the motion and thanked everyone involved in putting the packet together which made the topic very straight forward. Councilmember Nand thanked the administration, council leadership and city attorney for their work on the packet. Her personal hope is when voters are faced with the question of annexation, they decide it is worth paying the extra money to maintain levels of service in Edmonds and to support the City retaining its full levy lift in an attempt to forestall unnecessary layoffs and program cuts and be able to provide existing levels of service to the community members. She urged councilmembers to join her in supporting the option to retain all the present levy the City is entitled to collect in light of increasing the tax burden to taxpayers through presenting the question regarding whether to annex into the RFA. Councilmember Dotsch recognized costs have been increasing but there has always been a portion of the general fund that funded the fire/EMS contract. The fact that the City had to use ARPA funds was more due to not having funds left over after unbudgeted items. She was concerned that by retaining these funds in the general fund with no thought as to how it would be spent would be comingling different things. She recalled bringing up that concern at the budget retreat. She preferred to go a different route and be more specific to keep the funds separate from fire/EMS. Councilmember Chen reiterated his prior comments, when it comes down to it, the City will not be able to cut its way out of services and still maintain a sustainable, comfortable level of City services that citizens have become accustomed to. If the City were to refund this $6M, the citizens would have to be asked to approve a levy to fund city operations. Inflation in the past few years has been in double digits, but the property tax levy is only allowed to increase by 1%. The reality is wages and other costs have increased. This motion is to collect property tax to the maximum value allowed including the $6M, but the City is still talking to SCF about whether to annex in 2026 or possibly extend the contract for a year. He asked if that scenario happens and the City collects the property tax, whether there would be any conflicts. Mayor Rosen responded he was unsure he understood the question, but if the City did not annex and the price stays the same, $19M, then the City will have to come up with that amount somehow either from the general fund, another levy, etc. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 17, 2024 Page 5 Councilmember Chen concluded if the City did not annex and the City continues to collect the $6M, it is business as normal; collect the tax and use it to pay for contracted fire services. Mayor Rosen answered it would not be business as normal; if the City annexes into the RFA, the increased cost is transferred off the City's general fund. Councilmember Chen agreed if the City annexes, the homeowner will pay for fire services on their property tax bill and the City will continue to collect the portion of the property tax that previously was used to pay fire services. He asked if that meant those funds were being collected twice. Mayor Rosen answered if the motion is approved and the City annexes, the City would continue to collect these funds. Councilmember Chen wanted the financial impact to be clear to the council and the citizens. Councilmember Tibbott the discussion is related to retaining the full tax levy which would begin in 2026, not in 2025 or 2024, assuming the City joins the RFA. If the City does not join the RFA, the City is responsible for approximately $14M which is approximately one-third of the total general fund revenues. On top of that, the City pays for police services; those two combined require two-thirds of the total general fund revenues which is not a sustainable model. Councilmember Chen expressed support for collecting the full $6M if the City annexes into the RFA. Either way, the City will have to come up with funds for fire services and other services the City is committed to offering. Councilmember Paine expressed support for the motion for the purpose of giving instruction to the administration about what to anticipate for the budget discussion coming up and providing a signal to the community. It would be very helpful to display what the cuts would look like if the council had to reduce spending by $4M-$6M; it would be pretty dramatic. Mayor Rosen clarified the $4M in cuts he and staff have identified are in this year's budget, not next year's budget. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH VOTING NO. 2. UPDATED APPROACH TO DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Acting Planning & Development Director Shane Hope introduced Acting Planning Manager Mike Clugston. She reviewed: • Overview of process and timeline o Comprehensive plan update process has been underway for more than 2 years o Certain growth, housing and job targets were set for each city and the county to have the capacity to achieve by 2044 • 2044 — Meeting Growth Targets Housing Units Edmonds is projected to grow by 30" 13,000 people over the next twenty , ; years VW"O`a,000 , Edmonds currently has capacity for 2,500 jobs. Capacity for more jobs must be added Edmonds has 19,000 housing units 10" and capacity for 5,000 more. t 5000 increase unit capacity by 4,000 or a total of 9,000 ° Existing Units Current Required Numbers are r,,Medfmm the Previous slide Capacity Capacity _______________________________________________________________________________ 0,W Source: The Housing Characteristics and Needs in Swhomish County report has been compikdPursuant to Imonds Comprehensive Plan Update i 5 Countywide Planning Policy (CPP) HO-5 • HB 1220 — High Cost Community Impacts Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 17, 2024 Page 6 o Edmonds' designation as a "high -cost community" impacts the required allocation for types of housing units o Edmonds needs to plan for: ■ 6,814 units at the low 0-80% AMI (income) level — Low Rise or Mid -Rise Multifamily ■ e.g. walk-up apartment buildings — this is the largest category of need in Edmonds ■ 2,129 units at the moderate <80-120% AMI (income) level — these may be ADUs ■ 126 units at the high income level — these 6,814 2,129 126 Must ae low-nse, or mid- ADUs Or Icw-nse. ni Middle housing or any rise apartments I Condos nse apartments/ condos othertype ® 2,479 r® ]e83 I 1,987 1475 977 0 0%-wx O1F9O%V8H lO%-50% 50%-90% 8O%-100% 100%-120% may be moderate density (duplex, quad, triplex) Existing Housing Capacity per Buildable Lands Report o Edmonds currently has capacity for 5,148 units, broken down by the following ■ 201 single family units (do not county towards any of the income levels per HB 1220) ■ 84 middle housing units 6,814 = 2,129 = 126 Data Source The Housing Characteristics and Needs in Snohomish County HO-5 Fllt Ute Land Supply �r.,t.r♦ Hurlrinlrlr ♦i rnl.� Irrwrrl rr •rr�r � Mrillr hrni.rt Ir,r..l Ar r.�� I.unrly I.,ruily Ap..irurr�r rl� pe,id, 17 69 is 501 o Oa VKent N 115 7 422 31 S75 Verewly used 21 62 0 0 0 62 P.4edevebpe6N 231 .24 63 3,Sa 3a 3.0157 713 MY 201 04 49I 371 SIN ■ 4,862 multifamily units, senior apartments Figure 1 Source. The Housing Characteristics and Needs in Snohomish County report 2023 (HO 5 Report i ie. Low rise or mid rise ■ Capacity for ADUs had not previously been evaluated o Therefore Edmonds needs to provide a net capacity change of the following: ■ A net increase of at least 1,952 units that are low-rise or mid -rise multifamily apartment category ■ A net increase in at least 2,129 ADUs (or any of the above categories ■ A net increase of at least 42 units that are middle housing (or any of the above categories) Comp plan Update process has assumed three alternatives: o No action (o update): Growth stays mainly in Highway 99 areas o Alt A: Focused growth, primarily in 4 wam• neighborhood centers, with lesser growth in neighborhood hubs J o Alt B: Distributed growth, more evenly , spread growth across 4 neighborhood centers and 7 neighborhood hubs bMelf F.penfbn ne ('nrrren i tger.rlerer • Public process has included o Public engagement opportunities o Planning board meetings o City council meetings Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 17, 2024 Page 7 o Work is far along on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and the draft comprehensive plan o State's due date for final comprehensive plan update to be adopted in December 31, 2024 What's changed since comprehensive plan update process began in Edmonds? o New state legislation required greater housing capacity for all cities and counties o Significant loss of staff in City's planning division o Change from prior Planning & Development Directo to new interim director (mid -August 2025) o Need for new interim director to catch up, analyze and identify opportunities for updated approach Updated approach o Remove draft "policies" that are more "action (implementation) steps" than broad policy statements o Adjust or drop some draft policies that are too detailed or not appropriate at this time to be included in draft comprehensive plan update ■ Affects every element of comprehensive plan o Sample Text Changes (Housing Element) ■ Removed/revised policies that are ■ Too detailed for Comp Plan level ■ Beyond city resources ■ Demand a very specific outcome that should be part of the regulatory process ■ Not context -appropriate Removed policies that are action steps, not policies Policy H-3.1 Explore the requirement of an equal or greaterbumber of housing units when the property is redeveloped. Policy H-3.i E[linw-aae ssmle net, and shared amenities w cley0opment of rtous rt 1 r P. 33 Policy H-4.1 Policy HAI Partner with the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission to engage with property owners, developers, preservationists, and community members to gather input and build support for historic oreservaUon. thr Pro9ran' Pole, H 4.2 Palic, 6 a 4.2 No hiousi ig type at mad be excluded by code frof ol at s aide ved am as) Miry H-4 3 ppYC 4 ext:iP,,'^-y H 4 41'-... 11 a ;Provid=Vncentfves for homeowners who adopt sustainable design practices. materials and green technologies. in their remodeling projects. Goal H-6. Avoid actions that result in the displacement of existing residents, particularly low-income and marginalized communities. Polcy-1+6 1 Pokey-FF611 I Explore 1— - i and programs to help support renters at risk of displacement and connect them with resources/financing to purchase the homes they live in, such as mobile home communities. condo conversions of apartments. conversions to co-ops. Po cr-1+s-3 P slekenolIli, Goal H-7. Work towards eliminating racial inequity in housing distribution. Pad ieY+l-7-1 Pekcyi-F73Pollcy H7.1 Engage and partner wflh communities most disproporttonately impacted by housing challenges in the decision -making process to shape/inform strategies, actions. regulations. and resource allocation that address and mitigate their housing -related issues. • Timeline issues o Publication of DEIS and draft comprehensive plan is behind the original schedule by more than a month o Additional info has been needed to prepare DEIS Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 17, 2024 Page 8 o Goals and policies for each draft element are being reviewed and as needed, revised. o Narrative background information for some draft elements not yet ready o Comprehensive plan future land use maps not quite ready o Probable release of Draft Comp Plan and draft EIS: Tentative DEIS Publishing September 27 Sept 27 o Public Input to be sought on both documents 0 30-day comment period for DEIS IF o Planning board and city council meetings needed to Public comment perii review and discuss what has been learned 30 days o "Preferred Alternative" to be selected by city council, following presentations and discussion o Changes to draft Comp Plan would then be prepared to include: ■ Preferred alternative and related language neighborhood map changes ■ Changes to Capital projects, based on preferred alternative ■ Other changes to appropriately reflect public comments, planning board recommendations and city council direction ■ Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to be prepared o Final Comp Plan update to be reviewed and approved with any changes by city council including ■ One or more council meetings ■ Public hearing and adoption (with any changes) ■ City council's schedule will be busy in late 2024 with budget and other issues ■ Adoption is not realistic to accomplish by end of 2024 - but should be as close after as possible ■ In new few days, staff will consult with the mayor and come back to council with specific revised timeline, including dates for: - Publishing documents - Key follow-up meetings and decision points Ms. Hope explained the State's deadline is December 31, 2024. She and the mayor have spoken with the Department of Commerce, but it is not up to them to decide that the state legislation doesn't apply. State law says cities and counties in this region need to adopt their updated comprehensive plan by the end of 2024. It takes a while for all those ordinance and documents, which may be adopted in the last week of 2024, to get shipped off to the Department of Commerce so they can prepare a list of which cities and counties are in compliance with completion. She hoped the City could submit its comprehensive plan by the time that list was put together. She pointed out, more importantly, cities are not eligible for state grants or loans during the period when that deadline has not been met or the city is otherwise found to be out of compliance. It is in everyone's best interest to get the comprehensive plan update completed by the end of 2024 or as soon after as possible, before any of those consequences come to pass. Staff will revise the timeline to be realistic. Councilmember Paine commented the council has already decided on Option B, the more diffuse option for the comprehensive planning. Ms. Hope answered she did not believe there had been a formal decision Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 17, 2024 Page 9 by the council. Councilmember Paine suggested checking on that. She recalled from earlier discussions with former Planning & Development Director McLauglin that part of what the consultant would be doing was code synchronization and provide pointers for updating the codes to align with the changes in the RCW and the comprehensive plan. She asked if that would still be done by the consultant. Ms. Hope answered yes, but she has not seen their list yet. The consultant may provide a list but staff may have additional ideas. Councilmember Paine commented that list will be helpful. Ms. Hope commented on what needs to happen next; for example, in next six months after the December 31, 2024 deadline, the middle housing regulations have to be completed. While those amendments are being made, there are other cleanup things that can to be done along with the middle house regulations, items that although they may not be required, would be useful. Councilmember Nand thanked Ms. Hope for this explanation. She was curious during the more abbreviated version of this presentation at today's PSPHSP Committee meeting whether it would be possible to make the legally required updates required by the State mandates and amend the comprehensive plan later in 2025. She referred to the Timeline Issues slide, acknowledging it will not be possible to have a professional product by the deadline. Ms. Hope anticipated having a professional draft product by the end of September, but it will still need thoughtful consideration, tweaking and input from the council and the public. Councilmember Nand asked if there had been changes in the scope of what the consultant was doing now compared to the original contract and whether there had been a corresponding reduction in the price. Ms. Hope answered yes, it is her understanding the professional services consultant's work began with a much higher budget and was reduced by possibly $200,000 which reduced their ability to do some of the work so they are a little behind too. Meanwhile City staff is lower so staff is slower to respond to the consultant as they did their work. She assured everyone is catching up and completion is getting close. Recognizing this is an update of a 20 year plan, Councilmember Nand asked how much is being retained versus how much is new and whole cloth created this year. Ms. Hope answered from her review, it looks like a lot of it is new language, new data, partially because there is new data available and partially because things evolved, legislation has been passed, needs have been recognized, etc. A lot of it is new, but there are still ideas from the past. The format is also very different. She was with Edmonds when the 2015 comprehensive plan was updated which included a different approach; this update has a different look. Rather than trying to reinvent everything, she is looking at the work that has been done, see how that matches up with the general intent of the existing comprehensive plan, recognizing some things have to change to address the new requirements, the City's interest in including a climate element, etc. Councilmember Nand referred to an earlier question from Councilmember Paine, relaying her belief that when the council passed a resolution recognizing pens down and authorizing the consultant to go forward with the public process, the bookends of a preferred alternatives A and B were developed. She asked if it would be possible to truncate the amount of work left to be done if the council picked one of the alternatives and asked the planning department and the consultants to operate off either A or B. Ms. Hope answered yes. Councilmember Nand asked if would be legal to do that in an effort to expedite things. Ms. Hope answered she did not see any reason the council couldn't do that other than scheduling it on a meeting agenda. Councilmember Chen thanked Ms. Hope for stepping in to transition this continuing work and recognized the tremendous work done by staff and the consultants. He asked whether Highway 99 would be included in the comprehensive plan update, recalling the original plan was to leave Highway 99 out of it. He asked her thoughts. Ms. Hope relayed her assumption was a decision had been made, at least for now, not to amend the Highway 99 subarea plan, but some things could be expressed differently or provide additional direction in the draft comprehensive plan. Councilmember Chen asked if that was included in bookend Option B. Ms. Hope agreed. Councilmember Chen relayed his understanding it was probably too late in the Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 17, 2024 Page 10 game to revisit decisions that have already been made, commenting it was a missed opportunity. Ms. Hope responded staff could review the Highway 99 subarea plan in a future year if council wished. COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DOTSCH, TO EXTEND 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Dotsch thanked Ms. Hope for coming in and helping, recognizing it is a heavy lift for staff with four openings in the department. In order to do a really good job, she recommended being very careful while going through process. The DEIS should be informing the comprehensive plan and providing critical information on the impact of the bookends or a combination of the bookends. She cited the importance of public input because this is the community's plan and in Washington, public engagement is supposed to be a priority. Having attended most of the public meetings, while very interesting, she didn't think many were given opportunities to have their input noted and included so continuing to engage the public in this process through the end is a critical piece. It is also important to coordinate the comprehensive plan with other things such as capital plans and the budget as well as environmental impacts of where growth and density occur especially in areas that are lacking infrastructure. Council President Olson pointed out hubs & centers and centers were the bookends; the only council decision was that those were the bookends. It is correct there seemed to be a preference for the hubs & centers, but that wasn't a council decision. She cautioned against rushing this process. The DEIS will provide information about impacts to the environment of those two bookends and that needs to inform what happens next. The council may learn some of the centers or hubs are not good ideas to pursue. She personally wanted to have that information and use it rather than skipping that step. She recognized Ms. Hope for the analysis and assessment she has done of where the process is as well as bringing calm to the process. It would be disappointing to miss the deadline, but she appreciated the City cannot circumvent or shortcut public engagement due to its significance and importance. She was confident staff will do their best and Ms. Hope will shepherd it forward as fast as possible. With regard to the Highway 99 subarea plan, the one point that was on everyone's radar was the transition, instead of going straight from 70' to single family. If there was any way do that now or if not, in an update to the comprehensive plan next year, she anticipated that would have council support. Councilmember Tibbott emphasized the importance of the DEIS being well -stated and well put together so the council, planning board and community have something to interact with. He anticipated the community will step up and there will be a robust conversation. He was on the planning board the last time a major update was done and Ms. Hope was in the planning department. A great deal has changed since that time and as a result it makes sense to incorporate new state law, new commitments as a community, the reality of becoming a more urbanized city, etc., and the hubs & centers will be an important part of the discussion. Councilmember Tibbott observed there are natural transition zones in the City, natural because they have aged and are ready to move from a lower to a higher use or density and he was unsure they fall neatly in the identified hubs. He asked how those transition zones, some of which are along SR-104, Highway 99, 76th and in Perrinville, would be addressed via the comprehensive plan and how they fit in with the hubs and centers. Ms. Hope answered there are two basic ways that could be handle in the comprehensive plan. The way that might have been done if the process was at that point a few months ago would have been to build it in more explicitly in the land use maps, identify transition zones, etc. Another approach is simply identifying in the comprehensive plan that these are general designations and that transition and other details will be developed via development regulations. Councilmember Tibbott referred to the map with neighborhood residential, neighborhood centers and neighborhood hubs, which has some of the transition zones he was thinking of, but felt they should be shaped differently than the circle shown on the map, more like a worm or caterpillar. Ms. Hope explained the reason these are shown as little blobs is because this is not the zoning code that identifies the exact Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 17, 2024 Page 11 location, it is only intended to give some sense of the general area. Councilmember Tibbott thanked the Ms. Hope and the entire planning department for this heavy lift and expressed his appreciation for their investment in this process. Councilmember Eck said it sounds like this is standard industry practice to keep language simplified and higher level. Ms. Hope agreed. Councilmember Eck asked if the details that are being eliminated will be preserved for posterity, recognizing there are some good ideas and things to consider in the future. Ms. Hope responded she has asked the consultant to capture the action steps; some would be high priorities to begin to undertake in 2025 and beyond and others may shelfed for later as resources allow. Councilmember Eck asked whether the council will have access to a redlined versions once the updates are complete so they will be able to see what was removed from the draft. Ms. Hope answered yes for the goals and policies. Councilmember Nand relayed her understanding there were 4,100 banked units resulting from the upzone of Highway 99 that haven't been built yet. She continued to support redistributing the 9,500 units the City has to zone for in Edmonds and it was her understanding that was established in the bookends. Ms. Hope agreed that was also her understanding. Councilmember Nand said the council has heard a lot from the community about the lack of transitional zones and even though that was mentioned in the 2015 comprehensive plan update, it would be great to retain that policy about incorporating transitional zones into the CG zoned area around Highway 99 and to see those policies developed when the planning department is better staffed and under less pressure from the comprehensive plan update. If the planning department has any plans to bring forward the tree code update in 2025, she assured that would make a lot of people happy, including her. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 8:42 pm. CS: SCOTT PASSErertof CLERK Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes September 17, 2024 Page 12